INTRODUCTION
Aristotle wrote “there are three kinds of constitution or an equal number of deviation, or as it were, corruption of these three kinds the deviation or corruption of kingship is tyranny. Both kingship and tyranny are forms of government by a single person, but the tyrant studies his own advantage the king looks to that of his subjects”.
Carl Friedrich, following Aristotle holds that both applications derive from basic core meaning, which he formulates as deviant behavior associated with a particular motivation namely that of private gain at public expense.
DEFINITION
Corruption is dishonest or immoral behavior or activities. Two categories give the meanings of corruption in physical and moral aspects. In physical the destruction or spoiling of anything especially by disintegration or by decomposition with its attendant unwholesomenees and loathsomenees. Moral the political definition already given comes under this category. Another definition in this category is a making or becoming morally corrupt.
EFFECTS
Politics :
In the political realm, it undermines democracy and good governance by flouting or even subverting for formal processes.
Administration :
Corruption in public administration results in unfair provision of service.
Institutions :
Corruption erodes the institutional capacity of government as procedures are disregarded, resources are siphoned off, and public offices are bought and sold.
Election :
Corruption in election and in legislative bodies reduces accountability and distorts representation in policymaking; corruption in the judiciary compromises the rule of law.
Economic :
Private sectors corruption increases the cost of business through the price of illicit payments themselves, the management cost of negotiating with officials, and the risk of breached agreements or detection. Although some claim corruption reduces costs by cutting red tape, the availability of bribes can also induce officials to contrive new rules and delays. Openly removing costly and lengthy regulations are better than covertly allowing them to be bypassed by using bribes. Where corruption inflates the cost of business, it also distorts the playing field, shielding firms with connections from competition and thereby sustaining inefficient firms.
Public sector by diverting public investment into capital projects where bribes and kickbacks are more plentiful. Officials may increase the technical complexity of public sector projects to conceal or pave way for such dealings, thus further distorting investment. Corruption also lowers compliance with construction, environmental, or other regulations, reduces the quality of government services and infrastructure, and increases budgetary pressures on government.
CAUSES
Fast wealthy
- a fast opportunity for people who are doing nothing in the organization but at the same time want money
Easy money
-influent by the easy and big amount of money offered by a person to do something, for examples to ruin somebody organization
Materialistic- good life
-people who are not satisfied with what they have especially in his normal life
Moral values-unawareness to be honest
-lack of moral values, people who are high in moral value will never think about taking bribes
Greedy
-because of the lack of moral values and want to be powerful in wealth more than another people
Attitudes
-causes corruption is attitudes or circumstances that make average people disregard the law. People may try to get around laws of a government they consider illegitimate
SOLUTION
People and government must solve this problem.
Government has five steps to solve this problem:
to restore some justice to a system in which international creditors play the role of plaintiff, judge and jury, in their own court of international finance.
to introduce discipline into sovereign lending and borrowing arrangements—and thereby prevent future crises.
to counter corruption in borrowing and lending, by introducing accountability through a free press and greater transparency to civil society in both the creditor and debtor nations.
to strengthen local democratic institutions, by empowering them to challenge and influence elites.
to encourage greater understanding and economic literacy among citizens, and thereby empower them to question, challenge and hold their elites to account.
CONCLUSION
Which is every person should work together to barricade the corruption before it becomes a habit in our lives.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Tackling Corruption
What can be done to tackle this problem?
The above-cited report by Hanlon and Pettifor also highlights a broader way to try and tackle corruption by attempting to provide a more just, democratic and transparent process in terms of relations between donor nations and their creditors:
Campaigners from around the world, but particularly the South, have called for a more just, independent, accountable and transparent process for managing relations between sovereign debtors and their public and private creditors.
An independent process would have five goals:
to restore some justice to a system in which international creditors play the role of plaintiff, judge and jury, in their own court of international finance.
to introduce discipline into sovereign lending and borrowing arrangements—and thereby prevent future crises.
to counter corruption in borrowing and lending, by introducing accountability through a free press and greater transparency to civil society in both the creditor and debtor nations.
to strengthen local democratic institutions, by empowering them to challenge and influence elites.
to encourage greater understanding and economic literacy among citizens, and thereby empower them to question, challenge and hold their elites to account.
— Joseph Hanlon and Ann Pettifor, Kicking the Habit; Finding a lasting solution to addictive lending and borrowing—and its corrupting side-effects, Jubilee Research, March 2000
Globalization, Multinational Corporations, and Corruption
Corruption scandals that sometimes make headline news in Western media can often be worse in developing countries. This is especially the case (as the previous link argues) when it is multinational companies going into poorer countries to do business. The international business environment, encouraged by a form of globalization that is heavily influenced by the wealthier and more powerful countries in the world makes it easier for multinationals to make profit and even for a few countries to benefit. However, some policies behind globalization appear to encourage and exacerbate corruption as accountability of governments and companies have been reduced along the way.
