A map depicting the Corruption Perceptions Index in the world in 2023; a higher score indicates lower levels of corruption.
100 – 90
89 – 80
79 – 70
69 – 60
59 – 50
49 – 40
39 – 30
29 – 20
19 – 10
9 – 0
No data
Corruption is a form of dishonesty or a criminal offense that is undertaken by a person or an organization that is entrusted in a position of authority to acquire illicit benefits or abuse power for one's gain. Corruption may involve activities like bribery, influence peddling, and embezzlement, as well as practices that are legal in many countries, such as lobbying.[1]Political corruption occurs when an office-holder or other governmental employee acts in an official capacity for personal gain.
Corruption is perceived as most common in kleptocracies, oligarchies, narco-states, and mafia states,[citation needed] however, more recent research and policy statements acknowledge that it also exists in wealthy capitalist economies. In How Corrupt is Britain, David Whyte reveals that corruption exists "across a wide range of venerated institutions" in the UK,[2] ranked as one of the least corrupt countries by the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI). In a 2022 speech on "Modern Corruption," USAID Administrator Samantha Power stated: "Corruption is no longer just about individual autocrats pilfering their nation's wealth to live large",[3] but also involves sophisticated transnational networks, including financial institutions hidden in secrecy. Responding to Whyte's book, George Monbiot criticized the CPI for its narrow definition of corruption that surveys mostly only Western executives about bribery.[4] Similarly, others point out that "global metrics systematically under-measure 'corruption of the rich' - which tends to be legalized, institutionalized, and ambiguously unethical - as opposed to 'corruption of the poor'".[5]
Corruption and crime are endemic sociological occurrences that appear regularly in virtually all countries on a global scale in varying degrees and proportions. Recent data suggests corruption is on the rise.[6] Each nation allocates domestic resources for the control and regulation of corruption and the deterrence of crime. Strategies undertaken to counter corruption are often summarized under the umbrella term anti-corruption.[7] Additionally, global initiatives like the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 16 also have a targeted goal which is supposed to reduce corruption in all of its forms substantially.[8] Recent initiatives like the Tax Justice Network go beyond bribery and theft and bring attention to tax abuses.[9]
Definitions and scales
A billboard in Zambia exhorting the public to "Just say no to corruption".
Stephen D. Morris,[10] a professor of politics, wrote that political corruption is the illegitimate use of public power to benefit a private interest. Economist Ian Senior defined corruption as an action to secretly provide a good or a service to a third party to influence certain actions which benefit the corrupt, a third party, or both in which the corrupt agent has authority.[11] World Bank economist Daniel Kaufmann[12] extended the concept to include "legal corruption" in which power is abused within the confines of the law—as those with power often have the ability to make laws for their protection. The effect of corruption in infrastructure is to increase costs and construction time, lower the quality and decrease the benefit.[13]
Corruption is a complex phenomenon and can occur on different scales.[14] Corruption ranges from small favors between a small number of people (petty corruption),[15] to corruption that affects the government on a large scale (grand corruption), and corruption that is so prevalent that it is part of the everyday structure of society, including corruption as one of the symptoms of organized crime (systemic corruption). "Corruption of the rich" is particularly hard to measure and largely excluded from conventional metrics like the CPI.[16]
A number of indicators and tools have been developed which can measure different forms of corruption with increasing accuracy;[17][18] but when those are impractical, one study suggests looking at bodyfat as a rough guide after finding that obesity of cabinet ministers in post-Soviet states was highly correlated with more accurate measures of corruption.[19][20]
Petty Theft, Grand Theft, Speed Money, Access Money
Political economist Yuen Yuen Ang "unbundles corruption" into four types, encompassing both petty and grand corruption as well as legal and illegal versions: petty theft, grand theft, speed money, access money.[21] According to her definition, speed money "means petty bribes that businesses or citizens pay to bureaucrats to get around hurdles or speed things up." This is the kind of corruption associated with the "efficient grease hypothesis," which economists found burdensome to businesses in practice.[22] Ang defines access money as "high-stakes rewards extended by business actors to powerful officials, not just for speed, but to access exclusive, valuable privileges."[23] Most theories about bribery focus on speed money, but neglects access money. "From a businessperson's point of view, access money is less a tax than an investment... making it more sludge than grease."[24] The Unbundled Corruption Index measures the prevalence of these four types of corruption.
Whereas corruption with theft and speed money is endemic in poor countries, access money can be found in both poor and rich countries.[25]
Petty corruption
Petty corruption occurs at a smaller scale and takes place at the implementation end of public services when public officials meet the public. For example, in many small places such as registration offices, police stations, state licensing boards,[26][27] and many other private and government sectors. It may seem minor, but it erodes trust in institutions and fosters a culture of dishonesty. [clarification needed]
Grand corruption
Grand corruption is defined as corruption occurring at the highest levels of government in a way that requires significant subversion of the political, legal and economic systems. Such corruption is commonly found in countries with authoritarian or dictatorial governments but also in those without adequate policing of corruption. Still, it can also occur in democracies lacking effective corruption oversight. This type of corruption typically involves large-scale embezzlement, bribery, or fraud that affects national policies and governance, hindering development and eroding public trust. combatting it requires robust institutions, transparency, and accountability measures.[28]
The government system in many countries is divided into the legislative, executive and judicial branches in an attempt to provide independent services that are less subject to grand corruption due to their independence from one another.[29]
Systemic corruption
Systemic corruption (or endemic corruption)[30] is corruption which is primarily due to the weaknesses of an organization or process. It can be contrasted with individual officials or agents who act corruptly within the system.
Factors which encourage systemic corruption include conflicting incentives, discretionary powers; monopolistic powers; lack of transparency; low pay; and a culture of impunity.[31] Specific acts of corruption include "bribery, extortion, and embezzlement" in a system where "corruption becomes the rule rather than the exception."[32] Scholars distinguish between centralized and decentralized systemic corruption, depending on which level of state or government corruption takes place; in countries such as the post-Soviet states both types occur.[33] Some scholars argue that there is a negative duty[clarification needed] of western governments to protect against systematic corruption of underdeveloped governments.[34][35]
Corruption has been a major issue in China, where society depends heavily on personal relationships. By the late 20th century that combined with the new lust for wealth, produced escalating corruption. Historian Keith Schoppa says that bribery was only one of the tools of Chinese corruption, which also included, "embezzlement, nepotism, smuggling, extortion, cronyism, kickbacks, deception, fraud, squandering of public money, illegal business transactions, stock manipulation and real estate fraud." Given the repeated anti-corruption campaigns it was a prudent precaution to move as much of the fraudulent money as possible overseas.[36]
In Latin American countries, corruption is permitted as a result of the cultural norms of the institution. In countries like the United States, there is a relatively strong sense of trust among strangers, one that is not found in Latin American countries. In Latin American countries, this trust does not exist, whereas the social norms imply that no stranger is responsible for the wellbeing or happiness of another stranger. Instead, the trust is found in acquaintances. Acquaintances are treated with trust and respect—a level of trust that is not found among acquaintances in countries like the United States. This is what permits for corruption in Latin American countries. If there is a strong enough trust within an administration that no one will betray the rest, corruptive policies will take place with ease.[37]
Money in Politics
While petty, grand, and systemic corruption, described above, are largely found in poor countries with weak institutions, a newer literature has turned to money politics in wealthy democracies and extreme global inequalities. Simon Weschle at Syracuse University examines the prevalence of campaign finance and its consequences for democracy.[38] Kristin Surak at the London School of Economics explores the controversial practice of millionaires buying "golden passports" with no intention of actually migrating. In her words, "a full-blown citizenship industry that thrives on global inequalities" has arisen."[39]
State-Business Collusion
While not necessarily involving bribery, recent research documents the emergence of "a particular kind of large, non-state business group" that is akin to a mafia system in China.[40] In this situation, the boundary between public and private actors blurs.
