Daily Times

1. Sumah (2018) considers a lack of professional ethics, deficient laws regulating corruption, and the lack of prosecution and sanctions against it are an important cause for the emergence and spread of corruption. Ineffective sanctions against corruption only increase the possibility of continuing the corrupt actions of those involved, creating a strong likelihood that others will join in the corruption due to the lack of sanctions. Therefore, the lack of professional ethics results in a widespread form of legal corruption. Corruption prospers due to a lack of transparency and control by supervisory institutions. Therefore, an insufficient legal basis or political will enables a lack of transparency in both politics and the economy, which in turn encourages corruption. Corruption is also affected by extensive, ambiguous, or incomplete legislation, where laws can be interpreted in different ways for the benefit of the one who pays.

Different countries have different attitudes toward corruption, and in some countries, corruption in the state apparatus is a part of folklore tradition. Some forms of corruption also relate to an informal structure of society, where the family or the immediate community takes care of its members.  These countries are known for nepotism, cronyism, and patronage because the family and immediate community provide security. The family or community takes care of its members, who, in return, must be loyal and in a way repay the benefits they receive from this paternalistic system.

The use of anti-corruption agencies has proliferated in recent years, but no convincing evidence has been presented to validate their contributions or the best way to control corruption

The same is true of religions; for example, Catholicism and some Protestant denominations emphasize individual responsibility (which is why countries, where these religions dominate, tend to have fewer forms of corruption). In contrast, corruption prospers more in countries where Islam and Orthodoxy are the dominant religion. The influence of the dominant religion in the country is thus important. The influence of majority Protestantism has been tested several times and has proven an important factor for the low level of corruption in a country. Thus, the influence of Protestantism appears to emerge from its egalitarian ethos, which could indirectly support the general orientation toward ethical universalism, literacy, and the promotion of individualism. Similarly, North states that the least corrupt countries are those countries where the rule of law is the strongest. North’s research shows a link between religion and corruption on the one hand and respect for the rule of law on the other. Several questions, therefore, arise: Why do some religions respect the rule of law more than others and control corruption? Do the characteristics of a particular religion themselves lead to the results? Are there any differences in religious doctrines, practices, or cultures that lead to such results? Are there other links that are not rooted in the religious culture, but are related to religious affiliation? Unfortunately, no research has answered these questions.

1. Melgar (2010) found that those who think that there is a lot of corruption also perceive it so and are consequently more willing to pay for it (as they think or expect the society to function that way). He also suggests that social status and personal characteristics play an important role in shaping people’s perceptions about corruption at the micro-level.

North found that all African and Asian countries, as well as the former socialist countries, are more corrupt than other countries. People living in these countries perceive corruption as a way of life. North also found that the former English colonies are more corrupt due to their acceptance of corruption as a way of life. He also found that macroeconomic instability and income inequalities cause more corruption. A number of studies have shown that patriarchal societies are more prone to corruption. This is confirmed by several researchers who have shown a link between a higher representation of women in government and lower levels of corruption. They found that women are more reliable and less prone to corruption. Many other studies have concluded that women are less corrupt than men and that the increase in the number of women in the labor market and politics would help fight corruption. Lee and Guven found that women are less susceptible to corruption than men, especially in cultures that require men to be ambitious, competitive, and materially successful, as these factors significantly contribute to unethical behavior. This belief is supported by data from Peru when the Peruvian government decided a decade ago to involve more women in police units. When the 2,500 female police officers were added as traffic police officers, something unexpected happened; bribery was drastically reduced, and people welcomed the female police officers on the streets.

As I have shown, many factors contribute to corruption. Some factors are social; others are economic. Regardless, corruption exists, and unless countries take appropriate action relevant to their environment, corruption will continue. A 2013 study of the existing anti-corruption practices found the following:

1. The use of anti-corruption agencies has proliferated in recent years, but no convincing evidence has been presented to validate their contributions or the best way to control corruption.
2. Effective methods for controlling corruption are based on structured, common-sense experience. However, we lack well-documented information on which method works best. Anti-corruption policies that may work in some developing countries may not be suitable for others. Anti-corruption policies must be continually adjusted as conditions change. There is no such thing as one size fits all.

This situation does not mean countries should give up on fighting corruption. A common mistake most countries make is putting the cart before the horse. That is, they try to catch and punish corruption after it happens rather than trying to prevent it in the first place. The best way to control corruption is to avoid it. This requires clearly defined rules for every activity in the government and making sure that everyone follows the rules. As the saying goes, nip it in the bud. Stop it before it happens. Thus, all the rules must be followed, and if anyone violates any rule, large or small, they will be punished. This will set an example that bureaucrats are not above the law and face consequences for failing to do their jobs properly.

As I was finishing this Op-Ed, I just read in the Daily Times (December 5, 2019) the headlines “Govt to go digital to curb corruption: PM.” Unfortunately, PM did not explain how digitization would control corruption. Instead, he goes on saying it will “unleash the true potential of the youth and women in the country.” There are many problems with this approach. 1. Digitization will take ten to twenty years or never. 2. There is a difference between Information and data. Digitization means more data. Information means that data is presented in a form that helps the decision-makers make a better decision.  The question is: what is the data used for and how is it going to control corruption? 3. How many bureaucrats are capable, willing, and competent to use the information (not data) to manage their operations? 4. No published research has ever mentioned that digitization is the solution to corruption. I am now sure that corruption will continue regardless of whether PM digitizes or not. I do not think PM understands or knows that digitization is not going to control corruption or ever has.

The writer is Ph.D. (USA), Professor Emeritus (USA)