In his article, "What is the problem about corruption?", Colin Leys describes a variety of factors that relate to corruption. The main features of his discussion revolves around the subjective views of corruption, and how these often result in global assumptions. One of these assumptions is that corruption necessarily and always has negative consequences for the public and all aspects of politics. When stating that "It is natural but wrong to assume that the results of corruption are always both bad and important" (222), Leys acknowledges that it is natural to view corruption and its consequences as always bad. It is entailed in the very definition of the word. In his article then he proceeds to explain the reasons for which corruption do not always have a bad or even important effect. .

             Firstly, it is important to take into account the time and context from which the text was written - 1965. This is more than 30 years ago. Obviously, politics and society have changed significantly since then. Furthermore, the research and analysis Leys calls for have also considerably improved since the time of his writing. These two factors should be taken into account when analyzing the validity of the quotation above.

             When considering the "corruption is bad" paradigm, Leys distinguishes between the "moralist" point of view and the objective view of corruption. For Leys it is important to consider for whom exactly corruption is bad. When mentioning examples, the author points out that, while they are all cases of corruption, not all affected persons would see them as bad. Indeed, for some persons the consequences of the involved actions brought good consequences. The same is true for economic corruption, where odious political systems are overruled by illegal transactions. In such a case, the economic consequences ultimately benefit the public. While from a moralist point of view these actions are therefore bad, they do not pose problems for the public at large.