Today, let us talk about the bribers

On the 26th of October, Transparency International, TI, published its annual index ranking the Perception of Corruption that exists of various nations. As usual, Venezuela was somewhere down at the bottom of the list. However, for the first time, TI also published an index related to the Payers of Bribes (BPI).

This index ranks the 19 countries with most exports and is based on the perception of how corporations from those countries use bribes to generate business. 

A professional firm interviewed 770 high level executives in 14 emerging markets with geographically diversified imports. Venezuela was not included among the interviewed parties, since most of its imports come from the United States.

The executives interviewed belonged to large firms, banks, chambers of commerce, auditing firms and law firms. A result of 10 points means no bribes are used while 0 means, naturally, that bribing is used as a norm. The countries with the highest ranking were Sweden (8.3), Australia and Canada (8.1) and those at the bottom of the ranking were China (3.1), South Korea (3.4) and Taiwan (3.5). 

The ranking of some of our main trading partners were England (7.2), Germany and the United States tied at (6.2), Spain (5.3), France (5.2) and Italy (3.7). 

Just like the Corruption Index, the Briber’s Index will create much argument and rebuttal, especially from those that were not favored by their ranking within the index. 

Among the traditional arguments, we are sure to find that many will maintain that the index is not really objective, but is really all about perception and that therefore, before being an ethical problem, it is really just a problem of the image. 

We will perhaps also hear technologically inspired arguments, such as accusing the better-positioned countries of using advanced versions of corruption, something like anti-radar, "stealth" technology.

I have often seen how citizens of many developed countries shed their shackles and truly enjoy the tourist (and humanistic) experience of trying to avoid a traffic ticket by negotiating avidly with the particular public servant that has accosted them. 

Also in other cases many people are better behaved when they are away that home. We see it over and over again when Venezuelans, who are notorious tax evaders, travel overseas and become exemplary citizens in every sense. 

Based on the above, one of the things that interests me is to analyze if, when the two indexes are compared side by side, there is a significant differences between the outcome.

With the exception of 5 countries, all those that have been ranked in both indexes, are basically in the same relative position. As it were, Sweden is first in both indexes while China is last.

The two main exceptions to this rule are Singapore which, in this group of 19, appears as 3rd in terms of the least corrupt nations but as number 11 in the Bribers Index and Belgium which, contrary to Singapore, ranks as number 15 of the least corrupt nations, but comes out a lot better among the Bribers, having been ranked as number 8.

In lesser degrees, Taiwan is in a situation similar to Singapore, while Austria and Australia accompany Belgium.

The simple translation would tell us that Singapore and Taiwan behave relatively well at home, but goes haywire and are a menace when abroad. 

I am no expert in these matters and therefore allow myself to suppose that this is due to a combination of a commercially aggressive style and oriental discipline. I can very well imagine that they respect everything at home and compete with anything overseas.

Without a doubt, both countries are formidable competitors in foreign trade, and one would entreat the OECD to insure they are also enrolled among those countries that have recently signed the Anti-Corruption agreement.

But how about those Belgians, Austrians and Australians? Although developed, they seem to be less behaved  Surprisingly they seen to be more behaved inside than out. I am truly surprised.

Could this be the above mentioned "stealth" technology at work? Could it be that they on purpose wish to be perceived as corrupt at home, in order to enhance their human nature? Could it be that they simply have decided to invest in a change of their image abroad, and that this was ultimately successful?

We shall see what gives next year. Investigative technology requires that you explain the unexplainable.

Corrupter and corruptee

Once again, next week, Transparency International (TI) will publish its annual index on how the world perceives corruption in the various countries included in the ranking. It is not necessary to mention that our country has never been able to occupy a reasonable placing within this ranking, although there are some expectations that we could achieve advances after putting into law a new Constitution, in year 2000 or 2001. 

But it takes two to tango! This year, by public acclaim, they will also publish an index that represents the other side of the coin. This index will rank the corrupters and will be denominated the Bribe Payer’s Index. I believe this will raise blood pressure levels in many countries that normally celebrate their high ranking in the Corruption Index.

Evidently, no one believes that the world will ever manage to totally eradicate corruption. In a sense, I hope it doesn’t, since this could mean the elimination of something that is an integral part of humanity, something like reducing human bio-diversity. However, I do believe that there are many means out there with which we can minimize the pernicious consequences of corruption and in this respect, no one needs it more than the developing nations.

Among the instruments at hand we must not underestimate the impact of these rankings. The modern world sees in them a comfortable, although probably somewhat simplistic, way of synthesizing today’s overabundance of information.

I believe the new TI index is appropriate and will be useful among other aspects in minimizing the effects caused by looking at only one side of the problem. For instance, until just recently, in one of those countries that normally come out smelling like roses from the corruption ranking, it was standard and legal practice to deduct for income tax purposes bribes and “payments” if and when the same are a “normal customary practice” in the country in which they were actually made. In this respect there was the very disturbing possibility that The Corruption Index itself could possibly promote corruption by evidencing a “normal customary practice” of bribing. Hopefully tax deductibility of bribes should perhaps be more difficult to justify if we have an index that ranks corrupters as well.

