European Scientific Journal April 2020 edition Vol.16, No.11 ISSN: 1857-7881 (Print) e - ISSN 1857-7431 46 A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Border Corruption in the Conflict Regions in Georgia and Moldova Archil Abashidze, Associate Professor Giorgi Gvalia, Professor Ilia State University, Tbilisi, Georgia Doi:10.19044/esj.2020.v16n11p46 URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.19044/esj.2020.v16n11p46 Abstract Corruption is perceived as one of the worst factors inhibiting the state- building process. It, however, poses a significant threat to young democracies. Some theorists argue that, under certain circumstances, corruption might bring some benefits that can even overweigh its costs. For example, minorities denied certain services that might profit from corruption by bribing their way through. This can contribute to lessening tensions between groups. This article examines two cases of frozen conflicts and the role corruption might have played in the conflict resolution process over the last decade: South Ossetia in Georgia and Transnistria in Moldova. After analyzing the "soft approach" of the Moldovan state and the "hard power" of the Georgian state towards corruption and smuggling on the borders with the secessionist regions, we argue that the costs young democracies pay for their unwillingness to combat corruption is significantly higher than the modest benefits they can derive from handling these challenges with caution 2 . Keywords: Corruption, "frozen conflicts", Moldova, Georgia Introduction Corruption is usually defined as a perversion, a disease of the political system. There is an abundance of forms of corruption, starting from street- level bribery to "state-capture". Also, definitions of corruption vary widely, too. Classification attempts of corruption distinguish among: (1)"black" (punished and condemned by the society as a serious violation of moral standards and the law), "white" (widely tolerated by the society), and "grey" 2 The authors would like to express gratitude to the Centre for Peace Studies, UiT-the Arctic University of Norway, and the DIKU funded Eurasia Peace Studies Exchange (EPSE) Network. With their generous support, we managed to conduct interviews and gather material in Ukraine and Georgia, received feedback from members of the EPSE network from Norway, Ukraine, Germany, and Kyrgyzstan.