Corruption in the Context of Development
As one of the most common forms of human dealings, the negotiation process is a core operational feature of many behavioral transactions, including one of the oldest and most detrimental activities, that of corruption. Many, though not all, corrupt interactions can be easily characterized in negotiation terms: they include actors with clear interests who use power and persuasion to influence outcomes that can be seen as beneficial. While most analysts view corruption as negative to economic growth, public confidence and good governance (Kramer, 1999), the fact that it operates as a negotiation process should be inconsequential. However, this very relationship may be the key to developing an ameliorative strategy to fighting corruption.
Over the past ten years, the international community and many industrialized countries have focused attention on the problem of corruption in the transitional economies and developing states and have struggled to design anti-corruption strategies that are likely to be effective (World Bank, 2000a & 2000b; USAID, 1999; OECD, 2000; Elliott, 1997). They have made the goal of reducing corruption or, at least, controlling the phenomenon, a high priority. While the traditional approach to reducing or controlling corruption has been to build the rule of law and strengthen law enforcement activities, international experience has shown that, by themselves, these initiatives have only a transient impact. Other approaches need to be stimulated – including preventive reforms and public education – and other stakeholders need to be mobilized – including civil society, the private sector, and the mass media -- to develop a sustained, comprehensive and effective anti-corruption strategy. These approaches seek to reduce the opportunities for corrupt encounters, create citizen awareness of their rights so that they are shielded from threats of abuse and harassment by corrupt officials, and develop independent watchdog organizations that monitor government, increase transparency of government operations, and make officials accountable for their actions.
One unorthodox way of conceiving of corruption reduction efforts is to focus on its embedded negotiation process. If the negotiation can be “removed” from the corrupt transaction, perhaps the corruption can be averted. The goal of this paper is to evaluate the role that negotiation plays in the typical corrupt transaction and how those negotiation elements might be deconstructed to prevent the negotiation and hence, the corruption, from occurring. Most negotiation literature seeks to uncover the factors and conditions that are favorable to effective bargaining: what situations prompt the onset of negotiations, promote negotiations, or hinder their progress (Druckman, 1993; Zartman, 1989; Stein, 1989; Spector, 2001). In an unusual twist to this plot, this paper seeks to understand what is required to stop negotiation in particular cases where the vulnerability to corrupt activity is high. In this way, the elimination of negotiation can become a central theme in national and international anti-corruption strategies.
Corruption and Development
Corruption is a worldwide phenomenon, but mostly prevalent and unchecked in countries undergoing transitions or modernization (Huntington, 1968; Kramer, 1999). Certainly, one cannot be attentive to current events today without being inundated by the many reports of corruption in both the developing and developed worlds. The great damage and loss of life in recent earthquakes in Turkey and India have been attributed not to an act of God, but to pervasive corruption – where it is common for government inspectors to turn a blind eye to violations of the building code in return for bribes from construction firms. In Salt Lake City, a big scandal revealed how bribery and gifts were intimately involved in the selection of sites for the Olympic Games. In Brussels, heads of departments in the European Commission had to resign due to allegations of fraud and corruption. In Germany, former Chancellor Kohl is alleged to be involved in unexplained financial dealing with his political party -- funds given to the party to gain political influence. In Ukraine, surveys have found that 35 percent of companies pay bribes frequently; an average of 6.5 percent of annual corporate revenue is paid in bribes as unofficial taxes; and over 30 percent of households claim that they are confronted by some form of corruption every year. While corruption remains a real and constant phenomenon that plagues all countries, the difference between developing and developed countries is in the extent to which institutions and processes have been implemented in developed states to keep opportunities for corruption checked and under control.
Corruption is one of the oldest transactions known to humankind. Bribery is even mentioned in Psalm of David 15, as one of those basic volitional actions that will prevent one from “dwelling upon Thy holy mountain.” Its premise is that citizens can get what they want – legal or not -- by paying off an official who is supposed to uphold the law and live by the public trust. But corruption is a two way street; it can be initiated by officials as well who use their position to extort payments and favors from citizens to obtain what they should be entitled to for no extra fee whatsoever. Whether or not the corrupt transactions in fact occur after it is initiated depends upon the ethics, desperation, desire for gratification, and fear of punishment of both sides in the transaction.
What makes corruption so prevalent in development? Corruption is more than just a function of personal greed or cultural predisposition (Kaufmann, 1997). It tends to prevail where the rule of law is not clearly elaborated and public officials have wide authority to act; under these circumstances, officials can make decisions that benefit themselves, without adequate checks and balances. Corruption also thrives when officials are not held accountable and there is minimal transparency in the decision process. Weak and ill-conceived incentives also make societies vulnerable to corruption – when civil servants are not paid a living wage, when there are few rewards for good performance, and when there is little fear of punishment for wrongdoing. Countries with weak institutions that are over-politicized and cannot enforce their decisions are also prone to corrupt practices. When there is a lack of political will and commitment to make reforms among society’s leadership, corruption prospers. An underdeveloped civil society also contributes to corruption, because this is the sector of society that must serve as the independent watchdog of government operations and decisions; without their active role in this regard, government can often proceed unchecked. Finally, in developing countries where citizen loyalties to the state are still in a formative stage and may be more strongly focused on personal, tribal or clan relationships, corruption in the state can grow.
