(Assignment 2) Ashish

In this essay, I’ll present peer review of essays by Anand, Sreedhar and Avienaash

Anand makes a study of corruption in Denmark. It is a strange fact that a perceivably clean country like Denmark which often is at the helm of Transparency International rankings can also be affected by corruption. Corruption in Denmark belies popular perception in its perpetuation and is more intricate in nature. It often operates covertly through loopholes in legal provisions. For example, lack of transparency in funding for political parties is identified as one of the greatest problem. Consequently, politicians don’t have to furnish records of private donations, declaration of high amount donations is evaded by spreading the donations across different local branches of a political party etc. In contrast to other Nordic countries, transparency laws in Denmark are significantly weaker. Lastly, Anand revisits Aristotle in highlighting the importance of subjectivity in understanding corruption in Denmark.

Sreedhar in his essay looks at corruption in Philippines. Unlike Denmark, Philippines is overtly and covertly corrupt and often occupies low rank in Transparency International rankings. Corruption scandals in Philippines generally involve bribery and graft which if placed in the categorization of Michael Johnston, falls under “Oligarchs and Clans”. He goes on to identify three popular cases of corruption namely the case of Lopez family of Iloilo, the textbook scam of 1998 and the graft charges against the former Governor of Cavite province, Ireneo Maliksi, highlighting the misuse of top public office to secure the interest of near and dear ones. The above cases are also good example of cronyism and nepotism where the power is neither clearly public nor private but personal.

Avienaash’s essay written from the perspective of economic warrior looks at corruption in Indonesia under Suharto’s regime. During Suharto’s presidential tenure, economy registered an impressive growth with GDP growth at 8% and Indonesia was acknowledged as one of the “Asian Tigers”. Nevertheless, corruption at all levels were explicit. However, against the standard understanding of corruption leading to inefficient allocation of resources and pushing out investors, corruption in Indonesia was beneficial to the investors in terms of lax labour and environmental regulations. Further, the level of corruption and its gains were hierarchical with the officials at helm gaining the most. The whole system worked on patronage with the top officials kept on board by job based incentives and official rewards. As a result, people found it difficult to complain for the fear of losing the economic opportunities.       

The above three essays attempt a good understanding of corruption and its various articulation. The essays, though written from different perspectives capture the essence of corruption and highlight various means and mechanisms to understand each of these cases. Lastly, the common conclusion that runs through all these pieces is that the definition of corruption needs to be broadened to include various other aspects which otherwise would be neglected in traditional definition.