MOTION #97: THIS HOUSE BELIEVES
THAT BRIBERY IS SOMETIMES ACCEPTABLE
Corruption is
operationally defined as the misuse of entrusted power for private gain.
Facilitation payments, where a bribe is paid to receive preferential treatment
for something that the receiver is required to do by law (e.g. an official
processing a license application), constitute "according to rule"
corruption. Corruption "against the rule", on the other hand, is a
bribe paid to obtain services the receiver is prohibited from providing (e.g. a
policeman ignoring a crime or favourable marking of a student’s examination
paper).
The phenomenon of
corruption has complex reasons that include flaws in legal system, the lack of
democratic traditions and political accountability, social and economic
difficulties, and low pay for public officials. Corruption affects people's
lives in a multitude of ways. In the worst cases, corruption costs people’s
lives. In countless other cases, it costs their freedom, health, or money. It
is becoming an international problem due to increasing level of globalisation
and international trade.
Transparency International (TI) – the biggest organisation that fights
corruption on a global level - believes that keeping corruption in check is
only feasible if government, business and civil society work together and agree
on a set of standards and procedures they all support.
Pros
|
Cons
|
Individuals may have no choice. People are often made to give bribes to officials
because of unfavourable economic, social or bureaucratic conditions.
Officials may refuse to serve clients unless they are paid. For example in
Delhi police officers regularly take lunch without paying and more senior
officers take 10,000 each month to allow the restaurant to stay open late. In
those countries where state institutions are extremely corrupted, refusal to
give a bribe may cost financial losses for business representatives or even
health and liberty for citizens who need medical service and access to
justice.
|
The position of civil society plays a key role in
reducing corruption. Its action in taking a moral stand against corrupted
officials is an important precondition for effective anticorruption policy.
Hence, citizens who put up with the necessity to give a bribe become a part
of the problem. It is not just the case of public officials abusing their
positions, but of people who are tempted to choose the easiest way out.
Recent developments in India show how quickly expectations can change once
people begin to make a stand. Anna Hazare went on a hunger strike creating a
mass movement against bribery. Now there are websites such as ipaidabribe.com
popping up to shine a spotlight on corruption. The change is the first step
in the fight against corruption.
|
Bribery is sometimes necessary for survival. "Survival" corruption, practised by public
servants, is usually the result of small salaries, perhaps in highly
inflationary economies, which do not allow them to make a living. Such as
with the junior police officers mentioned in the previous point. Without
bribery, public administration would collapse altogether as no one would have
any incentive to get anything done. Thus the level of corruption is
determined by the poor economic situation of the country as well as by the
policy of the government.
|
Corruption in any
form creates inefficiency and ‘drag’ on the economy – it is an unofficial
form of transaction tax and has the same effect on the economy.
The proposition focuses on the ‘seen’ detriment to
public servants of losing income from bribery but ignores the ‘unseen’
benefit of ending bribery which is that the cost of living naturally falls
with the cost of doing business.
|
Bribery is sometimes the cost of doing business. Bribery is often inevitable for foreign companies that
invest in those countries, where corruption is widespread and the conditions
for business development are unfavourable. In Russia IKEA, the Swedish
furniture company, was asked to pay bribes to get electricity for its stores
and refused hiring generators instead, however the generators themselves had
their price inflated, as a result IKEA suspended investment in Russia. It
illustrates that bribe giving is just a result of political system with weak
democratic traditions. That is why many companies from developed countries,
where corruption levels are low, tend to practise bribery in the developing
world.
|
The developed world also carries part of responsibility
for the situation in the developing world due to its role as the bribe-payer.
After all, it is largely multinational corporate interests that supply the
bribe payments. They defraud the citizens of developing countries who get a
less good deal as a result, as well as the interests of shareholders at home
whose money is diverted into the pockets of foreign officials. This shows the
necessity of treating the bribing of foreign officials as a criminal offence
in companies’ home countries. It also requires the publication of all
payments relating to foreign deals.
|
Bribery is only wrong under a Western-centric notion of
corruption. Norms and values differ between countries. In many
non-western societies gift taking and giving in the public realm is a matter
of traditions and customs. Moreover, gift giving is a part of negotiations
and relationship building in some parts of the world. It is hypocritical for
the west to target developing countries for this as many so-called
democracies are hopelessly compromised by business interests through
political funding and lobbying. The United States Foreign Corrupt Practices
Act bans large bribes but allows for the payment of small ‘customary’ sums in
order to ease transactions.
|
In different cultures the lines between the acceptable
and unacceptable are drawn differently. However, there are limits in all
societies, beyond which an action becomes corrupt and unacceptable. The abuse
of power for private gain and the siphoning off of public or common resources
to private pockets should be illegal and unacceptable in all cultures and
societies.
|
Corruption is not always wrong – it can sometimes be a
reaction to greater injustice. For
example, the Mafia arose in 19th Century Southern Italy as a mediating
institution for an ‘in group’ facing autocratic tyranny. Outsiders are treated badly, but then most
groups of people that we label as legitimate also treat outsiders differently
to their members.
|
Bribery is morally
wrong. Corruption is the misuse of power for financial
gain. It takes the core harm from
unequal distribution of wealth and the resulting disparity in availability of
goods and services and magnifies it by
including access to just and nominally public services. It must always disproportionately harm the
least well off in society either by denying them what is theirs by right or
by forcing them into financial hardship to obtain it.
|
The bribery of foreign officials cannot be fought by
international means efficiently if the level of corruption at the national
level is high. It depends on the political will of national governments, the
activities of civil society and other social conditions that exists inside
the state. This explains why in many countries there has been little
enforcement of the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public
Officials.[1] In most OECD countries the political will to prosecute major
bribery cases is lacking. This explains why international efforts to combat
corruption are inefficient.
|
Variation in
standards leads to a ‘race to the bottom’ of corruptibility. International standards on prosecution of companies who
bribe foreign officials may encourage positive changes in national
legislation as well, thus eliminating legal flaws to combat corruption.
Different national rules and standards for combating corruption are not
sufficient in the era of global investments and international business transactions.
Variation between national standards enables corruption to spread. In much
the same way as companies and rich individuals make use of tax havens and
places where taxes are lower and less regulated, all but two of the FTSE 100
are set up in tax havens, companies wishing to hide illicit transactions may
attempt to take advantage of weaker standards, wherever they are found. That
is why international efforts to ensure the prosecution of the companies that
bribe foreign officials are necessary in the current situation.
|
Foreign companies simply adapt to the political and
economic conditions that exist in different countries. You cannot blame them
for high level of corruption, which is the inner problem of the state.
Involvement of business representatives in anti-corruption actions may
contradict their interests by providing access to commercially sensitive
information. If bribery was banned, companies would be unable to operate,
resulting in less investment and so less development in some countries.
|
The demand for
bribes would end if companies stopped supplying them. The risk of corruption demand greater transparency
from business. Companies have a big impact on the social environment and they
have a responsibility to address it. Co-operative actions between the
business sector and state institutions are essential for effective
anti-corruption policy.
Companies that gain a reputation for reporting
officials asking for bribes will find that officials stop asking for them. In
turn they need a legislative environment that protects their interests. The
OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials is an
important step forward in this sphere.
|
0 Comments