The complete paper with the complete results of the study has already been published in Texila International Journal. This is only part of the paper. You can discover the paper online
Damianus Abun
Abstract:
People's attitudes predict behaviour. Negative and positive attitudes toward a certain object of attitude will influence the behaviour of the person toward the object. Theoretically, if one sees corruption as good, then the person will be corrupt but when he/she sees corruption as not good, then he will not be corrupt.
Keywords: attitude, corruption, behaviour
Introduction
One of the main causes of
poverty is corruption in which taxpayers' money is not spent on social and
economic development but for individual interest. The corruption perception index
reveals that corruption is everywhere, whether it is a poor or rich country,
but the index reveals that not all countries are within the same level of
corruption. Some countries are placed at the lowest rank of corruption index or
least corrupt and some countries are placed in the highest rank of corruption
perception index which is considered as the most corrupt. Such ranking
indicates the country’s corruption and its capability in eradicating
corruption. But no country is considered to be clean or has zero corruption
according to the latest report by Transparency International (World Economic
Forum, 2019). The corruption perception index indicates that corruption can be
managed and reduced to the lowest level.
Issues on corruption is a
regular issue that has been in existence since a long time ago. It was already a
topic for discussion more than 2000 years ago as reflected in Arthashastra
written by Kautilya
(Tanzi,
2002). Though there was no
systematic study to record the trend, however, historically, it is recognized as
one, along with prostitution, of the world's oldest problems. Its history is as long as
that of mankind's effort to live by the rule of law (Brioschi &
Shugaar, 2017, pp. 1-20). It was already discussed in the early days, as
early as the fourth century B.C. by Kauṭilya as cited by Brioschi and Shugaar (2017,
pp.21-28). According to Kauṭilya, a contemporary of Aristotle, those who govern must
use every means to attain their objectives; rules of rigour and honesty. One of
the best-known scandals in ancient Greece, 324, B.C. was the Harpalus scandal
in which Demosthenes was accused of taking a gold deposit in the treasury and then was forced to go to exile. It Was also recorded three bribes in ancient Rome,
still within the fourth century, B.C. But the great Julius Caesar (100–44 B.C.)
tried to impose hard measures on the corrupt officials such as dismissal from
the service and return the stolen money or gold (Brioschi, & Shugaar,
(2017, pp. 39-50). So, it is correct to say that corruption is as old as human
history. In the First Dynasty (3100–2700 BC) of ancient Egypt, the issue of
corruption was noted in its judiciary (El-Saady, 1998). Corruption practice was
also found in ancient China as reflected in the Chinese Mythology about the Kitchen
God in which the Kitchen God watches the behavior of every member of the
household. Before the Chinese New year, the Kitchen God ascends to heaven to present
an annual report to the ruler of heaven, the Jade Emperor and the fate of the
household depends on the result of the report (One World, Nations Online, n.d).
There was no corruption perception Index as of the present but the corruption
did happen. Systematic studies on corruption were just begun in the 1990s by
Transparency International (TI) which now is known as the Corruption Perception
Index (CPI) which follows the trend of corruption by country (Wasow,
2011).
Each country has its
history of corruption and one cannot say that there is a country without
corruption. Corruption exists in every country but the level of corruption
of each country might vary. In the 1990s
Philippines was ranked number 9 as one of the most corrupt countries besides
Nigeria (1), Pakistan (2), Kenya (3), China (4), Cameroon (5), Egypt (6),
Columbia (7), Uganda (8), Indonesia (10) (Hays, 2015). Currently, these
countries are still struggling with the same problem. Though the level of corruption
is reduced, however, they are still listed as the most corrupt countries. The
Philippines is ranked 99 from 180 countries, Indonesia (89), Egypt (105),
Columbia (99), Nigeria (144), Pakistan, (117), China (87), Uganda (149), Kenya
(144), Cameroon (152). In contrast to these countries, we have lists of countries
that are the least corrupt such as Denmark (1), New Zealand (2), Finland (3),
Singapore (3), Sweden (3), Switzerland (3), Norway (7), Netherlands (8), Canda
(9) and Luxemburg (9) (Rubio, 2018). The contrasting pictures of corruption
describe the effectiveness of a certain country in fighting against corruption.
Some countries have not done enough, while other countries have done their best
to reduce corruption.
The Philippines is one of
Asia's countries that has been the centre of discussion when it comes to
corruption. Sometimes it goes down but then it goes up. It goes nowhere, from
one administration to another administration. Corruption stays and it becomes a
regular experience encountered by many people, to the extent that people are
losing hope and trust in the government when it comes to corruption prevention.
The habitual occurrence of corruption can form the mindset of every young child
born in that environment. It can instil in the mind of a young generation that
corrupt practices are an integral part of business transactions to get
things done. Corruption may be
considered a symptomatic sign of moral decay (Ncube, 2017).
