I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that many first world
governments are at all-time highs in terms of corruption. Income disparity in
first world countries is rising, and many of the laws being passed by
government only serve the interests of the few wealthy people, not the common
good that is the purpose of government. When corruption is apparent at the
highest levels of public servants, what is needed is clarification of existing
laws, and reworking of what is considered bribery.
To get a better handle on what is considered bribery, the most
succinct and easiest to understand definition I find useful to work with is “a
person using public resources for private gain”. Often this takes the form of a
public official (who have access to public resources) accepting a bribe in
order to give priority to access to those public resources. The bribe may could
come from an individual, a company, or any other organization, basically any
other person who can benefit from the favor. These sorts of relationships are
rampant in first world countries such as Canada and the United States, and I
will be focusing on these countries in particular in my discussion.
For example, recently in the United States a bill was voted
down to import cheaper drugs from Canada, while the vast majority of voters
supported the motion. Clearly when senators are voting against the will of the people
who voted them in, there is something else going on in the background. Monster
pharmaceutical companies seemed to have played some part in this, as they had
the most to lose by the legislation to reduce drug costs.
In this essay I want to focus on real practical ways that
first world governments could push in to place to reduce corruption in the
entire structure. In theory, at least everyone regardless of their political
alignment and affiliation can agree that reducing corruption is a good thing,
since there seems to be convincing proof when you make a critical examination
of corrupt goings on.
According to the United Nations Bureau for Policy and
Programme Support, the first step in recovery from corruption lies in
identifying where corruption is costing the most economically. This could be in
terms of actual dollars that have fallen in to the hole of corruption, or can
be more subtle such as wasted labor. That seems like it could be difficult to
measure. Luckily they have formulated a list of suggestions based on past
corruption case studies. Here are some starting points:
- Tax and customs revenues may be far below the levels needed to carry out basic government services, such as adequate payment of public servants
- Eliminate pointless business regulations that generate bribes along with ineffective regulation in socially beneficial programs
- Massive infrastructure projects encourage inefficiency, and so need constant streamlining and improvement of procedures for project approval
- Lack of credible institutions that may be helpful in finding out complaints and enforcing the law
United States Budget (2015) vs. Canadian Budget (2013/14)
It’s always dramatic to see the United States spending pie,
as it quite clearly indicates, if nothing else, a lack of balance. A 6% budget on Government spending does seem
small, and while we would need more discrete numbers to make any sort of
definitive judgement calls, it does give you an indication that it could be a
problem. Canada’s spending by comparison is so much more confusingly laid out
that it indicates that it is greatly in need of simplification, as Canada is
rehashing a system of government from Great Britain in the 1800’s. Even if you
were to argue against Canada having a relatively high level of corruption, it
would be difficult to argue that the spending patterns are simple, clearly laid
out and no funds are being wasted.
So by my very basic corruption assessment, I can already see
some glaring holes. But what are some useful ways at looking at why things have
become more corrupt?
Peter John-Perry’s book Political
Corruption and Political Geography says
In contexts of rapid
and often individually bewildering growth and change political corruption
functions as a way of delivering essential services which the legitimate system
cannot or will not provide.
I think the rate that social and technological change is
hurtling forward at could qualify us as being in that situation. It also seems
that social progress, that is, the way our society functions, doesn’t seem up
to speed with the change in technology and the way our day-to-day lives play
out.
So after the initial assessment, where are some places to
attack the corruption? There is actually a considerable list. Here are some sensible
solutions I found:
Reducing Incentives
for Payoffs: Government programs need to be scrutinized on a case by case
basis. Given the circumstances and the policy, how easy would it be for
corruption to occur in this particular program? Obviously if it is something
that is doing a lot of public good you want to retain it, but you could
restructure those programs to make them more transparent, reduce bureaucracy
and reduce the power any one individual public servant has over decision
making. Clarifying laws to make them less open to interpretation also has a
potent effect. Other programs, for example prohibition in the USA between 1919
and 1933 need to be eliminated entirely, because it created a huge black market
and criminal activity while doing little or no real public good.
Enforcing
Anticorruption Laws: Make it clear what the penalties are for giving
bribes, as well as accepting them. Create anticorruption commissions that are
detached from the current politics and faces involved can put out a strong
message.
Reforming the Civil
Service: Pay rates for civil servants need to be comparable to equivalent
jobs in the private sector to attract appropriately skilled employees. Pension
benefits are only received after they retire in good standing. In some cases
you may want to create extra fee-for-services, so that people can pay extra for
priority in getting their item taken care of first. This isn’t a great solution
but does remove the need for someone to pay a bribe for something they will try
to get done faster regardless. Whether this reduces real corruption overall
could be debated.
Checks and Balances:
Protection for individuals against the state i.e. Whistleblowers! Implementing
a veto power to stop legislation that may favor one group too much. Independent auditing of government project
spending. Greater transparency through Freedom of Information Acts. Reform of
campaign financing rules.
In every investigation on corruption I read, there was
always one key factor to implement any solution. It seems like the real
indespensible factor is to install people at the highest ranks who actually
have a vested interest in fixing the system and making it less corrupt.
Exemplary leadership with integrity and a sense of public duty to make the
right decisions, and of course also skilled politically and administratively.
The community needs to do their part as well, adequately informed that can
share and benefit from these public figureheads. Citizens must believe they
have a stake in the enterprise that is their city or country.
Another suggestion which came up repeatedly is the role the
international community could play, in doing things like putting more checks on
controlling illicit funds, but from what I have seen from international
organizations such as the IMF or World Bank is that they seem to be involved
solely for their own gain. Thinking they would take steps to prevent global
corruption seems little better than wishful thinking.
More importantly, the Media, another institution that has
been noticably letting people everywhere down, also plays an important role
with daily reminders and updates in matters people really need to know about.
Not only that, but another role as the way media can turn issues and events
into scandal, with the end result being public outrage something that prompts a
response from the public to let the government know that they need to do
better, and things need to change immediately because of the consequences of civil unrest.
A country serious about fighting corruption first pushes
forward in collecting a detailed assessment to determine where corruption is
most harmful and where it can be most effectively attacked. Find out how
corruption affects the public’s daily lives and then move with real, effective
actin to address those issues.
