John PantzalisLorrie McGovern

Saint Leo University

“I either want less corruption or more chance to participate in it” Ashleigh Brilliant

Corruption is hard to measure because it involves a wide and diverse set of activities

It is also based on culture-specific standards of ethics, thus making it impossible to create a valid global measurement instrument

Two most widely used measurements of corruption are:

The Transparency International Corruption Perception Index (CPI)

The World Bank Control of Corruption Indicator

Both have certain advantages and disadvantages and are subject to the limitations listed previously. Both are composite indicators capturing several factors.

Transparency International measures and ranks 174 countries in the world annually based on its index

The index is captured in a score between 0-100

The higher the score, the less corrupt the country

1. Denmark 92 points

2. New Zealand 91 points

3. Finland 89 points

4. Sweden 87 points

5. Norway 86 points

6. Switzerland 86 points

7. Singapore 84 points

8. Netherlands 83 points

9. Luxemburg 82 points

10. Canada 81 points The USA is ranked 17th with 74 points

165. Eritrea 18 points

166. Libya 18 points

167. Uzbekistan 18 points

168. Turkmenistan 17 points

169. Iraq 16 points

170. South Sudan 15 points

171. Afghanistan 12 points

172. Sudan 11 points

173. North Korea 8 points

174. Somalia 8 points

Corruption ideally should be measured by combining input-based and output-based indicators

Input-based indicators can be captured by looking at the existence of anti-corruption laws, institutions, rules, and norms. They are relatively easier to assess

Output-based indicators are based on looking at the impact of corruption in the economy, politics, and quality of life. They are much harder to assess and measure.

Corruption is linked to lower economic performance

Transparency International has shown how a higher corruption index correlates with lower economic growth

One of the difficulties is that sometimes corruption can be the cause of economic stagnation (Venezuela is a likely candidate), but some other times it can be that economic stagnation due to other factors such as war can cause increased corruption (Libya is a likely candidate)

Overall, most political scientists and economists agree that corruption has a negative impact on the:

Economy Education Public health Environment Democracy and individual freedom Justice and human rights

One way to conceptualize corruption is to look at it as a systematic violation of rules, laws, and norms of ethical behavior for the purpose of personal gain

Corruption benefits the practitioners (insiders) at the cost of the law-abiding outsiders

In that sense it can be modelled as a zero-sum game, or even as a negative-sum game given corruption’s negative impact on overall economic performance.

Petty Corruption

It is corruption at the personal level, in every day kind of interactions

Street level, involves small amounts of money and favors

Interactions of citizens with low-level public servants/officials

Grand Corruption

It is corruption at the high levels of political, and economic life

Involves large amounts of money and favors Interactions among members of the political and

economic elites

Robert Klitgaard defined corruption as:Corruption = (Monopoly of Power) + (discretion) – (Accountability)

In spite of a global improvement in living and educational standards, as well as in a higher number of democratic regimes, corruptions is still thriving

A key issue is to look at how corruption can be reduced, and how these efforts can be marketed to the key stakeholders.

The posterchild of a modern, successful anti-corruption campaign is Singapore

British created the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau in 1951 after it was found out that the thieves who had hijacked a large opium shipment included high-ranked members of Singapore’s police

After independence, Lee Kuan Yew, the new leader imposed strict ethical and accountability rules. Within a generation Singapore was transformed to one of the least corrupt countries in the world.

Singapore has several advantages in the anti-corruption campaign:

The political elite was not corrupt, or corruptible

The elite was committed to eliminating corruption

The British had already established the structures of efficient administration

Singapore is fairly small and homogeneous Confucian values based on respect of

authority made top-down strategies more likely to succeed.

Corruption cannot be eliminated completely

The reason is that what we call “corruption” may be ingrained to human nature (“everybody does it”, Nooman 1984)

“Corruption creeps in like an odorless gas” (Chayes, 2015)

Best strategy is to focus on reducing the most damaging forms of corruption

“Focus on harmful forms of corruption”, Wilson 1968

Grand corruption should be the focal point, not petty corruption

Corruption that is perceived as being most harmful by stakeholders is more likely to be combated best due to the likelihood of generating more support for reform

Focus on “grand corruption”

Gain the support of the economic and political elite.

Minimize the role of outsiders. Foreign intervention can be used by corrupt elites as a way to position anti-corruption activities as violations of sovereignty

Adjust marketing on local culture (I)

In western, advanced economies, promote anti-corruption as a way to improve efficiency, and justice.

These societies are more rule-based, so using abstract concepts to market corruption-reducing reforms can resonate with the population

Publicize outcomes of grand corruption cases and make an example of high level corrupt officials who have been caught (Singapore used this technique)

Adjust for local culture (II)

Cultures where allegiance is first to family, clan and tribe need different way of promoting reform

Focus should be again on grand corruption at the high levels

Petty corruption will remain no matter what – only change will come through cultural evolution over several generations

Adjust for local culture (III)

Anti-corruption should be promoted as benefiting people’s families and kids

Use concrete examples of impact on people’s lives with a focus on the next generation (“improve your kid’s lives and opportunities”)

Link anti-corruption activities to religious values and norms to add spiritual component and to gain support from religious authorities

This is an ongoing project

Next step is to conduct a cross-cultural analysis of changes of corruption levels over time among two groups of countries: advanced post-industrial economies and developing nations

Eventually we plan to work together with local governments in several cities of different countries to apply and test the best methods

Thomas Barfield (2010). Afghanistan: A Cultural and Political History. Princeton University Press

Sarah Chayes (2015). Thieves of State: Why Corruption Threatens Global Security. W. W. Norton and Company

Patrick Radden Keefe (2015). “Corruption and Revolt”, The New Yorker, January 19, 2015

Robert Klitgaard (1991). Controlling Corruption. University of California Press

John Nooman (1984). Bribes: The Intellectual History of a Moral Idea. University of California Press

James Wilson (1968). “Corruption is not Always Scandalous”, Time Magazine, April 28, pp.54-63