However, though
corruption is seen as an ordinary way of life (Ncube, 2017), many people
still consider corruption as an issue to be prevented. It cannot be a way of
life. For many, corruption is not accepted as a good way of life that must be perpetuated
but it must be eradicated because of its ill effect on human life or poverty.
But the question is where do we start to prevent corruption and how are we
going to do it? It is a complex issue that there is no single solution, but we
can learn from countries that are successful in curbing corruption.
People have been living
in a corrupt and the writer believes that a corrupt environment can affect
their attitude toward corruption. Allport (1968) argued that attitude can
affect behavior. Their attitude toward corruption can affect their behaviour
toward corruption. Corrupt attitudes and corrupt values may influence corrupt
behaviour.
Related Literature and Studies
Concept
of Human Attitude
Attitude is an
individual's disposition to react to certain objects, behaviour, person,
institution, event or other discriminable aspects of the individual's world
(Ajzen, 1993). Ajzen contended that there can be a lot of definitions of
attitude from different theorists, however, there is a common agreement among them
that attitude has its evaluative dimension (Bem, 1970, Edwards, 1957, Fishbein
& Ajzen, 1975). In the sense that dimensions of attitude can be measured
and evaluated. Ajzen (1993) recognized that though attitude is inaccessible to
observations because it is within the person’s mind or it is latent, it can
be measured through the reaction or responses of the person toward the object
of the attitude which may be favourable or unfavourable toward the object,
persons, institution, events or situations. There are three categories of
responses or reactions and they are cognitive, affective and conative responses
(Allport, 1954, Hilgard, 1980, Rosenberg & Hovland, 1960). These are
manifestations of salient or latent attitudes which is unobservable (Ajzen,
1993). The cognitive component refers to the beliefs and
thoughts about the subject, the object, the person, the institution, the event,
etc. It is about the perception and information of the person toward the
subject, object or person. The affective component of attitude
is an emotional reaction toward the subject, object or person. It is how one
feels when he/she is confronting the subject, object, the person or the
institution. It is still a psychological reaction which may be a verbal or
nonverbal expression of feelings toward the subject, object, person or institution. Such a reaction may be negative or positive. The conative component of attitude is the effect of the attitudes toward a
behavioural intention or how the attitude affects one’s behaviour. These may
include plans, intentions, and commitments to a planned behaviour. These are the
three components of attitude and therefore, attitude is a multidimensional
construct.
The question can be raised concerning the
origin of attitude: where does it come from? According to Ajzen (1993), a
person develops such an attitude perhaps as a result of watching a television
program or maybe other kind of exposure or experiences. However Abun (2017) went
deeper to answer that question concerning his argument on how to solve an
environmental problem. According to him, environmental problems are a result
of human behaviour and destructive human behaviour originating from the culture
and thus solving the environmental problem is to revisit the culture that has
influenced the mind of people toward the environment. He contends that attitude is originated from
the culture where the person is raised. His argument was based on the ideas of
anthropologists such as Donald (2002), and Hofstede as cited by Brown
(1995). Donald (2002) argued that culture is playing an important role in our
brain functioning and even brain structure. She has pointed out that language
has the biggest impact on brain structure but that culture influences brain
functioning to a great extent as she writes:
The social environment includes many factors
that impinge on development, from bonding and competitive stress to the social
facilitation of learning. These can affect brain functioning in many ways, but
usually, they have no direct influence on functional brain architecture.
However, symbolizing cultures owns a direct path into our brains and affects the
way major parts of the executive brain become wired up during development. This
is the key idea behind the notion of deep enculturation... This process entails
setting up the very complex hierarchies of cognitive demons (automatic
programs) that ultimately establish the possibility of new forms of thought.
Culture effectively wires up functional subsystems in the brain that would not
otherwise exist (Donald, 2002)
The idea of culture and its
effect on brain functioning indicates the power of culture over the formation
of the mind and ideas of people about everything around them (Abun, 2018).
Donald’s View is similar to what Hofstede as cited by Brown (1995) argued
that culture is the collective
programming of the human mind that distinguishes the members of one human group
from those of another. Hofstede pointed out clearly that culture is
reflected in how people think, and how people view things or attitudes. To elaborate
on the idea of Hofstede, Amstrong (1996) contends that there is a relationship
between cultural dimensions and ethical perceptions. In other words, an ethical
attitude is formed by a particular culture. One perceives a certain object,
subject, person or institution to be negative or positive, favourable or not
favourable because he/she has been taught by the culture of a particular society
where he/she is living. What he/she learns from the culture will be his/her
ideas about a certain subject, object event, etc. that he/she will
encounter.
The
Concept of Human Behavior
To understand the root cause of
human behavior, it would be helpful to revisit the idea of William James, a
pragmatist, and a behavioral psychologist, as cited by Lawler (2006). James is
against the idea that all human behaviour is shaped by experience, but it is
shaped by the brain or the mind. Though James recognized that humans are ruled
by their instincts as other animals do, what makes humans behave the way
they do and how they behave the way do is different from animals. James went on
to explain that though humans are animals with the most instincts, they will
never react automatically to the instincts, the way inferior animals do because
humans have the mind or the reason. It is the role of reason. The reason has to
create another impulse to neutralize another impulse.
