By: cassandra b. paraggua
Abstract
Restore
the faith and trust in the government, end the very root that kills it,
corruption. Corruption is the abuse of public trust for
private gain; it is a form of stealing. Systemic corruption has long been a
problem in the different countries that is like a malignant tumor that it keeps
on sucking the life out of the country, robbing the economy of its competitiveness
as well as eroding trust in government and thereby threatening its
effectiveness. Corruption basically robs government
of the ability to positively affect the lives of every individual. Corruption deprives the economy of its full
potential and erodes trust in markets and institutions. This article discusses
corruption, types of corruption and what can policy makers do to end corruption
to restore faith and trust in the government. When people consider the
government corrupt and believe that the country is headed in the wrong
direction this negatively effects social solidarity as expressed in trust in
others, and reduces trust in the bodies and decisions of the authorities. Laws
must be clear and durable, leaving the least possible room for discretionary
action, while decisions must be made on the basis of clear criteria, and be
transparent and accessible to the public.
Keywords:
Corruption, government, faith and trust in the government.
Introduction
The most common
definition of corruption, that is used by the World Bank (1997) and other
organizations, is “the abuse of public power for private gain”. The typical definition of corruption involves
the notion of the “public” in a fundamental sense. For this reason, it is
customary to regard the main focus of corruption is government as is invariably
involved public officials. Corruption is the perversion or destruction of
integrity or fidelity in discharging public duties and responsibilities. It
entails the use of public power for private advantage in ways which
transgresses some formal rule of law. (Tendero, 2008).
Trust among citizens
depends, to a large extent, on the governments’ actions to fight corruption.
There is plenty of historical evidence to back this assertion. Yet there are
still those in power who either leave the prevention of corruption for
technical experts to take care of, without adequate political support, or who
hinder anti-corruption efforts to protect themselves and their allies.
If politicians were to
take a look at the evidence of research alone, they would immediately draw two
very simple conclusions: first, that countries with more corruption have lower
levels of citizens’ trust, especially in government; and, second, countries
with less corruption enjoy far higher levels of citizen trust. (Kos, 2014).
A higher level of
citizens’ trust is a key factor in achieving development. So why do so many governments
come up short in the fight against corruption and not do so much more to win
back public trust? The answer to this question is not complicated: while
citizens and society as a whole benefit from the consequences of the efficient
fight against corruption, some powerful individuals and their narrow circles of
allies do not have the slightest interest in benefiting anyone but themselves.
We have seen the sad truth of this in recent history, when corrupt leaders
managed to empty state funds belonging to citizens into their own pockets.
Trust finally collapsed, leading in some cases to public demonstrations to
demand change. However, too many governments still do not appreciate how
important trust is for everything else they have to do, and how much benefit
they can derive from building trust up (Kos, 2014).
Acts of corruption by
people in power have long shaken public faith. (Williams, 2002). Corruption
significantly contributes to political instability and widespread disbelief in
governmental institutions and state bodies. Most equate corruption with
bribery, where an illegal payment is made to a government official in return
for some type of official, state-sanctioned, authoritative act that has a
selective and tangible impact and that in the absence of the secret payment
would not otherwise have been made (Johnston, 2005). But beyond bribery,
corruption also includes kickbacks which operate much like a bribe, but where
the illegal payment is made after the service is rendered, usually from a portion
of the governmental award itself, and extortion where the public official
threatens to use (or abuse) state power to induce the payment of a bribe. While
such acts involve transactions between citizen and government official,
corruption also includes graft and embezzlement, where public officials act
alone to appropriate public funds or divert their use. Closely related to
graft, fraud refers to the various, often complex and imaginative schemes
orchestrated by officials to appropriate public funds, often with civilian
accomplices. These may include establishing fake companies, listing ghost
workers to pad payrolls, overbilling the government on contracts, or otherwise
fixing the books to hide the disappearance of public funds. Beyond these acts
commonly associated with corruption, corruption also encompasses such diverse
activities as nepotism, favoritism and conflict of interest, where
public-sector jobs or benefits are illegally channeled to family, friends or to
the benefit of the decision-makers own interests. Even within the partisan and
electoral realms, corruption encompasses a range of activities such as illegal
campaign contributions, illegal expenditures, electoral fraud and vote buying
(Morris, 2011).
Forms
of Corruption
1. 1
The institutional location and function of
the public official involved (“political corruption” versus “bureaucratic
corruption”)
Whereas by definition political corruption involves
“public officials” the sheer vastness of the public sector means that
corruption can occur at virtually any place within the government. An easy
means of differentiating forms of corruption centers on the institutional
location of the public official involved (i.e., corruption within the executive
branch, the legislature or the judiciary, the local government, the police,
customs agents, building inspectors, etc.). (Morris, 2011)
The term “political corruption” thus tends to refer to
corruption occurring at the policymaking stage or, in Eastonian terms, the
input side of the political system, whereas “bureaucratic” or “administrative”
corruption relates to the implementation of policy carried out by lower level
officials or the output side of the equation (Bardhan 2006; Scott 1972).