Causes
Much of existing literature focuses on explicit corrupt actions like bribery and embezzlement, endemic in poor countries (see below). For "money in politics," the causes are very different and largely ignored in conventional literature. For example, the UK is a developed economy with a robust democracy, and yet London is a hub for money laundering.[41] In a critique of the failures and politics leading up to the US financial crisis, a Stanford financial economist noted, "In the real world, it turned out, important economic outcomes are often the consequences of political forces. During 2010, people within regulatory bodies told me privately that false and misleading claims were affecting key policy decisions... I saw confusion, willful blindness, political forces, various and sometimes subtle forms of corruption, and moral disengagement, first hand."[42]
Per R. Klitgaard[43] corruption will occur if the corrupt gain is greater than the penalty multiplied by the likelihood of being caught and prosecuted.
Since a high degree of monopoly and discretion accompanied by a low degree of transparency does not automatically lead to corruption, a fourth variable of "morality" or "integrity" has been introduced by others. The moral dimension has an intrinsic component and refers to a "mentality problem", and an extrinsic component referring to circumstances like poverty, inadequate remuneration, inappropriate work conditions and inoperable or over-complicated procedures which demoralize people and let them search for "alternative" solutions.
According to a 2017 survey study, the following factors have been attributed as causes of corruption:[44]
Greed of money, desires.
Higher levels of market and political monopolization
Low levels of democracy, weak civil participation and low political transparency
Higher levels of bureaucracy and inefficient administrative structures
It has been noted that in a comparison of the most corrupt with the least corrupt countries, the former group contains nations with huge socio-economic inequalities, and the latter contains nations with a high degree of social and economic justice.[45]
Social norms have been posited as an explanation for why some environments are corrupt and others are not.[46]
By sector
Corruption can occur in many sectors, whether they be public or private industry or even NGOs (especially in public sector). However, only in democratically controlled institutions is there an interest of the public (owner) to develop internal mechanisms to fight active or passive corruption, whereas in private industry as well as in NGOs there is no public control. Therefore, the owners' investors' or sponsors' profits are largely decisive.
Public sector
Public corruption includes corruption of the political process and of government agencies such as tax collectors and the police, as well as corruption in processes of allocating public funds for contracts, grants, and hiring. Recent research by the World Bank suggests that who makes policy decisions (elected officials or bureaucrats) can be critical in determining the level of corruption because of the incentives different policy-makers face.[47]
Judicial corruption refers to the corruption-related misconduct of judges, through the receiving or giving of bribes, the improper sentencing of convicted criminals, bias in the hearing and judgement of arguments and other forms of misconduct. Judicial corruption can also be conducted by prosecutors and defense attorneys. An example of prosecutorial misconduct, occurs when a politician or a crime boss bribes a prosecutor to open investigations and file charges against an opposing politician or a rival crime boss, in order to hurt the competition.[48]
Governmental corruption of the judiciary is broadly known in many transitional and developing countries because the budget is almost completely controlled by the executive. The latter critically undermines the separation of powers, because it fosters financial dependence on the judiciary. The proper distribution of a nation's wealth, including its government's spending on the judiciary, is subject to constitutional economics.
The judiciary may be corrupted by acts of the government, such as through budget planning and various privileges, and by private acts.[49] Corruption in judiciary may also involve the government using its judicial arm to oppress opposition parties. Judicial corruption is difficult to completely eradicate, even in developed countries.[50]
Military
Military corruption refers to the abuse of power by members in the armed forces, in order for career advancement or for personal gain by a soldier or soldiers. One form of military corruption in the United States Armed Forces is a military soldier being promoted in rank or being given better treatment than their colleagues by their officers due to their race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, religious beliefs, social class or personal relationships with higher-ranking officers in spite of their merit.[51] In addition to that, the US military has also had many instances of officers sexually assaulting fellow officers and in many cases, there were allegations that many of the attacks were covered up and victims were coerced to remain silent by officers of the same rank or of higher rank.[52]
Another example of military corruption, is a military officer or officers using the power of their positions to commit activities that are illegal, such as skimming logistical supplies such as food, medicine, fuel, body armor or weapons to sell on the local black market.[53][54] There have also been instances of military officials, providing equipment and combat support to criminal syndicates, private military companies and terrorist groups, without approval from their superiors.[55] As a result, many countries have a military police force to ensure that the military officers follow the laws and conduct of their respective countries but sometimes the military police have levels of corruption themselves.[56]
Natural resources
Within less democratic countries, the presence of resources such as diamonds, gold, oil, and forestry increases the prevalence of corruption. Corruption includes industrial corruption, consisting of large bribes, as well as petty corruption such as a poacher paying off a park ranger to ignore poaching. The presence of fuel extraction and export is unambiguously associated with corruption, whereas mineral exports only increased corruption in poorer countries. In wealthier countries, mineral exports such as gold and diamonds are actually associated with reduced corruption. The international Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative seeks to create best practices for good governance of gas, oil, and minerals, particularly focusing on the state management of revenue from these resources. Any valued natural resource can be affected by corruption, including water for irrigation, land for livestock grazing, forests for hunting and logging, and fisheries.[57]
The presence or perception of corruption also undermines environmental initiatives. In Kenya, farmers blame poor agricultural productivity on corruption, and thus are less likely to undertake soil conservation measures to prevent soil erosion and loss of nutrients. In Benin, mistrust of government due to perceived corruption led small farmers to reject the adaptation of measures to combat climate change.[57]
A political cartoon from Harper's Weekly, 26 January 1878, depicting U.S. Secretary of the Interior Carl Schurz investigating the Indian Bureau at the U.S. Department of the Interior. The original caption for the cartoon is: "THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR INVESTIGATING THE INDIAN BUREAU. GIVE HIM HIS DUE, AND GIVE THEM THEIR DUES."
Political corruption is the abuse of public power, office, or resources by elected government officials for personal gain, by extortion, soliciting or offering bribes. It can also take the form of office holders maintaining themselves in office by purchasing votes by enacting laws which use taxpayers' money.[58] Evidence suggests that corruption can have political consequences- with citizens being asked for bribes becoming less likely to identify with their country or region.[59]
The political act of "graft" (American English), is a well known and now global form of political corruption, being the unscrupulous and illegal use of a politician's authority for personal gain, when funds intended for public projects are intentionally misdirected in order to maximize the benefits to illegally private interests of the corrupted individual(s) and their cronies. In some cases government institutions are "repurposed" or shifted away from their official mandate to serve other, often corrupt purposes.[60]
The Kaunas "Golden Toilet"
The Kaunas golden toilet case was a major Lithuanian scandal. In 2009, the municipality of Kaunas (led by mayor Andrius Kupčinskas) ordered that a shipping container was to be converted into an outdoor toilet at a cost of 500,000 litai (around 150,000 euros). It was to also require 5,000 litai (1,500 euros) in monthly maintenance costs.[61] At the same time when Kaunas's "Golden Toilet" was built, Kėdainiai tennis club acquired a very similar, but more advanced solution for 4,500 euros.[61] Because of the inflated cost of the outdoor toilet, it was nicknamed the "Golden Toilet". Despite the investment, the "Golden Toilet" remained closed for years due to the dysfunctionality and was a subject of a lengthy anti-corruption investigation into those who had created it and[61] the local municipality even considered demolishing the building at one point.[62] The group of public servants involved in the toilet's procurement received various prison sentences for recklessness, malfeasance, misuse of power and document falsifications in a 2012 court case, but were cleared of their corruption charges and received compensation, which pushed the total construction cost and subsequent related financial losses to 352,000 euros.
