Pages
Stay In Touch
More
© 2012 Sanjeev Sabhlok's revolutionary blog
Here's a summary of the approach that splits the anti-corruption strategy into three key components.
This shows that a Lokpal bill can only address (at best) only a small part of the corruption problem. The greatest benefits come from (1), but that is the hardest for people to understand, so they focus on (2), i.e. punishing the corrupt. BFN deals with all three aspects, primarily (1), which is the most difficult to understand.
This diagram shows that if IAC can step back from its narrow focus and start thinking about the bigger picture, India can make rapid progress on this front.
If you found this post useful, then consider subscribing to my blog by email:
Join the Freedom Team of India or become a Freedom Partner.
Related posts:
- First step in removal of corruption: State funding of elections
- Eliminating corruption in India will also require Indian businesses to demand anti-corruption laws
- Is India losing hope that corruption can be removed? – data show rapidly fading interest.
- How to remove corruption from India – the ACTUAL solution
- India’s centralised approach to urbanization
- Kiran Bedi’s case: not corruption? Well, what else is it?
- Let’s not waste time discussing inequality. Poverty removal is the goal.
- If you live in the USA join in these rallies against corruption in India
- Dear Arvind, the only path to corruption-free India is through policies of liberty
- Don’t rely on Chinese methods to “fix corruption” in India
To spread the message of liberty and critical thinking, please share this post
A three-pronged approach to removal of corruption in #India http://t.co/9yLj8oDv #publicpolicy #corruptindia
A three-pronged approach to removal of corruption in India http://t.co/4KVQOqSw
Dear Sanjeev,
I want to ask a clarifying question on your 3-pronged strategy: Would your approach also punish a bribe-giver who gives bribe to hasten the process in a legitimate case of his?
For instance, I may have a legitimate case to be approved for a passport. But, corrupt officials may be delaying my process from the ‘standard’ 10 days to say a month. Would it still be wrong (from a moral stand-point) to give a bribe to hasten the process from 30-days to 10-days? After all, I am eligible for a passport – and I am having to give a bribe only because the other person is corrupt.
Dear Saurabh
No bribe giving is “legitimate”. The case you refer to should be resolved through strategy (1), by ensuring that the system speeds up passports for everyone, or, if that’s not possible, then the system charges more for those who want their passports faster.
In the latter case two things are accomplished: there is no bribe involved and the public exchequer receives additional revenues (in the case of bribe, the revenues are stolen by a passport office/police functionary).
Fast tracking is perfectly legitimate since resources are limited. But those who want fast track should pay. And they do pay – as as “speed money”. That is criminal.
s
Dear Sanjeev,
I fully agree with you when it an issue of ‘speed’.
But, when I just want things to be done in ‘normal’ course of things, and govt. officials are delaying (citing superficial flaws in my application, etc.). Would bribing be immoral there too? (My focus is more on moral instead of legal).
I you say yes, then the problem is that an honest/moral citizen is left to the mercy of the right ‘strategy’ which may take years to get implemented. I will suffer for no fault of mine, meanwhile. So, how does it become ‘moral’ if it leads to sacrifice of my ‘rational’ self-interest?
Saurabh, you can’t take the plea of “rational” self-interest to foster corruption. You can’t take the please that you will “suffer for no fault of mine”. That is an easy out to a difficult situation. A rationalisation of a crime.
You are obliged to DO something about this. Else you are a part of the system.
There is unfortunately no other feasible “moral” position on this subject.
True, if you will be beaten by a police constable at the checkpost if you don’t pay a bribe, then I’d say: pay it, but then go and complain about it – and DO something about it. In a situation where no one is forcing you to pay but you want to extract an illegitimate advantage, then there is no basis for you to pay. That is a criminal offence and there can’t be any two views on it, either morally or legally.
s
I don’t agree. For poor and middle classes, most of the times bribe-giving is part of survival strategy. The unjust laws and the beauracratic delays almost force you to choose betweeb bribe and survival.
Moreover, all bribe cannot be dealt alike. Some bribe is a zero-sum game while other could be win-win. Hence, penalizing all sort of bribe-givers rather than solving the root-cause would be a bad policy.
Saurabh–
I agree with you. In my opinion you should be granted immunity for giving a bribe to obtain what you are certainly entitled to. In this context you should read Mr. Kaushik Basu‘s paper on legalising the giving of bribes in a harassment context. I have commented on this previously on Sanjeev’s blog:
I have one question for you. If you are granted immunity for bribe giving in return for your passport, will you then make a complaint against the bribe taker (after you have received your passport of course)?
