equally in developed and developing countries. The level of corruption may vary between developed and developing countries but it cannot be restricted only to the developing and poor countries. The series of scandals surfaced recently in the United States indicate that corporate leaders can also be spectacularly corrupt. The intricate and much touted regulatory system that oversaw the working of the American corporations turned out not to be strong enough to prevent Enron, Global Crossing, Tyco and WorldCom from indulging in immensely corrupt practices and for a reputable accounting firm Anderson to sanction them. The crimes committed by these corporations were big and punishable. So corruption is not unique to the developing world. It is clearly understood that any deviation from the conduct or behaviour permitted by law will be punished. And punishment will be consistent with the magnitude of the committed crime. However, this relationship between crime and punishment often breaks down. It collapses when legal and regulatory systems become dysfunctional. This happens when the power of the strong cannot be constrained by the weak. This is exactly what happened in America’s go-go capitalism. Here the power wielded by corporate boards and corporate executives was considerably greater than that exercised by common shareholders and common consumers.
Undeniably, poor and developing countries are more prone to corruption. Lack of rule of law, inequality, injustice and bad governance cause vulnerability to moral and financial corruption eventually. This time it is Bangladesh, which leads the list, followed by Nigeria in Africa, Indonesia in South East Asia, and Azerbaijan in Central Asia. This list is drawn up by Transparency International (TI), a Berlin-based organization, on the basis of the perception of foreign businessmen and fifteen surveys from nine independent institutions. Not all the branded countries are as poor as Bangladesh, which tops the list. Nigeria is truly oil rich and yet it is often listed as the first, second or third most corrupt country. This year its position is second. Not that these countries are in Asia or Africa that they are poor and corrupt. Singapore, for example, is in Asia as well but happens to be the fifth least corrupt country in the world followed by Hong Kong, also in Asia, which is the fourteenth least corrupt country in a list of a hundred and two states. Corruption has thrived even in a very rich state like Kazakhstan, which has been ranked the fifteenth most corrupt state. What all that means is that the form of government or the extent of natural resources or the potential for becoming far rich does not matter. What matters is the quality of government, the kind of governance and the transparency in administration it ensures. It does help when a country is as small as Finland which tops the list of least corrupt countries followed by Denmark and New Zealand, for a small country it is necessary to have efficient administration and least corruption. Even larger federations like that of Canada and Australia and a confederation like Switzerland are able to achieve a very low level of corruption.
No comments:
Post a Comment