On 7 July 2020, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a global think tank, released a report claiming the Emirati city, Dubai, of being an enabler of global corruption, crime and illicit financial flows. It stated that the global corrupt and criminal actors either operated through or from Dubai. The city was also called a haven for trade-based money laundering, as it gives space to free trade zones, with minimal regulatory laws and customs enforcement.[63]
A report in September 2022 revealed that British Members of Parliament received a total of £828,211 over a period of eight years from countries of the Saudi-led coalition in the Yemeni Civil War. The money was granted in the form of all-expenses-paid trips to 96 MPs by Saudi Arabia (at least £319,406), Bahrain (£197,985), the United Arab Emirates (£187,251), Egypt (£66,695) and Kuwait (£56,872). MPs also received gifts, including a £500 food hamper, tickets for a Burns Supper, an expensive watch and a day out at the Royal Windsor Horse Show. The Saudi-led coalition was accused of attempting to buy influence in the UK. While the MPs registered the trips and gifts at Westminster as per the rules, critics called it “absolutely shameful” to accept donations from countries with poor human rights records.[64]
A 1902 cartoon depicts a police officer whose eyes are covered with a cloth labelled "bribes".
Police corruption is a specific form of police misconduct designed to obtain financial benefits, personal gain, career advancement for a police officer or officers in exchange for not pursuing or selectively pursuing an investigation or arrest or aspects of the "thin blue line" itself where force members collude in lies to protect their precincts, unions and/or other law enforcement members from accountability. One common form of police corruption is soliciting or accepting bribes in exchange for not reporting organized drug or prostitution rings or other illegal activities. When civilians become witnesses to police brutality, officers are often known to respond by harassing and intimidating the witnesses as retribution for reporting the misconduct.[65]Whistleblowing is not common in law enforcement in part because officers who do so normally face reprisal by being fired, being forced to transfer to another department, being demoted, being shunned, losing friends, not being given back-up during emergencies, receiving professional or even physical threats as well as having threats be made against friends or relatives of theirs or having their own misconduct exposed.[66] In America another common form of police corruption is when white supremacist groups, such as Neo-Nazi Skinheads or Neo-Confederates (such as the Ku Klux Klan), recruit members of law enforcement into their ranks or encourage their members to join local police departments to repress minorities and covertly promote white supremacy.[67]
Another example is police officers flouting the police code of conduct in order to secure convictions of suspects—for example, through the use of surveillance abuse, false confessions, police perjury and/or falsified evidence. Police officers have also been known to sell forms of contraband that were taken during seizers (such as confiscated drugs, stolen property or weapons).[68] Corruption and misconduct can also be done by prison officers, such as the smuggling of contraband (such as drugs or electronics) into jails and prisons for inmates or the abuse of prisoners.[69][70] Another form of misconduct is probation officers taking bribes in exchange for allowing paroles to violate the terms of their probation or abusing their paroles.[71] More rarely, police officers may deliberately and systematically participate in organized crime themselves, either while on the job or during off hours. In most major cities, there are internal affairs sections to investigate suspected police corruption or misconduct. Similar entities include the British Independent Police Complaints Commission.
Private sector
Private sector corruption occurs when any institution, entity or person that is not controlled by the public sector company, household and institution that is not controlled by the public sector engages in corrupt acts. Private sector corruption may overlap with public sector corruption, for example when a private entity operates in conjunction with corrupt government officials, or where the government involves itself in activity normally performed by private entities.
Corruption facilitated by lawyers is a well known form of judicial misconduct. Such abuse is called Attorney misconduct. Attorney misconduct can be either conducted by individuals acting on their own accord or by entire law firms. A well known example of such corruption are mob lawyers. Mob lawyers are attorneys who seek to protect the leaders of criminal enterprises as well as their criminal organizations, with the use of unethical and/or illegal conduct such as making false or misleading statements, hiding evidence from prosecutors, failing to disclose all relevant facts about the case, or even giving clients advice on how to commit crimes in ways that would make prosecution more difficult for any investigating authorities.[72]
Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. — Petrobras, more commonly known as simply Petrobras (Portuguese pronunciation:[ˌpɛtɾoˈbɾas]), is a semi-public Brazilian multinational corporation in the petroleum industry headquartered in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The company's name translates to Brazilian Petroleum Corporation – Petrobras. The company was ranked No. 58 in the 2016 Fortune Global 500 list.[73] From 2014 to 2021, an investigation known as Operation Car Wash examined allegations of corporate and political collusion and corruption by Petrobras.[74]
Odebrecht is a privately held Brazilian conglomerate consisting of businesses in the fields of engineering, real estate, construction, chemicals and petrochemicals. The company was founded in 1944 in Salvador da Bahia by Norberto Odebrecht, and the firm is now present in South America, Central America, North America, the Caribbean, Africa, Europe and the Middle East. Its leading company is Norberto Odebrecht Construtora[pt].[75] Odebrecht is one of the 25 largest international construction companies and led by Odebrecht family.
Corruption in education is a worldwide phenomenon. Corruption in admissions to universities is traditionally considered one of the most corrupt areas of the education sector.[81] Recent attempts in some countries, such as Russia and Ukraine, to curb corruption in admissions through the abolition of university entrance examinations and introduction of standardized computer-graded tests have met backlash from part of society,[82] while others appreciate the changes. Vouchers for university entrants have never materialized.[83] The cost of corruption is that it impedes sustainable economic growth.[83]
Endemic corruption in educational institutions leads to the formation of sustainable corrupt hierarchies.[84][85][86] While higher education in Russia is distinct with widespread bribery, corruption in the US and the UK features a significant amount of fraud.[87][88] The US is distinct with grey areas and institutional corruption in the higher education sector.[89][90] Authoritarian regimes, including those in former Soviet republics, encourage educational corruption and control universities, especially during the election campaigns.[91] This is typical for Russia,[92] Ukraine,[93] and Central Asian regimes,[94] among others. The general public is well aware of the high level of corruption in colleges and universities, including thanks to the media.[95][96] Doctoral education is no exception, with dissertations and doctoral degrees available for sale, including for politicians.[97] Russian Parliament is notorious for "highly educated" MPs[98] High levels of corruption are a result of universities not being able to break away from their Stalinist past, over bureaucratization,[99] and a clear lack of university autonomy.[100] Both quantitative and qualitative methodologies are employed to study education corruption,[101] but the topic remains largely unattended by the scholars. In many societies and international organizations, education corruption remains a taboo. In some countries, such as certain eastern European countries, some Balkan countries and certain Asian countries, corruption occurs frequently in universities.[102] This can include bribes to bypass bureaucratic procedures and bribing faculty for a grade.[102][103] The willingness to engage in corruption such as accepting bribe money in exchange for grades decreases if individuals perceive such behavior as very objectionable, i.e. a violation of social norms and if they fear sanctions regarding the severity and probability of sanctions.[103]
Healthcare
Corruption, the abuse of entrusted power for private gain as defined by Transparency International,[104] is systemic in the health sector. The characteristics of health systems with their concentrated supply of a service, high discretionary power of its members controlling the supply, and low accountability to others are the exact constellation of the variables described by Klitgaard on which corruption depends.[105]:26
Corruption in health care poses a significant danger to public welfare.[106] It is widespread, yet little has been published in medical journals about this topic. As of 2019, there is no evidence on what might reduce corruption in the health sector.[107] Corruption occurs within the private and public health sectors and may appear as theft, embezzlement, nepotism, bribery up until extortion, or undue influence.[108] It can occur anywhere within the sector, be it in service provision, purchasing, construction, and hiring. In 2019, Transparency International described the 6 most common ways of service corruption as follows: absenteeism, informal payments from patients, embezzlement, inflating services also the costs of services, favoritism, and manipulation of data (billing for goods and services that were never sent or done).[109]
Labor unions
Labor unions leaders may be involved in corrupt action or be influenced or controlled by criminal enterprises.[110] For example, for many years the Teamsters were substantially controlled by the Mafia.[111]
"Arms for cash" can be done by either a state-sanctioned arms dealer, firm, or state itself to another party. It regards them as simply good business partners and not as political kindred or allies, thus making them no better than regular gun runners. Arms smugglers, who are already into arms trafficking, may work for them on the ground or with shipment. The money is often laundered and records are often destroyed.[134] It often breaks UN, national or international law.[134]
The Mitterrand–Pasqua affair, also known informally as Angolagate, was an international political scandal over the secret and illegal sale and shipment of arms from the nations of Central Europe to the government of Angola by the Government of France in the 1990s. It led to arrests and judiciary actions in the 2000s, involving an illegal arms sale to Angola despite a UN embargo, with business interests in France and elsewhere improperly obtaining a share of Angolan oil revenues. The scandal has subsequently been tied to several prominent figures in French politics.[135]
The 19th-century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer acknowledged that academics, including philosophers, are subject to the same sources of corruption as the societies which they inhabit. He distinguished the corrupt "university" philosophers, whose "real concern is to earn with credit an honest livelihood for themselves and ... to enjoy a certain prestige in the eyes of the public"[138] from the genuine philosopher, whose sole motive is to discover and bear witness to the truth.