What makes corruption so counterproductive to development (Mauro, 1997)? First, it impairs the possibilities for economic growth. Corruption scares off private investment from domestic and foreign sources that fear the risks, unknown costs and harassment involved in highly corrupt systems. Corruption also encourages the growth of a shadow economy, where taxes and fees are not paid to the state but as unofficial payments to corrupt bureaucrats. Second, corruption reduces the ability of the state to govern. It undermines the rule of law and replaces it with a personalistic and changeable set of informal relationships. It also reduces the capacity of the government to deliver quality public services; with funds siphoned off from the public treasury into the pockets of corrupt officials, there is less money available to provide citizens with the services that their government is supposed to provide. Finally, corruption demoralizes the public and results in a total loss of confidence and trust that government is there to serve the people and develop the country.
Given the prospects of these negative consequences, international donors, as well as developing and transitioning countries themselves, have become extremely sensitive to the existence and growth of corruption and have sought aggressively to support anti-corruption campaigns. Leakage of donor development funds, especially surrounding large public construction projects, has caused donors to be cautious in their granting and lending programs and has resulted in new conditionality clauses that require countries to diagnose their corruption problems and implement active and realistic national anti-corruption strategies before new funds are released.
Corruption and Negotiation
The generally accepted definition of corruption is the misuse of public office for personal gain (Johnston, 2000). A corrupt action, by this definition, involves an abuse where at least one of the involved parties is a government official; abuses committed among private sector parties is not considered to be corruption, but is a criminal act. Self interest is the major motivating feature behind corrupt transactions; either the official is actively seeking to benefit at the expense of the public or a citizen is offering benefits to an official to extract special access or waivers from regulations.
Corruption can take on many forms: bribery, extortion, influence buying, favoritism, nepotism, fraud, and embezzlement, among others. Some corrupt actions take advantage of the special access to public funds and public decision making that government officials have as a natural result of their positions. These actions may not require another party to accomplish their objectives; the corrupt official may just take what he/she wants. But many corrupt transactions necessarily involve a giver and taker; these forms of corruption involve negotiation. Negotiation as a process is value-free; but negotiations of corrupt transactions that by their very nature deal with illegalities are perverse.
The corruption transaction is a cost-benefit exchange, operating as a distributive negotiation. It usually involves parties that are unequal in their power position. Either the unchecked government official wields total power to provide what the citizen wants or the citizen wields the power of the purse to influence the official to provide a government service or turn a blind eye to some citizen activity. In this way, one party can impose a cost or benefit on the other party to extract a desired behavior. Goods are distributed in the transaction to both sides – often money or a favor to obtain a legally obligated service or some special government dispensation or service.
Wide discretion, limited accountability and limited transparency in government decision making open the door to corrupt practices (USAID, 1999). Wide discretion provides government officials with the opportunity to interpret laws, regulations and processes and makes negotiation concerning how they are implemented possible. Limited accountability provides government officials with practically free agency; they can negotiate on terms that will yield personal benefit with little risk that they will be caught and punished for overstepping the public trust. Limited transparency offers both the public official as well as their negotiating partner the relative secrecy that is required to conduct their extra-legal transaction. The opposite of each of these conditions that make corruption negotiations possible can be characterized by the effective rule of law. In such situations, what is expected of public officials is clearly prescribed, their ability to interpret is circumscribed, government decision making is predictable to all parties, and open to inspection by all. These are circumstances that reduce the opportunity for negotiation and hence, for corruption.
The Building Blocks of Corruption Negotiations
An analytical review of the essential building blocks (Kremenyuk, 1991) of corruption negotiations can point to vulnerabilities in the process.
Actors and Structure. The actors in corruption negotiations are the government officials and citizens. They have been depicted in a Principal-Agent-Client structure to explain the governance relationship that can turn corrupt (Banfield, 1975; Rose-Ackerman, 1978; Klitgaard, 1988; Klitgaard, et al., 2000). The Principal is the chief of a department who is responsible for various functions and services. The Agent is the bureaucrat who is charged with actually carrying out specific functions and services and interacts directly with the public. The Client is the citizen or business person who seeks a service or permission from government, in particular, from an Agent. With the proper controls, accountability mechanisms and transparent processes, these three actors can interact relatively smoothly, passing requests, information and feedback among themselves, and carrying out functions in a predictable fashion in accordance with laws and regulations. However, in systems with wide discretion, limited accountability and low transparency, there can be many opportunities for negotiation leading to corruption in this structure. Principals can select Agents based on favoritism and nepotism so that loyalty is not to the public at large and the Agents fail to see themselves as “public servants.” Agents can negotiate for extra unofficial payments from Clients (ie., extortion) to deliver services or permissions that they are entitled to, and then pass part of these payments up the ladder to the Principals as kickbacks. Agents can also threaten to harass Clients if payments are not made. Clients, too, can negotiate with Agents (ie., bribery) to get special treatment or to cause Agents to turn a blind eye to illegal activity.
In a survey of public officials in four countries of Eastern Europe, Miller, et al. (1999) found that officials believed it proper to expect and/or demand bribes from clients. 60 percent of officials thought it right to accept bribes if offered in return for extra work to solve client problems. 15 percent thought it right to ask for a bribe. 53 percent thought it right to accept bribes to solve problems faster than normal.
The question often asked in a corruption negotiation is “who is the corrupter?” The question revolves around who holds the stronger power position and who initiates the corrupt promise or threat. Is the government official withholding a legal service or permission if a bribe is not provided, thereby victimizing the citizen? Or is the citizen the corrupting agent, offering bribes and favors to low paid government officials who desperately need to increase their family income? Or are both actors willing accomplices, each understanding the system and how things are accomplished? Miller, et al. (1998) conducted surveys in Ukraine, Bulgaria, Slovakia and the Czech Republic in 1997 and 1998 to understand these negotiation relationships. Their evidence did not support the popular allegation that citizens were the source of corruption, tantalizing government officials with bribes and favors. In the Czech and Slovak Republics, their findings suggest that citizens were not victims of official corruption, but accomplices – the public and officials were working in collusion to perpetuate the pervasive system of corruption. In Bulgaria and Ukraine, citizens clearly believe that they are the victims of greedy officials. In all cases, it was a combination of official greed and citizen submissiveness and tolerance that perpetuated high levels of bribery.
