Sunday, March 26, 2000		Article

Anatomy of corruption

Something seems to have gone terribly wrong with the system, says S. L. Sharma and, therefore, corruption has become so pervasive. This systemic wrong is located in the prevailing paradigm of development which is viewed as faulty because of its lopsided stress on economism with little regard for culture, on material prosperity to the neglect of morality, and on individualism at the expense of holism.

DERIVED etymologically from the Latin verb ‘rumpere’ meaning "to break", the term ‘corruption’ connotes different things to different people. However, three broad usages of it can be distinguished: moralistic, official and monopolistic. At the broadest level, there is the moralistic usage which views corruption as a morally improper conduct, or as deviance from a moral norm. In this usage, the term corruption encompasses all kinds of violations of moral standards, including social and sexual, apart from administrative and political. Next, there is the official usage of corruption which implies misuse of public office for private gain. This focuses mainly on the violations of official ethic, i.e., administrative and political code. The third usage is monopoly-centred. According to Klitgaard, for example, corruption equals monopoly plus discretion minus accountability. Stated in a synoptive form, it is put as follows: C=M+D-A. Thus, corruption arises when someone has monopoly over a good or service, has the discretion to decide whether or not you receive it and is not accountable. The emphasis in this conception is obviously more on the practice of corruption in the private sector.

Corruption manifests itself in various forms; it could be misappropriative, rule-violative and oppressive. Misappropriate corruption refers to misappropriation of official facilities such as official car, telephone, etc, or official funds resulting in fraud or embezzlement. Unlike misappropriative corrupt which involves a single party, i.e., a corrupt official, rule-violative corruption requires at least two parties, the corrupter and the corruptee. Bribery is a classic example of it. In this form of corruption, a rule is violated or discretion is misused always for a consideration. The consideration may be of financial gain or material gift or any other kind of favour, including sexual. Nepotism and influence peddling are some other instances of it. While rule-violative corruption involves a willing ransaction on the part of both the parties, oppressive type of corruption implies unwilling submission by the other party. There is an element of coercion in it. Extortion is a telling illustration of it.

Two broad explanatory perspectives can be distinguished on the causes of corruption, one of them locates corruption in the failure of character of the corrupt individual in question. It is attributed to his personal pathology, his faulty socialisation, his personal compulsion or some weakness of his personality or character. Such an explanation carried conviction when the incidence of corruption was few and far between and its practice was confined to a few individuals. But when corruption has become so rampant and wide-spread as today, the characterological explanation holds no good. Hence the relevance of the other explanatory perspective which attributes it to the failure of the system. Something seems to have gone terribly wrong with the system which is why corruption has become so pervasive. This systemic wrong is located in the prevailing paradigm of development which is viewed as faulty because of its lopsided stress on economism with little regard for culture, on material prosperity to the neglect of morality, and on individualism at the expense of holism. The prevailing craze for the culture of consumerism, coupled with a decline of moral and social values and the disconcerting trend of loss of fear of law provide a conducive climate for the growth of corruption.

At this point it will be pertinent to ask under what conditions corruption tends to thrive? It flourishes under conditions of scarcity and shortage of goods and services; heavy regulation, red-tape and procedural delay; lack of transparency and accountability; cushions of safety and absence of the fear of law; low and inadequate salaries; advertent or inadvertent violations of rules; and above all, culture of greed and consumerism. Some analysts have sought to link corruption to democracy. That is not a tenable proposition in the light of available evidence. First, because the totalitarian nations have not been corruption-free. The fact is that there was as much corruption, if not more, in the erstwhile socialist Soviet Union as anywhere else. It is though a different matter that it remained concealed because of the secretive character of the totalitarian nations. Second, because the countries which have figured among the corruption-free countries in report of the Transparency International are well-known democracies of the world.

Whatever its causes, it has grave subverting effects on the system. It undermines the rules of the game, breeds injustice and discriminates against the poor, disrupts public services and endangers public health and safety; demoralises common men and erodes public trust in government, reflects poor governance and poses a threat to democracy; deters investment and impedes development; pulls down national image in the international set-up; exerts depraving effects on the practitioners and their families; and to cap it all, it sounds a death-knell to civil society.

Thus, in its consequences, it is a kin to the cancer of the body social. Like cancer, it eats into the very core of public morality and social health. Like cancer, it appears to be incurable and holds a bleak future scenario. Accordingly, there prevails a feeling that no matter what we do, it has become so pervasive and deeply entrenched that it cannot be contained. We have to live and die with it. This is a cynical position, having no rational basis, as there arecountries like Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Canada among others which have effectively minimised it to a negligible point.

Four major remedial positions have appeared so far, moralists, statist, libertarian, and voluntarist. Attributing the rise of corruption to the decadence of values, the moralists propose the remedy in terms of restoration of value of probity and integrity in public life. To attain this end, they stress the need for value training in responsible parenting, value planning in education, and animated value reform campaigns.

The "statists" bank heavily on the legal, administrative and political measures. On the legal front, they recommend strict anti-corruption legislation, its effective implementation with emphasis on exemplary punishment to the high and the mighty, and strengthening of the vigilance system.

On the administrative front, they plead for administrative reforms, rationalisation of rules and procedures, identifying the key areas in the administration associated with corruption such as "purchases" and "services", "subsidies and grants" etc., building transparency and accountability in administration together with people’s right to information, fixing time limits for disposal of cases and providing for incentive pay structure for civil servants. On the political front, they emphasise the urgency of electoral reforms, restrictions on politicians’ power to resort to unsystematic transfers, and above all, the much-needed political will.

Treating over-regulation by the state as a main source of corruption, the libertarians advocate the case of deregulation and liberalisation of economy as a prime strategy of combating corruption. The charge of over-regulation seems convincing in the light of some startling facts brought out by the earlier referred Mahbub-ul Haq report. According to this report as many as 47 approvals are required to construct a building in Mumbai and small-scale entrepreneurs have to deal with 36 different inspectors each month. All this tends to breed corruption.

Accordingly, the libertarians’ solution is to "role back the state". In their view, that state is the best which governs the least. Free market should appropriate the space vacated by the state. Market morality, with the attributes of reputation, creditworthiness and brand equity, will automatically take care of corruption, they maintain. The problem with this approach, however, is its failure to recognise that market, with its logic of profit maximisation, has its inherent limits to serve as an agency of social safety net for the poor as well as for the agenda of socio-economic equity for which state is needed.

Disappointed with both the state and market, the voluntarists bank on the "third sector", i.e. non-governmental organisations in eliminating corruption. They maintain that neither the state nor the market is interested in eradicating corruption, as it suits both of them in different ways. What is, therefore, needed is strengthening of the civil society through its major agency of voluntary groups. If people begin to stage demonstration in front of the offices and the residences of the corrupt politicians and officials, it will have a magical effect.

This will also help the state to clean up its act. The experience of the corruption-free countries reveals a linkage between the rise of civil society and decline of corruption.