For example,
For multinationals, bribery enables companies to gain contracts (particularly for public works and military equipment) or concessions which they would not otherwise have won, or to do so on more favorable terms. Every year, Western businesses pay huge amounts of money in bribes to win friends, influence and contracts. These bribes are conservatively estimated to run to US$80 billion a year—roughly the amount that the UN believes is needed to eradicate global poverty.
— Dr Susan Hawley, Exporting Corruption; Privatization, Multinationals and Bribery,
The Corner House, June 2000
Dr Hawley also lists a number of impacts that multinationals’ corrupt practices have on the “South” (another term for Third World, or developing countries), including:
They undermine development and exacerbate inequality and poverty.
They disadvantage smaller domestic firms.
They transfer money that could be put towards poverty eradication into the hands of the rich.
They distort decision-making in favor of projects that benefit the few rather than the many.
They also
Increase debt;
Benefit the company, not the country;
Bypass local democratic processes;
Damage the environment;
Circumvent legislation; and
Promote weapons sales.
For example,
For multinationals, bribery enables companies to gain contracts (particularly for public works and military equipment) or concessions which they would not otherwise have won, or to do so on more favorable terms. Every year, Western businesses pay huge amounts of money in bribes to win friends, influence and contracts. These bribes are conservatively estimated to run to US$80 billion a year—roughly the amount that the UN believes is needed to eradicate global poverty.
— Dr Susan Hawley, Exporting Corruption; Privatization, Multinationals and Bribery,
The Corner House, June 2000
Dr Hawley also lists a number of impacts that multinationals’ corrupt practices have on the “South” (another term for Third World, or developing countries), including:
They undermine development and exacerbate inequality and poverty.
They disadvantage smaller domestic firms.
They transfer money that could be put towards poverty eradication into the hands of the rich.
They distort decision-making in favor of projects that benefit the few rather than the many.
They also
Increase debt;
Benefit the company, not the country;
Bypass local democratic processes;
Damage the environment;
Circumvent legislation; and
Promote weapons sales.
Rich Countries involved in corruption abroad
When asking why poor countries are poor, it is quite common to hear, especially in wealthier countries that are perceived to have minimal corruption (at least domestically) that other countries are poor because of corruption. Yet, corruption is not something limited to third world despots. Rich countries too have been involved in corrupt practices around the world.
As Professor Robert Neild from Trinity College, Cambridge University writes in Public Corruption; The Dark Side of Social Evolution (London: Anthem Press, 2002), “Rich countries and their agencies … commonly have been and are accomplices in corruption abroad, encouraging it by their actions rather than impeding it….” (p.209). Specific problems he highlights include:
The impact of Cold War corruption (supporting dictatorships, destabilizing democracies, funding opposition, etc);
Firms from rich countries bribing rulers and officials from developing countries to gain export contracts, particularly in the arms trade and in construction (even justifying it by suggesting bribery is “customary” in those countries, so they need to do it to, in order to compete);
The “corruption-inducing effects of the purchase, by the rich countries and their international corporations, of concessions in Third World countries to exploit natural deposits of oil, copper, gold, diamonds and the like.” Payments made to rulers often violate local (and Western) rules, keeping corrupt rulers in power, who also embezzle a lot of money away.
The drug trade. Neild suggests that international law and national laws in rich countries that prohibit drugs may serve to “produce a scarcity value irresistible to producers, smugglers and dealers.” Governments and civil society in the third world are often “undermined, sometimes destroyed” by the violence and corruption that goes with the drug trade. “This is probably the most important way in which the policies of rich countries foster corruption and violence. Yet the effect on the Third World seems scarcely to enter discussion of alternative drug policies in the rich countries.” Legalizing drugs, a system of taxation and regulation, comparable to that applied to tobacco and alcohol might do more to reduce corruption in the world than any other measure rich countries could take, he suggests.
Rich countries have been used to it, too:
Bribery may be pervasive, but it is difficult to detect. Many Western companies do not dirty their own hands, but instead pay local agents, who get a 10 per cent or so “success fee” if a contract goes through and who have access to the necessary “slush funds” to ensure that it does. Bribery is also increasingly subtle.… Until recently, bribery was seen as a normal business practice. Many countries including France, Germany and the UK treated bribes as legitimate business expenses which could be claimed for tax deduction purposes.
