School Work

Matricea coruptiei

Matricea coruptiei
of 29
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Transcript  Journal of Asian and African Studies online version of this article can be found at: DOI: 10.1177/0021909613479319 published online 17 May 2013 Journal of Asian and African Studies  Roopinder Oberoi ResponsesMapping the Matrix of Corruption: Tracking the Empirical Evidences and Tailoring  Published by:  can be found at: Journal of Asian and African Studies  Additional services and information for Email Alerts: Subscriptions: Reprints: Permissions:  What is This? - May 17, 2013OnlineFirst Version of Record >> at National School of Political on May 21, 2013 jas.sagepub.comDownloaded from    Journal of Asian and African Studies0(0) 1  –28© The Author(s) 2013Reprints and permissions: 10.1177/0021909613479319  J A A S Mapping the Matrix of Corruption: Tracking the Empirical Evidences and Tailoring Responses Roopinder Oberoi University of Delhi, India Abstract The literature on corruption is extensive as the topic is multifaceted, testifying to the intractable and stubborn nature of a problem that societies have been struggling to tackle with for centuries. Lack of improvement in eradicating corruption is the result of misguided and misplaced strategies based on weak analytical underpinnings and still weaker appreciation of the institutional milieu of individual countries. This paper attempts to introduce and unpack key concepts associated with the idea of corruption. The paper attempts to punctuate that corruption needs analysis as an indicator of ‘failed governance’. It presents empirical substantiation from various studies undertaken and offers a comprehensive study of the extent and effect of corruption on the Indian economy and the perception of a cross-section of people on various facets and the impact of corruption on diverse sectors. Keywords Anti-corruption strategies, corruption indicators, global integrity index, governance indicator, Transparency International  What Is Corruption? Rich but unresolved theoretical debates compose the vast majority of the literature on corruption. However, new empirical studies have begun to resolve long-disputed issues. This is especially true with regard to the literature on the impact of corruption on development, pertinent to the goal of  building political will to counter corruption. In light of the difficulty in collecting data on corrup-tion, given its intrinsic secrecy, it is not surprising that there have been few empirical works. In general, the studies that have been done on corruption draw their data from srcinal surveys, inter-views, and focus groups on public perceptions, and purchasable corruption indexes created for  business-related purposes.There is, however, no comprehensive and universally accepted definition of corruption. The srcin of the word is from the Latin corruptus  (spoiled) and corrumpere  (to ruin; to break into  pieces). The most frequent definition of corruption as ‘the abuse of public office for private gain’ Corresponding author: Roopinder Oberoi, Department of Political Science, Kirori Mal College, University of Delhi, Delhi, India. Email: 479319  JAS   0   0   10.1177/0021909613479319Journal of Asian and African StudiesOberoi2013  Article  at National School of Political on May 21, 2013 jas.sagepub.comDownloaded from   2  Journal of Asian and African Studies   0(0) (Kaufmann, 1997; Rose-Ackerman, 1999; Tanzi, 1997) was modified by the World Bank to: ‘the abuse of power for private gain’. 1  This definition of corruption rests on the presumption that the state operates under the norm of ethical universalism; public integrity is thus understood as equal and fair treatment of citizens, which may occasionally be influenced by favouritism or corruption. It encompasses unilateral abuses by government officials such as embezzlement and nepotism, as well as abuses linking public and private actors such as bribery, extortion, influence peddling, and fraud. Public sector corruption is a symptom of failed governance. Governance  is defined as the norms, traditions, and institutions by which power and authority in a country are exercised. These norms, traditions, and institutions include the institutions of participation and accountability in governance, mechanisms of citizen voice and exit, and norms and networks of civic engagement; the constitutional-legal framework and the nature of accountability relationships between citizens and government; the process by which governments are selected, monitored, held accountable, and renewed or replaced; and the legitimacy, credibility, and efficacy of the institutions that govern  political, economic, cultural, and social interactions among citizens and between citizens and their governments (Shah Anwar, 2006).As governance is defined as the set of formal and informal institutions shaping ‘who gets what’ in a given polity, the understanding of governance regimes is an indispensable step towards creat-ing a more strategic approach to anti-corruption. Three distinct types of governance regimes are described in the various reports: (1) open access or ethical universalism regimes, which exist in most of the developed world; (2) closed-access regimes, divided between neo-patrimonial (where  power is monopolized by the ruler and their clique); and (3) competitive particularistic (where several groups compete for the spoils, but