To be a philosopher, that is to say, a lover of wisdom (for wisdom is nothing but truth), it is not enough for a man to love truth, in so far as it is compatible with his own interest, with the will of his superiors, with the dogmas of the church, or with the prejudices and tastes of his contemporaries; so long as he rests content with this position, he is only a φίλαυτος [lover of self], not a φιλόσοφος [lover of wisdom]. For this title of honor is well and wisely conceived precisely by its stating that one should love the truth earnestly and with one's whole heart, and thus unconditionally and unreservedly, above all else, and, if need be, in defiance of all else. Now the reason for this is the one previously stated that the intellect has become free, and in this state, it does not even know or understand any other interest than that of truth.[139]
The history of religion includes numerous examples of religious leaders calling attention to the corruption which existed in the religious practices and institutions of their time. The Jewish prophets Isaiah and Amos berate the rabbinical establishment of Ancient Judea for failing to live up to the ideals of the Torah.[140] In the New Testament, Jesus accuses the rabbinical establishment of his time of hypocritically following only the ceremonial parts of the Torah and neglecting the more important elements of justice, mercy and faithfulness.[141] Corruption was one of the important issues which led to the Investiture Controversy. In 1517, Martin Luther accused the Catholic Church of widespread corruption, including the selling of indulgences.[142]
Bribery involves the improper use of gifts and favours in exchange for personal gain. This is also known as kickbacks or, in the Middle East, as baksheesh. It is a common form of corruption. The types of favors given are diverse and may include money, gifts, real estate, promotions, sexual favors, employee benefits, company shares, privileges, entertainment, employment and political benefits. The personal gain that is given can be anything from actively giving preferential treatment to having an indiscretion or crime overlooked.[146]
Bribery can sometimes form a part of the systemic use of corruption for other ends, for example to perpetrate further corruption. Bribery can make officials more susceptible to blackmail or to extortion.
Embezzlement and theft involve someone with access to funds or assets illegally taking control of them. Fraud involves using deception to convince the owner of funds or assets to give them up to an unauthorized party.
Examples include the misdirection of company funds into "shadow companies" (and then into the pockets of corrupt employees), the skimming of foreign aid money, scams, electoral fraud and other corrupt activity.
The political act of graft is when funds intended for public projects are intentionally misdirected to maximize the benefits to private interests of the corrupt individuals.
While bribery is the use of positive inducements for corrupt aims, extortion and blackmail centre around the use of threats. This can be the threat of physical violence or false imprisonment as well as exposure of an individual's secrets or prior crimes.
This includes such behavior as an influential person threatening to go to the media if they do not receive speedy medical treatment (at the expense of other patients), threatening a public official with exposure of their secrets if they do not vote in a particular manner, or demanding money in exchange for continued secrecy. Another example can be a police officer being threatened with the loss of their job by their superiors, if they continued with investigating a high-ranking official.
Access money
According to Ang, access money "encompasses high-stakes rewards extended by business actors to powerful officials, not just for speed, but to access exclusive, valuable privileges." Whereas bribery and extortion is always illegal and unethical, access money can encompass both illegal and legal actions, and it can involve only corrupt individuals or entire institutions where no person is individually liable for corruption. "Illegal forms of access money entail large bribes and kickbacks, but they can also include ambiguously or completely legal exchanges that omit cash bribes, for example, cultivating political connections, campaign finance, “revolving door” practices."[147]
Influence peddling
Influence peddling is the illegal practice of using one's influence in government or connections with persons in authority to obtain favors or preferential treatment, usually in return for payment.
Networking (both Business and Personal) can be an effective way for job-seekers to gain a competitive edge over others in the job-market. The idea is to cultivate personal relationships with prospective employers, selection panelists, and others, in the hope that these personal affections will influence future hiring decisions. This form of networking has been described as an attempt to corrupt formal hiring processes, where all candidates are given an equal opportunity to demonstrate their merits to selectors. The networker is accused of seeking non-meritocratic advantage over other candidates; advantage that is based on personal fondness rather than on any objective appraisal of which candidate is most qualified for the position.[148][149]
Abuse of discretion refers to the misuse of one's powers and decision-making facilities. Examples include a judge improperly dismissing a criminal case or a customs official using their discretion to allow a banned substance through a port.
Favouritism, nepotism and clientelism involve the favouring of not the perpetrator of corruption but someone related to them, such as a friend, family member or member of an association. Examples would include hiring or promoting a family member or staff member to a role they are not qualified for, who belongs to the same political party as you, regardless of merit.[150]
Measurement
Several organizations measure corruption as part of their development indexes. The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) ranks countries "by their perceived levels of public sector corruption, as determined by expert assessments and opinion surveys." The index has been published annually by the non-governmental organization Transparency International since 1995.[151] On the supply side, Transparency International used to publish the Bribe Payers Index, but stopped in 2011.
