The Dark Figure of Corruption
Rather than writing something original today, I'd like to call attention to an article I wrote in 2009 for Policy Review. It seems to me the questions I raised are worth raising again. I'd revise some of my observations about Turkey--perceptions of corruption here have changed since then--but otherwise, I stand by it until I see better arguments. Does anyone have any?
It is my strong suspicion, based on my experience of living in corrupt countries, that it is vastly more important for policymakers, the media, and academics to devote their time and thought to promoting robust anti-corruption policies than to worrying about sound monetary policy — important, at least, that is, if their goal is to lift people out of poverty rather than to get tenure. Indeed, worrying about the niceties of monetary policy is literally an academic exercise when the problem of corruption remains unaddressed and unsolved.
But suspect is the operative word. I cannot prove this, and nor can anyone else. Nor can they prove the contrary. This is the heart of the problem.
In 1832, the Belgian mathematician and sociologist Adolphe Quetelet coined the phrase “the dark figure of crime.” By this he meant the true crime rate as opposed to the number of crimes recorded by the government. The dark figure, he suggested, would inevitably be much higher than the official figure, for people who commit crimes take pains to ensure that their endeavors do not come to the attention of the government. All of our reasoning about crime, Quetelet suggested — about its scope, nature, and impact — would be defective were we to rely upon official statistics. For nearly two centuries, this problem has preoccupied criminologists, and while it has not been solved, its significance, at least, has been properly appreciated. The dark figure of crime has enormous ramifications for economics, too, but the significance of this has not yet been fully appreciated. Let us call this problem the dark figure of corruption.
The dark figure of corruption, we may reasonably assume, is apt to be even larger by comparison with official statistics than the dark figure of crime, for the crimes, in this case, are being committed by the governments that are charged with recording them. While we do not know how large the dark figure of corruption is, it seems reasonable to suppose that it is massive. Our efforts thus far to calculate it, however, have been wholly inadequate.
If you have the time to read the whole thing, I'd very much appreciate thoughts about it.
- Comment (9)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Oct '10
Re: The Dark Figure of Corruption
I doubt, though I don't know, that any country ever become significantly less corrupt by passing laws and creating anti-corruption task forces. What would be really interesting is to know if any country has ever become significantly less corrupt, and how it happened.
Corruption seems to be a cultural thing - while the individual corrupt acts should be discovered and prosecuted, the Salt Lake City and Miami vice squad comparison supports the idea that corruption is a symptom of a larger problem. Treating a symptom is not necessarily the same thing as a cure.
Re: The Dark Figure of Corruption
The main point I'm making is how hard it is to know. I'd like to know if anyone has interesting thoughts about how to study it beyond the major ways I note in the article.
May '10
Re: The Dark Figure of Corruption
I've read research state that corruption can be eradicated, and when it is, it is eradicated rather suddenly once anti-corruption measures reach a certain tipping point.
In other words, when bribery and corruption are an accepted part of the culture, its very widespread acceptance ensures that it continues. But once anti-corruption measures and real punishments reach a certain point, especially with enough high-profile cases being successfully prosecuted, people start thinking "this is really serious, I better shape up." And once corruption falls below a certain level, and the society is still on the watch for it, it ceases to be an accepted "norm" and thus becomes much less common.
Corruption is one more of the cultural and mass phenomena subject to waves of change in mass public opinion and sentiment, including rather sudden tide changes. That is not to say that every anti-corruption effort will be successful-- but you will never succeed if you never try, either. Culture is very hard to change from the top-down, but it can be done with a sustained, serious effort.
Here are a few links:
- http://foreignpolicyblogs.com/2010/02/10/success-stories/
- http://beta.adb.org/publications/progress-fight-against-corruption-asia-and-pacific
- http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/PDF_rms/no69/16_P196-201.pdf
Edited on Aug 24, 2011 at 5:55amRe: The Dark Figure of Corruption
Yes, the examples of Singapore and Hong Kong are interesting. As the author of the FP article points out, "Singapore may be clean, but it is also an undemocratic state. Hong Kong’s status is more complicated, but it is clear that the anti-corruption drive of the 1970s occurred concomitantly with a degree of political repression."
