RE: Corruption: Alternative Hypotheses

[Sanjeev Sabhlok <sabhlok@almaak.usc.edu>]

Charu:

> My views lean towards Kush's: Power corrupts, regardless of the form of
> government. 

What! Am I not saying precisely that, all along? That people are
universally greedy (want more than less), opportunitistic (will misuse
power when given the opportunity, etc.) ... 

Therefore I am afraid of Socialism; not because of its "noble ideals" but
because of the higher scope it gives to misuse power. All forms of govt. 
lead to misuse of power. But democracy is the best. Else we might advocate
dictatorship, if you like. There are huge differences in the outcomes
for the people between different forms of government.

Similarly, all forms of economic systems lead to corruption. But
capitalism (suitably moderated: as I have been stating all along), leads
to two clear reasons for reduction in corruption: 

a) the people become rich, therefore the "need-based" corruption, as
someone mentioned earlier, is reduced. Hence you find - in all capitalist
societies, that low level corruption such as from DDA clerks, is reduced
or virtually eliminated. 

b) the goverment does not capture the people's capital through things like
nationalization and does not interefere much in other people's business.
That drastically reduces the opportunity for corruption.

Corruption can never be eliminated, but by getting rid of socialism, we
will minimize it. By the way, there is a huge empirical literature which
clearly shows the strong relationship between higher wages and lower
corruption. In socialistic societies, higher wages are considered a sin: 
there is no hope of reducing corruption in such societies. The USSR was
the most corrupt society in the world before it broke up, according to my
father, who had travelled virtually all over the world, as Addl. Secy in
the defence ministry. 

We cannot mix up lobbying by various groups, by official use of funds
(these are publicly declared funds), as in the USA, with the underhand and
surrpetitious misuse of power as in India. 

I don't quite follow. Most of the people on this list are advocating
privatization, increasing wages of lawmakers and others, and yet find it
relevant to bring in the cases of Cuba and China - two major failed
experiments of the socialistic world (these are dictatorships, anyway, and
have nothing much to do with socialism in the way Marx saw it. China's
success in the last 20 years, if you remember, was entirely brought in by
following free market policies in the Southern provinces). 

Why do we care for China? Or for India for that matter? These are failed
experiments which are rotting on the sidelines of the world. We must look
at the West, Japan, Singapore, Korea, Taiwan, even Indonesia.  There is no
perfect capitalism and we will have to evolve one of our own, but to even
support socialism while advocating the need to reduce corruption, is very
strange, if I may be permitted to say. 

I really don't understand the resistance we have to follow economic
thinking.  Economist have spent lifetimes carefuly studying the
institutions that led to the creation of wealth. If engineers are the best
judges of the strength of a structural bridge, and doctors are the best
judge of a person's health, then economists (not Marxian political
economists, whose fundamental assumptions of human nature are completely
flawed, in that they glorify the good nature of workers) can at least be
considered as speaking some sense when they talk of the causes of economic
growth ... 

Sanjeev