
What a Rotten World It Can Be: Report Says Three-Fourths of World Is Corrupt - ssclafani
http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/10/26/what-a-rotten-world-it-can-be-report-says-three-fourths-of-world-is-corrupt/
======
jballanc
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...

~~~
dpatru
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
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.

~~~
dpatru
As long as there are thieves and robbers, people will always need protection.
And protection, unless you do it yourself, usually has to be paid for. Thus
your statement, "you have to pay the guy with the gun" is true without the
qualification of "without any government." In most ordered societies today,
the man with the gun is government and if you don't pay him, he will take away
your property and liberty, though usually not your life.

Corruption arises when government, i.e. the man-with-the-gun-who-must-be-paid,
goes beyond protecting property and, abusing its power, begins infringing on
liberty.

As long as the police stick to preventing robbery, forcible rape, and other
assaults on liberty and property, corruption is not a problem. It is only when
they begin interfering with the free market, for example, trying to prevent
the exchange of pot between willing sellers and willing buyers, that
corruption arises. If the government would stick to protecting liberty and
property, there would be (practically) no corruption because the overwhelming
majority of people support laws protecting liberty and property.

The bottom line of my argument is: no abuse of government power, no
corruption. This is helpful because it clarifies the legitimate role of
government in practice. Corruption and widespread law breaking become symptoms
of an abuse of government power. The cure is to rein in the abuse of
government. Without this understanding, the natural tendency of politicians is
to fight corruption by making it worse: by increasing government abuse of
power, e.g., the war on drugs.

~~~
AlexMax
"As long as the police stick to preventing robbery, forcible rape, and other
assaults on liberty and property, corruption is not a problem. It is only when
they begin interfering with the free market..."

What happens when a company grows so rich and powerful that it can influence
your supposedly small government to protect company interests with new laws
that have nothing to do with protecting liberty and property?

------
dpatru
I found this video of Milton Friedman helpful in understanding corruption:
([http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-7oMOxPjNE&feature=autof...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-7oMOxPjNE&feature=autofb)).
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.

~~~
singular
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/>

~~~
anamax
> 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....

~~~
singular
> Fair enough. China, Cuba, the USSR....

Hardly wonderful examples of corruption-free parts of the world!!

Or ought there be a sarcasm indicator in that message? :)

~~~
anamax
I'm not referring to corruption, but suggesting that we can apply the "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." to
communism/socialism.

Of course, that standard is always rejected when it comes to
communism/socialism.

~~~
singular
I absolutely apply the same standard to communism, socialism or any
political/economic system.

There are alternatives to extremes, which both communism and neoliberalism can
safely be described as I think - a Keynesian approach has a great deal of
evidence in the positive behind it (the new deal for example), and I am sure
he has had (I know far too little to comment myself) opinions on corruption.

------
GFischer
"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.

------
nhebb
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.

------
ern
Direct link to survey results:
[http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/...](http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results)

------
michael_dorfman
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...

------
antirez
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...

~~~
zacharyvoase
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.

~~~
antirez
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.

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

I, for one, like low prices :)

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

~~~
dpatru
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?

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

~~~
jbarham
Indonesia has only been politically free since the late 90's, but is still
very corrupt. India and Pakistan are also "free" politically but corruption is
pervasive.

