Approaches of Applying the Principle of Co-Decision-Making in the Prevention of Structural Corruption in Iranian and German Law

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Shiraz University, Iran

2 Professor, Department of Economics, Shiraz University, Iran

10.22034/law.2026.70666.3573

Abstract

Abstract:
This study challenges the prevailing discourse on anti-corruption by providing a theoretical framework and argues that relying solely on transparency is not only an insufficient solution to the structurally entrenched corruption within Iran’s political economy, but in the absence of reform mechanisms, it may also lead to populism or even exacerbate public distrust. To address this strategic gap, the article introduces and localizes a novel concept in the Iranian administrative law and political economy literature, termed the co-decision-making principle. Inspired by the advanced Mitbestimmung model in German law, this principle emphasizes systematic, mandatory participation with voting rights for all stakeholders—including civil society organizations, professional associations, independent monitors, and public sector representatives—in major economic decision-making processes.
Using a comparative-critical approach and analyzing concrete cases such as the “Chay Dabash” and “Bank Ayandeh” files, this study demonstrates that the root causes of grand corruption lie in the monopolization of decision-making within closed circles of power and capital. As a structural solution, a multi-layered and sequential governance model is proposed, in which co-decision-making serves as the foundation for legitimacy and rationality, the obligation to provide reasons functions as a bridge for accountability, and transparency operates as the ultimate tool for social oversight—forming a mutually reinforcing chain. The study’s final innovation lies in presenting concrete operational plans that combine balanced power to translate this theory into institutional engineering. The research concludes that effective anti-corruption efforts require a paradigm shift from information-centered governance to power-distribution governance, with co-decision-making representing the cornerstone of this historic transition.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. الف) منابع فارسی

    کتاب‌ها

    1. پیکا، ژرژ (1393)، جرم‌شناسی، ترجمۀ علی‌حسین نجفی ابرندآبادی، تهران: میزان.
    2. شریف‌زاده، محمدجواد (1391)، حقوق و اقتصاد در اسلام، تهران: دانشگاه امام صادق (ع).
    3. نجفی ابرندآبادی، علی‌حسین (1402)، «سیاست جنایی: از مدل‌ها تا جنبش‌ها»، دیباچه در: می‌ری دلماس مارتی، نظام‌های بزرگ سیاست جنایی، ترجمۀ علی‌حسین نجفی ابرندآبادی، تهران: میزان.
    4. نجفی ابرندآبادی، علی‌حسین (1404)، «از سیاست کیفری تا سیاست جنایی»، دیباچه در: کریستین لازرژ، درآمدی بر سیاست جنایی، ترجمۀ علی‌حسین نجفی ابرندآبادی، تهران: میزان.

    مقالات

    1. جعفری، مجتبی (1395). جرم‌انگاری در حقوق فعالیت‌های اقتصادی. مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی معاصر، 7(12). 85-104.
    2. خداداد کاشی، فرهاد؛ مهرآرا، محسن و میکائیلی، سیده وجیه (1403). ارزیابی تأثیر خصوصی‌سازی و فشار رقابتی بر قدرت بازاری در صنایع کارخانه‌ای ایران. پژوهش‌های رشد و توسعه اقتصادی، 15(57). 15-38.  Doi: 30473/egdr.2023.65203.6590
    3. رضایی، مهدی و خسروی، نیما (1397). نسبت‌سنجی اصل الزام به بیان دلایل تصمیمات و حاکمیت قانون. پژوهش حقوق عمومی (پژوهش حقوق) (حقوق و سیاست)، 20(61). 65-92.

     Doi: 10.22054/qjpl.2019.25485.1628

    1. صادق‌نژاد نائینی، مجید (1403). نقش شفافیت در پیشگیری از جرایم اقتصادی. دانشنامۀ حقوق اقتصادی، 31(25). 57 -79.  Doi: 10.22067/economlaw.2024.86561.1346
    2. غنی، مهرداد؛ حسینی، سید حسین و سیدزاده‌ثانی، سید مهدی (1404). تحلیل نقش دولت و حاکمیت؛ جامعه مدنی و مشارکت مردمی در پیشگیری از جرایم اقتصادی. پژوهش‌های جرم‌شناسی کاربردی، 3(8)، 19-42. Doi: 10.22034/aqcr.2025.2069236.1094
    3. وحیدی، عبدالملک؛ شیداییان، مهدی و میرخلیلی، سید محمود (1400). مبانی و جلوه‌های قرآنی سیاست جنایی مشارکتی. پژوهش حقوق کیفری، 9(34)، 31-61.