The Global Corruption Index (GCI), designed by the Global Risk Profile to be in line with anti-corruption and anti-bribery legislation, covers 196 countries and territories. It measures the state of corruption and white-collar crimes around the world, specifically money laundering and terrorism financing.[152]
Absence of corruption is one of the eight factors[153] the World Justice Project[154] Rule of Law Index[155] measures to evaluate adherence to the rule of law in 140 countries and jurisdictions around the globe. The annual index measures three forms of government corruption across the executive branch, the judiciary, the military and police, and the legislature: bribery, improper influence by public or private interests, and misappropriation of public funds or other resources.[156]
The Unbundled Corruption Index (UCI) measures perceived levels of corruption in four categories: petty theft, grand theft, speed money, access money. It uses "stylized vignettes" instead of broadly worded survey questions.[157]
Relationship to economic growth
Different types of corruption harm in different ways, though not all are immediately growth-impeding. Following an "Unbundled Corruption" framework, Ang describes using the analogy of drugs: "Petty theft and grand theft are like toxic drugs; they directly and unambiguously hurt the economy by draining public and private wealth while delivering no benefits in return. Speed money is akin to painkillers; it may relieve a headache but doesn't improve one's strength. Access money, on the other hand, is like steroids. It spurs muscle growth and allows one to perform superhuman feats, but it comes with serious side effects, including the possibility of a complete meltdown."[158]
Corruption can negatively impact the economy both directly, through for example tax evasion and money laundering, as well as indirectly by distorting fair competition and fair markets, and by increasing the cost of doing business.[159] It is strongly negatively associated with the share of private investment and, hence, lowers the economic growth rate.[160]
Corruption reduces the returns of productive activities. If the production returns fall faster than the returns to corruption and rent-seeking activities, resources will flow from productive activities to corruption activities over time. This will result in a lower stock of producible inputs like human capital in corrupted countries.[160]
Corruption creates the opportunity for increased inequality, reduces the return of productive activities, and, hence, makes rent-seeking and corruption activities more attractive. This opportunity for increased inequality not only generates psychological frustration for the underprivileged but also reduces productivity growth, investment, and job opportunities.[160]
Some experts have suggested that corruption stimulated economic growth in East and Southeast Asian countries. An often-cited example is South Korea, where President Park Chung Hee favored a small number of companies, and later used this financial influence to pressure these chaebols to follow the government's development strategy.[161][162] This 'profit-sharing' corruption model incentivizes government officials to support economic development, as they would personally benefit financially from it.[159][163]
One neglected example of high growth with corruption is the American Gilded Age, which Yuen Yuen Ang has compared to China's Gilded Age. In both, she noted, "corruption evolved over time from thuggery and theft to more sophisticated exchanges of power and profit," and resultingly, both saw unequal and risky growth.[164] Biased narratives about Western development and global corruption metrics have obscured this historical pattern.[165]
According to the amended Klitgaard equation,[166] limitation of monopoly and regulator discretion of individuals and a high degree of transparency through independent oversight by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and the media plus public access to reliable information could reduce the problem. Djankov and other researchers[167] have independently addressed the role information plays in fighting corruption with evidence from both developing and developed countries. Disclosing financial information of government officials to the public is associated with improving institutional accountability and eliminating misbehavior such as vote buying. The effect is specifically remarkable when the disclosures concern politicians' income sources, liabilities and asset level instead of just income level. Any extrinsic aspects that might reduce morality should be eliminated. Additionally, a country should establish a culture of ethical conduct in society with the government setting the good example in order to enhance the intrinsic morality.
Enhancing civil society participation
Creating bottom-up mechanisms, promoting citizens participation and encouraging the values of integrity, accountability, and transparency are crucial components of fighting corruption. As of 2012, the implementation of the "Advocacy and Legal Advice Centres (ALACs)” in Europe had led to a significant increase in the number of citizen complaints against acts of corruption received and documented[168] and also to the development of strategies for good governance by involving citizens willing to fight against corruption.[169]
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA, USA 1977) was an early paradigmatic law for many western countries i.e. industrial countries of the OECD. There, for the first time the old principal-agent approach was moved back where mainly the victim (a society, private or public) and a passive corrupt member (an individual) were considered, whereas the active corrupt part was not in the focus of legal prosecution. Unprecedented, the law of an industrial country directly condemned active corruption, particularly in international business transactions, which was at that time in contradiction to anti-bribery activities of the World Bank and its spin-off organization Transparency International.
As early as 1989 the OECD had established an ad hoc Working Group in order to explore "the concepts fundamental to the offense of corruption, and the exercise of national jurisdiction over offenses committed wholly or partially abroad."[170] Based on the FCPA concept, the Working Group presented in 1994 the then "OECD Anti-Bribery Recommendation" as precursor for the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions[171] which was signed in 1997 by all member countries and came finally into force in 1999. However, because of ongoing concealed corruption in international transactions several instruments of Country Monitoring[172] have been developed since then by the OECD in order to foster and evaluate related national activities in combating foreign corrupt practices. One survey shows that after the implementation of heightened review of multinational firms under the convention in 2010 firms from countries that had signed the convention were less likely to use bribery.[173]
In 2013, a document[174] produced by the economic and private sector professional evidence and applied knowledge services help-desk discusses some of the existing practices on anti-corruption. They found:
The theories behind the fight against corruption are moving from a principal agent approach to a collective action problem. Principal–agent theories seem not to be suitable to target systemic corruption.
The role of multilateral institutions has been crucial in the fight against corruption. UNCAC provides a common guideline for countries around the world. Both Transparency International and the World Bank provide assistance to national governments in term of diagnostic and design of anti-corruption policies.
The use of anti-corruption agencies have proliferated in recent years after the signing of UNCAC. They found no convincing evidence on the extent of their contribution, or the best way to structure them.
Traditionally anti-corruption policies have been based on success experiences and common sense. In recent years there has been an effort to provide a more systematic evaluation of the effectiveness of anti-corruption policies. They found that this literature is still in its infancy.
Anti-corruption policies that may be in general recommended to developing countries may not be suitable for post-conflict countries. Anti-corruption policies in fragile states have to be carefully tailored.
Anti-corruption policies can improve the business environment. There is evidence that lower corruption may facilitate doing business and improve firm's productivity. Rwanda in the last decade has made tremendous progress in improving governance and the business environment providing a model to follow for post-conflict countries.[174]
Armenia aims to achieve zero corruption through raising awareness on the societal hazards. After the lavish spending accusations on the Armenian anti-corruption council, through action strategies with implementation and observing instruments progress is noticeable.[175]
In recent years, anti-corruption efforts have also been criticised for overemphasising the benefits of the eradication of corruption for economic growth and development,[176][177][178][179] following a diversity of literature which has suggested that anti-corruption efforts, the right kind of institutions and "good governance" are key to economic development.[180][181] This criticism is based on the observed fact that a variety of countries, such as Korea and China but also the US in the 19th and early 20th century, saw high economic growth and broader socio-economic development coinciding with significant corruption [182][183]
In some countries people travel to corruption hot spots or a specialist tour company takes them on corruption city tours, as is the case in Prague.[184][185][186][187] Corruption tours have also occurred in Chicago[188] and Mexico City.[189][190]
Though corruption is often viewed as illegal, a concept of "legal corruption" has been described by Daniel Kaufmann and Pedro Vicente.[12][191] It might be termed as processes which are corrupt, but are protected by a "legal" (that is, specifically permitted, or at least not proscribed by law) framework.[192]
Examples
In 1994, the German Parliamentary Financial Commission in Bonn presented a comparative study on "legal corruption" in industrialized OECD countries[193] They reported that in most industrial countries foreign corruption was legal, and that their foreign corrupt practices ranged from simple, through governmental subsidization (tax deduction), up to extreme cases as in Germany, where foreign corruption was fostered, whereas domestic was legally prosecuted. The German Parliamentary Financial Commission rejected a Parliamentary Proposal by the opposition, which had been aiming to limit German foreign corruption on the basis of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA from 1977), thus fostering national export corporations.[194] In 1997 a corresponding OECD Anti-Bribery Convention was signed by its members.[195][196] It took until 1999, after the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention came into force, that Germany withdrew the legalization of foreign corruption.[197]
Foreign corrupt practices of industrialized OECD countries 1994 study
A study on foreign corrupt practices of industrialized OECD countries 1994 (Parliamentary Financial Commission study, Bonn)[193] indicates widespread acceptance of bribes in business practices.
