Man, thank goodness the USA didn't top the list. Being the richest country in the world it is a tough thing to staunch. Actually, poor ones would seem at least as likely to be corrupt. Italy beat us out on the scale of honesty, Wow! Russia is way down on the list. Did they compile this? Congratulations to Pakistan for beating out India, at this time.
Tomasso...i think you have misunderstood it.....the lower you are the more corrupt you are so from this Pakistan is more corrupt than India.
Does anyone know how the list is complied???.....what it is based on,criteria for corruption etc.
P.S I am sure the SAmerican countries should be a little higher than they are shown to be here.
And the US at 17......please. I guess Enron doesn't count.
According to the source material:
"The CPI, which TI first launched in 1995, is a poll of polls, this year drawing on 14 surveys from seven independent institutions. The surveys reflect the perceptions of business people, academics and country analysts. The surveys were undertaken over the past three years and no country has been included in the CPI without results from a minimum of three surveys. "This prudent approach means that we are unable to include a number of countries that probably have higher corruption levels than those included in the CPI," explained Peter Eigen. "
As to the question about Enron, the CPI is designed to rank corruption and misuse of power by THOSE IN PUBLIC OFFICE. Thus, you have perceptions of BUSINESS PEOPLE (like Enron execs) being used to determine corruption levels in government.
I imagine you'd find a pretty close correlation between this index and the amount of business and foreign investment going into these countries. Because certain countries are viewed as highly corrupt at the government level, investment will be weak.
Nigeria is actually at the top of the most corrupt. This list is like golf. The lower the number posted by your name, the better is your score. (i.e. the less corrupt you are). So Nigeria, at number 90, is the second most corrupt place in the world. This suggests that someone ought to be able to stop the stoning by offering the right official the right amount of money.
are there any parallels in democracy and corruption? i.e. base don thsi list...as we go from the least corrupt to the most corrupt do teh chances of seeing a democratic government decrease with a few exceptions? I mean bangladesh is a democracy but is the bottom of the barrel and most corrupt.
Is there a link b/w the two..suggesting that the more corrupt a country, the lesser the chance that it is a democracy?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by TOMASSO: *
Man, thank goodness the USA didn't top the list. Being the richest country in the world it a tough thing to staunch. Actually, poor ones would seem at least as likely to be corrupt. Italy beat us out on the scale of honesty, Wow! Russia is way down on the list. Did they compile this? Congratulations to Pakistan for beating out India, at this time.
[/QUOTE]
India is about 8 places above Pakistan in this one...It goes from least corrupt at the top tp most corrupt at the bottom.
Without a proper and detailed analysis of why and how most countries are led to widespread corruption, such surveys only serve to provide a group of already highly paid folks to make even more money.
I believe the reasons that lead to corruption are just as important, if not more, than the presence of corruption itself. Many countries are subliminaly forced into corruption by bigger powers, because of self interests of super powers. Middle east presents a classic case of that. The subcontinent is another example.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Akif: *
Many countries are subliminaly forced into corruption by bigger powers, because of self interests of super powers. Middle east presents a classic case of that. The subcontinent is another example.
[/QUOTE]
I knew that analysis was forthcoming. The super powers (primarily the US, no doubt) get the blame for "forcing" the governments of other countries into corruption. Does noboby nowadays ever take responsibility for their own actions?
One wonders how the super powers ever could have promoted their own self interests without forcing the governments of Sweden, Denmark, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Norway and Switzerland into full scale corruption.
Taking responsibility for our own actions is what we(pakistanis) have done, and are doing on a continual basis......all the while we are cornered into submitting to falacious policies of the west.
The subcontinent was a flourishing healthy economy before the brits invaded 150 years ago. Their divide and rule strategy worked wonders for them, and while they made away with the riches of the subcontinent, we were left with no system to speak of.
Same strategy has worked for the US in the mideast, where on the one hand, americans talk of restoring democracy in the mideast, and at the same time, pass out conditions and requirements of what kind of a democracy they want.
