DPD

Article Details

Vol. 6 No. 1 (2026): August

Moral Intention, Opportunity Control, and Integrity Environment in Corruption Prevention: The MIPKAM Framework

https://doi.org/10.35912/dpd.v6.n1.p61-71.2026
09 Sep 2026

Abstract

Purpose: This conceptual article develops the Model Integratif Pencegahan Korupsi Berbasis Akhlak Mulia (MIPKAM) as an integrative framework for corruption prevention by connecting moral intention, opportunity control, and integrity in the environment.

Research Methodology: This study uses a structured integrative literature review and theoretical synthesis. Peer-reviewed and institutional sources were screened for relevance to corruption, ethical intention, fraud opportunity, ethical climate, governance, digital controls, whistleblowing, and integrity systems, with emphasis on literature published during 2016–2026, while retaining seminal works required for theoretical grounding.

Results: The synthesis indicated that no single mechanism was sufficient. Moral intention strengthens internal resistance to abuse, opportunity control reduces institutional space for misconduct, and the integrity of the environment shapes the norms and incentives that sustain or weaken both. Therefore, the framework treats these dimensions as complementary rather than as an additive mathematical equation.

Conclusions: Sustainable prevention requires ethical actors, corruption-resistant systems, and social and organizational environments that delegitimize abuse.

Limitations: MIPKAM remains a conceptual framework and has not yet been subjected to large-scale empirical validations.

Contributions: This study clarifies MIPKAM’s boundary conditions, differentiates it from established fraud and governance models, and proposes measurable indicators for subsequent multilevel empirical testing in Indonesia.

Keywords

Corruption Prevention Ethical Climate Integrity Environment Moral Intention Opportunity Control

How to Cite

Wibisono, C. ., Syukur, I. B. ., Windayati, D. T. ., Sarmini, S., & Raymond, R. (2026). Moral Intention, Opportunity Control, and Integrity Environment in Corruption Prevention: The MIPKAM Framework. Dynamics of Politics and Democracy, 6(1), 61–71. https://doi.org/10.35912/dpd.v6.n1.p61-71.2026

