Social Networks as Exit Options and Entry Points into Corruption

In many African countries, access to public services such as healthcare, documentation, and education is shaped not only by policy but also by personal relationships.

Social networks function paradoxically as both support systems and channels for corruption. A recent study by Dr. Davina Osei, Dr. Maty Konte and Dr. Elvis K. Avenyo identifies two main ways this occurs. First, social networks can serve as “exit options”, helping individuals, particularly the wealthy and well-connected, avoid paying bribes by navigating systems through personal ties. Second, they act as “entry points” into corruption, facilitating preferential access and advantages that are not based on merit.

When systems falter or delay, people rely on connections to get things done. For example, knowing someone in a government office may allow an individual to bypass a long queue or sidestep a bribe demand entirely. These exit options are not available to everyone. In fact, the study finds that the poor who often lack powerful networks end up paying a kind of “corruption tax” just to access basic services.

At the same time, social networks can also be used to get ahead, even in unethical ways. In these cases, individuals use their ties not to avoid corruption but to benefit from it. Thus, securing jobs, contracts, or documentation through favors rather than formal processes.

In Western settings, using social ties to secure opportunities is often framed as networking. A socially accepted norm in business, politics, and even education. In contrast, similar behaviors in African contexts are often labeled as nepotism or corruption. This inconsistency raises critical questions: Are global standards on corruption applied unevenly? And how should policymakers distinguish between relationship-based governance and abuse of power? If networks are leveraged to escape a potential bribery scenario, or used to gain advantage to a position that one equally qualifies for, would that be called corruption?

Is nepotism, corruption? or Modern-day networking?

In the global conversation on corruption, few dynamics are as revealing or misunderstood as the divide between what is considered “networking” in the developed world and “nepotism” in developing countries. While both involve leveraging personal relationships to gain access or advantage, perspectives differ.

In Western countries, networking is often celebrated as a soft skill. Referrals, alumni networks, and informal introductions are considered legitimate ways to secure jobs or contracts, and they are rarely questioned unless public rules are overtly broken. In contrast, similar behaviors in the Global South are often labeled nepotism or favoritism (corruption) that erodes fairness and meritocracy.

The study by Osei, Konte, and Avenyo challenges this conventional framing. Drawing on data from 36 African countries, the research reveals a more complex picture where citizens’ social networks (nepotistic connections) play a critical role in determining who faces corruption, who escapes it, and who gets access to public services in the first place.

Poverty changes how networks function. For wealthier or better-connected individuals, social networks can help navigate public systems efficiently, even if unethically. Among those facing severe poverty and access barriers, having a social network can reduce the likelihood of paying bribes (escaping corruption). However, their networks often lack the “convertibility” factor, the ability to turn connections into concrete gains.

This aligns with sociologist Pierre Bourdieu’s distinction that having a network is not enough, you need valuable, resource-rich connections to benefit from it.

Among poor communities, people tend to be surrounded by others facing similar constraints. As a result, networks may offer moral support or small-scale help but not the institutional leverage needed to access services where procedures are not transparent or where informal payments are the norm. In these situations, some turn to intermediaries like “gorro boys”, informal fixers in Ghana who, for a fee, help people navigate bureaucracy. Unlike exit options through personal ties, these intermediaries come at a cost. A cost that many poor citizens can ill afford.

This reflects a reality many African citizens already know.

There is network-driven inequality in accessing public services. In the absence of reliable systems, connections become currency. If this is used as exist options to avoid intermediary corruption tax and access basic public services, especially for the poor, will that still qualify as corruption or that will rather be effective networking?

Conclusion: Rethinking the “Corruption” Label

Corruption functions as a regressive cost in Africa, disproportionately burdening the poor. While findings from Osei, Konte, and Avenyo shows that leveraging social networks, “connections” eases the poor’s access to public services in Africa, they does not exonerate corruption. Rather, they illuminate its complexity, especially in environments where formal systems are weak and survival often depends on relationships.

In such contexts, social networks can be both lifelines and loopholes.

The study does not offer a moral verdict. Instead, it underscores the need for context-aware reforms that recognize the embeddedness of social ties while protecting equity, fairness, and transparency especially for the poor.

This blog is based on research led by Dr. Davina Osei, Dr. Maty Konte and Dr. Elvis Avenyo. Read full article from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X24000111