What a Rotten World It Can Be: Report Says Three-Fourths of World Is Corrupt

http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/10/26/what-a-rotten-world-it-can-be-report-says-three-fourths-of-world-is-corrupt/

by ssclafani • 16 years ago

26 41 16 years ago

newsfeed.time.com

ern• 16 years ago

Direct link to survey results: http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/...

antirez2• 16 years ago

I think that to understand corruption the only sane path is seeing this as an evolutionary advantage. As long as it will continue to provide an advantage it will last.

We need to evolve more to kill corruption.

What is sad is that a percentage of the world population is already at this state of evolution, and the rest is not. It is not very cool...

zacharyvoase2• 16 years ago

The above comment shows the early stages of eugenic thought. Separating people out into more- or less-evolved is a very dangerous thing to do. Or perhaps it’s just an unfortunate choice of words.

IMHO, corruption is just the free market’s way of overcoming bureaucracy.

swombat• 16 years ago

I think it shows relatively advanced stages of eugenics actually.

We need to evolve more to kill corruption. is practically a marketing slogan already.

antirez2• 16 years ago

not sure if I was clear in my comment but I don't mean that people that regret corruption live in a specific part of the world. They are everywhere, just not enough.

And when I talk about evolution I mean cultural evolution, as this kind of ideas are not carried genetically I guess (but a general attitude to benefit from circumstances may be carried genetically I guess).

Still as long as it will be a strong advantage, it will last.

For instance police in Italy here is trivially corruptible. They are payed low to do a work that if done well will put them in danger. It's much simpler to take money I guess. Our society is paying more people misbehaving.

stygianguest• 16 years ago

Indeed, it does not seem very likely that there is a genetic basis for corruption.

But you understate corruption's damage. Corruption often means buying your way out of jail, or downright theft. Not 'just' overcoming bureaucracy.

jballanc• 16 years ago

I've always felt that it is important to keep in mind that there's corruption and then there is corruption...not all corruption comes in the same flavor. For example, I have the feeling that corruption in Mexico (#98) associated with drug cartels is primarily driven by money. Your own brother might shoot you if he was paid enough by one of the cartels. This sort of corruption seems to be 100% detrimental to society.

Then there are places like Turkey (#56) where corruption is much more family oriented. Let's say you're mayor of a small town in Turkey, and you need to fill some lower level functionary position like Director of Sanitation. You're aunt or grandmother might come to you and tell you that you should give that position to your no-good lazy slacker of a cousin who's been out of work for the past 6 months, even though he's not exactly qualified. You wouldn't dare say no! You couldn't...you'd be disowned. Is it corrupt? cronyism? Sure. Is it as bad as the money driven corruption you've got from the drug cartels in Mexico?

Well, I'm not so sure. You see, while this sort of corruption does impede progress by not giving those most qualified the positions of power, there is something to be said for strong family bonds. Visiting Istanbul you won't see nearly as many homeless as you do visiting NYC. Why? Most of the homeless in NYC are individuals with some psychological ailment (most often Schizophrenia) and it is often more than a spouse can handle on their own to take care of such individuals. Caring for these problems really requires a strong family and community of helpers. You'll find that is much more common in a place like Turkey, where family means so much.

Would the world be better off with less corruption? Sure. But I guess my point is that not all corruption should be treated equally...

johnglasgow• 16 years ago

It's all relative.

meric2• 16 years ago

Always curious to see Singapore landing at best spots in the corruption index. Their leader is paid 5 times as much as the US president. Relatives of government officials get good jobs. The opposition parties are suppressed, etc, etc. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/world/asia/09iht-sing.3.52...

It's not corruption if it is transparent.

dpatru6• 16 years ago

Corruption is always caused by government doing more than what it should be doing. To illustrate from your examples, if a government does sanitation and therefore has a cushy job for the director of sanitation, this is a breeding ground for corruption. The solution is to get the government out of the sanitation business. Let this function be carried out by privately competing sanitation companies.

Likewise, if a government seeks to prevent people from using drugs, this is a breeding ground for corruption. The solution is get government out of the drug prohibition business.

sgift• 16 years ago

The bottom line of your argument seems to be: No government, no corruption. Which is more or less correct, but not really helpful: Without any government you have to pay the guy with the gun or he'll shoot you in the head (no one there to hinder him). Different? Sure. Better? I'd say no.

loewenskind2• 16 years ago

I think you're using circular logic here. I.e. your definition for "corruption" sounds like it probably has the word government in it [1]. What do you call a conspiracy among companies to stifle the market with no government intervention?

[1] In which case, of course there can be no corruption without government, apparently leading you to the bizarre conclusion that no government = no corruption.

jbarham2• 16 years ago

Considering that Somalia is ranked the most corrupt country in the world and hasn't had a functioning government in 20 years, the complete absence of government is obviously not a cure for corruption.

maw• 16 years ago

I don't know why you have that impression of Mexico. There has been corruption here since before the recent wave of crackdowns started, and, sadly, there will still be corruption when the crackdowns let up. When most Mexicans think about corruption, they think about nepotism, bribery, and embezzlement. Some of that's related to the narcos, of course, but it goes on even in areas where the narcos have little presence.

nhebb• 16 years ago

Recently there was an HN link to a list of the best countries to do business - http://www.doingbusiness.org/rankings. When I looked at that list, I remember thinking that the one column which was missing was corruption. It was definitely a factor for two companies I worked for when they set up operations overseas and jumped through licensing and regulatory hurdles.

zacharyvoase2• 16 years ago

Corruption is present everywhere; the only thing that differs from place to place is the price.

