What is political corruption?

[Crezth]

Is it the failure of a system to uphold its intended processes? Intended by whom?

Is all corruption inherently bad?

What does it mean to be “corrupt” in the modern political order?

Are politicians really corrupt if the system is designed for them to personally be able to profit a little? I mean how else do you incentivize good performance?

Is there any country that doesn’t incentivize its leaders prioritizing their own good over the public good?

Which countries have the biggest problems with this?

 

[Zardnaar]

Various shades of it.

Most people probably equate it with out right bribery.

Nepotism and undue influence and self interest are harder to pin down.

In America insider trading apparently is legal for congress.

 

[Core Imposter]

I have always thought pork spending to be legitimate corruption as a necessary component to grease the skids to getting things done in Congress. Few members can reliably raise money for re-election in the current state of affairs because they can't bring home the bacon. Leaders haven't anything to bribe members with. The sausage isn't being made.

edit: actually, this practice has been revived, and none too soon...

 

[Arwon]

The corruption perception index seems to do okay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

 

[Nick723]

Is all corruption inherently bad?

I would say yes, it is, at least in a democracy.

Corruption undermines trust, and also leads to bad choices for the populace as a whole.

Corruption will also deter investment, reduce innovation, etc. For a well functioning country there are fewer more important things to eradicate.

 

[H4run]

I would say yes, it is, at least in a democracy.

But democracy is build to be corrupt, political campaign is not cheap and the funder give their funding with a twist, isn't it can be consider bribery that resulted in collusion? It's at the essence a money politic, a maneuver and acrobats of capital owner.

 

[Zardnaar]

But democracy is build to be corrupt, political campaign is not cheap and the funder give their funding with a twist, isn't it can be consider bribery that resulted in collusion? It's at the essence a money politic, a maneuver and acrobats of capital owner.

Depends on how elections are funded.

Here the numbers involved are a lot smaller, there's a lot more over sight and elections are government funded.

Donations are a few million.

 

[H4run]

Depends on how elections are funded.

Here the numbers involved are a lot smaller, there's a lot more over sight and elections are government funded.

Donations are a few million.

A few million? Hmm, political parties and presidential elections are erected by 'donors' – read donors here as conglomerates (MNCs/TNCs) that pour down their money not only to fuel campaigns and party operations, but also to win the support of community leaders. I don't know much about NZ, but it's known to be clean. Still, I doubt these kinds of maneuvers are absent entirely, as campaigns focus on winning votes. Persuading community leaders is always a logical strategy, and the line between what's allowed and not allowed is arbitrary and always vulnerable to exploitation.

I actually ofc understand your position regarding this, but I do curious and would like to hear what's @Crezth opinion regarding this issue.

 

[Samson]

What does it mean to be “corrupt” in the modern political order?

I would say the core components is dishonesty and self interest. Paying yourself loads openly is not corruption, nor is doing a secret back room deal that is intended to better the country.

Is all corruption inherently bad?

No, but the occasions where it is not are few and far between, and pretty much require the state to be inherently bad.

Are politicians really corrupt if the system is designed for them to personally be able to profit a little? I mean how else do you incentivize good performance?

It is the disconnect between performance and reward that is the principle problem with corruption, though you can say resource allocation is the principle problem with any system.

Is there any country that doesn’t incentivize its leaders prioritizing their own good over the public good?

No, it is all about degrees.

I have always thought pork spending to be legitimate corruption as a necessary component to grease the skids to getting things done in Congress. Few members can reliably raise money for re-election in the current state of affairs because they can't bring home the bacon. Leaders haven't anything to bribe members with. The sausage isn't being made.

I would say pork spending, ie. openly getting spending within your state in return for supporting unrelated legislation is not really corruption, though that does not make it a good way to run a country.

Which countries have the biggest problems with this?

The corruption perception index seems to do okay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

There are multiple questions here. Because the Swiss see the corruption more obviously does that mean it really is more of a problem there than much of the rest of Europe? What is the metric? How bad peoples lives are with it, or how good they would be without it?

Spoiler The map, cos maps :

 

[H4run]

No

That's super honest, when corruption is not bad or even good? can you be more specific with examples? is neutral or good corruption is an accepted aspect of democracy but we should fight the bad corruption with our limited ability in order to keep the system healthy?

 

[Samson]

That's super honest, when corruption is not bad or even good? can you be more specific with examples? is neutral or good corruption is an accepted aspect of democracy but we should fight the bad corruption with our limited ability in order to keep the system healthy?

Some example like Robin Hood, where one steals from a corrupt ruler is what I was thinking of. Perhaps being corrupt under the Tatmadaw in Myanmar is a contemporary example, or corruptly hurting Saudi oil exploration.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Yes, but King John was so persistently awful that the barons desperately resorted
to even inviting in the son of the French King to replace him as King Louis.

 

[Nick723]

Some example like Robin Hood, where one steals from a corrupt ruler is what I was thinking of. Perhaps being corrupt under the Tatmadaw in Myanmar is a contemporary example, or corruptly hurting Saudi oil exploration.

A nazi official who let a Jew escape is to me an example of ‘good’ corruption.

A few million? Hmm, political parties and presidential elections are erected by 'donors' – read donors here as conglomerates (MNCs/TNCs) that pour down their money not only to fuel campaigns and party operations, but also to win the support of community leaders. I don't know much about NZ, but it's known to be clean. Still, I doubt these kinds of maneuvers are absent entirely, as campaigns focus on winning votes. Persuading community leaders is always a logical strategy, and the line between what's allowed and not allowed is arbitrary and always vulnerable to exploitation.

I actually ofc understand your position regarding this, but I do curious and would like to hear what's @Crezth opinion regarding this issue.

