Introduction
Accountability and corruption are opposing forces, the misuse of allocated powers for individual gain, while accountability lends the individual or group responsibility for their actions. Corruptions significantly skew how resources are distributed and allocated, with 5% of global GDP being misused, translating to $2.6 trillion of embezzled funds. Bribes globally translate to $1 trillion. Corruption transcends across all jurisdictional borders, which are influenced by multiple factors, such as the absence of accountability and transparency mechanisms, poverty, the status of public officials and inventively increased inequality (Farazmand et al., 2022). International Monetary Fund study in 2019 showed that reduction of poverty would result in an increase of 1.25% of global GDP which means $1 trillion dollars would be accounted for and allocated equally. The multiplicities of factors influencing corruption have gained traction among policymakers to reduce and mitigate these global issues. This discourse analyzes the factors influencing manifestation, accountability and recommendations towards reducing corruption.
Background
The financial crisis witnessed in 2008 as a result of the Great Recession influenced countries to instigate policies to revert their economic stagnation and respond to economic downturn. However, most policies created gaps for individuals to misuse public funds. The austerity ideology brought significant constraints to public spending; economics researchers claimed that this positive growth would be realized by economic stimulus and deficit spending (Huberts, 2018). However, reduced funds for healthcare, education, infrastructure and many other programs resulted in the loss of jobs and inadequate growth. The issues generated here influenced the rates of corruption, affecting the judiciary, national government, small and large businesses, service industries, civil societies and others. Corruption affects all the elements of society, undermining political, health, economic development, democracy and environmental development.
Delta Porta and Vannucci scrutinized the issue of corruption and found that it is an invisible norm that legalizes the unavoidability of bribes. To this, Pearson and colleagues added that corruption is the norm behavior in most countries rather than the exception. The public structure and system with this corrupt network have no return of resources to the public, and the accusation of any hidden structure is through hidden transactions. Studies have shifted seismically on the theoretical ideologies, with novel research aiming to analyze how to quantify and how corruption is operationalized (Kohler & Bowra, 2020). Research on these frameworks mainly reflects on institutionalized corruption, which integrates various tenets; thus, scrutiny should specify these differences through conceptual frameworks. Previously, the analysis of conceptual frameworks of corruption primarily measured the extent of corruption. However, novel scrutiny frameworks have measured the qualitative indices in the doctrine of corruption.
Measure of corruption
Theoretical discourses develop ways to measure corruption, drawing from normative policy scrutiny or empirical data. Thus, questions resonate about whether corruption should be measured through per capita data, which include the economy in question, bribe-takers, bribe-givers and economic level of economic activity or the total of bribes (Rothstein, 2018). Gardner and Verdier produced a theoretical model that measures the results from bribes by linking corruption and the levels of vertical bureaucratic layers. Thus, a single monopolist setting has a lower bribe rate than a group because of the investment involved. However, this measure produces differing correlating outcomes when scrutinizing private investment.
Additionally, should the measure also include the application and design of laws influenced by citizens regarding costs for their benefits? This includes the amount of individual contributions to certain politicians, costs incurred to bend and evade specific laws like taxation import duties or costs incurred by individuals or organizations to bend specific policy-making initiatives to satisfy their interests or preferential treatment. A study by Mookherjee and Bardhan states that excluding these forms of “special” interests and measuring only the bribes results in a misleading outcome of decentralized welfare (McDonnell, 2017). The model measured corruption by central government bureaucrats, mainly the local government, on bribe charges. However, this model showed a decline in the measure, but the economic equity and efficiency declined.
Novel measures focus on accountability and incentives for government officials, thus focusing on welfare rather than corruption, as the policy initiated to minimize corruption incurs a more significant sacrifice of other welfare goals. Thus, the optimal model for minimizing or mitigating corruption is not aimed at minimizing corruption; Rather, it may involve enhancing welfare significantly, public officials’ accountability, and incentives. The approach assumes that government officials and politicians act benevolently on behalf of the citizens through abstracted accountability involving issues of the government.
Multinational corporations and examples of corruption cases
Western media often showcases corruption scandals where these multinational corporations. Globalization policies influence corruption due to the reduction of accountability of organizations and government. These global organizations promote and practice corruption in various ways. They encroach on the market, undermining smaller domestic firms. Their profits do not benefit the society they are doing business in but go into the pocket of executives somewhere else. They damage the environment and often bypass any laws against such practices. Globalization policies aid in this, and the organizations that have the mandate to draft this policy, like the IMF and World Bank, usually open markets when some countries are not ready for such moves.
Additionally, they provide loans to corrupt leaders such as Mobutu, which, in the end, the country bears the burden of paying the loans even when it never benefited from such loans (Mingiu-Pippidi, 2013). Some provide arms that are aimed at suppressing any opposition. Zaire was one of the countries that was lent such a loan to develop a project that failed, but the institutions continued lending monetary funds for the said project.
The United States government has been criticized for outsourcing contracts on a no-bid basis; more than 50% of these contracts have no competition as the companies are already chosen. Only 21% of these contracts were legitimately awarded during the Bush administration. Another such case was seen in the United Kingdom, where the accusation of bribing Saudi officials to purchase fighter jets by the leading arms organization, BAE. There was the claim that $150 million was used to bribe a Saudi prince for the deal to go smoothly; this figure was minuscule compared to the deal. The Italian soccer league has been proven to have a significant corruption ring with the former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi being indicated in the scandal (Lessig, 2013). The former World Bank president resigned after it was found that his girlfriend was appointed to a high-paying salary government post. Additionally, the UN has been implicated in a $2 billion scandal of the Iraq oil for food scandal, where corrupt oil prices and profits were higher. Another scandal involves significant appointments of Paul Wolfowitz and Robert Zoellick.
