Corruption takes different forms in different countries, depending on which actions will have the least consequences. In rich countries, corruption tends to be confined to politics and business. In poor countries, low-level officials requesting bribes might be predominant. Some governments lack the ability to fight corruption and others lack the desire.
Corruption in China has been drawing increasing attention, in part because it has been highlighted by the government itself. A steady stream of Chinese anti-corruption activities has been evident in 2010, including a new ethics code for public employees announced this week, and a string of convictions of top officials on bribery and other corruption charges, touted by the official press. It is tempting to believe that China is taking the fight against corruption seriously… although the general opacity of that government’s behavior means that no one on the outside can be entirely sure.
The problem in China is that the Communist Party has a firm grip on the information flow. This means not only that independent information is difficult to come by, but that the consequences of corrupt activity may not be widely known, and thus can be dealt with inconsistently, as the ruling party sees fit. So, for example, rumors have spread that the highly publicized trial of Wen Qiang, linked to a major organized crime and corruption ring in the city of Chongqing, is a foil for local party chief Bo Xilai, who aspires to promotion; meanwhile alleged corruption leading to deaths in the 2008 Szechuan earthquake has been buried with the remains.
It is entirely possible, and even admirable, for an authoritarian government to clean up local corruption: no democracy required. But without the mechanisms for accountability that few non-democracies choose to put in place, it is difficult for anyone but those at the top of the hierarchy to know whether the anti-corruption system is actually working. Instead, strings are pulled behind the scenes and everyone else is left to trust that the powers that be are doing the right thing. Only time will tell.
In 2006, Transparency International (TI) published a report on the so-called national integrity system in China. This report was written to provide support to the local chapter of that organization, which is affiliated with a state-run university. Interestingly, the authors of the report at that time chose to gloss over China’s key corruption problems, focusing instead on the great strides the country has made. One possible implication is that, in 2006, the government – and by extension the government-paid academics writing the report – favored ignoring corruption in hopes that it would not pose a problem. Such a view happily has now been abandoned. Another possibility is that the TI chapter was independent, but did not think it possible to fight corruption as an antagonist, instead attempting to bring the government around to its point of view after a good buttering up. Perhaps the latter strategy worked. In any case, expect to see many more reports of Chinese corruption-fighting in the months to come.
