[WhatsTheBigIdea]

I like this definition of corruption, though there are many...

"The abuse of entrusted power for private gain"

Jaywalking is breaking the law, but it is not corruption.

Civil disobedience is also typically breaking the law, but is not corruption.

It is important to recognize that just because a system is codified in law does not mean that it is not corrupt.

[rayiner]

The “power” focus for corruption is not useful. Corruption by people without power is more harmful to society than high level corruption. People skimming off the top is undesirable, but survivable. But ordinary people taking bribes and cheating grinds society to a halt and makes it impossible to develop societal wealth.

This is well evidenced in the development of asian countries in the 20th century. South Korea has plenty of corruption at a high level. But it’s clean at the lower level, and as a result it’s been able to become a rich society. By contrast, India has crippling corruption at lowest levels of society that imposes a huge drag on routine transactions and daily life.

[derbOac]

That's a good point, although I think it depends on how you define "power". I think in a lot of ethical discourse, power is defined more broadly in terms of who has more leverage in a situation. It doesn't have to correspond to a political position or position of physical authority necessarily.

In the US at least I think the power distinction is dangerously becoming lost. Traditionally, there was a trade that was made for power: you have more power, you give up privacy to maintain transparency, and you are held to a higher standard. Frequently it seems arguments are made that people in power should enjoy the same standards as others with less power, which was not part of the trade.

I agree with you that there is an importance of cultural norms at every level, but I do think power matters, as it is key to understanding conflicts of interest and permeates every level of society.