An Excellent Definition of "Corruption," and America's Fall in the Corruption Index
A week ago, Transparency International published its fifteenth annual <a href="http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/re…; target="”_blank”">Corruption
Perceptions Index</a>, which scores countries on the basis of a variety
of independent reports on and surveys about corruption, including those
from the World Bank and other development banks, and those surveying
journalists, business executives, and international organization staff.<br>
<br>
Here in the U.S., the big news is that, for the first time, the U.S.
has fallen out of the top 20 least corrupt nations, mainly due, it
appears, to the effect of money in politics and the information that
came out due to the financial crisis. The U.S. fell from 18 to 22, just
behind Chile and just ahead of Uruguay.<br>
<br>
The president of Transparency International U.S. is quoted as saying,
with respect to the financial crisis, "Maybe some of what went on is
legal, but it seems like ethics and integrity took a back seat."<br>
<br>
TI's definition of corruption is a good one: "the abuse of entrusted
power for private gain." This includes both unethical conduct and
crime, both government and business. Note that the definition simply
says "private gain." Not the
officials' gain, but also their families', friends', and business and
political associates'. The definition also includes the concept of
trust. It is a very dense, but easily understood definition.<br>
<br>
The definition also focuses on something government ethics
professionals too often are afraid to mention: power. Individuals
with very little power embezzle funds all the time, but this usually
has nothing to do with corruption. They are usually desperate people,
often gambling or drug addicts, who simply have the opportunity to
steal from their employer, whether it be a company or a government
agency. Although this is criminal, it is not corrupt.<br>
<br>
An unethical or corrupt government is one where those in power are
either involved in unethical and criminal activities that lead to
private gain, or allow these activities to go on. A completely passive
mayor is no better than one on the take, if he knows that others are on
the take and keeps the knowledge to himself. On the take or not, he is
abusing the power with which he has been entrusted.<br>
<br>
Robert Wechsler<br>
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics<br>
<br>
---