Solutions to corruption
Some international organizations (IOs) like the World Bank Group United Development Programme (UNDP) are formulating evidence-based anti-corruption interventions related to transparency, integrity and accountability.
Integrity
The term has been prevalent in research for governance and government in colliders of policy making. The concepts of integrity reflect the behaviors of government actors on tenets of moral values. Governance involves addressing collective interests and issues through an actor or a network of private and public actors. The tenet involves how inputs are allocated with demand and how the framework deals with inputs to have output; all these phases are followed to have integrity (Huberts, 2018). It reflects morals, right and wrong, and good and evil, a combination of values related to a public official being judged. Government involves consistency in the moral dimension while serving its sovereign.
Transparency
This involves understanding why, who, what, why, and how much, thus shedding light on informal and formal processes, rules, actions and plans. The primary tenet of transparency is to provide the citizens or public power to account for the common good. The human right of information receiving and seeking safeguards against corruption (Huberts, 2018). This information on processes, actions, plans and rules develops trust in public sectors and policymakers. Provision involves ensuring it is understood, usable and accessed by all requiring the information. Transparency aims to detect corruption before it affects institutions, government and officials entrusted with public offices.
Bentham states that the more power one holds in politics, the greater the significant number of temptations; thus, it is necessary to provide them with the most potent reason to resist the temptation, and the significant universal reason is the superintendence of the public. This is further emphasized by Article 10 of UNCAC, which states, “Taking into account the need to combat corruption, each State Party shall, in accordance with the fundamental principles of its domestic law, take such measures as may be necessary to enhance transparency in its public administration, including with regard to its organization, functioning and decision-making processes, where appropriate.” (Farazmand et al.,2022). It further stipulates the measures that the government can take given transparency. UNCAC requires the inclusion of civil societies and the public in the fight against corruption through measures such as providing information.
Accountability
Kohler and Vian relate that accountability definition and implementation differ in context in different countries. They propose that accountability is the mechanism that makes organizations responsive to their particular publics. This implies that organizations and governments are accountable towards the society or groups affected by their decisions. This reduces abuse of office corruption, thus assuring the compliance of procedures and standards and improving organization and government performance (Farazmand et al., 2022). This is also impacted when organizations justify their outcomes to internal and external supervisors and stakeholders.
Kohler and Vian further state that accountability and transparency are entwined and cannot function without the other. This is true when scrutinizing government organizations, which requires the provision of information about processes followed and criteria utilized by policymakers in decision-making. Understanding these decisions requires disclosure of data used by the policymakers and the process involving the relevant arguments that arose before reaching the decision. Thus, through these, government transparency is understood by the level of access to government information.
Conclusion
The discourse demonstrates what is currently being done about corruption, which has been evidenced as a global issue that requires multidisciplinary intervention. Corruption has been seen to influence poverty, inequality and economic stagnation. (Kolstad el at,,2009) As proven, traditional interventions have had less or no relevant outcomes, thus the adoption of novel frameworks such as transparency, integrity and accountability; as Kohler and Vian have stated, all these frameworks are coupled together for effectiveness.
However, there is a need for more rigorous research on the issues and the effectiveness of the stipulated frameworks. The research offered several limitations, such as biases in addressing corruption, mainly on the government, but has failed to offer a study on individual accountability. Society’s accountability for corruption was not studied; this creates a bias in the result. The proposal of future research thus requires more individualized qualitative and quantitative research (Farazmand et al., 2022). The discourse sufficed to answer the thesis question about how corruption develops and solutions to mitigate corruption. Thus, the discussion can offer more understanding to scholars, policymakers and students on the vices of corruption.
References
Huberts, L. W. (2018). Integrity: What it is and why it is important. Public Integrity, 20(sup1). https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2018.1477404
Kohler, J. C., & Bowra, A. (2020). Exploring anti-corruption, transparency, and accountability in the World Health Organization, the United Nations Development Programme, the World Bank Group, and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, tuberculosis and Mal Farazmand, A., De Simone, E., Gaeta, G. L., & Capasso, S. (2022). Corruption, lack of transparency and the misuse of public funds in times of crisis: An introduction. Public Organization Review, 22(3), 497–503. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-022-00651-8 aria. Globalization and Health, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-020-00629-5
Kolstad, I., & Wiig, A. (2009). Is transparency the key to reducing corruption in resource-rich countries? World Development, 37(3), 521–532. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0305750X08002246\
Lessig, L. (2013). Institutional corruption is defined. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 41(3), 553-555. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jlme.12063
McDonnell, E.M. (2017). Patchwork leviathan: How pockets of bureaucratic governance flourish within institutionally diverse developing states. American Sociological Review, 82(3), 476-510.
Mungiu-Pippidi, A. (2013). Becoming Denmark: Historical designs of corruption control. Social Research: An International Quarterly, 80(4), 1259-1286. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24385686
National Democratic Institute. (2019). Citizen participation and technology. https://www.ndi.org/citizen-participation-and-technology
Rothstein, B. (2018). Fighting systemic corruption: The indirect strategy. Daedalus, 147(3), 35-49. https://direct.mit.edu/daed/article/147/3/35/27196/Fighting-Systemic-Corruption-The-Indirect-Strategy
Shah, A. (2007). Corruption. Global Issues, January 22, 2007. https://www.globalissues.org/article/590/corruption
write