Belgium: bribe payments are generally tax deductible as business expenses if the name and address of the beneficiary is disclosed. Under the following conditions kickbacks in connection with exports abroad are permitted for deduction even without proof of the receiver:
Payments must be necessary in order to be able to survive against foreign competition
They must be common in the industry
A corresponding application must be made to the Treasury each year
Payments must be appropriate
The payer has to pay a lump-sum to the tax office to be fixed by the Finance Minister (at least 20% of the amount paid).
In the absence of the required conditions, for corporate taxable companies paying bribes without proof of the receiver, a special tax of 200% is charged. This special tax may, however, be abated along with the bribe amount as an operating expense.
Denmark: bribe payments are deductible when a clear operational context exists and its adequacy is maintained.
France: basically all operating expenses can be deducted. However, staff costs must correspond to an actual work done and must not be excessive compared to the operational significance. This also applies to payments to foreign parties. Here, the receiver shall specify the name and address, unless the total amount in payments per beneficiary does not exceed 500 FF. If the receiver is not disclosed the payments are considered "rémunérations occult" and are associated with the following disadvantages:
The business expense deduction (of the bribe money) is eliminated.
For corporations and other legal entities, a tax penalty of 100% of the "rémunérations occult" and 75% for voluntary post declaration is to be paid.
There may be a general fine of up 200 FF fixed per case.
Japan: in Japan, bribes are deductible as business expenses that are justified by the operation (of the company) if the name and address of the recipient is specified. This also applies to payments to foreigners. If the indication of the name is refused, the expenses claimed are not recognized as operating expenses.
Canada: there is no general rule on the deductibility or non-deductibility of kickbacks and bribes. Hence the rule is that necessary expenses for obtaining the income (contract) are deductible. Payments to members of the public service and domestic administration of justice, to officers and employees and those charged with the collection of fees, entrance fees etc. for the purpose to entice the recipient to the violation of his official duties, can not be abated as business expenses as well as illegal payments according to the Criminal Code.
Luxembourg: bribes, justified by the operation (of a company) are deductible as business expenses. However, the tax authorities may require that the payer is to designate the receiver by name. If not, the expenses are not recognized as operating expenses.
Netherlands: all expenses that are directly or closely related to the business are deductible. This also applies to expenditure outside the actual business operations if they are considered beneficial to the operation for good reasons by the management. What counts is the good merchant custom. Neither the law nor the administration is authorized to determine which expenses are not operationally justified and therefore not deductible. For the business expense deduction it is not a requirement that the recipient is specified. It is sufficient to elucidate to the satisfaction of the tax authorities that the payments are in the interest of the operation.
Austria: bribes justified by the operation (of a company) are deductible as business expenses. However, the tax authority may require that the payer names the recipient of the deducted payments exactly. If the indication of the name is denied e.g. because of business comity, the expenses claimed are not recognized as operating expenses. This principle also applies to payments to foreigners.
Switzerland: bribe payments are tax deductible if it is clearly operation initiated and the consignee is indicated.
US: (rough résumé: "generally operational expenses are deductible if they are not illegal according to the FCPA")
UK: kickbacks and bribes are deductible if they have been paid for operating purposes. The tax authority may request the name and address of the recipient."
"Specific" legal corruption: exclusively against foreign countries
Referring to the recommendation of the above-mentioned Parliamentary Financial Commission's study,[193] the then Kohl administration (1991–1994) decided to maintain the legality of corruption against officials exclusively in foreign transactions[198] and confirmed the full deductibility of bribe money, co-financing thus a specific nationalistic corruption practice (§4 Abs. 5 Nr. 10 EStG, valid until 19 March 1999) in contradiction to the 1994 OECD recommendation.[199] The respective law was not changed before the OECD Convention also in Germany came into force (1999).[200] According to the Parliamentary Financial Commission's study, however, in 1994 most countries' corruption practices were not nationalistic and much more limited by the respective laws compared to Germany.[201]
Particularly, the non-disclosure of the bribe money recipients' name in tax declarations had been a powerful instrument for Legal Corruption during the 1990s for German corporations, enabling them to block foreign legal jurisdictions which intended to fight corruption in their countries. Hence, they uncontrolled established a strong network of clientelism around Europe (e.g. SIEMENS)[202] along with the formation of the European Single Market in the upcoming European Union and the Eurozone. Moreover, in order to further strengthen active corruption the prosecution of tax evasion during that decade had been severely limited. German tax authorities were instructed to refuse any disclosure of bribe recipients' names from tax declarations to the German criminal prosecution.[203] As a result, German corporations have been systematically increasing their informal economy from 1980 until today up to 350 bn € per annum (see diagram on the right), thus continuously feeding their black money reserves.[204]
Siemens corruption case
In 2007, Siemens was convicted in the District Court of Darmstadt of criminal corruption against the Italian corporation Enel Power SpA. Siemens had paid almost €3.5 million in bribes to be selected for a €200 million project from the Italian corporation, partially owned by the government. The deal was handled through black money accounts in Switzerland and Liechtenstein that were established specifically for such purposes.[205] Because the crime was committed in 1999, after the OECD convention had come into force, this foreign corrupt practice could be prosecuted. It was the first time a German court of law convicted foreign corrupt practices like a national practice, although the corresponding law did not yet protect foreign competitors in business.[206]
During the judicial proceedings it was disclosed that numerous such black accounts had been established in the past decades.[202]
Historical responses in philosophical and religious thought
Philosophers and religious thinkers have responded to the inescapable reality of corruption in different ways. Plato, in The Republic, acknowledges the corrupt nature of political institutions, and recommends that philosophers "shelter behind a wall" to avoid senselessly martyring themselves.
Disciples of philosophy ... have tasted how sweet and blessed a possession philosophy is, and have also seen and been satisfied of the madness of the multitude, and known that there is no one who ever acts honestly in the administration of States, nor any helper who will save any one who maintains the cause of the just. Such a savior would be like a man who has fallen among wild beasts—unable to join in the wickedness of his fellows, neither would he be able alone to resist all their fierce natures, and therefore he would be of no use to the State or to his friends, and would have to throw away his life before he had done any good to himself or others. And he reflects upon all this, and holds his peace, and does his own business. He is like one who retires under the shelter of a wall in the storm of dust and sleet which the driving wind hurries along; and when he sees the rest of mankind full of wickedness, he is content if only he can live his own life and be pure from evil or unrighteousness, and depart in peace and good will, with bright hopes.
The New Testament, in keeping with the tradition of Ancient Greek thought, also frankly acknowledges the corruption of the world (ὁ κόσμος)[207] and claims to offer a way of keeping the spirit "unspotted from the world."[208]Paul of Tarsus acknowledges his readers must inevitably "deal with the world,"[209] and recommends they adopt an attitude of "as if not" in all their dealings. When they buy a thing, for example, they should relate to it "as if it were not theirs to keep."[210] New Testament readers are advised to refuse to "conform to the present age"[211] and not to be ashamed to be peculiar or singular.[212] They are advised not be friends of the corrupt world, because "friendship with the world is enmity with God."[213] They are advised not to love the corrupt world or the things of the world.[214] The rulers of this world, Paul explains, "are coming to nothing"[215] While readers must obey corrupt rulers in order to live in the world,[216] the spirit is subject to no law but to love God and love our neighbors as ourselves.[217] New Testament readers are advised to adopt a disposition in which they are "in the world, but not of the world."[218] This disposition, Paul claims, shows us a way to escape "slavery to corruption" and experience the freedom and glory of being innocent "children of God".[219]
Political corruption is the use of powers by government officials or their network contacts for illegitimate private gain.