I, for one, like low prices :)

hsuresh• 16 years ago

Why is it that the "western world" rank low in corruption?

henrikschroder• 16 years ago

A stronger sense of nationalism than tribalism, perhaps? More faith in government institutions, because they've been around longer?

Andrew_Quentin2• 16 years ago

what is the difference between nationalism and tribalism except for size?

scrrr• 16 years ago

Free press, free speech, anti-corruption laws, many rules and protocols in business proceedings. Higher standard of living and higher income provide less incentive for illegal activities.

varjag• 16 years ago

More atheists per capita.

zefhous• 16 years ago

Christianity.

Say what you want about Christianity itself — I'm not arguing for or against it — but I believe that it's because those are the societies in which a Christian morality was prevalent.

A key aspect of Christian morality is fairness: do unto others..., pay people what you owe them, don't accept (or give) bribes.

Corruption opposes those values and can't thrive in a society that embraces them. If those values don't exist then corruption has a chance.

dpatru6• 16 years ago

You should distinguish between Catholic and Protestant Christianity. Protestant Christianity, which emphasizes individual liberty, and thus implies limits on government power is more likely to prevent corruption.

dpatru6• 16 years ago

More freedom. If government doesn't prohibit or overregulate a thing, there is no chance of there being corruption about that thing. So, for example, when the Soviet Union was around and the economy was tightly regulated and commerce was tightly restricted, corruption abounded. It still abounds in areas of high government involvement.

For example, if government has few regulations on starting a business, there little need for corruption. If, however, there are a lot of regulations, then the result will be that you need to "payoff" local officials in order to open and operate a business.

The question then becomes: why do eastern peoples tend to tolerate big, intrusive governments and western people tend to like freedom?

meric2• 16 years ago

There are many developing countries, e.g Indonesia, that are quite "free", too.

GFischer• 16 years ago

"At least we're doing better than Uruguay and France."

As a Uruguayan, I wouldn't say so :) , and the point is:

"it seems the pesky ghost of Watergate just won't go away"

The perception of corruption in the US comes from the high-level cronyism in the Bush administration, not from Watergate. (Enron, Halliburton and Dick Cheney don't have a good reputation on these parts). And I'm certain there will be some mud on the Democrats' side as well afterwards.

In Uruguay we do have some problems with high-level corruption, but it's the low level small things that put us on a slightly lower level than the US.

michael_dorfman• 16 years ago

As a Norwegian resident, I'm a bit surprised to find that Norway lags noticeably behind Denmark, Sweden and Finland on the chart. I'll have to dig a bit to find out why...

dpatru6• 16 years ago

I found this video of Milton Friedman helpful in understanding corruption: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-7oMOxPjNE&feature=autof...). He argues that corruption is caused by government passing laws which do not appeal to people's moral instincts. The way to eliminate corruption is to get rid of laws which provide incentives for bribery. If a nation has a small, efficient government, free trade, low taxes, little business regulation, and little if any prohibitions on vice (alcohol/tobacco/drug use, gambling, prostitution, etc.), what is there to bribe a government official about?

But when governments pass laws that are widely disrespected, this creates a culture of corruption which rots away the just administration of all the laws, even those that would normally be considered legitimate, like laws on burglary, assault, and murder.

Andrew_Quentin2• 16 years ago

He forgets to mention greed of course.

dpatru6• 16 years ago

Why is greed relevant?

singular3• 16 years ago

Risking downvotes but here I go anyway...

It's interesting to compare his theory against the country where his theories were first, and arguably most purely put into practice - Pinochet-era Chile.

The measures put forward by Friedman + his acolytes resulted in huge unemployment, inflation, and many multi-nationals effectively stealing wealth away.

In order for the people to 'accept' these measures Pinochet instituted oppression, abandonment of the freedom of the press, torture, and extra-judicial killings.

I think the ideas which originate from the creator of neo-liberalism ought to be judged against the evidence of its actual implementation in real life before recommending its architect's theories on dealing with just about anything.

The laws that were passed in Chile, as with many other countries which have instituted exactly the policies you outline were widely disrespected, and that disrespect was 'dealt with' in various arguably really rather negative ways.

I am certain that corruption also remained a problem throughout.

For references and discussion of this phenomenon, see The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein - http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0141024534/

anamax2• 16 years ago

> I think the ideas which originate from the creator of neo-liberalism ought to be judged against the evidence of its actual implementation in real life before recommending its architect's theories on dealing with just about anything.

Fair enough. China, Cuba, the USSR....

loewenskind2• 16 years ago

The best part was that their horrid changes caused a massive productivity drop. They had to wait several years before gaining a modest 5% growth rate (was 7% before they started meddling) at which point they wrote a book called "Miracle of Chile"!

What a Rotten World It Can Be: Report Says Three-Fourths of World Is Corrupt

Related Stories