The dynamics motivating corruption negotiations between Principal, Agent and Client hinge on self interest. Where the rule of law is strong, respected and enforced, self interest is naturally bounded by law and the firm expectation that wrongdoers will be caught and punished. But where the rule of law is weak, the controls that circumscribe self interest may not be present. Self-gratification and power prevails. By creating a corruption negotiation, the official or the citizen can seek certain benefits that would be denied or delayed otherwise.
Process. Corruption is an implicit, and sometimes explicit, negotiated contract specifying what each party has committed itself to accomplishing, that is, the quid pro quo. It is usually the reciprocation of a service for a gift. What, in fact, is the object of this type of negotiation? It can be the size and nature of the bribe or the size and nature of what you get in return for the bribe. In a survey of corruption in Kharkiv, Ukraine at the end of 1999 (Management Systems International, 2000), bargaining over the price was clearly evident. Of those citizens who said they paid a bribe, they indicate paying 28 percent less than what was requested by the government official! 10 percent of the respondents indicate clearly that they try to negotiate with officials to avoid paying bribes or reduce the price.
A survey of households, businesses and public officials in Romania in early 2000 (Management Systems International and World Bank, 2000) emphasizes the quid pro quo between officials and citizens. For example, bribes are essential to get better health care service or to get service at all. Likewise, in the educational field, bribes are a determining factor in getting children placed in school and in getting better grades. Among public officials, 37 percent of said they were offered small bribes over the last 12 months; 11 percent said they were offered expensive gifts or bribes. But 30 percent indicate that while bribes are given and accepted, they are not necessary; if you have patience, they say, you can live without giving bribes. But when business people responded, 75 percent indicate that they spend over 6 percent of their working hours negotiating with government bureaucrats, increasing the opportunities for bribe-giving and taking. From the businessman’s perspective, their involvement in the corruption negotiation was not voluntary. 41 percent indicated that government officials told them a bribe was expected – to speed the delivery of services or get favorable treatment. A much smaller number of business people, 18 percent, indicated that they were the primary initiators of the corruption negotiation, offering bribes to officials.
Whether or not the negotiation situation is acceptable to either of the parties is also a question. The victim may be able to resist the bribe-request by waiting or by some seeking an alternative channel to provide the desired service. The proposed bribe-taker might be able to resist the offered gift or favor by appealing to the rule of law and indicating that the risk of accepting the bribe is just too great. In both these cases, each party can be said to have a BATNA, a preferred alternative to a negotiated agreement.
Several negotiation process elements are important to consider in corruption negotiations – the secrecy of the transaction, tolerance for the transaction, the reliability of each side, and the development of dependencies. Secrecy in the negotiation enables the transaction to thrive. If the process were conducted in the open, it would cease to exist due to the illegality of the transaction. Tolerance for the practice of corruption is another factor that perpetuates it. Victims, while damning the tradition of bribery and fraud, typically practice it actively (Miller, et al., 1998). Whether willing or grudging in their acceptance of corruption, they continue to practice it, not being able to conceive of any way out. In the four countries they surveyed, Miller and his colleagues (1998) found that between 62 and 91 percent of the citizens in those countries needed to pay a bribe or use a special contact to get something from government that they were entitled to by law for free. Some suggest that only when tolerance turns to frustration and frustration to outrage with the practice of corruption that acquiescence will cease and the political will to make reforms that will control corruption will be feasible (Spector, 2000a & b).
The reliability of the transaction is one of the uncertainties of corruption negotiations. Will the promised reciprocation actually occur if the bribe is provided? Will you get what you pay for? Is there trust among thieves? Trust in the other party is required for the negotiation to proceed. In the Kharkiv survey (MSI, 2000), 50 percent of the respondents indicate that they believe that giving the bribe guarantees quicker and better service. Of these respondents, the younger the person, the more they believe the reliability of the negotiation transaction. Correspondingly, if you do not give a bribe, it is believed that service will not be provided quickly (52 percent) or at all (38 percent). On the other hand, 30 percent of respondents were unsure of the reliability of the corruption negotiation, but these people tended to have less direct and personal experience with corruption transactions.
Once a bribe is given and the expected service rendered, dependencies may develop between the corrupting agent and the victim over time, yielding a situation that requires further bribery to get any services whatsoever. The resulting post-agreement negotiation process may see an escalation of the extortion involved, bidding up the price for services unless an alternative source for those services is found.
Strategy. How is power used among corruption negotiators to achieve their objectives? It is often the government official who has what the citizen or business person wants and can extort bribes or favors to provide the service or permission. Some officials view their positions, not as servants of the people, but as rent seekers who have the right to steal and plunder during their tenure. Miller et al. (1998) found that officials who merely ask for a bribe actually receive the bribe; extortion works. More so, if officials caused unnecessary problems, delays and administrative complications for citizens, the rate of bribe giving increased; citizens are responsive to pressure.