To complicate further the root
cause of human behaviour, Ridley (2011) turns his attention to the nature versus
nurture debate to bring the first popular account of the root of human behaviour
with this unique question: "What makes us who we are?" This question
is related to the main question of why humans behave the way they do and how
they behave the way they do. The immediate answer to these questions may point
to the very essence of human beings that differentiates it from the animal
which the reason or the mind is. But Nohria, Sandelands, and Lawrence (2003),
instead of pointing at reason or mind as the source of human behaviour, pointed
out four drives or qualities that shape human behaviour. According to her, these
drives or qualities are important to understanding why humans behave the way they
do. These qualities or drives are conflicting, and they do not work
automatically. They force us to make deliberate decisions and choices with a
certain degree of liberty. According to this argument, drives or qualities that
shape our human behaviour are first, drives to gain objects, bodily and emotional
experience, maintain life and improve one's social status concerning
others. Second, the drive to create relations, to belong to a group and to create a
long terms relationships and care for others. Third, drive to gain insight
including understanding one's self and one's surroundings. Fourth drives to
control and defend. These are qualities for us to understand why we behave in a
certain way. In other words, human behaviour is driven by purposes to be
accomplished, not just like other animals.
The later argument brings us to
the theory of planned behaviour of Ajzen (1985, 1987, Ajzen & Madden,
1986). The theory of planned behaviour
(TPB) is an extension of the theory of reasoned action to explain the
relationship between attitudes and behaviour within human action. Reasoned
Action Theory (RAT) argues that the reason for action will predict how an
individual will behave based on their pre-existing attitude and behaviour
intention. The theory argues that an individual will behave based on the expected
outcome the individual expects to achieve as a result of performing such
behaviour (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975, Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). If the RAT
focuses on the reason, while the central attention of the Theory of Planned
Behavior or TPB is the individual's intention to perform a given behaviour.
There are three independent determinants of intention. The first determinant is
the attitude toward the behaviour. At this level, the person who performs certain
behaviour must evaluate if the behaviour in question is favourable or not
favourable. The second determinant is a social factor or subjective norms. At
this level, the person who performs the act must evaluate if society is in
favour or not in favour of such an act or behaviour. The third is the novel
antecedence of intention. This refers to
the perceived ease or difficulty of performing the behaviour and it is assumed
to reflect experience on performing the behaviour and anticipated impediments
and obstacles in performing the behaviour. It suggests that the more favourable
the attitude and subjective norms concerning behaviour, and the greater the
perceived behavioural control, the stronger should be an individual's intention
to perform the behaviour under consideration (Ajzen, 1993).
In short, the theory of planned
behaviour argues that the stronger people's intention to perform a certain
behaviour, or the stronger people's intention to achieve their behavioural goals
the more likely they engage in such behaviour. However, Ajzen (1993) cautions us
that the degree of success does not depend only on intention but some
circumstances may prevent us from realizing the behaviour in consideration and these
may include opportunities and resources such as time, money skills, and other
requirements to perform such behaviour. These factors represent the actual
control over the behaviour. Beyond that, since TPB is concerned with the
perceived behaviour, the particular perceived behaviour may not be carried out
due to lack of information about the behaviour, the requirements have changed
and when other unpredicted elements have entered into the situation.
Attitude is a Key Predictor of Behavior
In psychology, an attitude is defined as a set of emotions, beliefs, and
behaviours toward a particular object, person, thing, or event (Banaji & Heiphetz,
2010). It is a learned tendency to evaluate or
perceive things in a certain way and therefore one can have a positive or
negative evaluation or perception of certain objects, experiences, practices,
etc. The evaluation or perception of a person toward a certain object or
experience is not isolated from experiential exposure. It has been a common
understanding and agreement that attitudes are the result of experience,
upbringing/education and social interactions. Experience upbringing or
education can have a powerful influence over attitudes. However, since attitude
is not independent of environment or experience, thus it is also accepted that
attitudes are dynamic in the sense that it is enduring and the same time can also be changed (Cherry, 2019).
Most of the early research on attitude accepted as a given that
attitude influenced the behaviour. The background of those studies was
influenced by the ideas of early social psychologists that attitude is a key to
understanding human behaviour (Thomas & Znaniecki, 1918, Watson, 1925). This
idea was taken for granted for quite some time until the time that later
studies proved otherwise. Some investigators challenged the earlier assumption
through field studies on the relationship between attitude and behavior and
their studies found that there was no correlation or little correlation between
attitude and behavior. For example, Corey (9137), Freeman & Ataoev, (1960)
as cited by Ajzen (1993) conducted a study on the college students' attitude at
the beginning of the semester and provide multiple opportunities to cheat by
allowing them to score their test. His test found that there was no correlation
between students' attitude and their cheating behaviour (Ajzen, 1993, p.74). Even later studies supported the study of
Corey (1937). For example, Dean (1958) conducted a study on attitude toward
labour unions and participation in labour union meetings, and his study found no
correlation. A similar study was also done by Wicker and Pomazal, (1971) on the
attitude toward participating in a subject in social psychology and actual
participation in a social psychology class. Their studies found no correlation.
