Stategraft is a socio-legal concept that Professor Bernadette Atuahene coined to describe instances “when state agents transfer property from persons to the state in violation of the state’s own laws or basic human rights.” This new concept extends the existing conversation about corruption by pointing to illegal acts that benefit public rather than private coffers and moving beyond the culpable mental states of individual actors. This Essay reports results of a survey experiment testing whether stategraft abridges citizens’ trust more than corruption. Based on the arguments made in the foundational article, “A Theory of Stategraft,” we hypothesize that respondents will view graft by public officials benefitting public coffers (stategraft) as more of a betrayal and more unfair than theft by public officials or private entities benefiting private coffers (corruption). Surprisingly, our study results suggest this hypothesis is empirically unfounded. Nevertheless, this new concept has created a unique space for academics, journalists, lawyers, and policymakers to identify and discuss graft that benefits public coffers, bringing this important conversation from the sidelines of socio-legal studies to the center stage.
