Задание по теме «Коррупция»:

 Ознакомиться с первым текстом

 Составить по 2м текстам тематическое поле концепта
«коррупция» (синонимы, глаголы, сочетающиеся с этими
словами – что она делает и что с ней делают; характеризующие
определения)
 Перевести второй текст

Transparency and Corruption

The term "corruption" was taboo in the 1980s and 1990s - instead,
euphemistic terms such as "malfeasance" were used. It is much easier
today to discuss the subject openly, thanks to the efforts of various
organisations to bring this issue to the forefront of the governance debate.
However, the different dimensions of corruption are not always clearly
understood or explained. The purpose of this section, therefore, is to create
a common understanding of corruption, its nature and scale, and its
negative socio-economic impact. It emphasises the fundamental importance
of a governance approach to effectively combat corruption.

Understanding CorruptionWhile there is no universally agreed definition

of corruption,(22)Klitgaard, MacLean-Abaroa and Parris provide a useful
starting point:

Corruption means the misuse of office for private gain. The office is a
position of trust, where one receives authority in order to act on behalf of
an institution, be it private, public, or non-profit. (Emphasis added)" (23)
Unlike other formulations which emphasise the misuse of "public office for
private gain", this formulation demonstrates that corruption can occur not
just in the public sector, but in any of the three major governance pillars -
government, the private sector or civil society. This is consistent with the
governance approach of the Toolkit, which includes tools designed to build a
coalition of stakeholders committed to combating corruption based on the
principle that each stakeholder has the responsibility to play its role to the
best of its ability.

In addition, the definition is also consistent with the institutional focus of the
Toolkit. As mentioned in the introduction, the range of anti-corruption
measures at the local level tends to be institutional in nature, rather than
legal, parliamentary or constitutional.

Corruption comes in various forms…As there is no universally accepted

definition of corruption, likewise there is no universally valid typology of
corruption. All forms of corruption, however, are based on the potential
conflict between the individual's professional and personal interests. A
summary of the most common forms of corruption is provided in Box 2.

Common Forms of Corruption

Bribery: Probably the most common form of corruption, bribery is the giving
of some form of benefit to unduly influence some action or decision on the
part of the recipient or beneficiary. Bribery can be initiated by the person
soliciting the bribe or the person offering the bribe. The "benefit" may
vary from money or other valuables to less tangible benefits such as
inside information or employment. Bribes may be paid on a case-by-case
basis or as part of an ongoing relationship. The most common strategy for
countering bribery is to criminalise it, often with an exclusive focus on
cases involving public officials.

Embezzlement, theft and fraud: the taking or conversion of money,

property or other valuables for personal benefit. Embezzlement and theft
involve the taking of property by someone to whom it has been entrusted,
whereas fraud consists of the use of misleading information to induce
someone to turn over the property voluntarily, for example, by
misrepresenting the amount of people in need of a particular service.

Extortion: extortion involves coercive incentives such as the use of threat of

violence or the exposure or damaging information in order to induce
cooperation. Office holders can be either the instigators or the victims of
extortion.

Abuse of discretion: the abuse of office for private gain, but without
external inducement or extortion. Patterns of such abuses are usually
associated with bureaucracies in which broad individual discretion is
created, few oversights or accountability structures are present, as well as
those in which decision-making rules are so complex as to neutralise the
effectiveness of such structures even if they exist.

Favouritism, nepotism and clientelism: In general, these involve abuse of

discretion, however, in these specific cases, the act is governed not by the
direct self-interest of the corrupt individual, but by some less tangible
affiliation, such as advancing the interest of family (nepotism), a political
 party, or of an ethnic, religious or other grouping.

Improper political contributions: payments made in an attempt to unduly

influence present or future activities by a party or its members when they
are in office. Distinguishing this from legitimate political contributions is
very difficult.

Adapted from UNODC Anti-Corruption Toolkit, Volume 1, General Introduction,

p. 10.

and varies according to its reach…Understanding the pervasiveness of

corruption in a society is as important as understanding the way in which it
is manifested. The scale of corruption is often described as ranging from
"petty corruption" to "grand corruption." Petty corruption "can involve the
exchange of very small amounts of money or minor favours by those
seeking preferential treatment, the employment of friends, etc"(24) ,
whereas grand corruption "involves the distortion or corruption of central
functions of government such as legal, economic or other policy-making
[functions], the development and enactment of legislation, or judicial
independence."(25) The end result of grand corruption can be the loss of
confidence in governance, rule of law and, in extreme examples, political
instability.