It doesn’t have to be that way. In the UK for example, political parties have set limits on the amount of money they are allowed to spend on campaigning (and it’s very small, in relative terms). That reduces the need for deep pockets and biased donors.

 

[Zardnaar]

A few million? Hmm, political parties and presidential elections are erected by 'donors' – read donors here as conglomerates (MNCs/TNCs) that pour down their money not only to fuel campaigns and party operations, but also to win the support of community leaders. I don't know much about NZ, but it's known to be clean. Still, I doubt these kinds of maneuvers are absent entirely, as campaigns focus on winning votes. Persuading community leaders is always a logical strategy, and the line between what's allowed and not allowed is arbitrary and always vulnerable to exploitation.

I actually ofc understand your position regarding this, but I do curious and would like to hear what's @Crezth opinion regarding this issue.

Corruption here in the classic form is virtually unheard of. Eg bribing a government official. They deported a guy who tried to bribe a cop. Back home you can do that.

Government monisters here have lost jobs for getting drunk and aggressive in public, shoplifting and benefit fraud before they were an MP.

A cop got convicted for it as he was corrupt doing favors for friends. That was a few years ago.

So if you get caught your career in the government is over, if you're an immigrant you're not getting citizenship and can get deported.

Nepotism exists espicially outside the government services. It's not illegal in the private sector for example.

One prime Minister was wealthy he put his assets in a blind trust to even avoid a hint of undue influence.

We're generally rated as number 1 or 2 in the world with Denmark. It's not perfect its relative.

 

[Crezth]

The corruption perception index seems to do okay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

Do okay at what? What, exactly, is being measured here? And to get to the point, why are the richest countries the least corrupt? Are rich people more integrity having than poor people? This is what the data in this index seems to suggest. That rich people have more integrity and so on average are less corrupt.

 

[Nick723]

Do okay at what? What, exactly, is being measured here? And to get to the point, why are the richest countries the least corrupt? Are rich people more integrity having than poor people? This is what the data in this index seems to suggest. That rich people have more integrity and so on average are less corrupt.

There’s another way to look at it: perhaps the least corrupt countries are the richest. I think it’s this way around.

As I shared above there is definitely a link between a lack of corruption and investment, good outcomes for society, etc.

Strong institutions and rule of law are foundational requirements for economic growth

 

[Crezth]

There’s another way to look at it: perhaps the least corrupt countries are the richest. I think it’s this way around.

As I shared above there is definitely a link between a lack of corruption and investment, good outcomes for society, etc.

Strong institutions and rule of law are foundational requirements for economic growth

Yes, indeed. Either way it suggests that the richer you are the less corrupt you are. The most corrupt people in the world are the poorest (North Korea). So you can’t trust the systems in a country or let’s just say generally a political area where people are less economically advantaged compared with a political area where they are moreso. Actually if you look at internal corruption charts you see that where US corruption is highest are states like Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, which are also some of the poorest states; and California and the West Coast, richer, rank very low for corruption. https://hubscore.co/report/most-corrupt-states

This would also seem to suggest that in addition to poorness making people corrupt, certain demographic factors and maybe ethnicity also come into account. Indeed the world map shows that it’s white majority countries that are least corrupt. Why do white countries seem to care about their people and make investments but nonwhite countries don’t?

 

[Samson]

Yes, indeed. Either way it suggests that the richer you are the less corrupt you are. The most corrupt people in the world are the poorest (North Korea). So you can’t trust the systems in a country or let’s just say generally a political area where people are less economically advantaged compared with a political area where they are moreso. Actually if you look at internal corruption charts you see that where US corruption is highest are states like Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, which are also some of the poorest states; and California and the West Coast, richer, rank very low for corruption. https://hubscore.co/report/most-corrupt-states

But is it just that the more money you make in the corruption you can hide it better? With the amount of money sloshing about silicon valley/Hollywood do you really think there is less going to graft than in the wilds of Alabama? Or is it that Alabama has drunken cops taking backhanders and California has executives giving backhanders to the SEC and the drunken cops get caught?

 

[uppi]

I would say the core components is dishonesty and self interest. Paying yourself loads openly is not corruption, nor is doing a secret back room deal that is intended to better the country.

I am not sure I completely agree with dishonesty. I would say it is more about whether politicians are held accountable for their actions. Secrecy is obviously a big component of this, especially in functional democracies. But if someone has a firm enough grasp of power that they cannot be held accountable, they can be corrupt more openly.

The badness of corruption scales with the leverage of actions. If a politician pays themselves a million, they cost the country a million. If they take a million in bribes for making decisions that cost the country a billion, the impact is much worse.

There are multiple questions here. Because the Swiss see the corruption more obviously does that mean it really is more of a problem there than much of the rest of Europe? What is the metric? How bad peoples lives are with it, or how good they would be without it?

I think you are reading the shades of green wrong. If my eyes don't betray me, Switzerland has a higher score than most of Europe. The metric is simply how corrupt people think a country is. The actual amount of corruption (whatever that would be) does not matter beyond how it influences these opinions.

 

[Samson]

I am not sure I completely agree with dishonesty. I would say it is more about whether politicians are held accountable for their actions. Secrecy is obviously a big component of this, especially in functional democracies. But if someone has a firm enough grasp of power that they cannot be held accountable, they can be corrupt more openly.

It is a semantic question. For example, the King of Eswatini has almost complete control and openly lives a life of excess in one of the poorest countries in the world. Without justifying it in any way, it seems like an inherently different thing than Neil Hamilton secretly taking brown envelopes of cash to ask questions.

I think you are reading the shades of green wrong. If my eyes don't betray me, Switzerland has a higher score than most of Europe. The metric is simply how corrupt people think a country is. The actual amount of corruption (whatever that would be) does not matter beyond how it influences these opinions.

Ah, I see now.