As for canada, australia etc, race is a factor. Religion is a factor as to why these places are not strategically invaded......and most importantly, these countries dont have many resources that would be of any use to the likes of US or UK.
The bottom line reason for corruption though always remains lack of education.
As a general thing corruption in Pakistan amongst the general public is linked a lot to poverty. An example is a policeman who is given 3000rp a month to support a family. 300rp is no way near comfort. So when a criminal offers 5000 to keep the mouth shut it will happen. Corruption is more out of helplessness than actual greed amongst the general people. A woman doesn't want to be a prostitute because she wants to but because she needs the money.
I am in no way condoning the actions of those who are corrupt amongst the general people. However it is worth mentioning whose responsiblity it is to look after these people so there is no corruption. It is the responsibility of the ruler and his government. Disparity is becoming larger in Pakistan with the poor getting poorer while the rich are getting increasingly richer.
The lack of money for the people is due to political corruption eg Nawaz Sharif etc but if we look closely at the West's roles in controlling economies. 70% of Pakistan's money goes to paying back the IMF etc with extortionate interest while 2% goes to health care for example.
Imagine a local man who makes burgers, and then Mcdonalds comes in. The man is out of business. Globalisation has killed local businesses in Pakistan and has led to increased poverty.
Even pharmacutical industries have been exploited by the West. In India there was a medicine that could treat meningitis that treated for about $60 while brand names from the West were circulating for $700 which no-one can afford. The WTO jumped in and said that India's were violating patenting laws and must stop distribution of their drug and distribute the West's drug which lead to India's drug being illegal. Ridiculous.
The West have with their loans for instance earned a certain amount of control over countries which allows them to exploit them to an extent. Policies which benefit the West and their companies in Pakistan. True they supply jobs, but they cause the unemployment in the first place. A lot of Pakistanis can't afford to get an education simply due to the fact that a job is a priority at that moment. I for one have a cousin who left college despite being very talented simply because the family needed money.
It is the system in Pakistan which has led to the poverty and has led to the corruption. It is the responsibility of the rulership to take care of the problem but when the US wants policies that suit them and not the masses then our rulership obliges and the problems continue.
Basic capitalism really. Rich get richer, poor get poorer.
All the nations that are corrupt are those with poverty stricken people. I assume that is what the table measures.
Sheikh:
Interesting post. One of the areas of disagreement I have with you is your assertion that basic capitalism is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Basic capitalism is that the rich get richer and the poor get richer. Now the rate at which both get richer is different to be sure and the gap between rich and poor may grow larger. But the standard of living of the poor in capitalist countries is much better than the standard of living of the poor in non-capitalist countries. Essentially you have a richer group of poor people. For instance, the poverty line in the US for a family of 4 is around $17,000 a year while it is only around $500 per year in Pakistan. Few would argue that the poor family in the US earning $17,000 per year has a higher standard of living than the poor Pakistani family earning $500 per year.
I understand your point about the IMF to a degree. There are flaws in that process that need to be addressed. You note that "70% of Pakistan's money goes to paying back the IMF etc with extortionate interest while 2% goes to health care for example." I won't dispute your figures. But, one needs to ask where did the principal that the IMF gave to Pakistan go in the first place? Instead of being put to work effectively to grow an economy which would reduce poverty and generate money for health care, much of it, no doubt, was lost through corruption.
I concur with your statement that government corruption seems to be highest in poverty stricken countries. Like the chicken and egg problem, one needs to ask does poverty breed corruption or does corruption breed poverty. I'm sort of leaning towards saying that lack of freedom of the press, civil liberties and education creates an environment where corrupt leadership can take over and flourish. Once corrupt leadership is in place, poverty is the destiny of the people.