— Dr Susan Hawley, Exporting Corruption; Privatisation, Multinationals and Bribery, The Corner House, June 2000
As Professor Robert Neild from Trinity College, Cambridge University writes in Public Corruption; The Dark Side of Social Evolution (London: Anthem Press, 2002), “Rich countries and their agencies … commonly have been and are accomplices in corruption abroad, encouraging it by their actions rather than impeding it….” (p.209). Specific problems he highlights include:
The impact of Cold War corruption (supporting dictatorships, destabilizing democracies, funding opposition, etc);
Firms from rich countries bribing rulers and officials from developing countries to gain export contracts, particularly in the arms trade and in construction (even justifying it by suggesting bribery is “customary” in those countries, so they need to do it to, in order to compete);
The “corruption-inducing effects of the purchase, by the rich countries and their international corporations, of concessions in Third World countries to exploit natural deposits of oil, copper, gold, diamonds and the like.” Payments made to rulers often violate local (and Western) rules, keeping corrupt rulers in power, who also embezzle a lot of money away.
The drug trade. Neild suggests that international law and national laws in rich countries that prohibit drugs may serve to “produce a scarcity value irresistible to producers, smugglers and dealers.” Governments and civil society in the third world are often “undermined, sometimes destroyed” by the violence and corruption that goes with the drug trade. “This is probably the most important way in which the policies of rich countries foster corruption and violence. Yet the effect on the Third World seems scarcely to enter discussion of alternative drug policies in the rich countries.” Legalizing drugs, a system of taxation and regulation, comparable to that applied to tobacco and alcohol might do more to reduce corruption in the world than any other measure rich countries could take, he suggests.
Rich countries have been used to it, too:
Bribery may be pervasive, but it is difficult to detect. Many Western companies do not dirty their own hands, but instead pay local agents, who get a 10 per cent or so “success fee” if a contract goes through and who have access to the necessary “slush funds” to ensure that it does. Bribery is also increasingly subtle.… Until recently, bribery was seen as a normal business practice. Many countries including France, Germany and the UK treated bribes as legitimate business expenses which could be claimed for tax deduction purposes.
— Dr Susan Hawley, Exporting Corruption; Privatisation, Multinationals and Bribery, The Corner House, June 2000
The Corruption
Corruption
by Anup Shah
This Page Last Updated Sunday, September 23, 2007
Corruption is both a major cause and result of poverty around the world. It occurs at all levels of society, from governments, civil society, judiciary functions, military and other services and so on. The impact of corruption in poor countries on the poorer members of those societies is even more tragic.
The issue of corruption is very much inter-related with other issues. At a global level, the “international” (Washington Consensus-influenced) economic system that has shaped the current form of globalization in the past decades requires further scrutiny for it has also created conditions whereby corruption can flourish and exacerbate the conditions of people around the world who already have little say about their own destiny.
A difficult thing to measure or compare, however, is the impact of corruption on poverty versus the effects of inequalities that are structured into law, such as unequal trade agreements, structural adjustment policies, so-called “free” trade agreements and so on. It is easier to see corruption. It is harder to see these other more formal, even legal forms of “corruption.” It is easy to assume that these are not even issues because they are part of the laws and institutions that govern national and international societies and many of us will be accustomed to it—that is how it works, so to speak. Those deeper aspects are discussed in other parts of this web site’s section on trade-related issues.
That is not to belittle the issue of corruption, for its impacts are enormous too.
by Anup Shah
This Page Last Updated Sunday, September 23, 2007
Corruption is both a major cause and result of poverty around the world. It occurs at all levels of society, from governments, civil society, judiciary functions, military and other services and so on. The impact of corruption in poor countries on the poorer members of those societies is even more tragic.
The issue of corruption is very much inter-related with other issues. At a global level, the “international” (Washington Consensus-influenced) economic system that has shaped the current form of globalization in the past decades requires further scrutiny for it has also created conditions whereby corruption can flourish and exacerbate the conditions of people around the world who already have little say about their own destiny.
A difficult thing to measure or compare, however, is the impact of corruption on poverty versus the effects of inequalities that are structured into law, such as unequal trade agreements, structural adjustment policies, so-called “free” trade agreements and so on. It is easier to see corruption. It is harder to see these other more formal, even legal forms of “corruption.” It is easy to assume that these are not even issues because they are part of the laws and institutions that govern national and international societies and many of us will be accustomed to it—that is how it works, so to speak. Those deeper aspects are discussed in other parts of this web site’s section on trade-related issues.
That is not to belittle the issue of corruption, for its impacts are enormous too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
