It swallows resources needed for development. And it is an affront to people who bring high ethical standards to their work and dealings with their fellow human beings and who expect the same in return, in the time-honoured tradition of "do unto others".
Corruption is evil and insidious, and must be opposed at every turn. A recent study by the United Nations Development Programme found that corruption can be especially brutal to the poor, since they are the weakest and the least able to pay bribes for government services and for access to market opportunities.
We must eradicate this affliction, for it is that -- a disease, a symptom of something gone terribly wrong in the management of the state. No country is immune from corruption, and many are especially vulnerable because of their weak laws and institutions. Corruption also has an international dimension. The same open borders, technological advances and transnational communications and commercial transactions that are the hallmarks of today's global society can also allow corruption to take root and flourish.
International cooperation -- among governments, the private sector and civil society -- is thus essential if we are to defeat this menace. Amid mounting concern about the costs of corruption over the past decade, the United Nations has focused increased attention on the question, particularly in the context of its work to combat crime, improve governance and strengthen institutions.
In and , United Nations Crime Congresses discussed the impact of corruption on social and economic development. In addition, the Manual on Practical Measures against Corruption is constantly being updated and expanded.
It disenfranchises the poor, weakens public services, reduces investment, and holds back whole societies. And yet, in some instances, corruption can actually be very useful, lubricating business in a way that promotes growth, creates jobs, helps smooth the introduction of needed reforms, and reduces poverty.
The problem is the English language. In English, however, these are all grouped together in a way that does not allow for differentiation—forcing every activity into one rubric. In many countries, corruption actually is not viewed negatively but is seen as a positive force and reflects a value system that prioritizes loyalty to family and clan over that to an impersonal institution.
In such places, it may be so important to maintaining stability and reinforcing the glue that holds together a state that eliminating it—which would be impossible in any case—would have dire consequences. Corruption itself comes in many forms—and has a wide range of influences on economic activity—only some of which are as evil as the whole bunch is made out to be.
In China, for instance, although corruption is deeply rooted and widespread, it does not necessarily determine the allocation of key resources in most cases. While it serves to reduce efficiency, increase costs, and can produce egregious results at times, given the low overall level of development in the country, it does not have a large effect on growth though this will change as the country grows richer.
On the contrary, it may actually act as a lubricant to circumvent stifling regulations and smooth the establishment of the trust necessary for businesspeople to have enough confidence in officials to want to invest at times. The same situation has existed in various forms across much of East Asia—including in Korea, Indonesia, and Thailand—at similar stages in their development. In contrast, in the Philippines , Central Asia, and most of Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East, corruption is much more predatory, with interest in personal gain or in getting access to resources to buy the loyalty of various supporters triumphing any legitimate activity.
But while there are self-reported cases of foreign bribery, the temptation to cover up infractions is compelling. Various efforts by industries to self-regulate have also emerged. In industry-level self-regulating organizations SROs , member companies develop policies for a particular industry and they, as opposed to an independent agency or government regulator, monitor and enforce member compliance. But if there are only two options for auditing members of an SRO, are auditors actually independent?
While SROs can help set standards for industries in the absence of effective government regulation, there is also an inherent conflict of interest. A new development offers hope for addressing the global corruption problem. Created using input from existing recommendations and from countries, non-profits and esteemed multilateral institutions, the standard provides an auditable, independent benchmark of international compliance principles and enables organizations of all sizes, public or private, to prevent, detect and address bribery.
Audits are done over a three-year period to ensure policies are not simply on paper and are performed by independent certifying bodies. Numerous companies and governments have since pursued certification as ISO has increasingly become recognized as the reference for anti-bribery.
Anti-corruption lawyer Jean-Pierre Mean says the advantage of certification is benchmarking and reassuring organizations that they have implemented effective measures. As a sign of confidence in the standard, prosecutors in Brazil, the US, Denmark, Switzerland and Singapore have required companies to pursue ISO certification as conditions of settlements in many lawsuits.
Companies and governments should require ISO certification from potential partners as a prerequisite to doing business, discarding superfluous and therefore suspicious self-regulation. Increased efforts to curb bribery have had varying levels of success.
Government enforcement of existing laws needs to be strengthened as evidence has shown that self-regulation is flawed. The introduction of ISO as an independent standard for anti-bribery holds the most promise, but more companies and governments need to pursue certification for change to happen. Corruption may be as old as it widespread, but it can also be avoided. For more than 10 years, Fair Observer has been free, fair and independent.
No billionaire owns us, no advertisers control us. We are a reader-supported nonprofit. Unlike many other publications, we keep our content free for readers regardless of where they live or whether they can afford to pay. We have no paywalls and no ads. In the post-truth era of fake news, echo chambers and filter bubbles, we publish a plurality of perspectives from around the world.
Anyone can publish with us, but everyone goes through a rigorous editorial process. So, you get fact-checked, well-reasoned content instead of noise. We also conduct education and training programs on subjects ranging from digital media and journalism to writing and critical thinking. Servers, editors, trainers and web developers cost money.
Please consider supporting us on a regular basis as a recurring donor or a sustaining member. If you have any questions, work inquiries, or really anything else don't hesitate to contact us using this form.
0コメント