About a year ago and as I surfed through TI’s web site, I ran into a commentary made by a reader which literally said something like: ‘As a President of an international company, I find your corruption index of various countries to be a very helpful tool in my everyday business dealings”. In the face of such cynicism I researched a bit more who this person and company were and, lo and behold, they did not really have a relevant position in the global market after all.

By the way and on a quite separate issue, it is incredibly how frequent it is to find web sites put up by some small-time entrepreneur and who, even though his dealings are strictly local (like the proverbial corner barbershop), evidently believes that with it, he has acquired global presence. The same could probably happens to writers of articles, like myself, and in this respect The Web must surely be the napoleonic complex’s best ally.

But coming back to the matter at hand. It is evident that anyone that dares to say that the Corruption Index is a ‘helpful tool in my everyday business dealings’ should be negatively ranked in the Bribe Payer’s Index. Actually, when we analyze civilization, or at least its various religions, we find that in general terms they consider that he who tempts (a role usually assigned to the Devil) is considered to sin more severely than he who succumbs to temptation does. It is surprising that these contradictions have not come to light earlier. We welcome them.

And while we are at it. I would much appreciate it if TI, or any other organization with similar status and credibility, could develop an index that encompasses the matter of compliance with commercial treaties. 

For example, I am sure that if we were to generate an index that reflects compliance with agreements signed on agricultural policy issues, Venezuela would come out towards the top while those countries that today chastise us would be among the least compliant. Indexes like these would be very useful to small countries like Venezuela. They would show them how to navigate in a reasonable way in the very complex world of international commercial treaties.

The index of perceived Corruption

Transparency International (TI) has developed an index by means of which it ranks countries around the world according to their perceived levels of internal corruption. I have a Danish friend who recently came to me for the umpteenth time with this list clutched firmly in his fist, proudly crowing over the fact that Denmark once again tops the list as the least corrupt country while Venezuela once again comes in toward the bottom, beaten out for the basement spot by only seven countries among which we find Colombia and Nigeria.

As a Venezuelan, I immediately went into a defensive mode. I argued that since the index is based on the perception of corruption, it could be that the results merely indicate a serious problem of exactly that, the perception, not the reality. Additionally, should this actually be true (evidently not the case), I told him that although I did lament the fact that Venezuela was not mentioned in the top half of the list, I was at least satisfied that we were definitely not occupying any “not too human” first place.

My good friend, observing my discomfort, realizing that I have some Swedish blood in my veins, and in a sincere effort to console me, blurted out that in reality he also did not understand why Denmark had been ranked first while Sweden was ranked third. My immediate reply was “Chico, Denmark must simply have paid more for it.” 

Jest aside, the index is the result of a serious effort on the part of professionals of diverse backgrounds who, using the few tools available, have managed to develop a system of evaluation which is useful and of great support for every citizen wishing to combat this age-old plague. 

Its importance is of even greater significance when we hear that Transparency International suggests that we don’t attribute more accuracy than necessary to its index. Venezuela’s ranking on this list of 85 countries is such that it is evident, to say the least, that the country’s level of corruption is far greater than average. This is bad enough!

Any debate over whether Venezuela should be ranked higher could be perceived simply as a strategy aimed at discrediting the index. Only the beneficiaries of corruption could possibly have an interest in doing this. A true patriot would not waste one single second of his or her valuable time in debating why people speak poorly of our country. On the contrary, he would dedicate all his time and energy to correct the reality instead of objecting to the perception.

This debate on corruption is truly difficult and complicated. Even though we should be pleased that such an index exists, I am worried that the mere fact that we are trying to reduce corruption to terms of a measurable dimension may lead us to oversimplify the problem dangerously.

The index, in principle, only measures the perception of corruption in general terms. This is defined in ample terms as “the abuse of public office for private gain.” In this sense, and because of the nature of the problem, I am sure that when using the term “gain” we are referring mostly to a monetary benefit. This avoids measuring other aspects of corruption that could be just as important or more.

For instance, I believe that the appointment of someone to public office for reasons other than his or her capacity or professional integrity is a corruption that is even more pernicious and costly to the country than the sum of all monetary corruption put together.

An example of this is our recent banking-sector crisis. The costs caused by the poor administration of this crisis are far and above the costs attributable directly to the bankers involved. It’s not that the bankers are free of guilt. They did undoubtedly start the fire. But whose fault is it that the financial firemen were caught napping and did not hear the alarms, and that once they finally got to the scene of the disaster they tried to douse the flames with gasoline instead of water? 

I make these comments to remind all that the monster of corruption has a thousand heads. I would be sad if all the result of the efforts to slay this monster would simply be the elimination of the traditional offers of discounts for prompt payment, right then and there, and that we frequently receive when fined for a traffic violation.