The finding of later studies particularly the study of Wicker (1969) seems to discourage the original idea of early social psychologists that attitudes are
the key to predicting behaviour. The results of those studies have questioned the
importance of studying personal disposition and behaviour. By the 1970s most
social psychologists accepted the negative verdict of the relationship between
attitude and behavior. Instead of studying the relationship between attitude
and behaviour, they encouraged the study of social context and norms as a
determinant factor in predicting behaviour or human action (De Fleur &
Westie, 1958, Deutscher, 1969). However, given those negative results, other
social psychologists, particularly Ajzen and Fishbein (1977, 2000,) still
maintain that attitude is still key to predicting behaviour (Allport, 1968).
Allport (1968) still considered attitude to be "the most distinctive and
indispensable concept in contemporary American social psychology" (p.
59). Other social psychologists who were
against the negative findings of early research argued that the inconsistencies
are not with the attitude and behaviour itself, but it may happen because of
many factors such as response biases, the multidimensionality of attitudes, and
moderating variables. In terms of response biases, they argue that there is a
tendency to give socially desirable responses on attitude and personality
inventories and along with this point, they recommended the need to use
attitude measures that are less subject to systematic biases (Ajzen, 1993).
Concerning the multidimensionality of attitudes, they pointed out that most
attitude measurement techniques resulted in a single score representing the
respondent's overall positive or negative reaction to the attitude object.
According to them, focusing on a single dimension did not do justice to the
complexity of the attitude construct (Allport, 1935). Single construct is
against attitude as a multidimensional construct which includes cognition,
affective and conation components (Rosenberg & Hovland, 1960). Lastly, the
inconsistencies are due to moderating variables. They argued that the degree of
attitude-behaviour consistency was assumed to be moderated by factors related to
the person performing the behaviour such as self-awareness, self-efficacy,
self-monitoring, experience, self-confidence, even feeling and lack of
information or knowledge. They also pointed out the situation as moderating
variables such as time pressure or circumstances surrounding the performance of
the behavior (Ajzen, 1993).
The
recent studies conducted by Abun (2018) and Fitzsimmons and Douglas (2005)
confirmed the consistency of attitude and behaviour. Abun (2018) measured the
relationship between environmental attitude and environmental behaviour and the
study found that environmental attitude predicted the environmental behaviour of
the students and employees toward the environment. Further, he also conducted a
study on the entrepreneurial attitude and future intention to establish a
business and the finding also indicated a correlation. The study of Fitzsimmons and Douglas (2005)
also found that entrepreneurial attitudes are significant in explaining career
decisions in the future and their intention to go into business.
Corruption
in the Philippines
Corruption
is using an official position to take something which is not yours. Merriam-Webster defines it as "dishonest or illegal behaviour, especially by
powerful people such as government officials or police officers. It is an “inducement
to wrong by improper or unlawful means such as bribery”. transparency
International (n.d) defines it as “the abuse of entrusted power for private gain”.
While the Anti-Corruption Resource Center (n.d) defines corruption as “the
abuse of entrusted power for private gain”. From these three definitions, there is a common
definition of corruption which is an abuse of power by the officials or those
in the position for private gain.
Corruption as an
abuse of power can be in different forms such as bribery, cronyism, extortion,
nepotism, patronage, influence peddling, graft, and embezzlement. To offer us a
clear understanding of what we discuss in this paper, we need to understand the
meaning of each form of corruption. There can be a lot of definitions from
different sources on the forms of corruption but mostly the definitions are
similar to each other and with the same substance. Transparency International
(n.d) defines bribery as the offering, promising, giving, accepting or
soliciting of an advantage as an inducement for an action which is illegal,
unethical or a breach of trust. Inducements can take the form of money, gifts,
loans, fees, rewards or other advantages. This definition includes the
active and passive understanding of bribery. Active bribery occurs when a person
promises, offers and gives a bribe but when a person requests, receives and
accepts the bribe is called passive bribery (Transparency International, n.d).
