Political corruption

This article needs a complete rewrite for the reasons listed on the talk page.

This article is about political corruption. For other uses, see Corruption (disambiguation)

In broad terms, political corruption is the misuse of public (governmental) power for illegitimate, usually secret, private advantage.

All forms of government are susceptible to political corruption. Forms of corruption vary, but the most common are patronage, bribery, extortion, influence peddling, fraud, embezzlement, and nepotism. While corruption often facilitates criminal enterprise such as drug trafficking, money laundering, and criminal prostitution, it is not restricted to these organized crime activities, and it does not always support or shield other crimes.

What constitutes corruption differs depending on the country or jurisdiction. Certain political funding practices that are legal in one place may be illegal in another. In some countries, police and prosecutors have broad discretion over who to arrest and charge, and the line between discretion and corruption can be difficult to draw, as in racial profiling. In countries with strong interest group politics, practices that could easily constitute corruption elsewhere are sometimes sanctified as official group preferences.

Effects

Effects on politics, administration, and institutions

Corruption poses a serious development challenge. In the political realm, it undermines democracy and good governance by flouting or even subverting formal processes. Corruption in elections and in legislative bodies reduces accountability and distorts representation in policymaking; corruption in the judiciary compromises the rule of law; and corruption in public administration results in the unfair provision of services. More generally, corruption erodes the institutional capacity of government as procedures are disregarded, resources are siphoned off, and public offices are bought and sold. At the same time, corruption undermines the legitimacy of government and such democratic values as trust and tolerance. See also: Good governance

Economic effects

Corruption also undermines economic development by generating considerable distortions and inefficiency. In the private sector, 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. Where corruption inflates the cost of business, it also distorts the playing field, shielding firms with connections from competition and thereby sustaining inefficient firms.

Corruption also generates economic distortions in the 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.

Economists argue that one of the factors behind the differing economic development in Africa and Asia is that in the former, corruption has primarily taken the form of rent extraction with the resulting financial capital moved overseas rather invested at home (hence the stereotypical, but sadly often accurate, image of African dictators having Swiss bank accounts). Corrupt administrations in Asia like Suharto's have often taken a cut on everything (requiring bribes), but otherwise provided more of the conditions for development, through infrastructure investment, law and order, etc. University of Massachusetts researchers estimated that from 1970 to 1996, capital flight from 30 sub-Saharan countries totalled $187bn, exceeding those nations' external debts.[1] (The results, expressed in retarded or suppressed development, have been modelled in theory by economist Mancur Olson.) In the case of Africa, one of the factors for this behaviour was political instability, and the fact that new governments often confiscated previous government's corruptly-obtained assets. This encouraged officials to stash their wealth abroad, out of reach of any future expropriation.

Types of abuse

Bribery: Bribe-takers and bribe-givers

It takes two to create corruption: giving and taking bribes. In some countries the culture of corruption extends to every aspect of public life, making it extremely difficult to stay in business without resorting to bribes.

Graft

Graft is the act of a politician personally benefitting from public funds in a way other than prescribed by law. Graft is comparable to insider trading in business. New York's Senator George Washington Plunkitt once famously claimed that there was a difference between "honest" and "dishonest" graft. The classical example of graft is a politician using his knowledge of zoning and decision making to purchase land which he knows his political organization is interested in developing on, and then selling it at a significant profit to that organization. Large gifts from parties within the government also qualify as graft, and most countries have laws against it. (For example, any gift over $200 value made to the President of the United States is considered to be a gift to the Office of the Presidency and not to the President himself. The outgoing President must buy it if he wants to take it with him.)

Campaign contributions and soft money

In the political arena, it is difficult to prove corruption, but impossible to prove its absence. For this reason, there are often rumors about many politicians.

Politicians are placed in apparently compromising positions because of their need to solicit financial contributions for their campaigns. Often, they then appear to be acting in the interests of those parties that fund them, giving rise to talk of political corruption.