From the citizen’s perspective, it is a popular belief that corruption and promoting corruption is good for business. It greases the skids and enables business to operate effectively – licenses can be obtained more readily and inspections can be “passed” at just a small cost relative to the actual regulated cost of satisfying regulations and standards. In fact, some have indicated that when it comes to the health care system in many Eastern European and former Soviet Union countries, if unofficial payments were eliminated, the entire structure of health care provision would collapse. So, citizen/business strategies to initiate corrupt transactions are viewed as positive elements. On the other hand, citizens who are pressured to give bribes often acquiesce easily and tolerate the transaction. They often fear retribution or worse inconveniences if they do not pay the bribe, and see no way out of the problem that is within their power. Like coercive diplomacy, government officials can seek to impose additional difficulties on citizens to encourage/force them to pay the bribe (George, 1991). Coercion works because citizens feel trapped, with no BATNA to fall back to.
Deconstructing Corruption Negotiations
If negotiations are a principal process channel by which corruption manifests itself, it follows logically that deconstructing negotiations – making negotiations difficult or impossible to conduct – may be an efficient means to reduce corruption. How can perverse corruption negotiations be deconstructed?
Reduce Self Interest in Negotiation. Self interest that stimulates negotiation can be tempered. This will inhibit negotiation motives. For example,
* Reduce reliability in the corruption negotiation dynamic. If the expectation that a bribe will guarantee the desired service, permission or blind eye is less than 100 percent, corruption negotiators may seek alternative means to achieve their goals.
* Provide better alternatives to a negotiated agreement (BATNAs). If officials believe that accepting a bribe will mean certain arrest and severe punishment, they are likely to avoid engaging in the corrupt transaction. If citizen victims find that they can hold out and still get their service or permission from government officials in a reasonable amount of time, they may desist from paying requested bribes.
Re-engineer the Negotiation Situation. It may be possible to modify the situation within which corruption negotiations usually are conducted to reduce their likelihood. For example,
* Increase transparency. If all government operations, including negotiations between government agents and citizen clients, are conducting in the open – if there are standard “sunshine laws” in place – then it will be difficult, if not impossible to offer bribes or extort citizens.
* Increase independent monitoring of government officials. Internal investigative units within government departments can be established to monitor the activities of officials. Alternatively, independent watchdog groups can be formed to ensure the accountability of officials. These groups would open government activities to public scrutiny and reduce the opportunities for secretive corruption negotiations.
* Reduce direct personal contact. If it is possible to reduce direct face-to-face contact between officials and citizens, there will be fewer opportunities for negotiation. This could be accomplished by using the postal system and the internet to renew routine licenses and to obtain registrations, for example. Developing one-stop centers where citizens/business people can get all necessary approvals from a single administrator, rather than going from office to office would also serve a similar purpose.
* Reduce discretion for bureaucrats. If the implementing regulations for laws are made more precise, there will be less for bureaucrats to interpret as they fulfill their functions. Administrative procedures will become more predictable and clear, both to the official and the citizen/business person. As a result, there will be less to negotiate about.
* Remove mutually hurting stalemate. Negotiations often occur because all parties believe that it is the only way to achieve their mutual objectives, having reached deadlock using all other means. If officials and citizens can get what they desire using ordinary prescribed methods, deadlocks will not be encountered and everyone will achieve their goals. For example, if laws, regulations and procedures for typical government services are clearly written, detailed, and well-publicized, there should be little need to discuss, let alone negotiate, about how they are implemented.
* Reduce familiarity between officials and citizens. Negotiators who are familiar with each other are more likely to be able to reach agreement. But if officials are rotated on a frequent basis, citizens will be less likely to interact with the same bureaucrat to obtain the permissions and services on a repetitive basis. As a result, corruption negotiations are less likely to commence.
* Establish citizen and business coalitions to monitor government operations. Such coalitions will increase the power position of civil society vis a vis the government. By equalizing and leveling the playing field, such coalitions become less vulnerable to harassment and abuse.
Conclusions
No country has found a reliable way to escape from the problems of corruption. However, some have found ways to reduce the opportunities of corruption from emerging. Deconstructing negotiation – a central dynamic in corruption transactions – seems to be an appropriate and direct way of reducing the opportunities for the emergence of corruption.
Changing incentives will reduce corruption negotiations. The predictability of risk and cost for corruption negotiations are essential in changing the incentive structure. Parties have to know that there are negative consequences that will not serve their self interests.
Changing processes and situational factors will reduce corruption negotiations. The negotiation literature has identified the situational factors that are generally favorable to promoting and sustaining effective negotiations. It is possible to use this information to re-engineer the situation so that unfavorable conditions make negotiations unlikely. Processes can also be re-engineered so that the typical elements that make negotiations effective are not present.
Changing structures and institutions will reduce corruption negotiations. Certain institutions and structures can be established that change power relationships and open the processes within which negotiations usually take place, making them more unlikely to emerge.
What can be done from a research perspective? Simulations can be conducted in the laboratory to test the effects of deconstructing negotiations on corruption. Such simulations can seek out new ways of undoing the natural dynamic toward negotiation by controlling for different situations and conditions. In addition, practical experiments in the field can also be attempted to stop perverse corruption negotiations. Agencies such as the US Agency for International Development can launch pilot projects in the field to determine if the reduction of negotiation is a viable approach to corruption control.
More than a decade of hard work has been spent experimenting with various approaches to reduce corruption and its effects, primarily in developing and transitional countries. Some approaches have been effective, others not. But to date, no clear path has been identified to fight corruption. Tinkering with the negotiation process to make it less interesting to potential participants in the corrupt transaction seems to be a simple and direct way of controlling the problem. It merits further examination and experimentation.