Let me make one last comment on this quite tortuous subject. In Venezuela, perhaps more than in any other countries, there is more than sufficient evidence of the total administrative ineptitude of the state, and all of our governments have absolutely no results to show, considering all of their income. Nonetheless multilateral agencies, such as the International Monetary Fund, frequently come to the country and recommend an action (sales taxes) that could only mean allowing the state to squander even more resources. For whom then is the IMF working? For the politicians? Could we then be staring at another unknown dimension of this monster called Corruption?

As edited for Voice and Noise, 2006

Originally published The Daily Journal, Caracas, November 4 1998

PS. “Our recent banking sector crisis” I here refer to in 1998, was a Venezuelan one that happened in 1994. Reflect on how much of that comment also applies to the bank crisis suffered by developed nations in 2008. 

PS. The world needs more than a theme park of anti-corruption efforts

Traducción:

El Indice de Percepción de la Corrupción 

Hay un índice, desarrollado por Transparencia Internacional (TI), relativo a la percepción que existe sobre la corrupción en distintos países. Tengo un amigo danés que por enésima vez este año me ha suministrado la copia del ranking, donde Dinamarca aparece como el país menos corrupto y Venezuela, en corrupción, solo es superada por siete países entre los cuales esta Colombia y Nigeria.

Como venezolano, en obligada defensa, le expuse que por cuanto el índice lo que mide es la percepción que se tiene sobre la corrupción, puede que los resultados solo indiquen serias dificultades de apreciación. Además y para el caso (negado) de que fuese cierto, le comente que si bien lamentaba que Venezuela no estuviese en la parte superior de la tabla, por lo menos me satisfacía el que no ocupasen un "inhumano" primer lugar.

Mi amigo, a sabiendas que también soy de procedencia sueca y en un esfuerzo por consolarme, expreso, de forma generosa, de que en verdad no entendía sobre que bases se había determinado que Dinamarca ocupase el primer lugar y Suecia el tercero. Mi replica fue inmediata; "Chico, Dinamarca debe haber pagado mas!"

Apartemos la broma. El índice es el resultado del esfuerzo por parte de un grupo de profesionales diversos que, con base a las muy pocas herramientas disponibles, han logrado desarrollar un sistema de evaluación útil y de mucho apoyo para todo ciudadano deseoso de combatir esta plaga de vieja data.

Su importancia se hace aun más significativa cuando, siguiendo las propias sugerencias de TI, no le atribuimos mas exactitud que la necesaria. La posición de Venezuela en esta lista de 85 países es tal que sin lugar a duda podemos decir que en nuestro país tiene una corrupción mayor que el promedio. Lo anterior resulta suficientemente malo.

El debatir sobre si Venezuela debe estar en un puesto mejor, simplemente seria una estrategia para tratar de desacreditar el índice y en esto solo podrían tener interés los beneficiarios de la corrupción. El patriota no dedicaría ni un segundo al debatir el porqué se habla mal del país sino daría todo su empeño en corregir la situación.

Qué difícil resulta todo el debate relativo a la corrupción. Aun cuando reconozco que, en el papel de motivador, debemos agradecer la existencia del índice, me preocupa de que el solo hecho de tratar de medir la corrupción, al tener que reducirlo a una dimensión que permita su medición, puede conducirnos a una peligrosa simplificación del problema.

El índice, en principio, solo mide la percepción que se tiene como una corrupción general, definida esta de forma amplia como "el abuso de cargo publico en beneficio propio". En tal sentido y por la sola naturaleza del problema, estoy seguro que el termino de "beneficio propio" implica principalmente un beneficio monetario, obviando medir aspectos de corrupción que pudiesen ser tanto o mas importantes.

Creo que la corrupción presente cuando se nombra a quien habrá de ejercer un cargo público, por razones distintas a su capacidad e integridad profesional, es más perniciosa y costosa para el país que la suma de todas las corrupciones monetarias.

Como ejemplo de lo anterior, los costos derivados de la mala administración de la crisis bancaria supera, por largo rato, los costos que de forma directa son atribuibles a los banqueros. No es que los banqueros sean inocentes, sin duda prendieron el fuego, pero; ¿quién es el responsable de que el cuerpo de bomberos financieros, estuviesen dormidos sin oír la alarma y luego utilizaran gasolina para apagar las llamas?

Hago esta observaciones para recordar que el monstruo de la corrupción tiene mil caras. Seria lastimoso que el resultado de los esfuerzos que se haga para combatirla, solo culmine en que cuando se imponga una multa por violación de transito, no se ofrezca la tradicional alternativa, del descuento por pronto pago.

Por ultimo un comentario sobre este escabroso tema. En Venezuela mas que en cualquier otro país ha quedado evidenciado la total ineptitud administrativa del Estado. Todos los ingresos del mundo y nada de resultados. Cuando entonces un organismo, como el Fondo Monetario Internacional viene acá y nos receta, como única vía para salir de nuestros problemas, el que proveamos al Estado con mas ingresos aún, pagando mas impuestos, para el beneficio no individual sino colectivo de la secta política; ¿estaremos enfrentando una faceta desconocida de la corrupción?