Cronyism is defined as "giving the job to friends rather than to
independent people who have the necessary skills and experience” (Cambridge
Dictionary, n.d), or "partiality to cronies in the appointment of
political hangers-on to the office without regard to their qualifications"
(Merriam Webster). Extortion is defined
by Legal Dictionary (n.d) as, "obtaining of property from another induced
by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear or under colour
of official right". Nepotism is defined as “the practice of a person
in power giving good positions and opportunities to relatives" (Legal
Dictionary, n.d). Patronage is understood as the "practice observed by
the political official of filling government positions with qualified employees
of his own choosing” (Legal Dictionary, n.d). Influence peddling is understood
as “the
practice of using money, wealth, personal undertaking, or gifts to purchase a
favourable outcome or decision from an official, government officeholder, or
public authority” (Shantz, 2012). Graft means the obtaining of money through the dishonest
use of power and influence" (Cambridge Dictionary, n.d). Lastly,
embezzlement is "illegally taking money that is in your care or that
belongs to an organization or business you work for" (Cambridge
Dictionary, n.d).
These forms of
corruption are all found in the Philippines in many areas of government
services such as the judicial system, police, public service, land administration,
tax administration, customs administration, public procurement, and natural
resources are affected by corruption (GAN, n.d). Though the judiciary is
considered to be independent, the reality is that its independence is only
related to its relationship with the executive branch in which the executive
branch of government must respect their independence in terms of decision-making and the direction of its office and cannot be forced or influenced
from the executive branch of government. It is expected to be fair in the legal
process and deliver justice to all. But it cannot be denied by the fact that
they can be bribed or influenced by the rich and the powerful individual in
their decision-making. Decisions are often influenced by powerful individuals,
money, nepotism, and favouritism (GAN, n.d). This is the reason why Associate Justice Marvice Leonen as cited by Buan (2018) argued that corruption weakens
judicial independence far more than political interference. It is not the
interference from the executive branch of government that matters to the
judiciary but it is corruption. Along with the judiciary are the police, and the law
enforcers. It is regarded as one of the most corrupt institutions in the
country (Morella & France-Presse, 2017). Besides the police force, other government
offices are also tainted by corruption. According to the SWS (2016) survey three (3) out of five (5) businesses have bribed someone in the government to
get things done. Ombudsman Office Survey (2014) detailed government services
that are bribed by families related to services: availing of social services,
payment of taxes and duties, access to justice, securing registry documents and
licenses and other services. Corruption is also rampant in the Land
Administration. Reportedly two (2) out of five (5) companies bribed the
officials to obtain construction permits (GAN, n.d). BIR is also not on the
list. This is one of the government agencies that have been bombarded by
accusations of corruption. Based on the survey as cited by GAN (n.d) one
out of seven companies have bribed tax officials. It is also supported by SWS
(2016) survey that “only a fifth of businesses in their line of business pay
their taxes honestly” and thus majority are not paying their taxes correctly.
Commonly, business practitioners encounter difficulties when dealing with the
Bureau of Customs. The problem of bureaucracy makes it easy for corruption. GETR
(2016) reported that business bribe is a common practice at the Bureau of
Customs and they even pointed out that import procedures are very problematic,
and this is the corrupt area. Public Procurement is also not left behind in
terms of corruption. According to the SWS (2016) survey as cited by GAN (n.d), a fifth of businesses have bribed officials to win government
contracts. Though the government has shown improvement in natural
resources governance, however, it is still pointed out that government
corruption allowed the mining companies to evade government regulations.
The data cited above
indicate that corruption has emerged in different government services, not only
on the national level but even at different levels of government offices. It is
common knowledge. It cannot be denied that such an environment has formed the
perception of young people about the corruption level of the country. Though
the government has tried its best to reduce corruption, however, people still
perceive the government as corrupt. Latest Transparency International (2018) has
ranked the Philippines 99 out of 180 countries as the most corrupt. Though there
is a slight improvement in the rating compared to the year 2017, in general,
its record has not significantly improved if it is compared from 2012 up to
2018. If one looks back from 2012 up to the present, a significant improvement
was made in 2014 under Aquino's administration when the Philippines was ranked
85 with a score of 38. There was a steady improvement from 105 (2012), then 94
(2013), and 85 (2014). Sadly, toward the end of Aquino’s term, it went up to 95
in 2015, then up to 101 again in 2016, and continues to go up to 111 in 2017 and
down to 99 in 2018 (Bueza, 2019). With such kind of movement which is up and
down indicates that corruption does not go away from the Philippines in time
soon, and this situation has influenced the young people and at the same time,
it may have formed ideas that corruption is part of the culture of a society or
it is a way of life.
Filipinos’
Attitude Toward Corruption
Corruption has been part of everyday life in the
Philippines because newspapers and television almost always report corruption incidents. Being bombarded by issues of corruption, if not daily but
weekly or monthly, people can form a certain attitude toward corruption.
Mangahas (2018) released a comparative survey among Asian countries and America
on the attitude toward the government. One of the questions in such a survey
was about Filipinos' perception of corruption in government. One of the findings of the study was that
seven out of ten Filipinos and South Koreans believed that there are
"quite a lot" or "almost all" politicians involved in
corruption. While Thais, Taiwanese, and Americans are only four out of ten
believe that politicians are involved in corruption. Because of its persistent
presence in society, people have considered it as part of the culture or part
of life and it will be very difficult to remove. It is embedded in the system and
reinforced by economic and social inequalities (FilipiKnow, n.d). To this point, it forms the mind of the young
Filipinos that corruption is a culture and a lifestyle (Youngster Online, 2014).