Bribery is the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official, or other person, in charge of a public or legal duty and to incline the individual to act contrary to their duty and the known rules of honesty and integrity. With regard to governmental operations, essentially, bribery is "Corrupt solicitation, acceptance, or transfer of value in exchange for official action."
Bribe Payers Index (BPI) is a measure of how willing a nation's multinational corporations appear to engage in corrupt business practices. The first BPI was published by Transparency International on October 26, 1999, and the last one in 2011. Spokesperson Shubham Kaushik said the organization "decided to discontinue the survey due to funding issues and to focus on issues that are more in line with our advocacy goals".
Corruption in India is an issue which affects economy of central, state, and local government agencies. Corruption is blamed for stunting the economy of India. A study conducted by Transparency International in 2005 recorded that more than 62% of Indians had at some point or another paid a bribe to a public official to get a job done. In 2008, another report showed that about 50% of Indians had first hand experience of paying bribes or using contacts to get services performed by public offices. In Transparency International's 2023 Corruption Perceptions Index, which scored 180 countries on a scale from 0 to 100, India scored 39. When ranked by score, India ranked 93rd among the 180 countries in the Index, where the country ranked first is perceived to have the most honest public sector. For comparison with worldwide scores, the best score was 90, the worst score was 11, and the average score was 43. For comparison with regional scores, the highest score among the countries of the Asia Pacific region was 85, the lowest score was 17, and the average score was 45. Various factors contribute to corruption, including officials siphoning money from government social welfare schemes. Examples include the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act and the National Rural Health Mission. Other areas of corruption include India's trucking industry, which is forced to pay billions of rupees in bribes annually to numerous regulatory and police stops on interstate highways.
Corruption in China post-1949 refers to the abuse of political power for private ends typically by members of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), who hold the majority of power in the country. Corruption is a very significant problem in China, impacting all aspects of administration, law enforcement, healthcare and education. Since the Chinese economic reforms began, corruption has been attributed to "organizational involution" caused by the market liberalization reforms initiated by Deng Xiaoping. Like other socialist economies that have undertaken economic reforms, such as post-Soviet Eastern Europe and Central Asia, reform-era China has experienced increasing levels of corruption.
Corruption in the United States is the act of government officials abusing their political powers for private gain, typically through bribery or other methods, in the United States government. Corruption in the United States has been a perennial political issue, peaking in the Jacksonian era and the Gilded Age before declining with the reforms of the Progressive Era.
Corruption is perceived as a significant problem in Russia, impacting various aspects of life, including the economy, business, public administration, law enforcement, healthcare, and education. The phenomenon of corruption is strongly established in the historical model of public governance, and attributed to general weakness of rule of law in the country. Transparency International stated in 2022, "Corruption is endemic in Russia" and assigned it the lowest score of any European country in their Corruption Perceptions Index for 2021. It has, under the regime of Vladimir Putin, been variously characterized as a kleptocracy, an oligarchy, and a plutocracy; owing to its crony capitalism economic system.
The Philippines suffers from widespread corruption, which developed during the Spanish colonial period. According to GAN Integrity's Philippines Corruption Report updated May 2020, the Philippines suffers from many incidents of corruption and crime in many aspects of civic life and in various sectors. Such corruption risks are rampant throughout the state's judicial system, police service, public services, land administration, and natural resources.
Corruption is a significant issue in Ukrainian society going back to the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. After declaring independence from the Soviet Union, Ukraine faced a series of politicians from different sides of the political spectrum, as well as criminal bosses and oligarchs, who used the corruption of police, political parties, and industry to gain power. Despite improvements, corruption remains an obstacle to joining the European Union.
Corruption in Italy is a major problem. In Transparency International's annual surveys, Italy has consistently been regarded as one of the most corrupt countries in the Eurozone. Political corruption remains a major problem, particularly in Lombardy, Campania and Sicily where corruption perception is at a high level. Political parties are ranked the most corrupt institution in Italy, closely followed by public officials and Parliament, according to Transparency International. But in the 2013 Global Corruption Barometer report, Italy is in 17th position in front of the United Kingdom (18th), Switzerland (21st) and the United States (22nd).
Corruption in Lithuania describes the prevention and occurrence of corruption in Lithuania.
Corruption in Sweden has been defined as "the abuse of power" by Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brå). By receiving bribes, bribe takers abuse their position of power, which is consistent with how the National Anti-Corruption Unit of the Swedish Prosecution Authority specifies the term. Although bribes and improper rewards are central in the definition of corruption in Sweden, corruption in the sense of "abuse of power" can also manifest itself in other crimes such as misuse of office, embezzlement, fraud and breach of trust against a principal.
Corruption in Denmark is amongst the lowest in the world.
Corruption in Switzerland describes the prevention and occurrence of corruption in Switzerland.
Transparency International's 2023 Corruption Perceptions Index scored Germany at 78 on a scale from 0 to 100. When ranked by score, Germany ranked 9th among the 180 countries in the Index, where the country ranked first is perceived to have the most honest public sector. For comparison with worldwide scores, the best score was 90, the average score was 43, and the worst score was 11. For comparison with regional scores, the highest score among Western European and European Union countries was 90, the average score was 65 and the lowest score was 42.
Corruption in Georgia had been an issue in the post-Soviet decades. Before the 2003 Rose Revolution, according to Foreign Policy, Georgia was among the most corrupt nations in Eurasia. The level of corruption abated dramatically, however, after the revolution. In 2010, Transparency International (TI) said that Georgia was "the best corruption-buster in the world." While low-level corruption had earlier been largely eliminated, Transparency International Georgia since 2020 has also documented dozens of cases of high-level corruption that remain to be prosecuted.
Corruption in Uzbekistan is a serious problem. There are laws in place to prevent corruption, but enforcement in terms of laws regarding corruption is very weak. Low prosecution rates of corrupt officials is another contributing factor to the rampant corruption in Uzbekistan. It is not a criminal offense for a non-public official to influence the discretion of a public official. The judicial system faces severe functional deficits due to limited resources and corruption.
Corruption in Myanmar is among the worst in the world. Owing to failures in regulation and enforcement, corruption flourishes in every sector of government and business. Many foreign businesspeople consider corruption "a serious barrier to investment and trade in Myanmar." A U.N. survey in May 2014 concluded that corruption is the greatest hindrance for business in Myanmar. The ongoing civil war has significantly set back anti-corruption efforts, exacerbating the problem.
Corruption in Tajikistan is a widespread phenomenon that is found in all spheres of Tajik society. The situation is essentially similar to that in the other former Soviet republics of Central Asia. Reliable specifics about corruption can be difficult to come by, however, as can hard information about the effectiveness of supposed anti-corruption initiatives.
Anti-corruption comprises activities that oppose or inhibit corruption. Just as corruption takes many forms, anti-corruption efforts vary in scope and in strategy. A general distinction between preventive and reactive measures is sometimes drawn. In such framework, investigative authorities and their attempts to unveil corrupt practices would be considered reactive, while education on the negative impact of corruption, or firm-internal compliance programs are classified as the former.
References
↑ "Report"(PDF). siteresources.worldbank.org. Archived from the original(PDF) on 5 May 2015. Retrieved 25 September 2012.