Because of their different functions within the system, these two forms of
corruption also violate different norms. “Bureaucratic corruption” involves the
violation of first-order norms (the written rules and laws that are the product
of politicians’ decision making), whereas “political corruption” committed by
policymakers entails the violation of more nebulous second-order norms (the
often-unwritten guidelines determining how politicians should make decisions,
such as impartiality and fairness. (Warren 2004)
2. 2. The direction of influence (“bribery”
versus “extortion”)
It
draws a distinction between “bribery” and “extortion”. In bribery, societal
interests use extra-legal payments or bribes to influence the content of state
policy or its implementation. At a broader, more systemic level, this form of
corrupt influence can take on the characteristics of “state capture”, whereby
an entire agency or institution operates on behalf of societal interests.
Extortion, by contrast, involves the use and abuse of state power by public
officials to demand extra-legal payments or rents in return for providing a
legitimate or illegitimate service. In extortion, the direction of influence
moves from state to society, while bribery reverses the direction (Morris,
2011).
3.
The size and frequency of the transaction
(“grand corruption” versus “petty corruption)
Grand corruption” involves large sums of money and
usually less frequent transactions, while at the other end “petty corruption”
refers to smaller and more routine payments. This distinction tends to parallel
those rooted in the institutional position of the state official involved, with
“grand corruption” more likely to occur among high level government officials
who have limited interaction with the public, while “petty corruption” tends to
take place among low-level, bureaucratic workers who regularly interact with
the public. (Morris, 2011)
4. 3. Systemic framework
Though somewhat related to differences based on size
and frequency, distinctions are also often based on the broader pattern of
corruption within the system. This focuses not just on the individual corrupt
act, but rather on the context in which the act occurs. Mark Robinson (1988),
identifies three forms of corruption: “incidental” corruption, which is
confined to malfeasance on the part of the individual and is thus rare;
“institutional” corruption referring to certain institutions that may be
riddled with corruption due largely to the absence of controls; and “systemic”
corruption which reflects situations where corruption is deeply entrenched and
pervasive throughout society. A similar sort of distinction contrasts
“centralized” and “decentralized” corruption depending on the level of control
exercised by the political elite over local officials (Bardhan, 2006).
5. 4.. Motive or purpose
It distinguishes types of corruption based on the motives,
purpose or outcome of the corrupt act. One easy distinction based on motive
separates corruption that promotes purely personal interests from corruption
that benefits a clique, a political party or an institution which may be more
systematic. Margaret Beare (1997) offers a non-exhaustive taxonomy of
corruption based largely on motive or outcome. She identifies four types:
“bribes/kickbacks”, which are paid or demanded in return for being allowed to
do legitimate business; “election/campaign corruption”, designed to ensure
continuing influence; “protection corruption”, payments in exchange for being
allowed to engage in illegitimate business; and “systemic top-down corruption”,
where the nation’s wealth is systematically siphoned off by the ruling elites.
In
the Philippines, RA No. 3019 also known as Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
provides corrupt practices of public officers. Two variants of corruption have
been identified as negative bureaucratic behavior in the Philippines:
1. that which involves only civil servants like giving
lucrative positions and promotions to the highest bidder and giving and
accepting bribes to get a preferred position or receive lenient treatment than
what is deserved, especially in cases where the employee is under
administrative investigation
2. that which involves a person or persons outside the
bureaucracy either of whom initiate the act. (Tendero, 2008)
Dios and Ferrer ( 2000)
proposes list of types or objects of corrupt transactions: (a) bids, purchases, and auctions; (b) sale
of policies and rules; (c) rules-evasion; (d) bureaucratic or political
facilitation; (e) bureaucratic or political harassment; (f) political favors
and support.
The first and most easily
analyzable transactions that are the subject of corruption are those involving
bids and purchases. These include over- and underpricing and collusion among
potential bidders of services, franchises, concessions, and asset sales. The
second important type of transaction is the sale of policies or rules. Examples
of these are industrial priorities; fiscal policies; regulatory rules, judicial
decisions, electoral rules, etc. The bottom- line efficiency effects of such
corruption are difficult to predict beforehand. Rose-Ackerman (1998) notes that
it will depend on the efficiency of the rules themselves. If rules are
over-extended to begin with, then to the extent that exemptions are made, then
they would be welfare-enhancing. Unlike policy-for-sale, the purpose of
rules-evasion is not to alter the rules themselves but to modify their
application for individuals who are in principle unqualified for the benefits
or are liable under the rules. Corruption to excuse tax evasion, or bribes made
to officers of the court would fall under this category. Bureaucratic or
political facilitation are a third type of corrupt transaction and are related
to what Rose-Ackerman (1998) calls “corruption to lower costs” and what Alatas (1997)
calls “transactive” corruption. Examples range from petty corruption in
lower-level agencies (e.g., car registration) to buying political influence to
smooth out deliberations on franchises given out by congress. Hence, an illicit
exemption from a tax would be liability evasion rather than a case of
facilitation. While the parties involved in facilitation and harassment are the
same, i.e., private agents and public officials, the significance can be
completely different. The case of harassment corresponds to what they call
“extortive” corruption, such as when tax collectors summon taxpayers and
minutely go over tax returns as part of a shakedown or when politicians
initiate an investigation of their potential opponents as part of
vendetta. Finally, political favors and
investment are transactions distinguished by the fact that the result is not an
immediate pecuniary benefit but a political one
Conclusion
Corruption is a phenomenon with many faces (Morris
& Klesner, 2010). It is characterized by range of economic, political,
administrative, social and cultural factors. It results from interactions,
opportunities, strengths and weaknesses in socio political systems. Corruption
kills people’s trust and faith in the ability of the government to mobilize
projects for the benefit of the people and even undermines government efforts
to mobilize society to help fight corruption and leads the public to routinely
dismiss government promises to fight corruption. Nonetheless, fighting
corruption is a sure way of boosting public trust, the government just need to
do enough to address it for increasing trust would bring widespread benefits.