People's frustration on corruption prevalence has formed their perception
toward politics and government that both are corrupt (Philstar Global, 2008). It
is already an endemic problem because it has become the rule, not the
exception, as part of a business transaction (Philstar Global, 2009). It is a
practice and part of the culture of the society. The root causes are the structure of society
in which the majority of Filipinos or around 80% are poor and only 20% are rich
but unfortunately, the 80% have no voice in decision-making but only 20%. They
have no voice to contribute to decisions that affect their life (Robredillo,
2017). Besides social structure is also self-aggrandizement in which
people have the mindset that being in the government is for power, wealth and
social status. Because of such a mindset, those who occupy the position,
instead of using it for service, self-aggrandizement. Consequently,
such kind of mindset results in using their position to accumulate personal wealth
and using public money as his own money. Contributing to such causes is also a
weak justice system in the sense that those who have money or the rich can get away
with it.
Stories of corruption
are not only happening in the national government but it is also in the local
government. SWS (2012) survey as quoted by ABS CBN (2012) indicated
that 68 % of Filipinos believed that their city or municipal governments are
corrupt. It seems that corruption is not going down but it is going higher as
indicated by the same survey that a year before (2011) that 64 % and 58% (2009)
Filipinos believed that their city or municipal governments are corrupt. Specifically,
the budget office (48%), the Mayor’s office (32%) and the City Engineer’s Office (30%)
were considered to be the most corrupt. The spread of corruption to the local
level has developed an understanding that corruption is something
"normal" or part of the organizational process (Gault, 2016).
Youth’s
Attitude toward corruption and intention to corrupt
There
have been studies conducted in line with the attitude of the youth or students
toward corruption. Society’s practice affects the perception of the youth
toward corruption and their intention to corrupt in the future. Barr, and Serra (2010) conducted a study among undergraduate students in
the UK on the effect of prevailing social norms and values in society and their
decisions to corrupt in the future. The respondents were mixed from different
countries. One of the values that were investigated is bribery and it was found
that these students would act corruptly in the future in their home country. This
finding suggests that when the youth is raised in a corrupt environment will
also corrupt in the future. It is also confirmed by the study of Salmon and
Serra (2017) among Americans characterized by cultural heterogeneity due to the
immigration of their parents. The study found that the corruption tendency is
reduced among individuals who identify culturally with countries characterized by low
levels of corruption. In other words, when one is raised or associated with
corrupt countries, then the tendency to corrupt is higher compared to those who
are raised in a less corrupt country. In other words, experience on corrupt
practices affect the attitude of a person toward corruption and potentiality to
corrupt in the future (ShengLee
&Guven,
2013) This is to say that corrupt environment
affects their values or beliefs and such beliefs become predictor either to be
corrupt or not corrupt in the future as Berninghaus, et al. (2013) found that risk
attitude and beliefs and corruption and the study found that beliefs
appeared to be a better predictor of whether or not they would opt for the
corrupt alternative in the future.
A
national survey on the attitude of youths toward corruption in Cambodia and how
they value integrity revealed a striking result. Though the youth believed that
integrity is vital to society and the only way to prevent corruption but sadly
they are still willing to sacrifice integrity to benefit themselves, their
friends and their family. This attitude is a result of their direct experience
of corruption because most of the youth have experienced practicing corruption.
Though they have the desire to combat corruption, their desire or good
intention is sacrificed for the sake of themselves, family and friends
(Transparency International Cambodia, 2015). The Transparency International
Cambodia revealed that 60 percent of youths are willing to pay a kickback of
10-20 percent of their future salary to a person who can secure them a job and half
of those surveyed believe it is acceptable to give an unofficial payment to a
doctor or nurse to receive better medical treatment. Further, it is also found
that 31 per cent agree that it is acceptable to gain entrance to a good school
or get hired by a good company with the help of a relative rather than going
through official selection procedures and 24 per cent of those surveyed think it
is acceptable to give an additional payment to a public official to
hasten vehicle registration. A similar study in Vietnam conducted by
Transparency International (2011) revealed that though the Vietnamese youth
have a clear sense of right and wrong, they are unlikely to resist corruption and
are willing to participate in it. Though they believe in integrity and the
negative effects of corruption, they are ready to compromise their values when
faced with corruption. The study revealed further that 35 per cent will bribe when it is
financially advantageous, will solve a problem or when the bribe is small, 45 per cent consider it acceptable to bribe their way to better hospital treatment
and lastly, 38 per cent are ready to pay a bribe to get into a good school or
company. The corrupt environment has affected the mindset of the youth and this
is also true for the Mongolian youth. The Asia Foundation (2016) in its annual
survey on Perception and Knowledge of Corruption indicated that zero tolerance
for corruption is less common to young people compared to older people. The
survey pointed out that it is only 28 percent of the Mongolian youth will not
bribe but the rest are willing to pay a bribe.