It is important to note that grand corruption is systemic - it permeates all

governance institutions and processes. Accordingly, it requires a systematic
response involving a variety of strategies, all of which should be based on a
foundation of promoting good governance.

Yet, corruption's impact is invariably negative....Corruption has a

profoundly corrosive effect on local governance and the quality of life in
cities. If left unchecked, it will undermine a city's social, economic,
environmental and political objectives.

Some would argue that corruption is culturally determined, that is, practices
viewed as corrupt in one country may be legitimate business practice in
another. Others argue that corruption is beneficial, acting as "grease" to
speed up otherwise inefficient institutions. Both arguments, however, are
incorrect. All countries, for example, have laws against corruption. And, as
Nigerian President OlusegunObasanjo once observed, "The distinction
between gifts and bribes is easily recognisable. A gift can be accepted
openly; a bribe has to be kept secret."(26)
The argument that corruption acts as "grease" for an otherwise inefficient
economy, is also flawed. It overlooks the fact that bribery provides an
incentive for over-regulation and over-bureaucratisation of procedures to
enable more people to benefit from graft. The net effect is lost time and a
higher cost of doing business. Such a system is profoundly inequitable, as
the poor often suffer the most because of corruption.

In short, corruption's negative impacts include the following:

Undermines economic growth, by diverting resources to inefficient or

unproductive sectors or actors; by reducing income tax and other
revenue sources; by increasing the cost of doing business; by reducing
the quality of contracted works; and ultimately undermines investor
confidence and contributes to capital flight.

Undermines poverty reduction efforts, as less resources will be

available for social programmes; through poor targeting of
beneficiaries, both in terms of the overall effectiveness of services, and
making services accessible to more citizens on an equitable basis;

Undermines the safety, environmental health and the

sustainability of cities, health and zoning regulations are ignored;
and by weak enforcement of environmental protection policies and
regulations, may even compromise the needs of future generations;

Threatens political stability, particularly in the case of systemic

corruption. The loss of public confidence in the rule of law, justice and
governance institutions can lead to political instability and even civil
strife.

… particularly for the urban poor

"A state with endemic corruption can be especially brutal to the very poor,
who have no resources to compete with those willing to pay bribes."(27)
The cost of bribes relative to their income has a tremendous negative
impact on the lives of the poor compared to wealthier segments of the
population. Money spent on bribes can reduce resources for shelter, food,
water, health and education - the basic rights, and necessities, of urban life.
Moreover, when confronted with a choice of paying a bribe or spending time
in jail, the poor often have no choice. The result is increased risk of violence
and injuries.

As discussed briefly in Section 1.3, poor women are often more severely
affected by corruption than men. They usually bear additional financial
responsibilities, for example, for the health and education of children, and
yet do not have the same earning power as men. Having to bribe, therefore,
takes a large bite out of their already limited resources. Moreover, women's
livelihoods are often home-based enterprises operating in the informal
sector. The discretionary enforcement of regulations on them can force
them to pay bribes that eat into their profits. Women are also more
vulnerable to threats to their security, including rape, and will more often
have to resort to bribes to avoid risk. Finally, corruption usually increases
gender inequality, as bribes or nepotism subvert laws promoting equity in
the workforce.

When will corruption thrive?The phenomenon of corruption is very often

a result of prevailing socio-economic and governance conditions in a city or
country. Factors such as poverty, scarcity, lack of access to basic services,
lack of information, overly bureaucratic institutions and low incentives for
civil servants come together in various permutations and combinations to
give rise to Corruption. Improving governance in general, and enhancing
transparency and public participation in particular, can go a long way in
tackling the problem of corruption at the local level.

Klitgaard, MacLean-Abaroa and Parris, argue, however, that "corruption is a

crime of calculation, not of passion. People will tend to engage in corruption
when the risks are low, the penalties mild and the rewards great."(28)
Based on this assessment, they propose a simple heuristic formula for
analysing the tendency for corruption to exist:

C=M+D-A
Corruption = Monopoly + Discretion - Accountability
In explaining this formula, they state that corruption tends to flourish
"where officials have a monopoly power over a good or service, unlimited
discretion in deciding who gets that good or service or how much they get,
and there is no accountability whereby others can see what that person is
deciding."(29) Accordingly, they advocate: improving the positive incentives
for municipal officials, including reforming civil service salary structures to
make them competitive with their counterparts in the private sector;
promoting competition in the public and private sectors, which would
include privatisation, contracting out and, where necessary, the elimination
of corrupt municipal programmes; simplifying rules and regulations and
informing citizens of their rights and the service standards to which they are
entitled; enhancing accountability and transparency through clear standards
of conduct, openness in bidding and contracting, and institutional reforms.
(30)

Klitgaard's formula may be modified somewhat, if we take into account

another factor - ethics. As observed by Moor (31) , the missing element
from the formula is "the sense of community, of responsibility for the
common good and of ethics." If we examine the pattern of existence of
corruption in different societies, it might support a modified formula: C =
(M+D-A)/E, where the denominator E is the ethical ambience. This Toolkit
also argues that promotion of ethical behaviour can play a major role in
reducing corruption, enhancing transparency, and improving civic
engagement overall (See Section 2C - Tools to Promote Ethics,
Professionalism and Integrity).

