Today was UN Anti-corruption day, a day which was not noticable for a lack of the usual corruption. To mark the day, Transparency International released the results of a Gallup poll it had commissioned, questioning 50,000 people in 64 countries. The results are not exactly surprising, but are certainly interesting.
Predictably, the politicians came out looking worst.
In 36 out of 62 countries surveyed, political parties were rated by the general public as the institution most affected by corruption. On a scale from a corrupt-free 1 to an extremely corrupt score of 5, parties ranked worst worldwide, with a score of 4.0, faring most poorly in Ecuador, followed by Argentina, India and Peru. At the same time, the public rated political or grand corruption as a very grave problem, and reported that in most countries surveyed corruption affected political life more than business and private life.
However, the politicians weren't the biggest problem everywhere. In Cameroon, Georgia, Ghana, Guatemala, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Moldova, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines, Russia, South Africa and Ukraine, the police were fingered as the most corrupt institution. In Afghanistan, Croatia, (the former Yugoslav Republic of) Macedonia and Venezuela, the judiciary/legal system was identified as the institution most affected by corruption.
The BBC has made a good abstract of the main points, noting that one in ten of the people questioned worldwide had to pay a bribe in the last year. However, there are some gems to be found in the raw report that are worth mentioning.
Comparing the "Western democracies", we find that France, Japan, Israel and Italy have problems with political corruption on a par with many third world nations, but what is perhaps surprising is that Germany is not far behind them, followed by Spain, the US, then the UK. (In fact, the US ranks higher in every area than the UK.) Of all the West, the Nordic countries and Luxembourg seem little troubled by crooked politicos. Denmark and the Netherlands have more trouble with corruption in the media than any other area, while Norwegians feel their private sector and their religious bodies are equally large problems. In Greece, it's the doctors who want bribed most often. In Russia, it's the police.
Poor Ukraine, much talked about off late, has major problems with its politicians, its legislature, its police and customs officials.
I fancy spending the weekend doing some numbers crunching on the data. If anything weird pops out I will let you know. If any of you find something, I would appreciate a tip-off.
3 comments:
Of course small European countries like luxembourg won't have a large quantity of corruption, thry're simply too small. The less people there are in a place, the more likely corruption in state run systems will be noticed and stopped early on before it can fester and spread. Luxembourg can't have very much corruption, it doesn't have enough people. The entire country's population is under 500,000. Less than Los Angeles.You only start getting seriously corrupt institutions when they become big enough that it won't be immediatly noticed. The system has to be fairly large for corruption to become a serious problem. Kinda like the gargantuan U.S. government maybe? Unfortunatly the U.S. is such a huge sheep pen that almost no one thinks to question what is force fed to them through mass media. If they do dare to ask they're labeled as crazy and paranoid. If the people don't demand to know exactly what is going on in the administration then they are just asking for oppertunistic and deceitful politics. Just my thought.
-Kitty
There's at least one form of corporate corruption which is legal, although that doesn't make it any less unethical. Here's a special report:
Access Denied -- Public's business done in privateRegarding civil suits, few people are aware of a cheap trick lawyers/legislators came up with to force most people to settle out of court. They made it illegal to tell jurors how much money the defendant offered to settle the case before going to trial. And it's illegal to tell jurors that the law says that if the jurors in any civil case award the plaintiff the same amount of money, or less than the defendant offered the plaintiff to settle out of court, the plaintiff, rather than the defendant, must pay all the court costs and pay for all the expert witnesses who testified, even though the jury ruled in their favor. So if they decide not to settle, a plaintiff runs the double risk that the jury may decide against them altogether, or that even if the jurors do rule in their favor, but the amount of money the jury awards happens to be the same or less than the defendant's settlement offer, the plaintiff would then owe so much in court costs and expert witness fees that, contrary to the juror's intent, they'd end up with little, nothing, deeply in debt, or even bankrupt.
For instance, in a injury case, both sides may bring in several doctors and other professionals who charge $20,000 for each day they're called to testify. And if the plaintiff's lawyer is working on a contingency basis, their percentage of whatever the jury may award goes up if the case is taken to trial, and may continue to increase, depending on how long the case goes on. If the defendant offered $300,000 to settle out of court, and the jury happens to award the plaintiff that same amount, the plaintiff's lawyer would get their 60% or more of that $300,000 off the top, while the plaintiff would now be obligated to pay perhaps $200,000 or more for both sides' expert witnesses and tens of thousands in court costs.
As if the above wasn't bad enough, Republicans/conservatives in Congress are now pushing for 'tort reform' which would limit the amount jurors could award.
Just a little something to keep in mind if you're ever called for jury duty in a civil case.
Kat
Our government corrupt? The hell you say!
Mr. M
Post a Comment