原文：
Any serious attempt to explain corruption has to be holistic. People are corrupt for numerous reasons, and even where there is an identifiable primary motivation, this differs from one person or group to the next. It would therefore be naive to assume there is one underlying general explanation, such as greed or opportunity. Yet we need to identify the various factors that, in combination, explain corruption; otherwise, attempts to control corruption will be futile. In this chapter, the focus is on individuals, their relationship to society, and how cultures might relate to corruption. Factors are isolated here purely for the sake of a clearer narrative; in the real world, they interact, overlap, and combine with each other in complex ways.
This point about interaction explains the choice of theoretical framework for the analysis in this and the next chapter. The approach is based on Anthony Giddens’ structuration theory, which holds that we cannot fully explain human activity in terms of either individual freedom of choice and actions (agency) or of everything being determined by the world we inhabit (structure). Rather, people exercise choice and make decisions partly on the basis of their own free will, and partly within the context in which they live. This notion of interactivity underlies the present analysis, albeit usually implicitly.
Before analyzing psycho-social factors, we need to understand what the term “psycho-social” means. The first part refers to the individual: psychology——the study of the mind——focuses on how and why individuals think and behave in the ways they do. Conversely, sociology focuses on the ways societies are structured and operate. So a psycho-social approach combines these two: it examines individuals and their interaction with the social context.
Although psychology focuses on the individual, metaphysical poet John Donne’s well-known maxim that ‘no man is an island’ is very apt when considering what might be seen as purely personal factors. Thus if we start our examination by identifying ‘greed’ as an explanatory factor, it should be obvious that even this cannot be completely detached from its social context. Wanting ‘more’ relates to particular society’s norms; many items considered absolute basics in an affluent society, such as refrigerator or a computer, would be considered luxuries in an impoverished one.
Our second factor also relates to the individual’s place in society; this is the need for the respect or recognition of others. In his book The End of History and the Last Man, Francis Fukuyama referred to our basic need for thymos——an idea he adapted from Hegel——which is an ancient Greek word referring to the human desire for recognition. Similarly, singer Phil Collins refers in ‘Both Sides of the Story’ to the street kid who carries a gun because, without it, no-one respects him. If corruption (e.g. accepting bribes) means increased spending power and the social cachet that accompanies this, or gives an individual a feeling of power over others (e.g. through exercising patronage), then it can be interpreted partly in terms of thymos.
Related to the previous point is that some individuals become corrupt because of their own ambitiousness. If upward mobility channels appear to be blocked, corruption——such as paying a bribe to enter university, which then becomes a ‘learned’ response to obstacles once one reaches a position of authority——can assist ambitious individuals to circumvent the roadblocks.
In seeking to explain why some people become involved in organized crime, James Finckenauer and Elin Waring coined the term ‘sucker mentality’, meaning in part that if a person is treated by the dominant value system as an outsider, then he or she would be foolish to live by the system’s values. Similar argument can be made about corruption. If a member of a minority ethnic group that was discriminated against by the majority group were to reach a position of authority and not take personal advantage of this, they could be seen as a loser or ‘sucker’. A variation on this is that some become corrupt to counter boredom and routine in their lives——tolerance of which would be another dimension of a ‘sucker mentality’ ——and experience the thrill of rule-breaking.
对腐败的任何严肃解释都必须着眼于整体。人的腐败有多种原因，即使可以找出主要动机，它也因人而异或有群体之别。如果认为腐败背后存在着一种普遍性解释，比如贪婪或机会，那这样的想法很天真。不过，我们还是有必要找出各种综合起来能解释腐败的影响因素，否则，试图遏制腐败就是徒劳的。本章关注的重点是个人及其与社会的关系，以及文化与腐败可能会有的关联。这里把各种因素彼此分开，纯粹是为了叙述方便；在现实世界中，它们互动、重叠，以复杂的方式彼此结合在一起。
这种互动观解释了本章和下一章对理论分析框架的选择。此种方法以安东尼·吉登斯的结构化理论为基础，该理论认为，我们既无法从个人的选择自由和行动自由（能动作用）的角度，也无法从人类身处的世界所决定的一切（结构）的角度，来充分解释人类行为。相反，人们所作的选择和决定，部分是基于自由意志，部分则受限于生活环境。这种相互作用的观念为本书的分析提供了支持，虽然通常不那么明显。
在分析心理—社会解释之前，我们需要理解这个词的含义。前半部分指向个人：心理学，即对心灵的研究，关注的是个人如何以及为何以现有的方式思考和行动。相反，社会学关注的是社会的组织方式和运行方式。心理—社会的方法把两者结合了起来：考察个人，也考察他们与社会环境的互动。
心理学关注的是个人，不过玄学派诗人约翰·邓恩的著名格言，即“没有人是一座孤岛”，在考察哪些可被视为纯粹个人因素时还是非常适用的。如此一来，假如我们在考察之初把“贪婪”确定为一个解释因素，显而易见的是，即使这一点也无法完全脱离社会环境。想要“更多”这一欲望与特定社会的标准相关；在富裕社会中，冰箱或电脑等许多物品被视为必需品，而在贫困社会中，它们会被视为奢侈品。
第二个因素也与个人在社会中所处的地位相关，即受人尊重和认可的需要。在《历史的终结及最后之人》一书中，弗朗西斯·福山提到了我们对血气（从黑格尔那里借用的一个概念）的基本需求，这个古希腊词语指的是人想要获得认可的欲望。类似地，歌手菲尔·科林斯在歌曲《故事的两面》中唱到了街头的少年，少年之所以持枪，是因为手中无枪便难有尊重。如果腐败（比如受贿）意味着支出能力及与之相伴的社会威望得到提升，或者给予个人一种控制他人的感觉（比如通过提携），那就可以部分地从血气的角度得到解释。
与前述观点相关的是，某些个人之所以变得腐败，是出于自己的野心。如果向上流动的通道显得封闭，腐败（比如通过行贿进入大学，一旦当事人日后飞黄腾达，这种做法就变成了对障碍的“巧妙”应对）就能帮助野心勃勃的个人绕过路障。
在解释为何有些人会卷入有组织犯罪时，詹姆斯·芬克劳和埃林·韦林发明了“失败者心态”（sucker mentality）一词，大意是指如果一个人被主流价值体系作为局外人看待，他或她再遵循该价值体系生活就是愚蠢的。对于腐败也可以提出类似观点。一个受到多数群体歧视的少数种族成员，如果想获得权威地位又不想从中获取私利，就会被视为输家或失败者（sucker）。此种情形的一个变化形式是，有些人为了驱赶生活中的百无聊赖和千篇一律（忍受这种状态是另一个层面的“失败者心态”）而变得腐败，以体验破坏规则的刺激。