Corruption and Integrity - Research Paper Example

 Corruption and Integrity Corruption is an age-old problem that unfortunately has not yet been eradicated, but instead, has been institutionalized, infecting almost all social systems and aspects of societies whether rich or poor, democratic or autocratic, developed or undeveloped (Basu 59-60) and evolving into various forms: “extortion, abuse of discretion, ‘active’ and ‘passive’ corruption, ‘grand’ and ‘petty’ corruption, and the oldest of which is bribery” (Langseth 9-12). According to Robinson, “corruption may be categorized into three main forms: incidental (individual), institutional (for example, the police service), and systemic (societal)” (3). There is no definite single definition of corruption due to its diversity and multifariousness, but Philip has offered a comprehensive one, underscoring three elements that comprise a corrupt act: “Corruption occurs when a public official (A), acting for personal gain, violates the norms of public office and harms the interest of the public (B) to benefit a third party (C) who rewards A for access to goods or services which C would not otherwise obtain” (45). Essentially therefore, corruption is dishonesty for vested interest (individual or group), making it an ethical issue not only technical, legal or political. Given its extent and adverse effects, corruption has increasingly become an international concern, with varied international organizations spending billions of dollars monitoring and curbing it, as it is acknowledged that it has not only impeded economic growth but has even distorted the distribution of economic goods and social services (Rose-Ackerman 33), emasculating democracy and rendering the rule of law impotent and jeopardizing domestic and international guarantee (Perceived Corruption, par. 1), and most disturbingly aggravating social inequality. More emphatically stated, “corruption attacks the fundamental values of human dignity and political equality of the people” (Rajkumar, par. 2). Based on its study of accumulated data from 13 different polls and surveys from 10 institutions, the 2009 Corruption Perceptions Index released by Transparency International ranked New Zealand (9.4), Denmark (9.3), Singapore and Sweden (9.2), and Switzerland (9.0) topping the least corrupt nations, with the most powerful nation, the United States falling only on the 19th following the United Kingdom and Japan, that both ranked 17th and on the extreme opposite are Somalia (1.1), Afghanistan (1.3), Myanmar (1.4), Sudan (1.5), and Iraq (1.5) topping the most corrupt nations, from among the 180 nations studied (Wu, par. 1; NZ Rated Least Corrupt, par. 1,2,4 & 6). Observably, the least corrupt nations are land-size wise not big but are economically developed. Immediately this implies easier monitoring and regulation unlike in the cases of the United States, which has 50 states and the United Kingdom, which is consisted of four countries: England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. According to Haines, the top five least corrupt nations attribute this to their nation’s “political stability, long-established conflict of interest regulations and solid, functioning public institutions” (qtd. In NZ Rated Least Corrupt, par. 3). On the other hand, the most corrupt countries are all politically unstable and economically deprived. These characterize not only the countries but even the regions to which they belong. For example, Somalia, the most corrupt, is located in Sub-Saharan Africa, a place where everybody knows that poverty and violence thrives due to despotic regimes which successively ruled the nation with their catastrophic policies. In fact, “for much of 1992 most of Somalia lay in ruins--effectively destroyed. It had no government, no police force, nor even basic services. Armed thugs and bandits roamed the country, pillaging and plundering” (Avittey, par. 4). Similarly, Afghanistan, the second in rank, located in Middle East – more commonly known as the bedrock of Islamic fundamentalism – is among the world poorest and has been suffering from long years of war that is seriously interrupting its mainly agricultural economy (Pike, par. 2). While Myanmar, formerly Burma, is one of Asia’s poorest and has been for four decades under the clutches of “military rule, political violence, and systematic repression of democratic opposition” (Chêne 1). In short, this supports Andelman’s view that “most of the corruption occurs in countries whose populations are least equipped to deal with the consequences--the world's most deprived nations” (par. 7). Another noteworthy comparison is the countries’ literacy rate, as literacy is a medium that could empower people in exercise of their democratic and civil rights. As expected, the least corrupt countries have high rate of literacy with New Zealand and Denmark posting 99% literacy rate and Singapore with 92.5% literacy rate, while the most corrupt countries with low literacy rates with Somalia and Afghanistan posting a dismal 37.8% and 28.1% literacy rates consecutively, while Myanmar posted an unexpected higher literacy rate 89.9% (Literacy 1) – a matter of 2.6% difference only from that of Singapore. Obviously, in the case of Myanmar, literacy is not enough to empower its people, because in the first place, their freedom and rights are curtailed. Although they topped the least corrupt nations, it does not mean that these nations come clean, because given the present social context in which developed nations operate, corruption is something that cannot be totally eradicated due to “a wide range of market failure” (Khan 223). However, compared with most corrupt countries, corruption in the least corrupt nations is more of an exception than the rule, needless to say that it is done with discreet unlike in the most corrupt nations where corruption is deeply imbedded in their culture that it is already their way of life to the point of believing that it is the way things are to achieved. For instance, in Somalia, corruption is what characterizes their government, as people daily witness and experience blatant corruption in relating with government people at all levels that they simply regard their government “as little more than border control” (Warsameh, par. 1). Ali Isse, a legitimate local businessman for his part narrated his detention at Mogadishu’s Adden Adde International Airport upon coming back from United Arab Emirates because he did not succumb to the extortion of the airport officials, who demanded that he pay 1,427,000 Somali shillings (US$1,000). But without his consent, his relatives paid the demanded money, as they are fully aware that if the money would have not been paid he would be have been detained until now. (qtd. in Warsameh, par. 6-7) This is only one from among the countless which are mostly unreported incidents of day-to-day corruption practices of government officials in Somalia, which on the other hand are being condoned, either willingly or willingly, by the people. Just as Isse has exactly described: “Here, we have to pay just to be alive” (qtd. in Warsameh, par. 8). In Afghanistan, figures would tell that local government and security officials live on bribes and kickbacks, that summed-up comprise “a quarter of the war-torn country’s legitimate gross domestic product” (UN Report qtd. in Ziezulewicz, par. 1). Antonio Maria Costa, UNODC’s executive director furthered that “while a patronage system has long existed in Afghan culture, the instances of bribery and the money involved have increased as the country’s drug trade exploded in recent years” (qtd. in Ziezulewicz, par. 5). In fact, people believe that “it is cheaper to buy a judge than to pay a lawyer” (Costa qtd in Ziezulewicz, par. 12). Thus just like how Isse described his nation’s corruption, Afghans have learned one survival lesson from their daily life experiences “that the rules of life are quite simple: Everything is possible, but everything has a price” (Gebauer & Volkery, par. 3). Myanmar’s corruption is no different from Somalia and Afghanistan, as almost everybody in this country – the whole of government and its people – is guilty of corruption in order to survive. It is widely accepted that as long as one is in office indulge to the highest level because no one knows until when this will stop. (Nangmone, par. 2-3) Investing here is no encouraging as all existing regulations are subjected to change at the whim of the regime’s ruling generals and what makes transactions proceed is no other than ‘tea money’ (Chêne 2-3). Judging the occurrence of corruption in developed and undeveloped nations, the following factors appear to hold water in curbing corruption: First, political stability, as institutions could never function accordingly in a war-torn chaotic political environment. In fact, it is during war that lawlessness abounds. Second, economic stability, as what UNODC Report stated: “When people, who earn less than $2 a day, have to bribe their way into basic services, they lose confidence in the system and look for alternative providers of security and welfare” (qtd. in Ziezulewicz, par. 16). In short, for a starving stomach what matters is not the question of right or wrong but what will fill it. Third, functional institutions with integrity, as this would ensure that the system will work to whom it is to serve. This is true because even in politically stable nations, there is corruption. Take for the example the most powerful nation, the US, which is not spared of corruption. In fact, corruption here is at the heart of the government, which implication is long-term. "In the last decade, the financial industry's $5 billion investment in campaign contributions and lobbyists resulted in deregulation, which generated trillions for executives” (Sirota qtd. in Finfacts Team, par. 25). Not only that Associated