Don’t call it corruption!
We don’t call it corruption anymore. Some people consider the word offensive.
They prefer we use words like (lapses in) standards, discretion, probity, transparency, accountability or fiscal governance.
This is one observation shared with a cross-section of scholars, researchers, and public interest journalists at the just concluded 8th Interdisciplinary Corruption Research Network Forum (ICRN Forum) which was held June 27-29, 2024 at the University of Lisbon, Portugal, where Dataphyte shared its experiences in “Employing data-driven journalism to analyze and visualize corruption patterns, exposing systemic issues and holding perpetrators accountable.”
That corruption is so exhausting in description, slippery in isolating from other misdemeanours, and evasive in its definition as wrongdoing in some cultures and contexts could be its primary threat.
For instance, Inge Amundsen noted that “Embezzlement is not considered as corruption from a strict legal point of view. In legal terms, corruption is a transaction between two individuals, one state agent and one “civilian”, where the state agent goes beyond the limits of the law and regulations in order to secure himself a personal benefit in the form of a bribe. Embezzlement is regarded as theft because it does not involve the “civilian” side directly.”
Yet, none of corruption’s epistemic, economic, and ethical theses discount its existential threats.
Epistemic Inquiries
First, we seek to understand the relative constructs of corruption and ascertain its root causes to chart the right course of action in managing it. This approach seeks answers to these questions, among others:
- Is corruption the consequence of something or the cause of it?
- Should we fight corruption as a cause of societal evils or fight the cause(s) of corruption?
Dataphyte’s presentation in Lisbon focused on corruption (in Nigeria) as a consequence more than the (first) cause of some other societal evils.
In his submission at the Forum, The Character and Continuum of Corruption in Nigeria: A Quantitative Approach, Oluseyi Olufemi noted: “the continuum of corruption in Nigeria, its attendant economic sabotage and manifest threat to human development, demands an urgent understanding of the constituent causes of the menace.”
It was determined that an unreliable justice system, low economic viability, and weak governance are the main causes of corruption in Nigeria.
This does not rule out the fact that corruption, when given a life of its own, could further fuel indiscretions in Nigeria’s justice system and fritter away the country’s economic potential (high income inequality, low capita income, unemployment, low wages, inflationary rates).
Economic Theories
Economists conceive corruption as subsisting within a dual theoretical framework – the public choice theory and the public interest theory.
On the one hand, the public choice theory argues that rules lead to more corruption and implies the deregulation of markets is effective in reducing corruption.
World Bank Researchers, Yew Chong Soh and Mohammad Amin acknowledged the view that “Politicians use regulation both to create rents and to extract them through campaign contributions, votes, and bribes. In some cases, the main beneficiary of regulation is the industry while in others, it is the politicians and public officials.”
On the other hand, the public interest theory insists more regulation is needed to check the excesses of market players. That is, the risks of a corrupt government regulator outweigh the harm that marred markets systems may visit on the public.
Soh and Amin maintain that “Economists resolve such theoretical ambiguities by letting the data talk.”
Their thesis is that “Deregulation is indeed a powerful tool for controlling corruption.”
An economic analysis may also seek to decide whether capitalism and democracy increase or decrease the likelihood of corruption between the state and firms, and between state officials and the public?
While democracy is believed to reduce corruption levels, Dataphyte’s analysis suggests Nigeria’s democratic values do not significantly influence corruption levels. The reason may be that Nigeria’s democracy is sometimes indistinguishable from dictatorships.