Discussion in 'International Politics' started by HMS Astute, Aug 19, 2014.
Corruption Perceptions Index 2013 - Results
Damn, only bronze medal
We could beat Somalia one day, Jai Hind.
and we would have ,had not the present govt come into power......but it's too early to say about the performance of the present govt. Hope that the mistakes committed by previous govt won't be repeated
Yeah dude, it's democracy
That's why beating Somalia is achievable. .
India lower than Jamaica? Something s wrong eh?
Not bad again for the doomed bumiputras. But I guess we have to double our effort to catch Bhutan...
Transparency International - another agenda source.
Does signing an executive order against the wishes of the legislature count as corruption? (USA)
Does giving bribes (in the guise of tax-free commission) count as corruption? (Germany)
Does giving shelter to fraudsters and money launderers count as corruption? (UK)
Does including drugs and prostitution to boost GDP figures count as corruption? (EU, with exceptions)
India has widespread corruption, but it is time India came up with its own corruption ranking criteria that are relevant to Indian moral standards.
That's nice, an Indian corruption index. But I say why spend public money doing survey all over the World? I say just release the list.
Here are the top 5 least corrupt countries:
At India is perceived to have lesser corruption than Russia which is placed @ #127.
As I said many a time, statistics depends up the selection of 'inputs' and it is manipulative to prove a point.
There is no scientific way to quantify the abstracts that all play a major role.
Corruption cannot be quantified.
'Lobbying' in the US is legal, but not in many parts of the world. In India is taken to be corruption.
Selling alcohol to Muslims in Malaysia is illegal, and yet it is done. It is corruption in Malaysia, but not in India or the US.
Have these aspects been cranked in?
So, what is corruption?
Therefore, what is the moral of the story - statistics enamours the gullible and what is passed off as result is on western way of convenience and not the different parts of the world perceptions or world indexes and inputs in the issue.
Major corruption comes close whenever major events involving large sums of money, multiple â€˜playersâ€™, or huge quantities of products (think of food and pharmaceuticals) often in disaster situations, are at stake. Preferably, corruption flourishes in situations involving high technology (no one understands the real quality and value of products), or in situations that are chaotic.
Think of civil war: who is responsible and who is the rebel? Natural disasters like earthquakes, floods, droughts. The global community reacts quickly but local government might be disorganised and disoriented. Who maintains law and order? Or maybe the purchase of a technologically far advanced aircraft, while only a few can understand the technologies implied in development and production of such a plane. Mostly , the sums of money involved are huge, a relatively small amount of corrupt payment is difficult to attract attention. Or the number of actions is very large, for instance in betting stations for results of Olympic Games or international soccer-tournaments which can easily be manipulated. Geo-politics might play a role like e.g. the East-West conflict did in the second half of the 20th century, in which the major country-alliances sought support from non-aligned countries.
Toppling govt through paid provocateurs is also corruption. The one who gives and the one who takes are equally corrupt. But has that been taken into consideration when computing the statistics?
So, who is to decide what is corruption?
West is not the sole judge and arbiter to decide the terms and it is the ones who swoon at anything of the West are the ones who perpetrate the 'corruption' that certain vested interests showcase from time to time as 'scientific' data. These statistics is basically to pursue their own interest by manipulative means. That, too, is a form of corruption.
We aren't into that kind of sham business.
We aren't Malayasia, Who pronounced G. W. Bush war criminal in a Kangaroo court presided over by a Ex. president of Malaysia.
Releasing fraudulent lists are 'truly Asian' tactics which the namesake country specializes in.
A difficult thing to measure or compare, however, is the impact of corruption on poverty versus the effects of inequalities that are structured into law, such as unequal trade agreements, structural adjustment policies, so-called â€œfreeâ€ trade agreements and so on. It is easier to see corruption.
It is harder to see these other more formal, even legal forms of â€œcorruption.â€ It is easy to assume that these are not even issues because they are part of the laws and institutions that govern national and international communities and many of us will be accustomed to itâ€”it is how it works, so to speak.
When asking why poor countries are poor, it is quite common to hear, especially in wealthier countries that are perceived to have minimal corruption (at least domestically) that other countries are poor because of corruption. Yet, corruption is not something limited to third world despots. Rich countries too have been involved in corrupt practices around the world.
As Professor Robert Neild from Trinity College, Cambridge University writes in Public Corruption; The Dark Side of Social Evolution (London: Anthem Press, 2002), â€œRich countries and their agencies â€¦ commonly have been and are accomplices in corruption abroad, encouraging it by their actions rather than impeding itâ€¦.â€ (p.209). Specific problems he highlights include:
The impact of Cold War corruption (supporting dictatorships, destabilizing democracies, funding opposition, etc);
Firms from rich countries bribing rulers and officials from developing countries to gain export contracts, particularly in the arms trade and in construction (even justifying it by suggesting bribery is â€œcustomaryâ€ in those countries, so they need to do it to, in order to compete);
The â€œcorruption-inducing effects of the purchase, by the rich countries and their international corporations, of concessions in Third World countries to exploit natural deposits of oil, copper, gold, diamonds and the like.â€ Payments made to rulers often violate local (and Western) rules, keeping corrupt rulers in power, who also embezzle a lot of money away.
The drug trade. Neild suggests that international law and national laws in rich countries that prohibit drugs may serve to â€œproduce a scarcity value irresistible to producers, smugglers and dealers.â€
Governments and civil society in the third world are often â€œundermined, sometimes destroyedâ€ by the violence and corruption that goes with the drug trade. â€œThis is probably the most important way in which the policies of rich countries foster corruption and violence. Yet the effect on the Third World seems scarcely to enter discussion of alternative drug policies in the rich countries.â€ Legalizing drugs, a system of taxation and regulation, comparable to that applied to tobacco and alcohol might do more to reduce corruption in the world than any other measure rich countries could take, he suggests.
The above is from my hard disk.
I do not have the link.
The corruption Index is based on current perceptions (not future) of people about the corruption in their own country both in public and private sector. So the issue of what is right or wrong to someone in India might not be the same in Malaysia is not relevant in the Index since the local population are the source of the data.
Here's an informative resource on how the Index is formed: 2011 Corruption Perceptions Index -- In Detail
2011 Corruption Perceptions Index -- In Detail
It appears to me that the moral of the story is that it is hogwash if it does not favor your country, and the people that picks this kind of survey are "gullible." Sweet talks on the other hand by foreign CEOs (like Samsung) who want to put up factories in your country are the gospel truth since they praise your country's future potential to the high heavens (as if the future is all but certain).
Relax. Nobody is plotting to topple the Modi or Putin governments using the 2013 Corruption Index.
This is not about the West judging countries, this is about the citizens of these countries surveyed judging the level of corruption of their own public and private sectors (INdians are surveyed for the level of corruption in India, Malaysians for Malaysia, and so on and so forth). You better read the survey mechanism on this Corruption Index before you start rounding up the "usual suspects."
What the former PM did was exercise his democratic right in a democratic country. You should also try it in India, it's entertaining.
But we don't cry and plot to manufacture and index when the widely accepted ones do not go our way. We take the results constructively and then strive to be better next time around.
No, the moral of the story is not hogwash.
It is hogwash for those who do not understand how statistics are used to project a case.
Samsung and others are coming into India in a big way and the sweet talk is just an indication of their intentions.
If the word is Transparency. then it should be transparent in addressing all issues and not merely the ones that satisfy their agenda.
Corruption is all encompassing and not limited to desired areas of interest.
Anyone would realise that but those who are blind to anything said or done by the West.
Separate names with a comma.