Ce este coruptia si cum apare ea:
"Corruption flouts rules of fairness and gives some people advantages that others don’t have. Corruption transfers resources from the mass public to the elites–and generally from the poor to the rich (Tanzi, 1998). It acts as an extra tax on citizens, leaving less money for public expenditures (Mauro, 1997, 7). Corrupt governments have less money to spend on their own
projects, pushing down the salaries of public employees. In turn, these lower-level staffers will be more likely to extort funds from the public purse. Government employees in corrupt societies will thus spend more time lining their own pockets than serving the public. Corruption thus leads to lower levels of economic growth and to ineffective government (Mauro, 1997, 5). The roots of corruption lie in the unequal distribution of resources in a society.
Economic inequality provides a fertile breeding ground for corruption–and, in turn, it leads to further inequalities. The connection between inequality and the quality of government is not necessarily so simple: As the former Communist nations of Central and Eastern Europe show, you can have plenty of corruption without economic inequality. The path from inequality to corruption may be indirect–through generalized trust–but the connection is key to understanding why some societies are more corrupt than others. When we trust people who may be different from ourselves, we
will be more predisposed to treat them honestly–and profiting from corruption will seem unseemly. When we distrust strangers, especially if we believe that they are trying to cheat us, our moral compunctions against corrupt behavior become less compelling. Corruption and inequality
wreak havoc with our moral sense. Della Porta and Vannucci (1999, 146) argue that pervasive corruption makes people less willing to condemn it as immoral. As coruption becomes widespread, it becomes deeply entrenched in a society (Mauro, 2004, 16). People begin to believe that dishonesty is the only way to get things done (Gambetta, 2002, 55)."
Pe scurt, coruptia, cauzata de inegalitati, nu face decat sa sporeasca decalajul dintre cei bogati si cei mai putin avuti, sa submineze increderea in institutiile statului si, odata cu ea, in ceilalti oameni. Se ajunge pana la a considera ca nedreptatea este singura cale de a prospera: "The argument from inequality to low trust to corruption–and back again both to low trust and greater inequality (what I call the “inequality trap”)–stands in contrast to the more common approach to explaining corruption as stemming from deficient institutions. The roots of corruption are largely not institutional, but rather stem from economic inequality and a mistrusting culture, which itself stems from an unequal distribution of wealth. There is one institution that does shape corruption: the fairness of the legal system."
Coruptia din socialism, inofensiva:
"The link between inequality and corruption seems compelling. Corruption is exploitive. Not all corruption is linked to inequality. “Grand” corruption refers to malfeasance of considerable magnitude by people who exploit their positions to get rich (or become richer)–political or business leaders. So grand corruption is all about extending the advantages of those already well endowed.
“Petty corruption,” small scale payoffs to doctors, police officers, and even university professors, very common in the formerly Communist nations of Central and Eastern Europe (and many poor countries) is different in kind, if not in spirit. Petty corruption, or “honest graft” as New York City political boss George Washington Plunkitt called it (Riordan, 1948), does not enrich those who practice it. It may depend upon an inequitable distribution of wealth–there should be no need to make “gift” payments in a properly functioning market economy.
It does not exacerbate the gap between the rich and the poor--and may actually narrow it by providing some small benefits to the middle class bureaucrats, teachers, and doctors who benefit from it."
Asadar, mica coruptie, cea prezenta in fostele tari comuniste, este in buna masura inofensiva si poate servi chiar la accentuarea egalizarii sociale. Ea se diferentiaza net de coruptia din capitalism, menita sa mareasca prapastia dintre paturile sociale.
Inegalitatile promoveaza coruptia:
"Inequality promotes corruption in many ways. Glaeser, Scheinkman, and Schleifer (2002, 2-3) argue:
...inequality is detrimental to the security of property rights, and therefore to growth, because it enables the rich to subvert the political, regulatory, and legal institutions of society for their own benefit. If one person is sufficiently richer than another, and courts are corruptible, then the legal system will favor the rich, not the just. Likewise, if political and regulatory institutions can be moved by wealth or influence, they will favor the established, not the efficient. This in turn leads the initially well situated to pursue socially harmful acts, recognizing that the legal, political, and regulatory systems will not hold them accountable.
Inequality can encourage institutional subversion in two distinct ways. First, the havenots can redistribute from the haves through violence, the political process, or other means.
Such Robin Hood redistribution jeopardizes property rights, and deters investment by the rich."
Alte confirmari:
"Similarly, You and Kaghram (2005) argue: “The rich, as interest groups, firms, or individuals may use bribery or connections to influence law-implementing processes (bureaucratic corruption) and to buy favorable interpretations of the law (judicial corruption).”
Inequality breeds corruption by: (1) leading ordinary citizens to see the system as stacked against them (Uslaner, 2002, 181-183); (2) creating a sense of dependency of ordinary citizens and a sense of pessimism for the future, which in turn undermines the moral dictates of treating your neighbors honestly; and (3) distorting the key institutions of fairness in society, the courts, which ordinary citizens see as their protectors against evil-doers, especially those with more influence than they have (see also Glaeser, Scheinkman, and Schleifer, 2003; and You and Khagram, 2005)."
Bogatii isi folosesc puterea si influenta superioare pentru a vicia deciziile institutiilor statului, cetatenii asjungand, pe buna dreptate, sa isi piarda increderea in acestea,pe care le percep ca amenintatoare.
Beneficiile coeziunii sociale:
"Generalized trust is predicated on the notion of a common bond between classes and races and on egalitarian values (Seligman, 1997, 36-37, 41).5 Faith in others leads to empathy for those who do not fare well, and ultimately to a redistribution of resources from the well-off the poor. If
we believe that we have a shared fate with others, and especially people who are different from ourselves, then gross inequalities in wealth and status will seem to violate norms of fairness.
Generalized trust rests upon the psychological foundations of optimism and control and the economic foundation of an equitable distribution of resources. Optimism and control lead people to believe that the world is a good place, it is going to get better, and that you can make it better.
Economic equality promotes both optimism and the belief that we all have a shared fate, across races, ethnic groups, and classes."
Egalitarismul merita instaurat pentru a bloca competitiile inter-sociale gen "keeping up with the Joneses" si, in general, tentatia imbogatirii si consumerismului. Vedem insa ca renuntarea la o structura sociala ce permite ierarhizari si inegalitati are multe alte avantaje, precum scaderea coruptiei si increderea generalizata intre oameni, care dupa cum am vazut de curand, e o conditie esentiala a fericirii.
Publicat de downshifting_romania desk
|
05:30, duminica, 7 iulie 2024