As one of the most common forms of human dealings, the negotiation process is a core operational feature of many behavioral transactions, including one of the oldest and most detrimental activities, that of corruption. Many, though not all, corrupt interactions can be easily characterized in negotiation terms: they include actors with clear interests who use power and persuasion to influence outcomes that can be seen as beneficial. While most analysts view corruption as negative to economic growth, public confidence and good governance (Kramer, 1999), the fact that it operates as a negotiation process should be inconsequential. However, this very relationship may be the key to developing an ameliorative strategy to fighting corruption.
Over the past ten years, the international community and many industrialized countries have focused attention on the problem of corruption in the transitional economies and developing states and have struggled to design anti-corruption strategies that are likely to be effective (World Bank, 2000a & 2000b; USAID, 1999; OECD, 2000; Elliott, 1997). They have made the goal of reducing corruption or, at least, controlling the phenomenon, a high priority. While the traditional approach to reducing or controlling corruption has been to build the rule of law and strengthen law enforcement activities, international experience has shown that, by themselves, these initiatives have only a transient impact. Other approaches need to be stimulated – including preventive reforms and public education – and other stakeholders need to be mobilized – including civil society, the private sector, and the mass media -- to develop a sustained, comprehensive and effective anti-corruption strategy. These approaches seek to reduce the opportunities for corrupt encounters, create citizen awareness of their rights so that they are shielded from threats of abuse and harassment by corrupt officials, and develop independent watchdog organizations that monitor government, increase transparency of government operations, and make officials accountable for their actions.
One unorthodox way of conceiving of corruption reduction efforts is to focus on its embedded negotiation process. If the negotiation can be “removed” from the corrupt transaction, perhaps the corruption can be averted. The goal of this paper is to evaluate the role that negotiation plays in the typical corrupt transaction and how those negotiation elements might be deconstructed to prevent the negotiation and hence, the corruption, from occurring. Most negotiation literature seeks to uncover the factors and conditions that are favorable to effective bargaining: what situations prompt the onset of negotiations, promote negotiations, or hinder their progress (Druckman, 1993; Zartman, 1989; Stein, 1989; Spector, 2001). In an unusual twist to this plot, this paper seeks to understand what is required to stop negotiation in particular cases where the vulnerability to corrupt activity is high. In this way, the elimination of negotiation can become a central theme in national and international anti-corruption strategies.
Corruption and Development
Corruption is a worldwide phenomenon, but mostly prevalent and unchecked in countries undergoing transitions or modernization (Huntington, 1968; Kramer, 1999). Certainly, one cannot be attentive to current events today without being inundated by the many reports of corruption in both the developing and developed worlds. The great damage and loss of life in recent earthquakes in Turkey and India have been attributed not to an act of God, but to pervasive corruption – where it is common for government inspectors to turn a blind eye to violations of the building code in return for bribes from construction firms. In Salt Lake City, a big scandal revealed how bribery and gifts were intimately involved in the selection of sites for the Olympic Games. In Brussels, heads of departments in the European Commission had to resign due to allegations of fraud and corruption. In Germany, former Chancellor Kohl is alleged to be involved in unexplained financial dealing with his political party -- funds given to the party to gain political influence. In Ukraine, surveys have found that 35 percent of companies pay bribes frequently; an average of 6.5 percent of annual corporate revenue is paid in bribes as unofficial taxes; and over 30 percent of households claim that they are confronted by some form of corruption every year. While corruption remains a real and constant phenomenon that plagues all countries, the difference between developing and developed countries is in the extent to which institutions and processes have been implemented in developed states to keep opportunities for corruption checked and under control.
Corruption is one of the oldest transactions known to humankind. Bribery is even mentioned in Psalm of David 15, as one of those basic volitional actions that will prevent one from “dwelling upon Thy holy mountain.” Its premise is that citizens can get what they want – legal or not -- by paying off an official who is supposed to uphold the law and live by the public trust. But corruption is a two way street; it can be initiated by officials as well who use their position to extort payments and favors from citizens to obtain what they should be entitled to for no extra fee whatsoever. Whether or not the corrupt transactions in fact occur after it is initiated depends upon the ethics, desperation, desire for gratification, and fear of punishment of both sides in the transaction.
What makes corruption so prevalent in development? Corruption is more than just a function of personal greed or cultural predisposition (Kaufmann, 1997). It tends to prevail where the rule of law is not clearly elaborated and public officials have wide authority to act; under these circumstances, officials can make decisions that benefit themselves, without adequate checks and balances. Corruption also thrives when officials are not held accountable and there is minimal transparency in the decision process. Weak and ill-conceived incentives also make societies vulnerable to corruption – when civil servants are not paid a living wage, when there are few rewards for good performance, and when there is little fear of punishment for wrongdoing. Countries with weak institutions that are over-politicized and cannot enforce their decisions are also prone to corrupt practices. When there is a lack of political will and commitment to make reforms among society’s leadership, corruption prospers. An underdeveloped civil society also contributes to corruption, because this is the sector of society that must serve as the independent watchdog of government operations and decisions; without their active role in this regard, government can often proceed unchecked. Finally, in developing countries where citizen loyalties to the state are still in a formative stage and may be more strongly focused on personal, tribal or clan relationships, corruption in the state can grow.
What makes corruption so counterproductive to development (Mauro, 1997)? First, it impairs the possibilities for economic growth. Corruption scares off private investment from domestic and foreign sources that fear the risks, unknown costs and harassment involved in highly corrupt systems. Corruption also encourages the growth of a shadow economy, where taxes and fees are not paid to the state but as unofficial payments to corrupt bureaucrats. Second, corruption reduces the ability of the state to govern. It undermines the rule of law and replaces it with a personalistic and changeable set of informal relationships. It also reduces the capacity of the government to deliver quality public services; with funds siphoned off from the public treasury into the pockets of corrupt officials, there is less money available to provide citizens with the services that their government is supposed to provide. Finally, corruption demoralizes the public and results in a total loss of confidence and trust that government is there to serve the people and develop the country.
Given the prospects of these negative consequences, international donors, as well as developing and transitioning countries themselves, have become extremely sensitive to the existence and growth of corruption and have sought aggressively to support anti-corruption campaigns. Leakage of donor development funds, especially surrounding large public construction projects, has caused donors to be cautious in their granting and lending programs and has resulted in new conditionality clauses that require countries to diagnose their corruption problems and implement active and realistic national anti-corruption strategies before new funds are released.
Corruption and Negotiation
The generally accepted definition of corruption is the misuse of public office for personal gain (Johnston, 2000). A corrupt action, by this definition, involves an abuse where at least one of the involved parties is a government official; abuses committed among private sector parties is not considered to be corruption, but is a criminal act. Self interest is the major motivating feature behind corrupt transactions; either the official is actively seeking to benefit at the expense of the public or a citizen is offering benefits to an official to extract special access or waivers from regulations.
Corruption can take on many forms: bribery, extortion, influence buying, favoritism, nepotism, fraud, and embezzlement, among others. Some corrupt actions take advantage of the special access to public funds and public decision making that government officials have as a natural result of their positions. These actions may not require another party to accomplish their objectives; the corrupt official may just take what he/she wants. But many corrupt transactions necessarily involve a giver and taker; these forms of corruption involve negotiation. Negotiation as a process is value-free; but negotiations of corrupt transactions that by their very nature deal with illegalities are perverse.
The corruption transaction is a cost-benefit exchange, operating as a distributive negotiation. It usually involves parties that are unequal in their power position. Either the unchecked government official wields total power to provide what the citizen wants or the citizen wields the power of the purse to influence the official to provide a government service or turn a blind eye to some citizen activity. In this way, one party can impose a cost or benefit on the other party to extract a desired behavior. Goods are distributed in the transaction to both sides – often money or a favor to obtain a legally obligated service or some special government dispensation or service.
Wide discretion, limited accountability and limited transparency in government decision making open the door to corrupt practices (USAID, 1999). Wide discretion provides government officials with the opportunity to interpret laws, regulations and processes and makes negotiation concerning how they are implemented possible. Limited accountability provides government officials with practically free agency; they can negotiate on terms that will yield personal benefit with little risk that they will be caught and punished for overstepping the public trust. Limited transparency offers both the public official as well as their negotiating partner the relative secrecy that is required to conduct their extra-legal transaction. The opposite of each of these conditions that make corruption negotiations possible can be characterized by the effective rule of law. In such situations, what is expected of public officials is clearly prescribed, their ability to interpret is circumscribed, government decision making is predictable to all parties, and open to inspection by all. These are circumstances that reduce the opportunity for negotiation and hence, for corruption.
The Building Blocks of Corruption Negotiations
An analytical review of the essential building blocks (Kremenyuk, 1991) of corruption negotiations can point to vulnerabilities in the process.
Actors and Structure. The actors in corruption negotiations are the government officials and citizens. They have been depicted in a Principal-Agent-Client structure to explain the governance relationship that can turn corrupt (Banfield, 1975; Rose-Ackerman, 1978; Klitgaard, 1988; Klitgaard, et al., 2000). The Principal is the chief of a department who is responsible for various functions and services. The Agent is the bureaucrat who is charged with actually carrying out specific functions and services and interacts directly with the public. The Client is the citizen or business person who seeks a service or permission from government, in particular, from an Agent. With the proper controls, accountability mechanisms and transparent processes, these three actors can interact relatively smoothly, passing requests, information and feedback among themselves, and carrying out functions in a predictable fashion in accordance with laws and regulations. However, in systems with wide discretion, limited accountability and low transparency, there can be many opportunities for negotiation leading to corruption in this structure. Principals can select Agents based on favoritism and nepotism so that loyalty is not to the public at large and the Agents fail to see themselves as “public servants.” Agents can negotiate for extra unofficial payments from Clients (ie., extortion) to deliver services or permissions that they are entitled to, and then pass part of these payments up the ladder to the Principals as kickbacks. Agents can also threaten to harass Clients if payments are not made. Clients, too, can negotiate with Agents (ie., bribery) to get special treatment or to cause Agents to turn a blind eye to illegal activity.
In a survey of public officials in four countries of Eastern Europe, Miller, et al. (1999) found that officials believed it proper to expect and/or demand bribes from clients. 60 percent of officials thought it right to accept bribes if offered in return for extra work to solve client problems. 15 percent thought it right to ask for a bribe. 53 percent thought it right to accept bribes to solve problems faster than normal.
The question often asked in a corruption negotiation is “who is the corrupter?” The question revolves around who holds the stronger power position and who initiates the corrupt promise or threat. Is the government official withholding a legal service or permission if a bribe is not provided, thereby victimizing the citizen? Or is the citizen the corrupting agent, offering bribes and favors to low paid government officials who desperately need to increase their family income? Or are both actors willing accomplices, each understanding the system and how things are accomplished? Miller, et al. (1998) conducted surveys in Ukraine, Bulgaria, Slovakia and the Czech Republic in 1997 and 1998 to understand these negotiation relationships. Their evidence did not support the popular allegation that citizens were the source of corruption, tantalizing government officials with bribes and favors. In the Czech and Slovak Republics, their findings suggest that citizens were not victims of official corruption, but accomplices – the public and officials were working in collusion to perpetuate the pervasive system of corruption. In Bulgaria and Ukraine, citizens clearly believe that they are the victims of greedy officials. In all cases, it was a combination of official greed and citizen submissiveness and tolerance that perpetuated high levels of bribery.
The dynamics motivating corruption negotiations between Principal, Agent and Client hinge on self interest. Where the rule of law is strong, respected and enforced, self interest is naturally bounded by law and the firm expectation that wrongdoers will be caught and punished. But where the rule of law is weak, the controls that circumscribe self interest may not be present. Self-gratification and power prevails. By creating a corruption negotiation, the official or the citizen can seek certain benefits that would be denied or delayed otherwise.
Process. Corruption is an implicit, and sometimes explicit, negotiated contract specifying what each party has committed itself to accomplishing, that is, the quid pro quo. It is usually the reciprocation of a service for a gift. What, in fact, is the object of this type of negotiation? It can be the size and nature of the bribe or the size and nature of what you get in return for the bribe. In a survey of corruption in Kharkiv, Ukraine at the end of 1999 (Management Systems International, 2000), bargaining over the price was clearly evident. Of those citizens who said they paid a bribe, they indicate paying 28 percent less than what was requested by the government official! 10 percent of the respondents indicate clearly that they try to negotiate with officials to avoid paying bribes or reduce the price.
A survey of households, businesses and public officials in Romania in early 2000 (Management Systems International and World Bank, 2000) emphasizes the quid pro quo between officials and citizens. For example, bribes are essential to get better health care service or to get service at all. Likewise, in the educational field, bribes are a determining factor in getting children placed in school and in getting better grades. Among public officials, 37 percent of said they were offered small bribes over the last 12 months; 11 percent said they were offered expensive gifts or bribes. But 30 percent indicate that while bribes are given and accepted, they are not necessary; if you have patience, they say, you can live without giving bribes. But when business people responded, 75 percent indicate that they spend over 6 percent of their working hours negotiating with government bureaucrats, increasing the opportunities for bribe-giving and taking. From the businessman’s perspective, their involvement in the corruption negotiation was not voluntary. 41 percent indicated that government officials told them a bribe was expected – to speed the delivery of services or get favorable treatment. A much smaller number of business people, 18 percent, indicated that they were the primary initiators of the corruption negotiation, offering bribes to officials.
Whether or not the negotiation situation is acceptable to either of the parties is also a question. The victim may be able to resist the bribe-request by waiting or by some seeking an alternative channel to provide the desired service. The proposed bribe-taker might be able to resist the offered gift or favor by appealing to the rule of law and indicating that the risk of accepting the bribe is just too great. In both these cases, each party can be said to have a BATNA, a preferred alternative to a negotiated agreement.
Several negotiation process elements are important to consider in corruption negotiations – the secrecy of the transaction, tolerance for the transaction, the reliability of each side, and the development of dependencies. Secrecy in the negotiation enables the transaction to thrive. If the process were conducted in the open, it would cease to exist due to the illegality of the transaction. Tolerance for the practice of corruption is another factor that perpetuates it. Victims, while damning the tradition of bribery and fraud, typically practice it actively (Miller, et al., 1998). Whether willing or grudging in their acceptance of corruption, they continue to practice it, not being able to conceive of any way out. In the four countries they surveyed, Miller and his colleagues (1998) found that between 62 and 91 percent of the citizens in those countries needed to pay a bribe or use a special contact to get something from government that they were entitled to by law for free. Some suggest that only when tolerance turns to frustration and frustration to outrage with the practice of corruption that acquiescence will cease and the political will to make reforms that will control corruption will be feasible (Spector, 2000a & b).
The reliability of the transaction is one of the uncertainties of corruption negotiations. Will the promised reciprocation actually occur if the bribe is provided? Will you get what you pay for? Is there trust among thieves? Trust in the other party is required for the negotiation to proceed. In the Kharkiv survey (MSI, 2000), 50 percent of the respondents indicate that they believe that giving the bribe guarantees quicker and better service. Of these respondents, the younger the person, the more they believe the reliability of the negotiation transaction. Correspondingly, if you do not give a bribe, it is believed that service will not be provided quickly (52 percent) or at all (38 percent). On the other hand, 30 percent of respondents were unsure of the reliability of the corruption negotiation, but these people tended to have less direct and personal experience with corruption transactions.
Once a bribe is given and the expected service rendered, dependencies may develop between the corrupting agent and the victim over time, yielding a situation that requires further bribery to get any services whatsoever. The resulting post-agreement negotiation process may see an escalation of the extortion involved, bidding up the price for services unless an alternative source for those services is found.
Strategy. How is power used among corruption negotiators to achieve their objectives? It is often the government official who has what the citizen or business person wants and can extort bribes or favors to provide the service or permission. Some officials view their positions, not as servants of the people, but as rent seekers who have the right to steal and plunder during their tenure. Miller et al. (1998) found that officials who merely ask for a bribe actually receive the bribe; extortion works. More so, if officials caused unnecessary problems, delays and administrative complications for citizens, the rate of bribe giving increased; citizens are responsive to pressure.