Dear Prashant, I’m talking about penalties for only those bribe givers whose businesses have a turnover of greater than Rs.10 crores. Do read my earlier blog post posted earlier today.
The idea of penalties for retail corruption is simply impractical to implement. That requires systemic solutions.
Such retail corruption is, however, equally criminal in most cases. The fact that something is wrong must be identified, whether or not we have the capacity to fix it.
PD,
In answer to your question: my guiding principle would be to behave in my rational self-interest (as I am committed to Objectivism). This would mean (for me) opposing the ‘bribe’ problem not then-and-there, but at an intellectual level. That would be the rational thing to do for me – as it will be aligned with my goals and aptitude. But, this is what I personally would do – as it my goal to fight the ‘evil’. But, I consider it fully moral if someone else in similar situation does not do anything about it – if his rational goals are not furthered by engaging further.
I can elaborate if needed. [Though, I would prefer we do it offline, as I am not comfortable using Sanjeev's blog for my purposes (only those that are uncommon with Sanjeev's) - unless he himself allows it].
And thanks for the detailed info on Basu’s comments!
Sanjeev,
On your reply to my post, I have a few clarifying questions:
1. In itself, is it bad to take an easy-way-out?
2. Why is my act a crime? It seems you are saying that it a crime because I am taking an easy-way-out from a difficult situation. But, your language is not clear to me. in general, if one is in a diffcult situation and finds an easy way out, that is considered good – and is called problem-solving. So, why is my act a crime? That has to be something specific in the ‘nature’ of this act – to make it a crime. What is that?
Saurabh, you as a citizen make certain laws (through your representatives). You then pay someone (bureaucrat/agent) through your taxes to implement these laws.
The fact that your representative and agent are corrupt does not absolve you of the DIRECT responsibility to design (or otherwise participate in) a system that does not lead to such outcomes.
These corrupt people CAN’T be corrupt without your connivance. That you choose to connive in their corrupt actions to support the breach of the laws that you have first created, and the work conditions that you have imposed on the bureaucrat, entirely nullifies your claim to integrity.
There is no morality – under ANY circumstance – in supporting corruption. It is a criminal, lowly act. No exceptions.
And please don’t delude yourself that you are following Ayn Rand! She would have puked at such a thought. In her mind the man who is whole and complete would rather kill than be corrupt. Integrity is WHOLE and COMPLETE.
Splitting hairs (which is what that abominable “economist” Basu has done) to convert a VICIOUS crime into a “rational” economic action is exactly what Lincoln spoke about when he spoke about those who destroy liberty but claim to be promoting it. Please learn the meanings of the word corruption and integrity. They are poles apart.
By participating in non-coercive corruption, you are DESTROYING any possibility of integrity. I hope I’ve been vigorous enough in persuading you that a criminal action is not made less criminal just because the criminal has a “reason” for it, or it serves the criminal’s “self-interest.” Stealing may well make a thief richer. That’s no excuse for making theft an honorable act.
I’m afraid there is simply no possible meeting point between Basu’s/ your view and mine, on this matter.
s
Dear Sanjeev,
You are saying that: the fact that my agent is corrupt puts responsibility on me to not participate in his practices.
My question is: Why/How? (Please correct me if I understood you incorrectly above).
I think the reason you are giving is: because he cannot be corrupt without my connivance.
My question is: Is it really so? Does he not have a ‘choice’?
Now, I agree that we can fix the symptom by my not giving in to his demands. But, this thinking could then also be logically extended to say the problem of Obesity caused by eating Pizzas. You can ban pizzas as it will fix the symptom of Obesity.
But, you forget that Pizza-eaters have a choice.
Are you not sacrificing my liberty for a collective goal?
Note: Please keep in mind that I am only arguing for the case where I am giving a bribe to get my passport cleared in the normal course only. I fully agree that ‘speed money’ will be immoral.
Dear Sanjeev,
I also want to make 2 more points:
1. Thanks for the effort you are putting in to pursuade me and others. But, I try to get pursuaded (or to pursuade) not by ‘vigor’ but only by cold reason. This method takes time – but has long-lasting effect.
2. I fully agree with you on Stealing example. But, my bribing case is ethically different from it. I can elaborate if needed.
Unless you are being beaten up and have to cough up some money for your passport, you have the liberty of challenging the government employee (whose salary you pay), escalating to his superior, raising with the press, putting out his name on this blog, taking a video of his demand and getting him arrested, etc. etc.
You are NOT obliged under the laws of India to pay someone who demands a bribe. That is the LAW. That is what should be the case. If you want to make it legal to pay bribes, then first make a law to make it legal. You forget that you are a CITIZEN and your country’s governance is your responsibility.
s