It is difficult to measure exactly how government gain citizen’s trust- but
here are some ways that policy maker can do to restore the trust and faith of
the public.
1. The
government must demonstrate through consistent example that it has the
political will to greatly reduce corruption.
2. Public officials, in all branches
and all levels of government, and private persons found guilty of major corrupt activities should, after a fair
trial, be punished with heavy sentences, including imprisonment and seizure of
assets. The cases against them should be widely publicized. Laws should
be amended periodically to assure that penalties are sufficiently heavy to serve
as a deterrent to corruption when enforced.
3.
The Ombudsman must be impartial
and willing to investigate thoroughly all major allegations of official
corruption, without favoritism or political considerations.
4.
Make data readily
available. One of
the most promising means of regaining trust is making data – all data, on
everything from pothole repairs to emergency response times – open and
accessible to the public. Be transparent also
about policy making. Governments today should do more than provide raw data on public services
– they must present information in simple, easily digestible ways to show
citizens what their taxes are funding.
5.
Involve citizens in
policy. Citizens must be consulted on a big
policy decision. Researches shows that people who participate in policymaking
are more likely to understand the complexities face by government.
6.
Bring all government services
online. The ability to pay taxes, order a passport or register a business
online does more than cut out bureaucracy and save time – digitizing services
can have a significant cultural impact on citizens and there should be a
website where citizens can anonymously email information about suspect or known
corrupt activity for investigation.
7. The
private sector should do more to police its ranks to discourage corrupt
relations with government agencies, in revenue collection and procurement.
Compliance and integrity programs for businesses to pledge not to bribe public
officials, to report corruption, and to embed such behavior as standard
corporate practice should be undertaken.
A
successful fight against corruption influences a range of fronts, such as
transparency; accountability; nondiscrimination; meaningful social, economic
and civic participation; legal and income equality; and more. All of this
matter to citizens in every country. Any improvement in these fronts shows that
government genuinely cares about people and their welfare, and will be
reflected in a higher trust level.
With the many forms of
corruption and differences across nations and localities, there is no single
best way to fight it. Compassion. Real Change, is what we really need right
now. Let us all help the government in fighting corruption. Start with our self, for change starts with
us and in us. Together let us solve the ills and weaknesses such as, corruption
to their very root and “restore faith and trust in government.
References
Alatas, S. H. (1990), Corruption: Its Nature, Causes and Consequences, Aldershot,
Avebury.
Bardhan, P. (2006), “The Economist’s Approach to the Problem of Corruption”,
World Development 34(2), 341–48.
Beare, M. E. (1997), “Corruption and Organized Crime: Lessons from
History”, Crime, Law and Social Change 28, 155–72.
de Dios, E. S., & Ferrer, R. D. (2000). Corruption in the
Philippines: Framework and context.
Johnston, M. (2005), Syndromes of Corruption: Wealth, Power and
Democracy, Cambridge University Press.
Kos, D. (2014). Tackle
corruption to restore trust. OECD Forum. (OECD, Ed.) Retrieved from
www.oecd.org/forum/oecdyearbook/tackle-corrupt
Morris, S. D. (2011). Forms of Corruption. CESifo DICE Report.
Morris, S. D., & Klesner, J. L. (2010). Corruption and Trust:
Theoretical Consideration and Evidence from Mexico: SAGE.
Robinson, M. (1998), “Corruption and Development: An Introduction”, in
M. Robinson, ed., Corruption and Development, Frank Cass,
London, 1–14.
Rose-Ackerman, S. [1998]
“Corruption and the global econopmy”, in G. Shabbir Cheema, ed. Corruption
and integrity improvement initiatives
in developing countries, 1998, Management Development and Governance Division, United Nations
Development Programme.
Shleifer and Vishny [1993] “Corruption”, Quarterly Jourunal of
Economics
Tendero, A. (2008). Theory and Practice of Public Administration in the
Philippines.
Warren, M. E. (2004), “What Does Corruption Mean in a Democracy?” American
Journal of Political Science 48(2), 328–43.
Williams, H. (2000). Core Factor of Police Corruption Across the World.
Forum in Crime Society Vol 2, 1. Retrieved from
https://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/publications/core_factors.pdf
World Bank [1997a] World development report: the state in a changing
world. NewYork: Oxford University Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment