Lisbon 24: Corruption Threats, Theses, and Treks
Lisbon 24: Corruption Threats, Theses, and Treks
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.”
Source: World Bank | Yew Chong Soh and Mohammad Amin, Do more rules lead to more corruption? Evidence using firm-level survey data for developing countries, 2020
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.
This explanation is corroborated in a working paper, Does democracy reduce corruption? by Ivar Kolstad and Arne Wiig:
“While our results provide a start to the question of democracy as an anti-corruption strategy, there are of course a number of more detailed issues that need to be addressed. Importantly, the effect of democracy on corruption likely varies across forms of democracy,”
Ethical Quandaries
Where the general consensus is that corruption is wrong, can we ever have a right reason to commit a corrupt act?
In short, is corruption ever ethically permissible? Chris Morgan answers in the affirmative in the Arkansa Journal of Social Change and Public Service. He writes:
“From this very basic description of Kantian ethical theory, one can conclude that certain “corrupt” behaviors may be deemed ethically permissible. This is due in large part to the actions taken, which may arise under a duty and not an inclination toward a self-gratifying or advantageous outcome.”
Kantian ethics may seek to resolve these quandaries:
Is it right for me to pay a bribe to a government official to secure a primary school to be built and staffed ‘at all cost’ in my underserved community so that little children can have access to basic education or to reduce the prevalence of child brides?
When adequate provisions are not made by superior officers, is it right for policemen to demand money at a checkpoint to fuel the neighbourhood patrol vehicle to enable them to attend distress calls or should they just prepare to ignore distress calls outrightly?
If we differentiate good corruption (one performed out of a sheer sense of duty) from bad corruption (one performed out of selfish desire), can we objectively differentiate duty from desire in all cases? Can we measure and determine that good corruption is always better than no corruption?
An effective approach to tackling corruption necessitates a consideration of its epistemic, economic, and ethical underpinnings. The need for a multidimensional analysis of corruption and synthesis of its various parts aligns with a submission at the 8th ICRN Forum on “Corruption as a Complex Systems Phenomenon.”
Dataphyte’s consideration of these complex systems informs its innovative approaches towards reporting corruption in Nigeria.
Exit Trek
And the Lisbon meeting could not be complete without the trek.
On a sunny Saturday naturally fitted for outdoor fun, we set out on a “Corruption Walk”, following the trails of corruption by government officials and corporate firms in the city of Lisbon.
It begins with the story of Operation "Marquês", which involved a former prime minister, and some related cases of Bank failures and forfeitures. Here’s our trek route:
We set out at the “"Marquês de Pombal" square then slightly up to "Brancaamp" Street (Heron Castilho, former apartments of Sócrates, former prime minister, and his mother), then down with a stop at one of the offices of the Bank of Portugal, and ended at "Barata Salgueiro" street, former headquarters of BES ("Espírito Santo" Bank).”
Our street conversations during the trek through Lisbon’s high brow areas revealed that the law, like human lives, is susceptible to be exploited by corrupt government officials and corporate institutions. That in most cases, corruption simply goes on.
We see everyday people go on too, as far as they could, from the effects of corruption that still goes on.
We all dispersed with solemn smiles and goodbyes. And we each go on.