Dealing With Corruption

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.