Press reported only recently that "companies that spent hundreds of millions lobbying successfully for a tax break enacted in 2004 got a 22,000-percent return on that investment — $100 billion in all” (qtd. in Finfacts Team, par. 27). Fourth, is political and moral will. This speaks of the perception of the people as to what is unethical and what is acceptable. Thus, culture here matters, because for example, patronage system is not necessarily perceived immoral in most Asian countries. And this also speaks of the willingness of the people to correct or curb corrupt practices. For example in the most corrupt nations, it is evident that the people consented to it, believing that they are powerless to do anything and that they have no choice but to succumb to it in order to live. Thus the convenient excuse: If you cannot beat them join them. Corruption is everywhere and it is both culture-bound and structurally driven. The difference only lies on how blatant and how widespread corruption is. For poor countries corruption is way of life thus, practice of it is rampant and blatant, but for developed countries corruption is something despised, so it has to be practice with discreet and caution, because without hard evidence, there is no corruption. Works Cited Andelman, David A. “Special Report: The World's Most Corrupt Countries.” Forbes.com. 3 April 2007. 30 January 2010 < http://www.forbes.com/2007/04/03/corruption-countries-nations-biz-07caphosp-cx_da_0403corrupt.html>. Avittey, George B. N. “The Somali Crisis: Time for an African Solution.” Policy Analysis. Cato Institute. 28 March 1994. 30 Jaunary 2010 < http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-205.html> Basu, Parikshit K. “Corruption: A Theoretical Perspective and Relevance for Economic Growth.” International Review of Business Research Papers 15.4 (2006): 59-68. Chêne, Marie. “Overview of Corruption in Burma (Myanmar).” U4 Expert Answer. 23 March 2009. 31 January 2010 < www.u4.no/helpdesk/helpdesk/query.cfm?id=205 –>. Finfacts Team. “America may be the most corrupt developed country; The Irish politicians who should be more ashamed than Frank Dunlop.” Finfacts Ireland News International. 27 May 2009. 30 January 2010 < http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1016771.shtml>. Gebauer, Matthias and Volkery, Carsten. “Corruption in Afghanistan.” Spiegel Online. 2010 january 19. 30 January 2010 < http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,672828,00.html>. Khan, Mushtaq H. “Determinants of Corruption in Developing Countries: The Limits of Conventional Economic Analysis.” International Handbook on the economics of corruption Ed. Susan Rose-Ackerman. Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc. 2006. 216-246. Langseth, Petter “Measuring Corruption.” Measuring Corruption Eds. Charles J. G. Sampford, Arthur Shacklock, Carmel Connors, and Fredrik Galtung. USA: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2006. 7-41. “Literacy.” The World Fact Book. Central Intelligence Agency. 31 January 2010 < https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2103.html>. Nangmone, Feraya. “SPDC Corruption.” Burma Digest. 2006 April 23. 31 January 2010 < http://burmadigest.wordpress.com/2006/04/23/spdc-corruption/>. “New Zealand rated least corrupt country; Somalia declared most corrupt.” Homeland Security News Wire. 18 November 2009. 30 January 2010 < http://homelandsecuritynewswire.com/new-zealand-rated-least-corrupt-country-somalia-declared-most-corrupt>. “Perceived Corruption.” 2009 the Social Report Ministry of Social Development. New Zealand. 2009. 30 January 2010 < http://www.socialreport.msd.govt.nz/civil-political-rights/perceived-corruption.html>. Philip, Mark. “Corruption Definition and Measurement.” Measuring Corruption Eds. Charles J. G. Sampford, Arthur Shacklock, Carmel Connors, and Fredrik Galtung. USA: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2006. 45-80. Pike, John. “Corruption.” Global Security.org. 2009 August 2. 30 January 2010 < http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/afghanistan/corruption.htm> Rajkumar, C. “Corruption and Human Rights.” Frontline 19.19 (2002). September 14-27. 30 January 2010 Robinson, Mark. “Corruption and Development: An Introduction.” Corruption and Development Ed. Mark Robinson. New York, NY: Frank Cass Publishers, 1998. 1-14. Rose-Ackerman, Susan. “The Political Economy of Corruption.” Corruption and Global Economy Ed. Kimberly Ann Elliot. Washington, DC: Institute for Intyernational Economics, 1997. 31-60. Wu, Scott. “List of The Most and Least Corrupt Countries of 2009.” NowPublic. 17 November 2009. 30 January 2010 < http://www.nowpublic.com/world/list-most-and-least-corrupt-countries-2009>. Ziezulewicz, Geoff. “U.N. report lays bare culture of corruption in Afghanistan.” Stars and Stripes. 2010 January 20. 30 January 2010 < http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=67346> Read More