The surest way to reduce corruption is to educate the people and provide them with the knowledge/information of what is actually going on. An illiterate population with no access to news and information will never learn that their leaders are stealing from them and looting the public trough. Their attention will be diverted away from the squalid pverty they are living in by some snake oil salesman who focuses their hatred and energies on some villain on the outside rather than the villain on the inside.
A majority of the wealth in the World goes to the industrialised nations and the UN even said this during the GATT negotiations that world income would rise by $300 billion but the majority of this money would go to developed nations whilest the poor nations would actually lose out.
The African countries actually would lose out on $1.2 billion each year due to the trade arrangements.
Pakistan has the capitalist model but doesn't benefit from it as it is not part of the industrialised world.
It was calculated in 1999 that 76% of foreign investment goes to industrialised countries and that the majority of wealth is shared between the richer nations. Capitalism is not just about individuals getting richer but countries as well.
Pakistan has increased poverty by over 10% in the last year....that means more under the poverty line of $2 a day which hardly suggests that the poor are getting richer but are infact getting poorer.
With the IMF point you made. A lot of it was lost to corruption initially but with the debt restructuring happening now the interest is increasing all the time. Also it is through institutions like the IMF that the West can control economies and even foriegn policy in nations due to the poor positoon of the country and it's dependence on the West through it's loans etc. This leads to the US for example using policies to suit themselves and their trade and giving money to nations with a conditions that will not infact benefit the country but rather benefit the US themselves. An example would be money to design products for export to the US for discount prices. The money is not even for Pakistan but just benefits the big companies.
On my point on poverty i mentioned how poverty itself produced corruption amongst the masses and is the State that needs to take care of the poverty but does not take responsibility.
Education is a good thing but something that many Pakistanis are not in a position to pursue due to the fact that a full time job is more important than waiting and studying. And the solution is to actually eradicate the whole system of economics that is dictated by the rich and the elite in Pakistan, foreign businesses and the Western institutions. As it is this system of economics that has left Pakistan as a 3rd World country who rather than distributing wealth to benefit Pakistan are infact distributing wealth based on the terms of the IMF and foreign businesses.
An example of how wealth in countries is not being correctly you may ask. Now let me ask you how the IMF and World Bank can justify privatisation in the poor communities in the 3rd World. They acknowledge it is harmful yet still prescribe it.
One example is water privatisation. Haiti for example. It 's capital Port au Princenotes that water from the private sector costs ten times as much as water from the public sector. Ridiculous isn't it.
Mauritania families have to spend a 1/5 of there money on a simple commodity such as water due to privatisation.
Now I agree that governments are corrupt but not robbery like the above. The biggest thieves are the West and while half of the world live on less than $2 a day, $636 billion out of $865 billion goes to the industrialised nations. Half the population....that isn't the poor getting richer is it?
And an example of how the rich get richer. The three richest billionaires
earn more than the gross product of the 48 least developed countries. This is three people exceeding the combined wealth of 600 million people. Amazing isn't it.
And on disparity the disparity gap between the richest 20% and poorest 20% has doubled, yes doubled over the last 40 years.
So myvoice, please show me how capitalism has benefitted the poor. And please prove to me that the system of capitalism has not benfiited the rich and allowed them to extort and rob the 3rd World.
Third world countries who pursue large military capabilities including nukes and allow the citizens to pay the ultimate price of poverty should be banned from use of the IMF to begin with. As long as people are left uneducated the country stands no chance of lifting itself out of poverty. The misuse of funds by third world governments is an outrage and the people who should be outraged are to stupid to know why.
It is fine if the wealthy countries wish to help others but it is not or should not be a requirement. The point being they did what was necessary to make themselves self sustaining just as any country can do and many have been given the ground work and foundation to do so but continually squander it. The problem lies in the country itself, it is their will that will either make it or break it.
These are the issues being debated in Johannesburg, presently. Also Tony Blair has taken hold of an important aspect of the problem. This is the involvement of multi-national in corruption in these nations. BBC NEWS | Business | Blair launches anti-corruption drive