Conclusion
Though solving corruption is a complex issue, however, based on the theory of attitude and behaviour of Allport (1968), and Ajzen (1993), one of the solutions to prevent corruption is to fix the attitude and the values of the youth. Values education can be a very important tool to restore values of honesty, love, integrity and holiness.
References
ABS
CBN News (2012). More Filipinos See Corruption in the Local Government.
Retrieved from https://news.abs-cbn.com
Abun, D. (2018). Environmental Attitude and
Environmental Behavior of Catholic Colleges' Employees in Region I,
Philippines. Texila International Journal of Academic Research, Vol. 4, Issue
1, June 2018.
Ajzen, I., & Fishebin, M. (1980).
Understanding attitude and predicting social behavior. Englewood-Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall
Ajzen, I. (1993). New Directions in Attitude
Measurement. New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Ajzen, I. (1985). From Intention to Action: A
Theory of Planned Behavior. In Kuhl, J., Beckmann, J., (Eds). Action Control:
From Cognition to Behavior. Heidelberg: Springer.
Ajzen, I. (1987). Attitudes, Trait, and Action:
Dispositional Prediction of behavior in Personality and Social Psychology. In
Berkowitz, L. (Ed.). Advances in Experiential Social Psychology, Vol. 20, pp.
1-63. New York: Academic Press
Ajzen, I., &
Fishbein, M. (2015). The Influence of Attitude on Behavior. University of
Pennsylvania: Annenberg School for Communication.
Allport, G.W. (1935). Attitudes. In C. Murchison
(Ed). Handbook of Social Psychology. Worcester, MA: Clark University Press
Allport, G.W. (1968). The Historical Background of
Modern Social Psychology. In G. Lindsay and E. Aronson (Eds.). Handbook of
Social Psychology. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Allport, G.W. (1954). The Historical Background of
Modern Social Psychology. In Lindsay, G. (Ed.). Handbook of Social Psychology,
Vol. 1, pp. 3-56. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Amstrong, W. R. (1996). The Relationship
between Culture and Perception of Ethical Problems in International Marketing,
Journal of Business Ethics, Volume: 15, Issue: 11, Pages: 1199-1208
Ariola, M.M. (2006). Principles and Methods of
Research. Manila: National Bookstore
Banaji, M.R. & Heiphetz, L. (2010). Attitudes.
In S.T. Fiske, D.T. Gilbert & G. Lindzey (Eds). Handbook of Social
Psychology (5th ed, Vol. 1, pp. 353-393. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley
& Sons
Barr, A.
& Serra, D. (2010). Corruption and culture: An experimental analysis. Journal of Public Economics, Volume 94, Issues 11–12, December
2010, Pages 862-869
Bem, D.J. (1970). Beliefs, Attitudes and Human
Affairs. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Berninghaus, S.K., Haller, S., Krüger, T.Neumann, T, Schosser, S., & Vogt, B. (2013). Risk attitude, beliefs, and information in a Corruption Game – An experimental analysis. Journal of Economic Psychology, Volume 34, February 2013, Pages 46-60
Brioschi, C., &
Shugaar, A. (2017). THE GIFT IN ANTIQUITY. In Corruption: A Short
History (pp. 21-28). Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org
Brown, A. (1995). Organizational Culture. London:
Pitman Publishing.
Buan,
L. (2018). Leonen Urges More Scrutiny of Corruption in the Judiciary. Rappler.
Retrieved from https://www.rappler.com
Bueza,
M. (2019). The Philippines Slightly Improve in 2018 Global Corruption Index.
Rappler. Retrieved from https://www.rappler.com
Corey, S. M. (1937). Professed attitudes and actual
behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology, 28(4), 271-280.
Dean, L. (1958). Interaction,
Reported and Observed: The Case of One Local Union. Human Organization, Vol.17,
Issue 3, pp. 36-44, 1958.
Donald, M.
(2002). A Mind So
Rare: The Evolution of Human Consciousness. New York: W.W. Norton &
Company, Inc.
Edwards, A.L. (1957). The technique of Attitude
Scale Construction. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
El-Saady, H. (1998). Considerations on Bribery in Ancient Egypt. JSTOR. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org
Filipiknow
(n.d). 12 Annoying Attitude of Filipinos We Need to Get Rid Of. Retrieved from https://filipiknow.net
Fishbein, M., &
Ajzen, I. (1975). Beliefs, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction
to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Fitzsimmons, J.R.,
Douglas, E.J. (2005), “Entrepreneurial Attitudes and Entrepreneurial
Intentions:
A Cross-Cultural Study of Potential Entrepreneurs in India, China, Thailand And
Australia”,
Babson-Kauffman Entrepreneurial Research Conference, Wellesley, MA. June
2005
GAN: Business Anti-Corruption Portal
(n.d). The Philippine Corruption Report. Retrieved from https://www.ganintegrity.com
Gault,
D.A. (2016). Corruption as an organizational process: Understanding the logic of the denormalization
of corruption. Contaduría y Administración, Volume 62, Issue 3, July–September 2017, Pages 827-842
Gbadamosi, G. & Bello, M (2009).
