28.02.2015 Views

CORRUPTION Syndromes of Corruption

CORRUPTION Syndromes of Corruption

CORRUPTION Syndromes of Corruption

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

32 <strong>Syndromes</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Corruption</strong><br />

private interests try to buy influence within government; in many more<br />

places powerful government <strong>of</strong>ficials reach out and plunder the economy.<br />

Some <strong>of</strong> these examples fit the consensus worldview better than others.<br />

All suggest that corruption problems may vary in important ways.<br />

The scope and implications <strong>of</strong> corruption will vary from case to case,<br />

and may take on several forms within any given society or part <strong>of</strong> it.<br />

Officials’ leverage varies with the type, and number <strong>of</strong> competing sources,<br />

<strong>of</strong> benefits they can <strong>of</strong>fer (Johnston, 1986a); upon the number <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficials<br />

<strong>of</strong>fering comparable goods, the relationships among them, and queuing<br />

arrangements (Rose-Ackerman, 1978; Shleifer and Vishny, 1993); upon<br />

the extent and quality <strong>of</strong> political oversight <strong>of</strong> the bureaucracy (Rose-<br />

Ackerman, 1978); and upon the ability <strong>of</strong> the press, civil society, and<br />

political competitors to demand accountability. <strong>Corruption</strong> can change<br />

qualitatively too, not just rising and falling in severity but taking on new<br />

participants, stakes, and practices as one regime gives way to another or as<br />

major new commodities, opportunities, and even reforms emerge. Many<br />

nations launching democratic and market transitions experienced a surge<br />

<strong>of</strong> corruption and scandal – which are not synonymous – as established<br />

elite relationships gave way to a more fragmented scramble for spoils, new<br />

economic and political opportunities began to open up, and the weaknesses<br />

<strong>of</strong> formerly monopolistic state and political institutions became<br />

apparent.<br />

Broader patterns<br />

Such contrasts begin to become apparent when we examine connections<br />

between corruption and development more closely. The United Nations<br />

Development Program’s 2003 Human Development Index (HDI) 3 –<br />

based on 2001 data, the most recent HDI data available – and TI’s<br />

2003 <strong>Corruption</strong> Perceptions Index 4 <strong>of</strong>fer at least an initial look. The<br />

HDI is a composite score, on a zero-to-1.0 scale, <strong>of</strong> many factors affecting<br />

human wellbeing, including not only GDP per capita but also life expectancy,<br />

literacy, and access to education. It thus reflects not only affluence<br />

but also the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> public institutions and policies. The TI index,<br />

as noted, ranks countries in terms <strong>of</strong> how corrupt they are perceived to be.<br />

A score <strong>of</strong> ten on the CPI stands for clean government and zero indicates<br />

3 Report and data available at http://www.undp.org/hdr2003/.<br />

4 Data and documentation for current and past years available at http://www.transparency.org/<br />

cpi/index.html#cpi; I use the 2003 TI index here because it includes many more countries<br />

than indices <strong>of</strong> years past. It draws upon a number <strong>of</strong> surveys gathered between 2001 and<br />

2003, and for countries included in both the 2001 and 2003 indices scores correlate<br />

at þ .99 (p ¼ .000).

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!