This type of action results in matters that should be handled objectively being handled in a manner best suiting the private interests of the decision maker. Bribery constitutes a crime and both the offeror and the recipient can be criminally charged. Because the relationship does not occur directly enough, campaign donations from corporations or individuals to political candidates do not constitute bribery.
Some statutes also require proof that both parties understand and agree to the arrangement. Attempts to bribe exist at common law and under the Model Penal Code, and often, the punishment for attempted bribery and completed bribery are identical. Also, international experience on reduction of corruption. Session 4: Can enforcement alone cure corruption?
For example, the pros and cons of a Jan Lokpal, the benami act, the money laundering legislations, procurement laws etc. These subjects are backed by presentations and a fair amount of data, to substantiate each point that I mention.
I deliver this programme, customising it as required in a wide variety of locations, in training institutions for civil servants, to Public Sector Undertakings, Educational Institutions both in India and abroad and for policy makers. I hope to put out information in as simple a form as possible, with examples, and take readers through a guided tour of what corruption is and how it can be and has been cured. A kind of online course.
If you have questions, please let me know. I will answer them systematically. However, since I am proceeding sequentially, some of your questions will be answered only when they come up in the sequence of delivery.
The narrow legal meaning of corruption is of Public Servants using the public offices held by them to further their illegal private interests.
The Prevention of Corruption Act does not specifically define the term, but describes several punishable offences that amount to acts of corruption. These fall broadly into two categories, namely, the taking of gratification other than legal remuneration for performance of an official act, and criminal misconduct , which includes abuse of office to deliver a pecuniary advantage to himself or any other person. Thus wherever there is a complete breakdown of norms it could be described as corruption.
For example, there is a lot of corruption in the private sector also, even though private sector corruption is not criminalized in India. Typically, we perceive corruption to be a social trend that arises out of an erosion of value systems. However, a lot of research shows that corruption is actually a system failure, rather than a social trend.
Corruption is a crime of calculation, not of passion. Large numbers drift into corruption if risks are low, penalties are mild and rewards great; they will move out if the system is tightened. We all know that corruption is widespread. Those who pay bribes suffer directly, but even though who are not directly involved in giving or receiving bribes, are indirectly affected by the inefficiencies and inequities that corruption generates.
Even those who think they did a smart thing to pay bribes, also suffer in one form or the other, eventually. Bribing of judges leads to wrong decisions and great injustice. That is one of the reasons why we have bad quality of roads, buildings and other facilities from the BBMP.
In the final analysis, we suffer huge costs by tolerating corruption, which is much more than the benefits we think we get by bribing.
Apart from the economic and political costs, we pay a huge social cost, as undeserving corrupt people become rich and present the wrong role models to our children. We also pay a huge opportunity cost; because corrupt politicians and bureaucrats have no incentive to reduce corruption by simplifying procedures, introducing e-governance and reducing red tape. Many people accept corruption as inevitable and unavoidable.
Others say that it actually is useful, because at least you get what you pay for. If we want to fight corruption effectively, we will need to tackle the following reasons that people consistently use to justify corruption.
Reason 1: Need for speed: This results in payment of speed money to fast track applications. This in turn incentivises offices to slow down procedures deliberately, so that they can collect fast tracking payments. Reason 2: Convenience: Closely related to speed money. People pay because they are too busy to go to an office and find it convenient to outsource corruption to an agent for an overall service charge. This happens in cases where processes are convoluted, long drawn out and multi-step.
Reason 3: Fear, nervousness and relief: Many people have a dread of going to government offices and fear that they will be harmed if they do not pay bribes.
In many cases, the fear is totally unjustified, but still sadly persists. People also pay bribes out of relief. People consider bribing for registration as something like a tip paid out of happiness and relief at the completion of the transaction. Reason 4: Ignorance and unwillingness to learn: People who are otherwise savvy, do not go to websites, or do their homework enough to understand a procedure before hand.
Reason 5: Misinformation by middlemen and touts: Closely related to ignorance and unwillingness to learn. Ignorant people are vulnerable to being cheated by corrupt officials and their touts who mislead them by mystifying processes. Reason 6: Persuasion by peers and elders: Closely related to ignorance and unwillingness to learn. A new study from Carnegie Mellon University suggests that greed, and not the willingness to return the favor, is the main reason people give in to bribery.
But the research also finds there are times when the almighty buck can be ignored and effects of a bribe can be lessened. Silvia Saccardo. The study indicates that when incentives are dependent on choices, people accept and reward bribes. On the other hand, when bribes are not contingent on delivering a certain outcome, they don't distort judgment nearly as much.
In the Carnegie Mellon experiment, pairs of participants wrote original jokes and submitted them to a judge, who was tasked with deciding which pun was the funniest. When judges were allowed to keep only one bribe, nearly 90 percent of them chose the joke that came with the most money.
0コメント