Another aspect that Leys considers in much detail is public interest. Once again he points out that this concept is very vague in some political paradigms, as the public includes many different persons with many different interests. To define public interest is therefore complicated at best. Instead, the author considers other aspects surrounding public interest, such as development, equality and the official purpose of the government. In broad terms, the focus of the latter would be to promote the first two in order to benefit public interest. Leys however points out that these are not always compatible. As an example, the author mentions the example of the USSR, which postponed equality to favor development. He also mentions Africa and the many developing political systems on this continent to demonstrate this point. In developing political systems, terms and purposes are loosely defined, and the public is not adequately educated regarding the system. Thus it is difficult to distinguish corruption from the point of view of the public. .

             Leys uses this point to substantiate the second part of his statement, that it is a mistake to view all corruption as important. To measure the degree to which corruption is bad or important is measured from the point of view of the public and the government that serves it. Leys holds that, if neither public interest nor government purpose is served or harmed to a great degree, the corruption in question cannot be viewed as either bad or important. His central point here is that research and analysis, especially in newly developing political systems, are necessary before the degree and nature of corruption can be truly defined and delineated.

             The question is however, are Leys' views still valid for current politics, 30 years later? Once again there will be many different viewpoints regarding the issue. I do not believe that the moralist viewpoint will have changed: corruption is always bad and always important.