Sometimes there are entirely different factors at work, however, that impair
all formal institutional structures and corrupt all pillars of society - the
government, the private sector and the civil society. The "Vladivideos"
(32)exposé in Peru is a case in point. It illustrates that corruption can also
be the result of deliberate and systematic efforts by powerful political
figures to undermine the State and its institutions.As a recent article on the
case observes:

In Peru, corruption occurs not due to a lack of bureaucratic controls or to an

excessive administrative discretion, but as the result of a political
intervention-intentional and systematic-in the State A complex system of
exchange of political resources creates networks of organized corruption
that exist despite formal regulations or bureaucratic controls. These social
networks are the basis of the institutional continuity that diverts reforms
and provides impunity to those taking part in corruption.(33)
Nevertheless, Klitgaard's formula and its subsequent arguments are still
important for several reasons. First, it suggests that changing the incentives
for corruption can have a significant impact on the prevalence of corruption.
Steps can be taken, even small steps, that can have a meaningful impact.
Second, it highlights the importance of enhancing transparency and
accountability at the local level.Finally, the formula suggests that there are
a number of activities that must be done by actors at different levels in
order to ensure success. The last two points clearly confirm the need for a
"governance approach" to transparency.

In recognising the important contribution of all stakeholders to promoting

transparency, Transparency International (TI) advocates the creation of
"integrity systems" which involve all stakeholders in the fight against
corruption. This approach has been largely used at the national level by TI,
through National Integrity Systems. This Toolkit advocates for a more
focused approach on developing "Local Integrity Systems." As will be
discussed below in Section 1.4, such an approach is based on the promotion
of transparency and good urban governance not just by local governments
but by all key stakeholders.
Pulling Hands Out of the Till
The best countries keep public and private sector graft in
check.

For every success in fighting corruption, there’s a fresh backslide. Although

the U.S. and Europe have made spectacular gains in cracking down on
corporate bribery, the financial crisis and its $20 trillion in bailouts and
stimulus spending created a rash of opportunities to shift public resources
to private pockets. It didn’t help that the programs concentrated on some of
the most fraud-ridden sectors, such as banking, real estate, energy, and
infrastructure. China alone has arrested more than 3,000 officials for graft
related to its $586 billion stimulus.

What’s clear, however, is that some countries do much better than others in
rooting out corruption. Their lessons, according to corruption experts at
Transparency International, the Basel Institute on Governance, and the
Brookings Institution:
Get government out of the shadows. Corruption thrives not just on plainly
illegal bribes, but even more on legal practices such as political donations,
lobbying, and the revolving doors that reward lawmakers and regulators
with juicy jobs in industry. Sweden, a star performer in the corruption
rankings, has cleaned up government by opening virtually all government
records to the public. It’s no coincidence that economists consider Sweden
the world’s textbook example for how to resolve a banking crisis resolutely
and at minimal cost to taxpayers.

Peer pressure. For years, the U.S. was the only country seriously pursuing
corporate bribery. After relentlessly exposing many of the world’s biggest
companies, the U.S. shamed others into stiffening their laws and stepping
up prosecution. Britain, where Prime Minister Tony Blair once snuffed out
an inquiry into British Aerospace payments in Saudi Arabia, just passed the
world’s toughest anti-bribery law. Germany, until recently, considered
bribes standard business practice and even made them tax-deductible.
Reluctant German prosecutors didn’t start investigations of their own until
after German companies kept showing up in U.S. courts.
Litigate, litigate, litigate. Massive fines have made bribery a high-risk game.
Germany’s Siemens has paid $1.6 billion and still faces prosecution in
several other countries. That both the U.S. and U.K. can litigate any bribe
anywhere as long as the company involved does business in America or
Britain could one day make even Chinese, Indian, and Russian companies
come clean (they now count among the world’s most corrupt, according to
Transparency International’s Bribe Payer Index). Already, über-corrupt
Russia has begun to cooperate with OECD anti-corruption fighters as the
country tries to raise its standing in Western trade and economic bodies.