What Is a Conflict of Interest ?
| Author | Lars Bergström |
| DOI | 10.1177/002234337000700302 |
| Published date | 01 September 1970 |
| Date | 01 September 1970 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
WHAT
IS
A
CONFLICT
OF
INTEREST ?
By
LARS
BERGSTRÖM
Stockholm
University
1.
Introduction
The
term
’conflict’
occurs
very
frequent-
ly
in
social
science.
It
is
prima
facie
plausible
to
assume
that
it
connotes
an
extremely
important
concept,
but
it
is
far
from
clear
what
this
concept
is.
The
term
’conflict’
can
be,
and
has
been,
interpreted
in
a
variety
of
ways,
and
it
is
often
very
difficult,
if
not
impossible,
to
decide
which
interpretation
is
in-
tended
in
a
given
case.
This
is
not
al-
ways
realized.
For
example,
Kurt
Singer
holds
that:
the
word
’conflict’
is
well
defined
in
common
usage,
and
singularly
free
from
ambiguities
([191,
p.
13).
Singer’s
view
can
hardly
be
accepted.
It
is
easy
to
show
that
’conflict’
is
not
free
from
ambiguities;
some
of
these
will
be
indicated
in
the
following.
In-
deed,
it
has
even
been
held
that:
The
concept
of
&dquo;conflict’
...
may
have
out-
lived
its
usefulness.
It
has
no
clear-cut
refe-
rent,
being
emotion-fraught,
value-laden,
fuzzy,
and
equivocal.
It
confuses
analysis.
We
might
sharpen
our
thinking
in
the
behavioral
sciences
if
we
discarded
it
entirely
and
re-
placed
it
with
more
precise,
meaningful,
and
neutral
concepts
([6],
p.
111).
It
is
not
very
likely
that
the
word
’con-
flict’
will
be
discarded
from
the
social
sciences,
but
various
definitions
may
be
proposed
in
order
to
reduce
its
am-
biguity
in
particular
contexts.
It
should
be
noticed,
however,
that
precision
does
not
automatically
guarantee
’neutrality’.
There
may
be
a
danger
in
substituting
new
and
precise
concepts
for
old
and
fuzzy
ones -
especially
when
the
old
concepts
are
emotion-fraught
and
value-
laden.
Even
if
a
proposed
definition
is
purely
stipulative,
its
adoption
may
ne-
vertheless
imply
some
kind
of
bias.
It
has
been
argued,
for
example,
that
cer-
tain
definitions
of
’conflict’
in
peace
research
reflect
a
preference
for
the
maintenance
of
status
quo
in
existing
power
relations
(cf.
e.g.
tl8l,
pp. 224-7).
In
this
paper
I
shall
give
a
survey
of
different
senses
of
’conflict’.
In
other
words,
I
shall
give
a
survey
of
different
concepts
of
conflict
which
are
easily
confused.
Such
a
survey
may
be
of
interest
to
those
social
scientists
who
want
to
base
their
research
upon
more
precise
definitions
of
’conflict’.
To
make
a
concept
more
precise
is
to
rule
out
certain
possible
interpretations,
and
it
seems
desirable
to
have
at
least
a
rough
idea
of
which
interpretations
are
ruled
out
by
a
certain
definition.
This
is
particularly
important,
it
seems,
when
one
wants
to
decide
whether
a
given
definition
is
biased
in
some
way.
Of
course,
the
number
of
alternative
inter-
pretations
may
be
practically
without
limit,
and
I
shall
not
attempt
to
present
an
exhaustive
list
of
such
interpretations
(whatever
that
might
mean).
I
shall
only
indicate
certain
directions
in
which
the
old
fuzzy
concept
of
conflict
may
be
made
more
precise.
I
shall
be
exclusively
concerned
with
198
those
conflicts
which
involve
two
dis-
tinct
parties.
So-called
intra-party
con-
flicts
will
thus
be
neglected.
The
parties
may
be
of
various
kinds,
but
I
am
primarily
interested
in
conflicts
where
the
parties
in
question
are
groups
or
classes.
Moreover,
I
shall
concentrate
upon
so-called
conflicts
of
interest.