A recent thought from another foreign journalist here--we were talking about the state of press freedom in Turkey. He'd just come here from Singapore. He thought Turkey seemed way better. I haven't been in Singapore lately, but back when I worked at Asia Times (very out-of-date, I stress), we knew better than to say certain things about Singapore, lest it put our correspondent in a world of hurt.
Oct '10
Re: The Dark Figure of Corruption
Yes, my point I'm making is rather than merely measuring corruption, a deeper and more thoughtful analysis of broad cultural factors might be helpful in understanding wide disparities between corrupt countries like Turkey and Mexico and less corrupt countries like Canada and Denmark.
We could use an inductive approach and examine what motivates an individual to commit an act of corruption.
"Because they can get away with it" might suggest a simple need for more laws and more law enforcement. This has limited appeal however, since will never be enough laws and law enforcement to police every human transaction or encounter.
The "everyone does it" excuse could have several implications:
1) structural legal deficiencies in detecting, reporting, and prosecuting corruption;
2) cultural bias against whistleblowing, or "ratting out" fellow citizens;
3) cultural perception that the individual lacks the authority or power to effect positive change. Resisting corruption is like voting for Ron Paul
Aug '10
Re: The Dark Figure of Corruption
By what measure? Don't they vote?
My wife is Singaporean, and while I have heard Singaporeans express sentiments like this:
when I ask them for an example of one being singled out for special police harassment or being denied benefits, or any example that reminds one of KGB portrayals - they can't.
Hong Kong and Singapore both top Heritage's index of Economic freedom and have since I began paying attention (sometime around 2003).
Oct '10
Re: The Dark Figure of Corruption
I know that one problem in many countries is overcentralization. Central governments face information constraints, and corruption is necessary for regional and local governmental bodies to function at all. This is why municipal taxation is important, since it gives local governments some fiscal autonomy from the central and regional governments.
Reducing corruption is very difficult if the system has become dependent on it. Greece is a perfect example; the IMF is currently giving "technical advice" to the Greek bureaucracy because it doesn't even know how to function without corruption.
Oct '10
Re: The Dark Figure of Corruption
Interesting study on corruption in Mexico, Stephen D. Morris of University of Alabama:
www.mtsu.edu/politicalscience/faculty/documents/crptn_and_political_culture.pdf
Excerpts:
One approach sees the attitudes of a “culture of corruption” as outcome – not cause – of years of entrenched political corruption; the other sees such cultural attributes as providing the setting – hence the cause – that gives rise to corruption. The debate is reminiscent of the long-standing debate over the relationship between civic culture and democracy.....
Another cultural factor often linked to corruption centers on citizen involvement, specifically a low propensity to denounce corruption. One survey found that of those involved in a corrupt act, less than 1/3 said they denounced it. The most cited reason for not doing so was to avoid problems/reprisals (22.7%), followed by a lack of efficacy (it would not make a difference, a view cited by 16.8%) (ENCBG 2001)
In Mexico City, .... 53% agreed with the statement that it is so difficult to comply with laws and regulations that at times there is no other way but corruption (Gutierrez 1998, 189-197).
Sep '10
Re: The Dark Figure of Corruption
Traditionally, society’s check on government corruption was the independent press. Back when we had real newspapers, the best articles were on the latest scandal(s) of the local politician(s) and their ill-gotten gains. But today, the press is a bastion of pro-government sentiment that will not report much in the opposite vein (outside of the odd sex scandal).
Much like Joseph’s comments above, remote central government removes local accountability. Often, a corrupt national politician gets re-elected because of his local shaking down of businesses – despite his personal scandals and the overall adverse effect on the nation. See Rangel:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/25/business/economy/25tax.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all
Our big problem with central government corruption is that we don’t have a “national” press. A reporter assigned to cover the nation, but living in suburban Washington, does not see anything around him that would indicate that there’s anything wrong with government? His neighborhood is doing great.