'The King's new clothes in the eyes of the beholder: developing a measurement
scale for attitude towards corruption' in Kaynak, E. & Harcar, T.D. (eds.)
Management challenges in an environment of increasing regional and global
concerns, 2009 Proceedings of the 18th World Business Congress, (IMDA), 1 – 5
July 2009, Tbilisi, Georgia, pp. 73-78, ISBN: 1-888624-08-6
Hays,
J. (2015). Corruption in the Philippines. Facts and Details. Retrieved from http://factsanddetails.com
Hilgard, E.R. (1980).
The trilogy of mind: Cognition, affection, and conation. Journal of the History
of the Behavioral Sciences, 16, pp. 107-117.
Lawrence, P. & Nohria, N. (2002). Driven: How
Human Nature Shape Our Choices. New York: Jossey-Bass[WU1] . [WU2]
Lawler, M.S. (2006). William
James's psychological pragmatism: habit, belief and purposive human behavior. Cambridge Journal of Economics, Vol. 30, No. 3 (May 2006), pp. 321-345
Mangahas,
M. (2018). Attitude toward Government. Inquirer.net. Retrieved from https://opinion.inquirer.net
Morella,
C., & France-Presse, A. (2017). Long History of Corruption in the
Philippine Police Force. ABS CBN. Retrieved from https://news.abs-cbn.com
Ncube, V. (2017). When
Corruption Becomes a Way of Life, and What to Do About It? International
Federation of Accountants. Retrieved from https://www.ifac.org
Nohria, N., Sandelands, L.,
& Lawrence, P.R. (2006). Driven: Human Nature Shapes Our Choices.
Administrative Science Quarterly. Vol. 48, Issue 3.
Office
of the Ombudsman (2014). Household Survey on Experience with Corruption in the
Philippines. Research and Special Studies Bureau, 2014. Retrieved from http://www.ombudsman.gov.ph
One World, Nations Online
(n.d). Kitchen God. Retrieved from https://www.nationsonline.org
Philstar
Global (2009). Why Does Corruption Seem Endemic to the Political Setting in the
Philippines? Retrieved from https://www.philstar.com
Philstar Global (2008). How Would You Describe Your
Attitude towards Philippines Politic and Goings on in Government? Retrieved from
https://www.philstar.com
Robredillo,L.C. (2017). Understanding Corruption
in the Philippines. ESTE NEWS. Retrieved from http://estenews.org
Rubio, D.F. (2018). Corruption
Perception Index 2018. Transparency International. Retrieved from https://www.transparency.org
Salmon,
T.C. & Serra, D. (2017). Corruption, Social Judgment and Culture: An
Experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Volume 142, October 2017, Pages 64-78
Shantz, J. (2012). Political
Influence Peddling. Sage Knowledge. Retrieved from http://sk.sagepub.com
ShengLee, W. & Guven, C. (2013) Engaging in corruption: The influence of cultural values and contagion effects at the micro level, Journal of Economic Psychology, Volume 39, December 2013, Pages 287-300
Social
Weather Stations (2016). The 13th SWS Survey of Enterprises on
Corruption: Marked Improvement in the Fight Against Corruption in the Last Six
Years, but 2016 Survey Shows Some Backsliding. Retrieved from https://www.sws.org.ph
Tanzi, V. (2002). Corruption Around the World: Causes, Consequences, Scope, and Cures, in G. T. Abed and S. Gupta (Eds.). Governance, Corruption, and Economic Performance. Washington: International Monetary Fund: 19-58.
The Asia Foundation (2016). Survey on
Perception and Knowledge of Corruption (SPEAK VII). Retrieved from https://asiafoundation.org
Thomas, W.I., & Znaniecki, F. (1918). The
Polish Peasant in Europe and America (vol. 1). Boston: Badger.
Transparency
International (2011). Corruption in Vietnam: What Do Young People Think?
Retrieved from https://www.transparency.org
\Transparency International Cambodia
(2015). A National Survey on Youth Perceptions of Corruption and Integrity in
Cambodia. Retrieved from https://www.transparency.org
Transparency
International (n.d). What is Corruption? Retrieved from https://www.transparency.org
Wasow, B. (2011). A Brief History of
Corruption. The Globalist: Rethinking Globalization. Retrieved from https://www.theglobalist.com
Watson, J.B. (1925). Behaviourism. New York:
Norton.
World Economic Forum
(2019). These are the World’s Least-and Most Corrupt Countries. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org
Youngster Online (2014). The Culture
of Corruption Filipino Style. Retrieved from http://ssp.ph/youngster
No comments:
Post a Comment