↑ Blavatskyy, Pavlo (18 July 2020). "Obesity of politicians and corruption in post-Soviet countries". Economics of Transition and Institutional Change. 29 (2): 343–356. doi:10.1111/ecot.12259. S2CID225574749.
↑ Ang, Yuen Yuen, ed. (2020), "China's Gilded Age", China's Gilded Age: The Paradox of Economic Boom and Vast Corruption, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.Chapter 1, ISBN978-1-108-47860-1, retrieved 25 May 2024
↑ Surak, Kristin (19 September 2023). The Golden Passport: Global Mobility for Millionaires. Cambridge, Massachusetts; London, England: Harvard University Press. ISBN978-0-674-24864-9.
↑ Khair, Tabish (20 January 2019). "The root cause of corruption". The Hindu. Archived from the original on 28 July 2020. Retrieved 19 May 2023– via www.thehindu.com.
1 2 Heyneman, S. P., Anderson, K. H. and Nuraliyeva, N. (2008). The cost of corruption in higher education. Comparative Education Review, 51, 1–25.
1 2 Graeff, P., Sattler, S., Mehlkop, G. and Sauer, C. (2014). "Incentives and Inhibitors of Abusing Academic Positions: Analysing University Students' Decisions about Bribing Academic Staff" In: European Sociological Review 30(2) 230–41. 10.1093/esr/jct036
↑ Vian, Taryn; Norberg, Carin (2008). "Corruption in the Health Sector". Bergen: Chr. Michelsen Institute (U4). Archived from the original on 28 July 2020. Retrieved 7 December 2019.
↑ "The Ignored Pandemic". Transparency International Health Initiative. 19 March 2019. Archived from the original on 16 June 2020. Retrieved 7 December 2019.
↑ "FBI Detroit History". Federal Bureau of Investigation. U.S. Department of Justice. Archived from the original on 3 December 2021. Retrieved 3 December 2021.
↑ "FBI Albany History". Federal Bureau of Investigation. U.S. Department of Justice. Archived from the original on 3 December 2021. Retrieved 3 December 2021.
↑ Arthur Schopenhauer, "On Philosophy in the Universities", Parerga and Paralipomena, E. Payne, trans. (1974) Vol. 1, p. 141.
↑ Arthur Schopenhauer, "Sketch for a history of the doctrine of the ideal and the real", Parerga and Paralipomena, E. Payne, trans. (1974) Vol. 1, pp. 21–22.
↑ Wang, Peng (2013). "The rise of the Red Mafia in China: a case study of organised crime and corruption in Chongqing". Trends in Organized Crime. 16 (1): 49–73. doi:10.1007/s12117-012-9179-8. S2CID143858155.
↑ Jensen, Nathan M.; Malesky, Edmund J. (2017). "Nonstate Actors and Compliance with International Agreements: An Empirical Analysis of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention". International Organization. 72 (1): 33–69. doi:10.1017/S0020818317000443. ISSN0020-8183. S2CID158446483.
↑ "Archived copy"(PDF). Archived(PDF) from the original on 31 May 2011. Retrieved 12 May 2021.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
↑ Kuipers, S. (2021), "Rethinking anti-corruption efforts in international development", Journal of Financial Crime, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. doi:10.1108/JFC-08-2021-0176.
↑ Rodrik, D. (2008), "Second-Best Institutions", American Economic Review: Paper & Proceedings. Vol. 98, No. 2, pp. 100-104.
↑ Rodrik, D. (2014), "An African Growth Miracle?", working paper No. 20188, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA, June
↑ Marquette, H. and Peiffer, C. (2018), "Grappling with the 'real politics' of systemic corruption: Theoretical debates versus 'real-world' functions", Governance Vol. 31, No. 3, pp. 499-514.
↑ Acemoglu, D. and Robinson, J. A. (2012). Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty, Crown Business Publishing, New York.
↑ Ang, Y. Y. (2020). China's Gilded Age: The Paradox of Economic Boom and Vast Corruption, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
↑ Kang, D.C. (Winter 2002), "Bad Loans to Good Friends: Money Politics and the Developmental State in South Korea", International Organization, Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 177–207. JSTOR3078674.
↑ Kaufmann, Daniel; Vicente, Pedro (2011). "Legal Corruption (revised)"(PDF). Economics and Politics, v23. pp.195–219. Archived(PDF) from the original on 21 January 2013. Retrieved 25 September 2012.
↑ Kaufmann, Daniel; Vicente, Pedro (2011). "Legal Corruption (revised)"(PDF). Economics and Politics, v23. p.195. Archived(PDF) from the original on 21 January 2013. Retrieved 25 September 2012.
1 2 3 "Drucksache 12/8468"(PDF). Bonn Parliament records. 8 September 1994. pp.4–6. Archived(PDF) from the original on 8 March 2021. Retrieved 13 April 2015.
↑ Drucksache 12/8468:Archived 8 March 2021 at the Wayback Machine "Die Ablehnung erfolgte mit den Stimmen der Koalitionsfraktionen gegen die Stimmen der Fraktion der SPD bei Abwesenheit der Gruppen BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN und der PDS/Linke Liste."
↑ "Report"(PDF). oecd.org. Archived(PDF) from the original on 26 November 2013. Retrieved 13 April 2015.
↑ "Report"(PDF). oecd.org. Archived(PDF) from the original on 9 July 2015. Retrieved 13 April 2015.
↑ § 4 chapter 5 no. 10 Income Tax Act, valid until 19 March 1999
↑ the term "official" had been limited to German jurisdiction. Officials of other states legally were no "officials". See für Rolf Keller"Archived 12 November 2022 at the Wayback Machine Essay in Memory for Rolf Keller, 2003, Edited by Criminal Law professors from the Law Faculty of Tübingen and the Ministry of Justice of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany, page 104: "Nach der Legaldefinition des §11 I Nr.2a StGB versteht man unter einem Amtsträger u.a. eine Person, die >>nach deutschem Recht Beamter oder Richter ist. Die Vorschrift enthält also eine vom Wortlaut her eindeutige Einschränkung auf das deutsche Recht. Ausländische Amtsträger werden somit nicht erfasst."
↑ Britta Bannenberg, Korruption in Deutschland und ihre strafrechtliche Kontrolle, page VII (Introduction): "Durch die OECD-Konvention und europaweite Abkommen wurden auch in Deutschland neue Anti-Korruptions-Gesetze geschaffen, so dass nun die Auslandsbestechung durch deutsche Unternehmen dem Strafrecht unterfällt und die Bestechungsgelder nicht mehr als Betriebsausgaben von der Steuer abgesetzt werden können."
Heidenheimer, Arnold J. and Michael Johnston, eds. Political corruption: Concepts and contexts (2011).
Heywood, Paul M. ed. Routledge Handbook of Political Corruption (2014)
Johnston, Michael Syndromes of Corruption (2006).
Li, Ling. "Politics of Anticorruption in China: Paradigm Change of the Party's Disciplinary Regime 2012–2017," Journal of Contemporary China, 28:115, 47–63, DOI: 10.1080/10670564.2018.1497911
McCormick, Richard L. "The discovery that business corrupts politics: A reappraisal of the origins of Progressivism" American Historical Review 86 (1981): 247–74.
Rajan, Sudhir Chella A Social Theory of Corruption (2020).
Sharma, Vivek Swaroop. "Give Corruption a Chance" in The National Interest 128, November/December 2013: 38–45. Full text available at: .
Wallis, John Joseph. "The concept of systematic corruption in American history." in Corruption and Reform: Lessons from America's economic history (U of Chicago Press, 2006). 23–62. online
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
