Posted July 03, 2015
In general I wonder why there are some countries on earth who are totally corrupt and some who are a bit less (so that most things still work) corrupt? What is the cause for the difference. See this map (http://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results) and you see a clear inverse relation between the wealth and the corruption but it's totally not clear what is the cause and what is the result of these two. So basically I'm asking: Is economic success causing suppressed corruption or is suppressed corruption causing economic success or is both expression of another yet unknown underlying factor? Why do some people get easily corrupt and others not? Maybe it's some other cultural factor or simply chance or even religion?
What I would have liked if Greek people at some point would have gathered in Athen and demanded the strongest anti-corruption laws in the world backed by the stronged executional actions (both of which did not happen) because they were fed up with how the corrupt politicians (society) of the last 20 years ruined their country but that didn't happen. My impression is that there is much work still to do to uncover all the crimes that have happened in the past instead there is a big chance they just get away but at least then one should make sure this will not happen again and as it looks now corruption can easily / and does happen still in Greece.
In other words, I keep a knife to your throat and ask your wallet. You can ask yourself "shall i give the wallet or shall I try to negociate another solution". Holding the knife, I tell you "try to negociate another solution and I cut your throat, so what you are actually asking yourself is : shall I give my wallet or die".
There is no ambiguity on the question, and the intentions about which it ask. But there are disputes about the consequences, which the threatening party (bluffing or not) tries to present as purely mechanical ("I will just happen to slice your throat if you argue, so, what you mean is that you want me to slice your throat ? It's your responsability alone.").
2) Corruption is another can of worm, and if I go into details here, the rampant drooling anti-intellectuals of this forum will burn the place down ("oh noes, wurds, ma skull it hurtz"). But, in short-ish : "Corruption" is a questionable notion, that covers too many too different practices driven by too different motives (greed, generosity, social duty, etc). It basically contrasts them with the "good practices" of western european rational-legal organisations, and its own proclaimed values. In many cultures, these (blind, anonymous, indifferent, state-centered) bureaucratic practices clash with traditional moral priorities (network solidarities, interpersonal relationships, haggling and negociation, informal pragmatic problem-solving, etc). Where bureaucratic practices clash with traditional values, you easily get "hybrid" practices that are labelled as "corrupt" (deviations from the expected bureacratic mechanical functionning).
Like the word "terrorism", "corruption" can be used to designate the informal practices and sense of duties of Others. Depending on ideologies, an act of corruption can be judged as positive or negative. Typically : some see corruption in a "closed market" country as a positive informal evolution towards capitalism, but would consider awfully corrupt a deal that ignores higher bidders in an "open market" context - and reciprocally. In some (ex-)colonies, some would consider "corrupt" (by the State and by their status) a public servant who ignores his traditional family duty and treats everyone the same way - while the administration would have the opposite judgement.
In addition to that, many bloated dysfunctional bureaucracies (and Greece is one) offer many opportunities for greedy corruption, and even requires informal shortcuts to wade through the administrative labyrinth (both aspects are linked, as keeping the bureaucracy labyrinthic is also a way to ensure the need for shortcuts). And then, there is also the question of what is not designated as corruption, but as mere "good practices", in various countries (which tends to invisibilize corruption in the countries that impose that label to analogous "kickbacks" or clientelist practices in others). And then there is the question of "democratization" of corruption, if I may say : countries where (petty) corruption is more visible because the common people do it, while in other countries (aggravated) corruption takes place behind the elite's curtains.
Complex matter, if you're genuinely interested. Two articles full of words to make the forum goons cry all the tears of their bodies :
A classic article on the anthropology of "corruption" in Africa.
An LSE critique of the notion of corruption and TI's underlying ideology.
The question of the effects of diverse forms of corruption is complex (sometimes they work as clunky stopgap systems, sometimes they block a system, sometimes they "lubricate" it, etc), but if you are interested in the causes (mostly, how the practices get more or less legitimized by their own actors), then such anthropological approaches are what you're looking for.
As for Greece, "corruptional" practices are pretty widespread (as are informal solutions, non-impersonal contacts, and network solidarities - all of which indirectly facilitate it). People there often disagree on what is or isn't "real corruption" (mostly : is it done out of solidarity or out of greed), and when they do it, they explain that they are being forced by circumtances (the competition of other people who use these tools, the crippling bureaucracy, or mere financial neccessity). The consensus is that corruption is bad, but unavoidable given the "system". Many claim that suppressing (petty) "corruption" without reforming said "system" would just make it worse. But again, this depends a lot on what type of "corruption" is being talked about.
Post edited July 03, 2015 by Telika