spoiling the state remains the rule of the game). Free elections by themselves do not solve the problem of corruption: more democracies than autocracies feature presently among systemically corrupt countries. The widely used perception indicators, which are presumed to measure corruption, actually measure governance in general, not only ille-gal corruption, which is only a small part of the overall picture (hence their insensitivity to change).Concern about corruption is as old as the history of government. In 350 BCE Aristotle sug-gested in The Politics  ‘To protect the treasury from being defrauded, let all money be issued openly in front of the whole city, and let copies of the accounts be deposited in various wards’ (quotes in Shah, 2007: 234). However, these concerns have mounted in recent years; in tandem with growing empirical evidence of its detrimental impact on development (World Bank, 2004). Corruption slows gross domestic product (GDP) growth (Abed and Davoodi, 2000; Mauro, 1995) and adversely affects capital accumulation (Lambsdorff, 1999a, 1999b). It lowers the quality of education (Gupta, Davoodi and Tiongson, 2000); public infrastructure (Tanzi, 1997); and health services (Tomaszewska and Shah, 2000; Treisman, 1999). It reduces the effectiveness of development aid and increases income inequality and poverty (Gupta, Davoodi, and Alonso-Terme, 1998). Bribery, often the most visible manifestation of public sector corruption, harms the reputation of and erodes trust in the state. Poor governance and corruption make it more dif-ficult for the poor and other disadvantaged groups, such as women and minorities, to obtain  public services (Mauro, 1996).Corruption further affects macroeconomic stability; for example, the allocation of debt guaran-tees based on cronyism or fraud in financial institutions leads to a loss of confidence by savers, investors, and foreign exchange markets. The current economic crisis has demonstrations of this too. Corruption is not manifested in one single form. It typically takes at least  four broad forms : (1)  petty, administrative, or bureaucratic corruption; (2) grand corruption; (3) state or regulatory cap-ture and influence peddling; and (4) patronage, paternalism, clientelism, and being a ‘team player’ (Mauro, 1998).  at National School of Political on May 21, 2013 jas.sagepub.comDownloaded from   Oberoi 3 Corruption is estimated to cost US$2.6 trillion annually, an amount equal to more than 5% of global GDP. Each year, over US$1 trillion is paid in bribes; not only do these payments undermine fair competition and affect the profitability of businesses operating globally, but they also divert crucial public resources away from their legitimate uses, denying citizens essential public services such as education, clean water, and healthcare. Over the last few years the issue of corruption and the abuse of public office for private gain have attracted renewed attention, both among academics and policymakers. There are a number of explanations why this topic has come under fresh scru-tiny. Corruption scandals have toppled governments in major industrial countries and developing countries. In the transition countries, the shift from command economies to free market economies has created substantial opportunities for the appropriation of rents (that is, excessive profits) and has been accompanied by a modification from a well-organized system of corruption to a more chaotic and deleterious one. Corruption and sluggish economic growth has persisted in many coun-tries with malfunctioning and weak institutions and processes.This recent concern in studying corruption has led to a new flurry of pragmatic research to grasp the source and outcome of corruption and fraud. An important body of knowledge was acquired through theoretical research done in the 1970s by Jagdish Bhagwati, Anne Krueger, and Susan Rose Ackerman, among others (Mauro, 1996). A key principle is that corruption can typically occur where rents exist as a result of government regulation and public officials having discretion in allocating them. The classic example of a government restriction resulting in rents and rent-seeking behaviour is that of an import quota and the associated licences that civil servants give to those entrepreneurs willing to pay bribes. More recently, researchers have begun to test some of these long-established theoretical hypotheses using new cross-country data.The chart in Figure 1 shows regional averages of a World Governance Indicator, 2  the Control of Corruption. 3  The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries’ average is the only one to have reached the ‘green’ level. The region which has showed more prog-ress in the past two decades is Eastern Europe, but this is only true for countries in the successful Central Europe, since the former Soviet Union actually rates at the very bottom, below Sub-Saharan Africa. Not only do the rest of the regions lag far behind the OECD but – with the exception of Eastern Europe – the trend is toward stagnation, not improvement. There was some improvement in the Middle East and North Africa between 1996 and 2002 but the trend then reversed itself. Figure 1.  World governance indicator. Source : World Governance Indicator (2008).  at National School of Political on May 21, 2013 jas.sagepub.comDownloaded from 
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks