(Assignment 4) THE CASE OF NORTH KOREA REVISITED - Sreelakshmi

Corruption, as defined by the article, “When is Corruption Harmful?” by Susan Rose- Ackerman (Heidenheimmer and Johnston) characterises it as illegal payment to a public agent to obtain a benefit that may or may not be deserved in the absence of payoffs. The evaluative standards of corruption are short term efficiency, efficient bureaucratic behaviour, economic growth, equity (surprisingly enough) and political legitimacy. Although corruption can be efficient under some restrictive assumptions, it is inefficient in many contexts and may also be unfair and undermine state legitimacy. Countries that have poorly functioning government institutions tend to be relatively corrupt, and the payoffs are seldom an adequate compensation for other governmental failures.

In this perspective, the case of North Korea as a state that sponsors corruption at the sovereign level can be explained beyond the commonsensical conception of clientalism or elite cartels as reasons for corruption. This understanding calls into examination important social and political contexts that prevail in North Korea—usual definitions of corruption apply to democracies, characterising the presence of corruption in such societies as a violation of democracy itself. The case of an absolute authoritative regime ruled by dynastic succession, presents a curious case of corruption as the order of the state. However, despite having control over the entire economic and political apparatus of the country, the regime has been unable to alleviate poverty, achieve economic growth or any indicators in its human development index. This has happened due to channelizing of the funds obtained through clandestine methods by the state, to projects like nuclear tests and missile launches.

A critical mass of (comparitive) literature on corruption in North Korea comes from Seoul, which significantly impacts objectivity of the study. While both the countries gained independence around the same time, South Korea has focussed on developmentalism as promoted by the state, in a totalitarian manner post the Korean War. The democratic republic in the South has managed to achieve magnificent levels of sustained growth, earning it a spot in the list of “Asian Tigers”. The North remains underdeveloped and mired in poverty, disease and human suffering owing to the regime’s corruption, nepotism and mismanagement of the Public Distribution System in the country. The situation is such that the citizens obtain their necessities at the black market while the government invests in drug manufacturing and smuggling and printing counterfeit dollar notes to apparently “ruin” the US economy.

The restriction of the black market and the revival of the economy based on a sound PDS needs to be the primary priority for North Korea at this point. While it is difficult to argue out this point without falling into the trap of the White Saviour Complex, it is essential to focus the economy’s meagre resources into improving public life than to show military or aggressive strength to the world. Secondly, the local governance structures and democratic revival of political activity needs to take place, but it is a longer conversation for another day. Finally, the lack of awareness/ acknowledgement regarding corruption in the country among the general public, also contributes towards the government unaccountability, only compounded by the lack of a democratic political framework. This also makes it difficult to arrive at potential strategies to mitigate corruption, when it is so deeply entrenched in the state apparatus.