References

  1. Adam, I., & Fazekas, M. (2021). Are emerging technologies helping win the fight against corruption? A review of the state of evidence. Information Economics and Policy, 57(3), 100950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoecopol.2021.100950
  2. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
  3. Al Halbusi, H., Williams, K. A., Ramayah, T., Aldieri, L., & Vinci, C. P. (2021). Linking ethical leadership and ethical climate to employees’ ethical behavior: The moderating role of person– organization fit. Personnel Review, 50(1), 159-185. https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-09-2019-0522
  4. Auzoult, L., & Mazilescu, C.-A. (2021). Ethical climate as social norm: Impact on judgements and behavioral intentions in the workplace. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(11), 6006. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18116006
  5. Bauhr, M., & Grimes, M. (2017). Transparency to curb corruption? Concepts, measures and empirical merit. Crime, Law and Social Change, 68, 431–458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-017-9695-1
  6. Bauhr, M., Czibik, Á., de Fine Licht, J., & Fazekas, M. (2020). Lights on the shadows of public procurement: Transparency as an antidote to corruption. Governance, 33(3), 495-523. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12432
  7. Cuadrado-Ballesteros, B., & Bisogno, M. (2022). Public sector accounting and corruption: A literature review. Public Money & Management, 42(8), 615-624. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2020.1833436
  8. Dimant, E., & Tosato, G. (2018). Causes and effects of corruption: What has past decade’s empirical research taught us? A survey. Journal of Economic Surveys, 32(2), 335-356. https://doi.org/10.111 1/joes.12198
  9. Epstein, G. S., & Gang, I. N. (2019). Inequality, good governance, and endemic corruption. International Tax and Public Finance, 26, 999–1017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10797-019-09542-z
  10. Fazekas, M., & Kocsis, G. (2020). Uncovering high-level corruption: Cross-national objective corruption risk indicators using public procurement data. British Journal of Political Science, 50(1), 155-164. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123417000461
  11. Gorsira, M., Steg, L., Denkers, A., & Huisman, W. (2018). Corruption in organizations: Ethical climate and individual motives. Administrative Sciences, 8(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci8010004
  12. Hauser, C. (2019). Fighting against corruption: Does anti-corruption training make any difference? Journal of Business Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3808-3
  13. Hikmah, A. T., & Marastuti, A. (2020). The role of moral disengagement and ethical leadership on corruption intention among Indonesian civil servants. Gadjah Mada Journal of Psychology, 6(2), 132-150. https://doi.org/10.22146/gamajop.54178
  14. Karinda, K., Agustang, A., & Usman, A. (2023). Digital government for anti-corruption: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Science and Society, 5(1), 199-219. https://doi.org/10.54783/ijsoc.v5i1.649
  15. Katusiimeh, M., Makara, S., Ayiga, N., Mucunguzi, A., Akena, F., Kakuru, R. B., & Akello, J. (2026). When laws fail: Uganda’s anti-corruption frameworks and governance challenges during COVID-19. Journal of Governance and Accountability Studies, 6(2), 199-210. https://doi.org/10.35912/jgas.v6i2.3808
  16. Khan, A., Krishnan, S., & Dhir, A. (2021). Electronic government and corruption: Systematic literature review, framework, and agenda for future research. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 167(3), 120737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120737
  17. Kuncara, W. A. (2022). The influence of whistleblowing system and internal control on fraud prevention at PT Pos Indonesia (Persero) Bandung City. International Journal of Financial, Accounting, and Management, 4(2), 101-113. https://doi.org/10.35912/ijfam.v4i2.250
  18. Köbis, N. C., Troost, M., Brandt, C. O., & Soraperra, I. (2019). Social norms of corruption in the field: Social nudges on posters can help to reduce bribery. Behavioural Public Policy, 3(4), 466-484. https://doi.org/10.1017/bpp.2019.37
  19. Maulida, W. Y., & Bayunitri, B. I. (2021). The influence of whistleblowing system toward fraud prevention. International Journal of Financial, Accounting, and Management, 2(4), 275-294. https://doi.org/10.35912/ijfam.v2i4.177
  20. Mousa, H. H. (2026). The impact of disclosing the quality of the internal control system on improving institutional performance: A field study on the Iraqi banking sector. Global Academy of Business Studies, 3(1), 43-56. https://doi.org/10.35912/gabs.v3i1.4294
  21. Mungiu-Pippidi, A., & Dadašov, R. (2016). Measuring control of corruption by a new index of public integrity. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 22(3), 415–438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-016-9324-z
  22. Neu, D., Everett, J., & Rahaman, A. S. (2015). Preventing corruption within government procurement: Constructing the disciplined and ethical subject. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 28, 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2014.03.012
  23. Nugraha, R., & Bayunitri, B. I. (2020). The influence of internal control on fraud prevention: Case study at Bank BRI of Cimahi City. International Journal of Financial, Accounting, and Management, 2(3), 199-211. https://doi.org/10.35912/ijfam.v2i2.165
  24. Okafor, O. N., Adebisi, F. A., Opara, M., & Okafor, C. B. (2020). Deployment of whistleblowing as an accountability mechanism to curb corruption and fraud in a developing democracy. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 33(6), 1335-1366. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-12-2018-3780
  25. Onyango, G. (2020). Whistleblowing and anti-corruption in the public sector: A systematic review of institutional and behavioral conditions. Public Integrity, 22(6), 593-608. https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2019.1693383
  26. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
  27. Park, C. H., & Kim, K. (2020). E-government as an anti-corruption tool: Panel data analysis across countries. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 86(4), 691-707. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852318822055
  28. Persson, A., Rothstein, B., & Teorell, J. (2013). Why anticorruption reforms fail—Systemic corruption as a collective action problem. Governance, 26(3), 449-471. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0491.2012.01604.x
  29. Rustiarini, N. W. (2019). The role of e-government in reducing corruption: A systematic review. Jurnal Perspektif Pembiayaan dan Pembangunan Daerah, 7(3), 269-286. https://doi.org/10.22437/ppd.v7i3.8311
  30. Simatupang, V., & Fadli, F. (2026). Internal control systems and follow-up audits of financial statement quality with government governance as moderating. Goodwood Akuntansi dan Auditing Reviu, 4(2), 111-122. https://doi.org/10.35912/gaar.v4i2.5407
  31. Søreide, T., & Rose-Ackerman, S. (2018). Corruption in state administration. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.674
  32. Titah, R., MacLean, D., & Titah, R. (2022). A systematic literature review of empirical research on the impacts of e-government: A public value perspectiv e. Public Administration Review, 82(1), 23-38. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13413
  33. Transparency International. (2026). Corruption Perceptions Index 2025.
  34. Villanueva, P. A. G. (2020). Why civil society cannot battle it all alone: The roles of civil society environment, transparent laws and quality of public administration in political corruption mitigation. International Journal of Public Administration, 43(6), 552-561. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2019.1638933
  35. Zaloznaya, M. (2017). The social psychology of corruption: Why it does not exist and why it should. Sociology Compass, 11(11), 187-202. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12520
Contact
WhatsApp Instagram Facebook LinkedIn Email