From the citizen’s perspective, it is a popular belief that corruption and promoting corruption is good for business. It greases the skids and enables business to operate effectively – licenses can be obtained more readily and inspections can be “passed” at just a small cost relative to the actual regulated cost of satisfying regulations and standards. In fact, some have indicated that when it comes to the health care system in many Eastern European and former Soviet Union countries, if unofficial payments were eliminated, the entire structure of health care provision would collapse. So, citizen/business strategies to initiate corrupt transactions are viewed as positive elements. On the other hand, citizens who are pressured to give bribes often acquiesce easily and tolerate the transaction. They often fear retribution or worse inconveniences if they do not pay the bribe, and see no way out of the problem that is within their power. Like coercive diplomacy, government officials can seek to impose additional difficulties on citizens to encourage/force them to pay the bribe (George, 1991). Coercion works because citizens feel trapped, with no BATNA to fall back to.
Deconstructing Corruption Negotiations
If negotiations are a principal process channel by which corruption manifests itself, it follows logically that deconstructing negotiations – making negotiations difficult or impossible to conduct – may be an efficient means to reduce corruption. How can perverse corruption negotiations be deconstructed?
Reduce Self Interest in Negotiation. Self interest that stimulates negotiation can be tempered. This will inhibit negotiation motives. For example,
* Reduce reliability in the corruption negotiation dynamic. If the expectation that a bribe will guarantee the desired service, permission or blind eye is less than 100 percent, corruption negotiators may seek alternative means to achieve their goals.
* Provide better alternatives to a negotiated agreement (BATNAs). If officials believe that accepting a bribe will mean certain arrest and severe punishment, they are likely to avoid engaging in the corrupt transaction. If citizen victims find that they can hold out and still get their service or permission from government officials in a reasonable amount of time, they may desist from paying requested bribes.
Re-engineer the Negotiation Situation. It may be possible to modify the situation within which corruption negotiations usually are conducted to reduce their likelihood. For example,
* Increase transparency. If all government operations, including negotiations between government agents and citizen clients, are conducting in the open – if there are standard “sunshine laws” in place – then it will be difficult, if not impossible to offer bribes or extort citizens.
* Increase independent monitoring of government officials. Internal investigative units within government departments can be established to monitor the activities of officials. Alternatively, independent watchdog groups can be formed to ensure the accountability of officials. These groups would open government activities to public scrutiny and reduce the opportunities for secretive corruption negotiations.
* Reduce direct personal contact. If it is possible to reduce direct face-to-face contact between officials and citizens, there will be fewer opportunities for negotiation. This could be accomplished by using the postal system and the internet to renew routine licenses and to obtain registrations, for example. Developing one-stop centers where citizens/business people can get all necessary approvals from a single administrator, rather than going from office to office would also serve a similar purpose.
* Reduce discretion for bureaucrats. If the implementing regulations for laws are made more precise, there will be less for bureaucrats to interpret as they fulfill their functions. Administrative procedures will become more predictable and clear, both to the official and the citizen/business person. As a result, there will be less to negotiate about.
* Remove mutually hurting stalemate. Negotiations often occur because all parties believe that it is the only way to achieve their mutual objectives, having reached deadlock using all other means. If officials and citizens can get what they desire using ordinary prescribed methods, deadlocks will not be encountered and everyone will achieve their goals. For example, if laws, regulations and procedures for typical government services are clearly written, detailed, and well-publicized, there should be little need to discuss, let alone negotiate, about how they are implemented.
* Reduce familiarity between officials and citizens. Negotiators who are familiar with each other are more likely to be able to reach agreement. But if officials are rotated on a frequent basis, citizens will be less likely to interact with the same bureaucrat to obtain the permissions and services on a repetitive basis. As a result, corruption negotiations are less likely to commence.
* Establish citizen and business coalitions to monitor government operations. Such coalitions will increase the power position of civil society vis a vis the government. By equalizing and leveling the playing field, such coalitions become less vulnerable to harassment and abuse.
Conclusions
No country has found a reliable way to escape from the problems of corruption. However, some have found ways to reduce the opportunities of corruption from emerging. Deconstructing negotiation – a central dynamic in corruption transactions – seems to be an appropriate and direct way of reducing the opportunities for the emergence of corruption.
Changing incentives will reduce corruption negotiations. The predictability of risk and cost for corruption negotiations are essential in changing the incentive structure. Parties have to know that there are negative consequences that will not serve their self interests.
Changing processes and situational factors will reduce corruption negotiations. The negotiation literature has identified the situational factors that are generally favorable to promoting and sustaining effective negotiations. It is possible to use this information to re-engineer the situation so that unfavorable conditions make negotiations unlikely. Processes can also be re-engineered so that the typical elements that make negotiations effective are not present.
Changing structures and institutions will reduce corruption negotiations. Certain institutions and structures can be established that change power relationships and open the processes within which negotiations usually take place, making them more unlikely to emerge.
What can be done from a research perspective? Simulations can be conducted in the laboratory to test the effects of deconstructing negotiations on corruption. Such simulations can seek out new ways of undoing the natural dynamic toward negotiation by controlling for different situations and conditions. In addition, practical experiments in the field can also be attempted to stop perverse corruption negotiations. Agencies such as the US Agency for International Development can launch pilot projects in the field to determine if the reduction of negotiation is a viable approach to corruption control.
More than a decade of hard work has been spent experimenting with various approaches to reduce corruption and its effects, primarily in developing and transitional countries. Some approaches have been effective, others not. But to date, no clear path has been identified to fight corruption. Tinkering with the negotiation process to make it less interesting to potential participants in the corrupt transaction seems to be a simple and direct way of controlling the problem. It merits further examination and experimentation.
.
.
Autor: Bertram I. Specto
.
.
Integrantes do Grupo: Fernando Roman, Rafael Barcellos Gay e Bruno Pauletti Olson.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário