The absence of a coherent and unified scientific framework—and the simultaneous presence of diverse, inconsistent, and fragmented definitions of “conflict of interest” in the theoretical literature—has created significant conceptual challenges. These inconsistencies hinder the development of shared understanding and impede effective efforts to address, manage, and regulate conflicts of interest within governance. Accordingly, the objective of this study is to construct a rigorous definition of conflict of interest, clarify its foundational pillars, and propose a conceptual classification of its forms and types. By doing so, the study aims to develop a systematic and integrative theoretical framework capable of filling the existing conceptual gap, enhancing intellectual coherence among scholars and policymakers, and ultimately providing a sound basis for effective conflict-of-interest management and policy formulation in governance.
Methodology: This research is theoretical in nature and employs a qualitative approach. The proposed framework was developed through a general theory-building methodology, elaborated over an eight-stage process ranging from systematic scientific imagination to iterative feedback, refinement, and finalization. This process unfolded over a four-year period, during which insights from several experts in anti-corruption and public governance were incorporated. Their contributions strengthened the analytical depth and conceptual accuracy of the emerging theory.
Findings: Following an extensive review and critique of the existing literature, the study develops a novel theoretical framework for understanding “conflict of interest in governance” capturing the multifaceted nature of this complex phenomenon. The framework offers a newly formulated definition grounded in four core components. It then explains how conflict-of-interest situations emerge—both as potential and actual conflicts—across various forms and types, and identifies the consequences and organizational implications associated with them. A new conceptual typology of conflict-of-interest forms, derived from the proposed definition, is also presented. Finally, drawing inspiration from the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework, the study integrates these components into a consolidated theoretical model.
Conclusion: The proposed framework significantly contributes to the theoretical consolidation of the field by offering a clear definition, explicating the pillars of conflict formation, and providing a coherent typology of conflict-of-interest forms. This advancement reduces conceptual inconsistency, ambiguity, fragmentation, and the lack of standardization that currently impede progress in the literature. As a result, the framework creates a foundation for more effective efforts in managing conflicts of interest within governance. It is expected to be valuable both theoretically—for scholars and researchers—and practically—for public managers, policymakers, regulators, and civil society actors engaged in conflict-of-interest mitigation and anti-corruption initiatives.