FILSAFAT KORUPSI - Direktori File UPI

variable with which to investigate corruption in India. However, the
relationship is not entirely straightforward; several factors can affect
transfer frequency.
First, transfers may be carried out by (benevolent) governments in
an effort to reduce corruption by creating “social distance” between
officials and members of the public.
Second, transfers often result from political interference. For exam-
ple, widespread transfers are common following a change of government,
as politicians reward their supporters and tighten their control over ad-
ministrative decisions by installing loyal officials in important posts,
and removing officials loyal to their opponents. In addition, officials
frequently bribe politicians and other officials to obtain transfers to
desirable posts.
A third common cause of transfers, related to the second, are com-
plaints to politicians, or informal lobbying of politicians, by clients. It
is not so much the merits of complaints which matter, because the for-
mal accountability procedures are extremely weak. Isolated complaints,
however valid, are easily ignored. However, if a sufficient volume of
complaints about a particular official builds up, politicians have an in-
centive to accommodate their constituents‟ wishes by transferring the
official in question.
Next, we discuss each of these causes of transfers in more detail, in
order to generate testable hypotheses.
5.1 Transfers to combat parochial corruption.
In traditional societies, “parochial” corruption (or “nepotism”) often
occurs because of the prevalence of strong personal relationships be-
tween officials and members of the public. A frequent rationale for
transferring officials is to prevent this kind of corruption, by breaking
up networks of corrupt individuals and creating “social distance” be-
tween officials and their clients. Indeed, in India, the system of transfers
was initially created in the 1770s in a (successful) attempt to combat
18
endemic corruption in the East India Company (de Zwart 1994). From
the government‟s point of view, however, carrying out frequent transfers
may also entail costs; for example, officials may need to be compensated
for the inconvenience of frequent transfers, and may take time to “learn
the ropes” and become effective in a new role.
What relationship does this view predict between social integration
and transfer frequency?
If, as seems likely, parochial corruption is indeed less of a problem
in more integrated societies characterized by extensive but short-lived
interpersonal interactions than in segmented societies characterized by
dense and long-lived interactions within small groups, and if transfers
are carried out to reduce parochial corruption, then, from the govern-
ment‟s point of view, transferring officials ought to be less effective at
reducing the costs of corruption in more integrated societies (in a soci-
ety with no parochial corruption, there would be no need for transfers
at all). Therefore, we would expect
Hypothesis 1. If governments transfer officials to combat parochial
corruption, then the level of social integration will be negatively corre-
lated with (the government’s optimal choice of) transfer frequency (and
also with the level of corruption).
5.2 Transfers caused by political interference
124
Page 20