Greed, Family and Friends as Drivers of Corruption in Africa: A Case Study of Nigeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Corruption is generally regarded as unethical behavioural practices that inhibits economic growth and development, affects access to infrastructure, quality education and health care delivery. It is a pervasive global phenomenon, which continues to permeate each and every strata of Nigerian society in various forms including misappropriation, nepotism, favouratism, bribery, embezzlement, money laundering and outright looting of the treasury. This study examines the relationship between greed, family and friends influence and corruption in Nigerian higher institutions. The study applies quantitative approach through a cross-sectional survey of 400 respondents selected using stratified random sampling techniques with a close-ended self-completion questionnaire. A five-point Likert scale will be used to test the dimensions of the three independent variables (greed, family and friends) as possible drivers of corrupt practices in Nigerian higher institutions, with each variable containing five different scores arranged in descending order from 5 to 1 respectively. Data collected was analyzed using multiple regression analysis with the help of SPSS software The findings reveal that greediness, family and friends influence are real drivers of corruption in tertiary institutions of Nigeria because it establishes a strong and significant relationship between greediness, family and friends and corruption in tertiary institutions of Nigeria. Consequently, it is recommended that people should be less greedy while at the same time government should introduce measures to make punishment against corruption more severe than the proceeds of corruption. In addition, family and friends of top executives in our institutions should not be interfering in their official assignment so as to reduce the probability of corrupt practices and academic malpractices. Keywords : Corruption, Greed, Family, Friends, Higher Institutions, Nigeria` DOI: 10.7176/DCS/13-5-03 Publication date: July 31 st 2023 NB: This research work was fully sponsored by the Tertiary Education Trust Fund (tetfund), Abuja, Nigeria, through its Institution Based Research (IBR) 2022 Intervention.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".