    Doi: 10.22054/jclr.2021.40376.1880

    ب) منابع انگلیسی

    Articles

    1. Bac, M. (2001). Corruption, Connections and Transparency: Does a Better Screen Imply a Better Scene؟. Public Choice, 107(1), 87-96. Doi: 10.1023/A:1010349907813
    2. Bauhr, M., & Nasiritousi, N. (2012). Resisting Transparency: Corruption, Legitimacy, and the Quality of Global Environmental Policies. Global Environmental Politics, 12(4), 9-29.

     Doi: 10.1162/GLEP_a_00137

    1. Bautista-Beauchesne, N., & Garzon, C. (2019). Conceptualizing Corruption Prevention: A Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Financial Crime, 26(3), 719-745. Doi: 10.1108/JFC-10-2018-0106
    2. Cornwall, A. (2001). Making a Difference? Gender and Participatory Development (IDS Discussion Paper No. 378). Retrieved from IDS Website: http://www.ids.ac.uk/files/Dp378.pdf
    3. Fenster, M. (2006). The Opacity of Transparency. Iowa Law Review, 91(3), Doi: 10.2139/ssrn.686998
    4. Heald, D. (2003). Fiscal Transparency: Concepts, Measurement and UK Practice. Public Administration, 81(4), 723-759.

    Doi: 10.1111/j.0033-3298.2003.00369.x

    1. Jacobsson, K., & Vifell, Å. (2003). Integration by Deliberation? On the Role of Committees in the Open Method of Coordination. Paper Presented at the Workshop on The Forging of Deliberative Supranationalism in the EU, EUI, Florence, 7–8 February 2003.
    2. Jones, C. (2023). Co-Governance and the Case for Shared Decision Making. Policy Quarterly, 19(2), 3-8. Doi: 10.26686/pq.v19i2.8231
    3. Lindstedt, C., & Naurin, D. (2010). Transparency is Not Enough: Making Transparency Effective in Reducing Corruption. International Political Science Review, 31(3), 301-322. Doi: 10.1177/01925121103776­02
    4. MacCoun, R. J. (2006). Psychological Constraints on Transparency in Legal and Government Decision-Making. Swiss Political Science Review, 12(3).
    5. Marchevska, D. (2020). Participatory Governance in Ukraine: A Case Study of Anti-corruption Policy in the Period 2014–2018. Kyiv-Mohyla Law and Politics Journal, 6, 107-137. Doi: 10.18523/kmlpj220768.2020-6.107-137
    6. Olken, B. A. (2007). Monitoring Corruption: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Indonesia. Journal of Political Economy, 115(2), 200-249. Doi: 3386/w11753
    7. Stasavage, D. (2004). Open-Door or Closed-Door? Transparency in Domestic and International Bargaining. International Organization, 58(4), 667-703. Doi: 10.1017/S0020818304040214
    8. Sullivan, E.-M., Oellermann, C., & McIntyre, J.-L. (2025). Combating Cartel Behaviour in South Africa: Lessons Learned and the Case for Asset Forfeiture. Journal of Financial Crime. 32(5), 1041-1058.

    Doi: 10.1108/JFC-09-2024-0288

    Research Reports

    1. Abed, G. T., & Davoodi, H. R. (2000). Corruption, Structural Reform, and Economic Performance in the Transition Economies. Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund, First edition.
    2. Cornwall, A. “Making a Difference? Gender and Participatory Development (IDS Discussion Paper No. 378).” Available at: http://www.­ids.­ac.­uk/­files/­pdf
    3. Keefer, P. (2004). A Review of the Political Economy of Governance: From Property Rights to Voice. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper.
    4. Scharpf, F. W. (2005). No Exit from the Joint Decision Trap? Can German Federalism Reform Itself? MPIfG Working Paper, No. 05/8, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, Cologne.

    - Websites

    1. Die Welt, System der Mitbestimmung lädt zu Korruption ein, 29 March 2007, Available at: https://www.welt.de.
Jurisprudence and Islamic Law
Volume 17, Issue 42
March 2026
Pages 83-112

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics