Corruption is a global problem that has affected human intelligibility in its social context. As an anti-social behavior and a plague that has eaten so deep into the entire fabric of every society, it confers undue benefits on few people contrary to legal and moral norms of the society. Prior to its contagious and incurable infection, it undermines authorities’ effort to provide welfare for all citizens as the resources to do this are in the hands or at the reach of few of the populace. This paper then examines the difference between corruption and bribery Ekiyor (2005) in his broad view of corruption defined it as the unlawful use of official power or influence by an official of the government either to enrich himself or further his course and/or any other person at the expense of the public, in contravention of his oath of office and/or contrary to the conventions or laws that are in force. Corruption is a social problem found in various “degrees and forms in all but the mostly in primitive societies. It is very unfortunate that this menace knows not any time nor period; it happens anytime or period of any nation’s history. corruption is not a characteristic of a one period in political history nor of any one country, it is an endemic in both authoritarian and party systems of government and society. Further still as evidence that the history of corruption is as old as the world, corruption must be understood as a regular, repetitive and integral part of the operation of most political system. Another view about corruption is that it is intentional. Brooks (1970) believed that the corrupt official knows his or her duties, but it is neglected or mis-performed for reasons narrower than those which the state intends. He further explains that the difference between a corrupt official and inefficient one is that “the corrupt official must know the better and choose the worse , but the inefficient official does not know any better”. So in either case the external circumstances may appear to be closely similar, and the immediate results may be equally harmful. Corruption also occurs when there is a known conflict of interest between a decision maker’s policy duties and his or her personal self-interest. Even if there is no evidence of improper actions, a conflict of interest can create an appearance of impropriety that can undermine confidence in the ability of that person to act properly in his or her position. Primer on Corruption (2005) states that Corruption mostly in government involves three broad layers. Firstly corruption within the broader political system, this includes the demands of electoral politics, the extensive use of patronage in political appointments, and the existence use of “pork barrel” funds. Secondly, is corruption within the public sector, which is usually focused on three major problems: spotty performance of mechanisms for identifying and sanctioning employees engaged in corrupt and illicit behavior, considerations of pay and employment, and government procurement. Thirdly is corruption within specific agencies, which involves grand corruption involving widespread syndicates and millions of pesos and petty corruption which involves smaller amounts of money, such as grease money to facilitate the delivery of goods and services. Certain types of corruption may not necessarily involve money, it may involve gift-giving or influence-peddling. It can also come in the form of future benefits. With this type of corruption, the boundary between a corrupt and a non-corrupt behavior becomes quite thin. Take for instance the act of giving a gift to a public official as a token of appreciation for services done. Bribery on the other is the form of corruption that receives the greatest share of reference. It is the essence of corruption. Salminen & Ikola-Norrbacka (2010) asserts that bribery is a serious form of corruption. It is an offer of money or favors to influence a public official and can come in the form of a fixed sum, a certain percentage of a contract, or any other favor in money in kind, usually paid to a state official or business person who can make contracts on behalf of the state or business or otherwise distribute benefits to companies or individuals, businessmen and clients. Sometimes the concept of bribery can be hidden under the guise of other terms such as kickbacks, sweeteners, commercial arrangements, hush money, pay-offs, and milking. In all cases, these words explain payments that serve to make things pass more swiftly, smoothly and more favorably between two parties who are, in the case of this module, the government and an outside party. Through bribery corporations and businesspersons can buy political favors, escape the burden of taxes and environmental regulations, and buy protected markets and monopolies, and import/export licenses. Bribery can also be a form of informal taxation when public officials charge additional unofficial payments or expect gifts from clients in order to process a request. Through bribery business interests can also buy political favors and, for example, escape the full burden of taxation and environmental regulations, buy protected markets and monopolies, import and export licenses, and gain access to large state contracts on capital goods. All of these activities compromise free competition and disturb the national economy. Vincke (1999) states that bribery is seen as an illegal effort to influence civil servants, political authorities and parties, and other public and private office holders in order to get some favours. Bribery is an unethical practice, which corrupt both the giver and recipient; most individuals and institutions prohibits it, because it could become a major source of illegal payments however it always finds its way in most institutions in the society. The act of offering payments or any other form of benefit to influence individuals of various calibers to affect what they ought to do or what they ought not to do is a challenging and disturbing issue. The same goes for receiving payments or other forms of benefits for the same purpose. A significant impact of corruption in a developing country like Zambia is the effect that official corrupt practices have on the average citizens perception of social equity. Homans (1974) shows that, in any human group, the relative status given to any member is determined by the groups perception of the members contribution to the relevant social domain. Changes in the relative wealth-related status of an individual member without a perceived change in his social contribution will face open hostility by the other members of society for example envy may generate retaliation and destruction of social wealth. Therefore, in cases of corrupt practices, a socially unjustified increase in the wealth-related status of those who offer and accept bribes represents a violation of the average citizens notion of what constitutes an equitable hierarchy of status within society. corruption may benefit the individual who is able and willing to supply the bribe. however, the social environment is negatively affected by diminishing economic productivity over time because of the general perception that the allocation of resources is determined more by corrupt practices and less by productivity and, therefore, is inherently inequitable. This creates an environment where individuals, in order to obtain public services, may need to start seeking illicit transfers of wealth to the increasing exclusion of productive activities. In this respect, present corruption decreases future productivity, thereby reducing efficiency over time. High levels of corruption reduce economic growth. It can distort the allocation of resources and the performance of government in many ways. UNDP, (2000) states that corruption has a pervasive and troubling impact on the poor, since it distorts public choices in favor of the wealthy and powerful, and reduces the state’s capacity to provide social safety nets. In a developing country corruption may be the end result of the politics of privilege, rent seeking and clientelism. Corruption is nurtured by politicians who coddle supporters and followers, who in turn pressure them to engage in corruption to spread the benefits of a corrupt regime. As such, corruption creates a cycle that would make sure that benefits are concentrated on these small sectors of the populace, thereby increasing the number of corrupt population. Corruption can have efficiency consequences through impacts on government provisions of goods and services. First, if it increases the cost of government goods and services, this could have an effect similar to raising the price of these goods and services. The efficiency loss would arise if projects that would be cost effective at the true costs are no longer cost effective once the costs of corruption are included, and hence are not done. Second, corruption could create additional efficiency costs through distortions. Corrupt officials usually cannot steal cash directly, as that would be easily detected; instead, they need to go through a variety of more convoluted procedures to extract rents. These convoluted procedures themselves may induce inefficiencies, which could potentially be larger than the direct cost of corruption itself. We explore both of these issues in turn. It exacerbates poverty, most especially in developing and transitional economies like Zambia. Hunt (2007) shows the negative distributional impact of corruption not by arguing that poor people expend a higher proportion of their income on bribes, but by stating that corruption can be an additional cost on the victims of misfortune—particularly crime victims. In conclusion, as explained above corruption is most commonly defined as the misuse or the abuse of public office for private gain, it comes in many forms corruption such that bribery is such one form of corruption. Corruption encourages and rewards selfishness and denigrates collective action, it can be disempowering to the people and encourage their sense of alienation by undermining respect for authority and increasing cynicism about leaders at all levels of society especially in a developing country. Corruption also impacts social and cultural norms as it discourages participation in civil society. Finally, corruption’s tendency to divert resources from the poor also impacts social norms by reducing the quality of education, literacy levels and civic empowerment. REFERENCES Brooks, C Robert, (1970) “Apologies for Political Corruption”, in Arnold J. Heldenheimered, Political Corruption, Reading in Comparative Political Analysis, New York, Holt Rhinehart and Winston, Inc.,. Homans,(1974) Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Hunt, J. (2007). How Corruption Hits People When they are Down. Journal of Development Economics, 84(2): 574-589. Primer on Corruption (2005) Salminen & Ikola-Norrbacka (2010)). Trust, good governance and unethical actions in Finnish public administration. International Journal of Public Sector Management 23:7, 647668. UNDP, (2000) Vincke François (1999). Private-to-Private Bribery. In: Fighting Bribery: A Corporate ,Practice Manual (International Chamber of Commerce), 7785. Eds François Paris, Fritz Heimann, & Ron Katz. Paris: ICC Publishing S.A.
Posted on: Wed, 19 Nov 2014 08:42:59 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015