It
is
often
pointed
out
that
there
are
also
other
kinds
of
conflicts,
for
example,
conflicts
of
values,
of . beliefs,
of
right,
or
of
principle.
These
will
not
be
dis-
cussed
at
all.
My
main
reason
for
con-
centrating
upon
conflicts
of
interest
is
that
these
are
often
held
to
be
more
important,
more
’real’,
or
more
’funda-
mental’
than
other
conflicts.
Many
peo-
ple
seem
to
hold
that
conflicts
of
values
or
of
goals
are
generated
by,
and
should
be
explained
with
reference
to,
conflicts
of
interest.
On
the
other
hand,
while
the
latter
are
very
frequently
referred
to
in
political
discourse,
social
scientists
are
sometimes
accused
of
neglecting
them
in
favor
of
more
superficial
or
second-
ary
kinds
of
conflict.
For
example,
Her-
man
Schmid
claims
that
all
definitions
of
conflict
in
peace
research
are
’formu-
lated
in
terms
of
incompatible
values
or
goals’
([18],
p.
224),
and
he
contrasts
this
with
a
more
’objectivistic’
view
which
he
seems
to
find
more
fruitful
and
according
to
which
’conflict
is
con-
flict
of
interest’
(ibid.,
p.
226).
It
should
be
noticed,
however,
that
the
difference
between
values
and
goals
on
the
one
hand
and
interests
on
the
other
is
likely
to
vary
with
different
interpretations
of
’values’,
’goals’,
and
’interests’.
For
some
interpretations
there
may
be
no
difference
at
all.
This
might
be
one
of
the
reasons
why
some
of those
who
accuse
social
scientists
of
neglecting
im-
portant
kinds
of
conflict
often
speak
of
’objective
interests’,
’real
conflicts
of
in-
terest’,
’objective
oppositions
of
interest’,
and
so
on.
However,
these
expressions
are
also
ambiguous.
To
some
people
they
may
even
be
quite
unintelligible.
Hence,
certain
suggestions
will
be
made
in
the
sequel
concerning
their
interpre-
tation.
In
particular,
I
shall
discuss
the
meaning
of
’real
conflict
of .interest’
at
some
length.
2.
The
relation
between
conflicts
and
hostility
Some
writers
are
inclined
to
define
’conflict’
in
such
a
way
that
a
conflict
is
a
state
of
mutual
antagonism
or
hos-
tility
between
two
(or
more)
parties.
Others
tend
to
identify
conflict
with
the
very
incompatibility
of
interests
(values,
etc.)
which
may
in
turn
give
rise
to
antagonism
or
hostile
behavior.
The
former
position
seems
to
be
held,
for
example,
by
Lewis
Coser.
He
says:
Social
conflict
may
be
defined
as
a
struggle
over
values
or
claims
to
status,
power,
and
scarce
resources,
in
which
the
aims
of
the
conflicting
parties
are
not
only
to
gain
the
desired
values
but
also
to
neutralize,
injure,
or
eliminate
their
rivals
([9],
p.
232;
see
also
[8],
p.
8).
The
same
view
is
exemplified,
perhaps
even
more
explicitly,
by
Vilhelm
Aubert
when
he
writes:
The
starting
point
must
be
sought
in
a
state
existing
between
two
(or
more)
individuals
characterized
by
some
overt
signs
of
anta-
gonism.
The
term
conflict
will
here
be
re-
served
for
this
state
of
tension
between
two
actors ...
As
a
minimum,
it
must
be
de-
manded
that
at
least
one
of
the
actors,
in
words
or
action,
gives
expression
to
a
motive
to
frustrate
Alter,
or
that
he
actually
frustra-
tes
him
([1],
p.
26).
He
then
goes
on
to
say:
What
is
important
is
to
distinguish
between
this
state
of
conflict
and
its
basis.
By
the
basis
of
conflict
is
meant
the
condition
of
the
system
which
has
led
to
the
overt
signs
of
hostility
or
to
the
objectively
frustrating
deeds
or
words.
Much
confusion,
e.g.,
in
the
discussions
of
class
conflicts,
is
due
to
a
failure
to
distinguish
between
the
actual
state
of
hostility
and
its
underlying
conditions
(ibid.,
p.
27).
To continue reading
Request your trial