Chapter attempts to address the question of why
individuals choose to be corrupt.
Within some developing countries, there are growing
calls for religion to step in and help end corruption. Religious leaders have
also called out to adherents to not be corrupt.
Citizens and public officials in religious societies
often derive their ethical framework from religious ideas in part. This is
understandable since religion often outlines a set of codes and rules to live
by. However PI-CPI shows that highly corrupt countries are often highly
religious, while the less corrupt countries are often also highly “secular”.
Corruption policies are often susceptible to “common
sense fallacy”- Schaffer. Meaning: Policy is seen as innocent and
unproblematic, but a way of organizing independent realities.
Just as there are religious leaders speaking out
against corruption there are also religious organization faced with charges of
corruption.
Merquette argues: (1) The causal relationship
formulated between religious belief and corrupt practices in countries based on
aggregated national datasets is insufficient, often contradictory and not
indicative of how individual actors justify corruption. (2) Religion may have some
impact on attitudes towards corruption, but little influence on corrupt
behavior. Selective moral disengagement- in a system
with such rampant corruption, being uncorrupt makes no sense or puts you at a
disadvantage- Game Theory and Social Theory at work here; diffusion of responsibility-
Where everyone is responsible, no one really feels responsible.
Concluding line: “All else being equal, the more
religious the country, the less corruption it will have.”- David Nasbaum,
former director of Transparency International. Own Comment: The case is more like “the more religious the
country, the less corruption it tolerates as a matter of ethics. There is no
finite, decided relationship between religiosity and corrupt practices.”
No comments:
Post a Comment