As a veteran of corruption studies in the postcommunist world, Leslie Holmes addresses three fundamental issues confronting students of corruption: the definition and categorization of corruption, the impact corruption has on democracies, and causal factors that account for its rise within postcommunist states. The comparative study focuses on Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, and Russia. China, the author argues, has developed a system akin to postcommunism and is treated in the analysis as far as data permit. The author also refers to other postcommunist cases, when appropriate, and many of the observations and inferences would apply to all democratic countries.

The author crafts a definition of corruption, limited to acts committed by public officials, that is sensitive to both legal parameters and citizen perceptions. In documenting the rise of different types of corruption, the author aggregates a wide range of data. Drawing from media reports, he describes high-level, high-profile cases of actual and alleged corruption in his target countries. He summarizes common low-level forms of corruption, such as traffic police extortion, also based on media reports. The coverage is supplemented with frequency data reflecting public perceptions of the problem as well as aggregate estimates from Transparency International.

In addressing the corrosive impact of corruption on democracy, the author discusses an array of negative by-products associated with corruption including environmental and social impacts. However, erosion of democratic regime legitimacy and a general weakening of the state are emphasized. Here too, frequency data is the basis for the claim. For example, he shows how high percentages of people link confidence in governing institutions and the legitimacy of democratic authority to their perceived level of corruption.

As suggested in the title, the primary causal factor for the rise of corruption is neoliberalism, the set of policies that call for a minimal role for the state. He contends that neoliberalism guided the simultaneous restructuring of former communist economies and their political and legal institutions. Postcommunist countries engaged in reforms, such as privatization, without the appropriate regulatory mechanisms or cultural norms, which set ethical guidelines for decision making, increase the opportunities for corruption. The argument continues that the relationship between these reforms and corruption then became bidirectional as corrupt practices inhibited further reform attempts. According to the author, the fallout of this strained process has had negative effects on inflation, unemployment, and income inequality. The result has been an increased sense of social and economic insecurity, less public confidence in state institutions, and ambivalence toward economic markets. A crucial piece of the story for the author is the coincidence of the communist transitions with the dominance of neoliberalism in the democratic world, Thatcherism and Reaganomics being emblematic. Neoliberalism, interacting with the nature of communist states, left few choices for policymakers other than to pursue radical reforms. In this sense, path dependency shaped the choices made with regard to reform, which increased opportunities for corruption and reduced the state's ability to effectively combat it.

The argument is not a rebuke of neoliberalism, however. Holmes maintains that neoliberalism is the most effective method to overcome the legacy of communist rule. Therefore, his recommendations to combat corruption are not to reverse these reforms but to strengthen democratic decision making and processes. Postcommunist states can do much to help themselves through legal and legislative means that increase transparency and public involvement in the process. The international community needs to play a more supportive role, which would include consistent condemnation and rewards, such as access to markets and financial incentives.

Readers will be impressed with the amount of detailed examples of corruption for the cases under consideration. The result is a useful typology that does not sacrifice the complexity of the concept. The central argument regarding neoliberalism has intuitive appeal and persuasively asserts the need for instilling efficiency within state institutions within the process of reform. The author reaches the sensible conclusion that neoliberal reforms must incorporate a process of state building that focuses on strengthening democratic institutions.

Along with these strengths of the book, there are also weaknesses. With regard to the increasing trend of corruption, the author may place too much stake in the public perceptions of the problem. As the author acknowledges, in certain instances public perceptions far exceed actual experiences with corruption. The coverage of actual and alleged cases of corruption through media reports is comprehensive, but may reflect media decision making and postcommunist political competition as much as an actual trend of increased corruption. Related to identifying the trend, the author distinguishes between high- and low-level forms of corruption early on, yet this distinction is lost later in the narrative. However, the distinction may be critical to understanding the negative impact of corruption on regime legitimacy. For example, it is plausible that citizens associate low-level types of corruption with traditional strategies of survival and not blame the regime.

Concerning the central causal assertion regarding the relationship between neoliberalism and corruption, the author relies on circumstantial evidence. Few attempts are made to identify the process or agency through which the consensus on neoliberalism influenced leadership decision making. For example, unlike studies of neoliberal reforms in Latin America, no “Chicago Boys” are identified. Moreover, no serious effort is made to tease out important dimensions of neoliberalism to express variance among the cases and then relate these to the measures of corruption developed. Thus, the primary causal relationship that the author asserts remains untested.

The author raises other causal factors that might contribute to both corruption (perceptions of corruption) and the loss of regime legitimacy. An intriguing example is the increase in income inequalities, which relates to neoliberal policies but is an anticipated result of economic liberalization. Again, no attempt is made to test these other causal relationships. Despite this, the study offers a plausible explanation for corruption that should stimulate research agendas.