In the context of globalisation, the issue of corruption acquires specificity, deriving, on one hand, from the diversification of the modalities to corrupt or to be corrupted and, on the other hand, from multiplication of the means to fight against this phenomenon. The binom corruption-public integrity becomes a motto of the speeches held by politicians and generally those invested with leadership functions by the society. It is unanimously recognised the fact that a relevant indicator of an ethical leadership refers to the level and social perception of corruption. Speaking about “the devastating effect of globalisation on the developing countries and especially on poor populations”, J. Stiglitz (2002) allocates large spaces to corruption, referring to “the cases of foreign investments”, “capitalism based on favouritisms and mafiatyped connection” or “privatisation”. Including integration into the European Union as a form for expressing globalisation in the European area, it is worth to analyse some consequences of this process on the evolution of the binom corruption-public integrity. When we speak about “globalisation of corruption” we refer to some conclusions emphasized by the specialized literature and studies. Without trying to make a hierarchy of those conclusions, we shall refer, first of all, to its multiple facets that, by chance or not, are overlapping the modalities for expressing globalisation on economic, cultural, political level and as well as on the public sector reform. If we analyse an outstanding paper about corruption of Rose-Ackerman (1999), we shall find out that three from the four basic chapters focus on approaching corruption as an “economic, cultural or political problem”(1).In the context of globalisation, the issue of corruption acquires specificity, deriving, on one hand, from the diversification of the modalities to corrupt or to be corrupted and, on the other hand, from multiplication of the means to fight against this phenomenon. The binom corruption-public integrity becomes a motto of the speeches held by politicians and generally those invested with leadership functions by the society. It is unanimously recognised the fact that a relevant indicator of an ethical leadership refers to the level and social perception of corruption. Speaking about “the devastating effect of globalisation on the developing countries and especially on poor populations”, J. Stiglitz (2002) allocates large spaces to corruption, referring to “the cases of foreign investments”, “capitalism based on favouritisms and mafiatyped connection” or “privatisation”. Including integration into the European Union as a form for expressing globalisation in the European area, it is worth to analyse some consequences of this process on the evolution of the binom corruption-public integrity. When we speak about “globalisation of corruption” we refer to some conclusions emphasized by the specialized literature and studies. Without trying to make a hierarchy of those conclusions, we shall refer, first of all, to its multiple facets that, by chance or not, are overlapping the modalities for expressing globalisation on economic, cultural, political level and as well as on the public sector reform. If we analyse an outstanding paper about corruption of Rose-Ackerman (1999), we shall find out that three from the four basic chapters focus on approaching corruption as an “economic, cultural or political problem”.
