Real Politics and the Concept of Political Corruption Doron Navot University of Haifa This article explores some of the challenges generated by recent attempts to relate the concept of political corruption to real politics. It shows that the three distinct arguments upon which scholars who conceptualize political corruption through the lens of real politics often rely are ambiguous, and posit standards for the use of power on the basis of naive or conservative assumptions about politics. The article then contends that we do need to consider real politics in the study of political corruption, but not in the manner or for the reasons suggested in much current scholarship. Specifically, examining real politics can help us determine the form of any given case of political corruption. In making this argument, the article attempts to avoid the problems that accompany most real-politics-based understandings of corruption while retaining concern for how the discourse around political corruption might influence political study and democratic politics. Keywords: political corruption; relevance; engagement In the past, many scholars held a straightforward definition of political corruption. They presupposed that good political behavior meant fulfilling one’s official duties, and they defined political corruption as breach of official duties for purposes of private gain. This understanding began to unravel during the second half of the twentieth century. The accepted definition shifted from breach of duty to the misuse of public power for private gain, and scholars began to emphasize the ambiguity inherent in the definition’s con- stituent terms, both ‘misuse of power’ and ‘private gain’ – an ambiguity that became clear when scholars tried to apply the definition to concrete cases (Andersson and Heywood, 2009; Buchan and Hill, 2014, pp. 2–7). To deal with this conceptual challenge, in recent years, several political theorists have sought to reframe our understanding of political corruption in terms of how people actually organize their political lives. More specifically, new scholarship conceives of political corruption as attempts to use public power to advance private gain while bypassing or subverting the political process (Thompson, 2013; Williams, 1999, p. 509), or while damaging, subverting or eroding what is distinct to the political sphere (Offe, 2004; Philp, 1997). Following this reasoning, this scholarship suggests that in applying the concept to specific situations, we must consider local norms (Philp, 2006, p. 47) and the assessments of real people (Thompson, 2002, pp. viii–ix; Warren, 2006, p. 170). This means interpreting political principles like impartiality in light of public opinion (Kurer, 2005, p. 233), and looking at actual political processes (e.g. legislative deliberations) to determine the meaning of a notion like the private interest (Johnston, 2014; Thompson, 1995). In this article, I use the term ‘real politics’ to refer to any of the following: actual political processes, local norms, public discussions, self-interpretations of agents, and POLITICAL STUDIES REVIEW: 2015 doi: 10.1111/1478-9302.12079 © 2015 The Author. Political Studies Review © 2015 Political Studies Association