Supporters of politicians assert that it is entirely coincidental that many politicians appear to be acting in the interests of those who fund them. Cynics wonder why these organizations fund politicians at all, if they get nothing for their money. It should be noted that in the United States, firms, especially large ones, often fund both the Democratic and Republican parties, though most of them favor one party over the other.

Because of the implications of corporations funding politicians, such as the perceived threat that these corporations are simply buying the votes of elected officials, certain countries, such as France, ban altogether the corporate funding of political parties. Because of the possible circumvention of this ban with respect to the funding of political campaigns, France also imposes maximum spending caps on campaigning; candidates that have exceeded those limits, or that have handed misleading accounting reports, risk having their candidacy ruled invalid, or even be prevented from running in future elections. In addition, the government funds political parties according to their successes in elections. In some countries, political parties are run solely off subscriptions (membership fees).

Even legal measures such as these have been argued to be legalised corruption, in that they often favor the political status quo. Minor parties and independents often argue that efforts to rein in the influence of contributions do little more than protect the major parties with guaranteed public funding while constraining the possibility of private funding by outsiders. In these instances, officials are legally taking money from the public coffers for their election campaigns to guarantee that they will continue to hold their well-paid and influenctial positions.

Conditions favorable for corruption

Adverse government structures
- Concentration of power in decision makers who are not practically accountable to the people.
- Democracy absent or dysfunctional. See illiberal democracy.
Information deficits
- Lack of government transparency (Freedom of information) in decision making.
- Contempt for or negligence of exercising freedom of speech or freedom of the press.
- Weak accountability and lack of timely financial management.
Opportunities and incentives
- Large investments of public capital.
- Poorly-paid government officials.
Social conditions
- Self-interested closed cliques and "old-boy" networks.
- Illiterate, apathetic or ignorant populace, with inadequate public discernment of political choices. See bounded rationality and rational ignorance.
Deficits of law
- Weak rule of law.
- Weak legal profession.
Imperfect electoral processes
- Costly political campaigns, with expenses exceeding normal sources of political funding.
- Absence of adequate controls to prevent bribery or "campaign donations".

Measuring corruption

Measuring corruption - in the statistical sense - is naturally not a straight-forward matter, since the participants are generally not forthcoming about it. Transparency International, the leading anti-corruption NGO, provides three measures, updated annually: a Corruption Perceptions Index (based on experts' opinions of how corrupt different countries are); a Global Corruption Barometer (based on a survey of general public attitudes toward and experience of corruption); and a Bribe Payers Survey, looking at the willingness of foreign firms to pay bribes. Transparency International also publishes the Global Corruption Report. The World Bank collects a range of data on corruption, including a set of Governance Indicators.

Transparency International has performed perception surveys from time to time. The 10 least corrupt countries, according to one conducted in 2005, are (in alphabetical order): Australia, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, Sweden, and Switzerland

According to the same survey, the 9 most corrupt countries are (in alphabetical order): Angola, Bangladesh, Chad, Cote d'Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Haiti, Myanmar, Nigeria, and Turkmenistan

However, the value of that survey is disputed, as it is based on subjective perceptions. Sophisticated technology may be available to those countries considered by the public as "least corrupt" to conceal corruption from public view or disguise it as legitimate dealings.

According to the perception survey Mississippi, North Dakota and Louisiana are the three most corrupt states. New Hampshire, Oregon and Nebraska have the least amount of corruption. The largest states, California and Texas, are ranked in the middle, California ranking 25th and Texas in 29th.

==See also==

Forms or aspects of corruption

Good governance

Theoretical aspects

Anti-corruption authorities and measures

Examples of Corruption

Corruption in fiction

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939)
Henry Adams's novel Democracy (1880)
Carl Hiaasen's novel Sick Puppy (1999)
Christopher Largen's novel JUNK (2005)

References

Axel Dreher, Christos Kotsogiannis, Steve McCorriston (2004), Corruption Around the World: Evidence from a Structural Model.

External links

Police Crimes