Don’t Change the Subject

Business Ethics Quarterly 7 (3):93-116 (1997)
  Copy   BIBTEX


A quid pro quo is an exchange of value between a citizen or group—often a businessperson or organization—and an official; whatthe citizen or group offers can take either monetary or nonmonetary form and what the official supplies, in return, is some kind of public act. Despite the fact that instances of quid pro quo seem continually to compel public attention, very few rise to the level of bribery; i.e., the level in which they are resolved judicially. In part, quid pro quo eludes judicial forums for factual reasons: It is difficult to prove. And in part, the reasons are normative: The distinction between objectionable quid pro quo and acceptable democratic norms—on which citizens and groups ought to be able to support officials who are in turn responsive to them—is difficult to draw. Hence, a great gray area of quid pro quo finds itself resolved (or at least debated) in political forums. In what follows I examine central strands of American public discourse over the factual and normative issues of quid pro quo. My purpose is to articulate those principles which most parsimoniously account for its structure, and to explore what presuppositions various discourse-participants either explicitly or implicitly bring to bear in determining whether a situation constitutes a troubling quid pro quo.



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,219

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Duns Scotus’s Account of a Propter Quid Science of the Categories.Lloyd Newton - 2004 - Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association 78:145-160.
Sexual harassment in the public accounting profession?Brian B. Stanko & Mark Schneider - 1999 - Journal of Business Ethics 18 (2):185 - 200.
Quo OHRP?: Faithful Arbiter or Pro Wrestling Ref?Timothy Dolan - 2010 - American Journal of Bioethics 10 (9):53-55.
Preferences, welfare, and the status-quo bias.Dale Dorsey - 2010 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 88 (3):535-554.
Self-Defense, Punishing Unjust Combatants and Justice in War.Steve Viner - 2010 - Criminal Law and Philosophy 4 (3):297-319.


Added to PP

33 (#462,035)

6 months
3 (#928,914)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Corporate Dystopia.Nicolas Dahan - 2013 - Business and Society 52 (3):388-426.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references