4 ms·

I've always felt that it is important to keep in mind that there's corruption and then there is corruption...not all corruption comes in the same flavor. For ex

I've always felt that it is important to keep in mind that there's corruption and then there is corruption...not all corruption comes in the same flavor. For example, I have the feeling that corruption in Mexico (#98) associated with drug cartels is primarily driven by money. Your own brother might shoot you if he was paid enough by one of the cartels. This sort of corruption seems to be 100% detrimental to society. Then there are places like Turkey (#56) where corruption is much more family oriented. Let's say you're mayor of a small town in Turkey, and you need to fill some lower level functionary position like Director of Sanitation. You're aunt or grandmother might come to you and tell you that you should give that position to your no-good lazy slacker of a cousin who's been out of work for the past 6 months, even though he's not exactly qualified. You wouldn't dare say no! You couldn't...you'd be disowned. Is it corrupt? cronyism? Sure. Is it as bad as the money driven corruption you've got from the drug cartels in Mexico? Well, I'm not so sure. You see, while this sort of corruption does impede progress by not giving those most qualified the positions of power, there is something to be said for strong family bonds. Visiting Istanbul you won't see nearly as many homeless as you do visiting NYC. Why? Most of the homeless in NYC are individuals with some psychological ailment (most often Schizophrenia) and it is often more than a spouse can handle on their own to take care of such individuals. Caring for these problems really requires a strong family and community of helpers. You'll find that is much more common in a place like Turkey, where family means so much. Would the world be better off with less corruption? Sure. But I guess my point is that not all corruption should be treated equally...

johnglasgow 16y ago
It's all relative.
meric 16y ago
Always curious to see Singapore landing at best spots in the corruption index. Their leader is paid 5 times as much as the US president. Relatives of government officials get good jobs. The opposition parties are suppressed, etc, etc. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/world/asia/09iht-sing.3.5200498.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/world/asia/09iht-sing.3.52... It's not corruption if it is transparent.
dpatru 16y ago
Corruption is always caused by government doing more than what it should be doing. To illustrate from your examples, if a government does sanitation and therefore has a cushy job for the director of sanitation, this is a breeding ground for corruption. The solution is to get the government out of the sanitation business. Let this function be carried out by privately competing sanitation companies. Likewise, if a government seeks to prevent people from using drugs, this is a breeding ground for corruption. The solution is get government out of the drug prohibition business.
- sgift 16y ago
  The bottom line of your argument seems to be: No government, no corruption. Which is more or less correct, but not really helpful: Without any government you have to pay the guy with the gun or he'll shoot you in the head (no one there to hinder him). Different? Sure. Better? I'd say no.
  - dpatru 16y ago
    As long as there are thieves and robbers, people will always need protection. And protection, unless you do it yourself, usually has to be paid for. Thus your statement, "you have to pay the guy with the gun" is true without the qualification of "without any government." In most ordered societies today, the man with the gun is government and if you don't pay him, he will take away your property and liberty, though usually not your life. Corruption arises when government, i.e. the man-with-the-gun-who-must-be-paid, goes beyond protecting property and, abusing its power, begins infringing on liberty. As long as the police stick to preventing robbery, forcible rape, and other assaults on liberty and property, corruption is not a problem. It is only when they begin interfering with the free market, for example, trying to prevent the exchange of pot between willing sellers and willing buyers, that corruption arises. If the government would stick to protecting liberty and property, there would be (practically) no corruption because the overwhelming majority of people support laws protecting liberty and property. The bottom line of my argument is: no abuse of government power, no corruption. This is helpful because it clarifies the legitimate role of government in practice. Corruption and widespread law breaking become symptoms of an abuse of government power. The cure is to rein in the abuse of government. Without this understanding, the natural tendency of politicians is to fight corruption by making it worse: by increasing government abuse of power, e.g., the war on drugs.
maw 16y ago
I don't know why you have that impression of Mexico. There has been corruption here since before the recent wave of crackdowns started, and, sadly, there will still be corruption when the crackdowns let up. When most Mexicans think about corruption, they think about nepotism, bribery, and embezzlement. Some of that's related to the narcos, of course, but it goes on even in areas where the narcos have little presence.

johnglasgow 16y ago

It's all relative.

meric 16y ago

Always curious to see Singapore landing at best spots in the corruption index. Their leader is paid 5 times as much as the US president. Relatives of government officials get good jobs. The opposition parties are suppressed, etc, etc. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/world/asia/09iht-sing.3.5200498.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/world/asia/09iht-sing.3.52... It's not corruption if it is transparent.

dpatru 16y ago

Corruption is always caused by government doing more than what it should be doing. To illustrate from your examples, if a government does sanitation and therefore has a cushy job for the director of sanitation, this is a breeding ground for corruption. The solution is to get the government out of the sanitation business. Let this function be carried out by privately competing sanitation companies. Likewise, if a government seeks to prevent people from using drugs, this is a breeding ground for corruption. The solution is get government out of the drug prohibition business.

sgift 16y ago
The bottom line of your argument seems to be: No government, no corruption. Which is more or less correct, but not really helpful: Without any government you have to pay the guy with the gun or he'll shoot you in the head (no one there to hinder him). Different? Sure. Better? I'd say no.
- dpatru 16y ago
  As long as there are thieves and robbers, people will always need protection. And protection, unless you do it yourself, usually has to be paid for. Thus your statement, "you have to pay the guy with the gun" is true without the qualification of "without any government." In most ordered societies today, the man with the gun is government and if you don't pay him, he will take away your property and liberty, though usually not your life. Corruption arises when government, i.e. the man-with-the-gun-who-must-be-paid, goes beyond protecting property and, abusing its power, begins infringing on liberty. As long as the police stick to preventing robbery, forcible rape, and other assaults on liberty and property, corruption is not a problem. It is only when they begin interfering with the free market, for example, trying to prevent the exchange of pot between willing sellers and willing buyers, that corruption arises. If the government would stick to protecting liberty and property, there would be (practically) no corruption because the overwhelming majority of people support laws protecting liberty and property. The bottom line of my argument is: no abuse of government power, no corruption. This is helpful because it clarifies the legitimate role of government in practice. Corruption and widespread law breaking become symptoms of an abuse of government power. The cure is to rein in the abuse of government. Without this understanding, the natural tendency of politicians is to fight corruption by making it worse: by increasing government abuse of power, e.g., the war on drugs.

maw 16y ago

I don't know why you have that impression of Mexico. There has been corruption here since before the recent wave of crackdowns started, and, sadly, there will still be corruption when the crackdowns let up. When most Mexicans think about corruption, they think about nepotism, bribery, and embezzlement. Some of that's related to the narcos, of course, but it goes on even in areas where the narcos have little presence.