FILSAFAT KORUPSI - Direktori File UPI

In India, as we have seen, transfers are the usual way of disciplining
officials. So, if social integration, or something like it, somehow reduces
corruption, then this gives us yet another reason why social integration
might be negatively correlated with transfer frequency. The main point,
however, is simply that a variety of reasonable theories might predict
that social integration would be negatively correlated with transfer fre-
quency, and that this contrasts with the prediction we have made based
on our model above.
Based on this discrepancy, section 7 will attempt to empirically eval-
uate the relevance of these alternative possible explanations for transfer
frequency and thereby attempt to shed light on the mechanism by which
social structure affected corruption in a specific setting. First, however,
we need a proxy for social structure.
6 Riots and Social Structure in India
Indian society is extremely diverse, containing numerous social groups
divided by caste, religion, language and other traits. Many social and
cultural activities, including mutual reciprocal aid, tend to be concen-
trated within these groups, and group boundaries are often very rigid.
However, despite this social heterogeneity, members of different social
groups in India may be highly economically interdependent. Tradition-
ally, this interdependence often took the form of a caste-based division
of labor; low-caste laborers and artisans served wealthier high-caste
landowners in exchange for an implicit assurance of survival in bad
crop years and emergencies (Platteau 1995).
In modern India, the nature and extent of social and economic “in-
tegration” varies greatly. Because these widely varying informal en-
vironments interact with a relatively uniform formal system, India is
a particularly appropriate context in which to study the interaction
between formal and informal “rules”.
But there‟s a problem: in the face of this tremendous diversity, how
can we measure the level of social integration in a quantifiable yet
meaningful way? To measure the level of integration properly, we would
27
need to be able to observe which “groups” are relevant in each instance
(and Indian society contains many cross-cutting divisions) and the type
of interaction between their members. Clearly, any direct measurement
of this sort is impossible, so our measure must necessarily be indirect.
There are two main approaches to indirectly measuring related vari-
ables (“trust”, “civic-ness”, “social capital” etc.) in the literature. The
first is to use survey responses (eg., Knack and Keefer 1997). The
second approach is to look for suitable proxies. For example, Putnam
(1993) uses membership in formal associations, newspaper readership,
and voter turnout in referenda to compare “civic-ness” in Italian re-
gions. Putnam‟s indices are less appropriate to the Indian context, but
this section argues that in India, the incidence of riots can serve as a
proxy for social integration (a low level of riots reflecting a high level
of social integration).
Why do riots occur in some places more than in others? Fearon and
Laitin (1996) argue that in situations where intergroup conflict can
occur, potentially violent situations are often defused if some members
of each group have an interest in intergroup harmony (for example,
because they are involved in valuable intergroup trade). When trouble
is brewing, individuals with a vested interest in peace often step in to
131
Page 29