http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011\01\21\story_21-1-2011_pg3_3
Friday, January 21, 2011
COMMENT: Corruption and economic development -Jamil Nasir
Corruption deepens the chasm between the poor and the rich, big
businesses and small enterprises, the powerful and the powerless, the big man
and the small fry
An overwhelming body of empirical evidence suggests that the impact of
corruption on economic growth and development is highly devastating. Corruption
impedes foreign and domestic investment, and increases transaction costs. It
raises uncertainty and is responsible for low incomes and underdevelopment as
it sands the wheels of economic growth. Validity of the literature that sprang
up in the context of the 'Asian paradox', i.e. miraculous growth of most East
Asian countries despite the prevalence of corruption stands discredited in the
light of the latest empirical studies on the subject. There are a number of
channels through which the negative effects of corruption are transmitted to
the economy.
Corruption misallocates talent and resources, and distorts technology
choices. People, being rational human beings, join the fields of employment
that possess maximum potential for rent seeking. For example, university
graduates may prefer to become tehsildars or police station house officers
(SHOs) rather than agriculturists and business entrepreneurs.
Public sector employment in Pakistan is a pertinent example of this
misallocation of talent. Up until the last few years, a dominant majority of
the graduates appearing in the civil services examination hailed from medical
and engineering backgrounds - students who had burnt the midnight oil to become
'pen pushers' despite having good qualifications in the fields of medicine and
engineering. Although other factors such as respect for the civil service in
society (which is fading now), security of service tenure and passion for
public service delivery should not be ruled out as motivating factors, yet the
fact remains that rent-seeking by grabbing power remains one of the potential
reasons for joining the public sector in Pakistan.
As regards sectoral misallocation, huge deals in arms by developing
countries are pertinent examples. Scandals have surfaced from time to time in
several developing countries (like the Bofors scandal in India and Agosta
submarine deals in Pakistan) where allegations of receiving fat commissions
were levelled against politicians and those at the helm of affairs. If the
incentive for commissions had not been there, there is every possibility that
the funds would have been funnelled to other sectors like physical
infrastructure development, directly related to economic growth and development.
Corruption also distorts technology choices. One of the motivational
factors for imports of capital-intensive technology by developing countries
stems from the potential opportunities of corruption attached to such deals. It
may be pointed out here that most developing countries are abundant in labour,
so labour-intensive technology generally is the best fit for these countries as
it creates more employment opportunities. The health sector presents another
glaring example of distortion in technology choices. Big hospital
infrastructures and sophisticated medical equipment are generally preferred to
rural health clinics specialising in preventive care even in the poorest
countries.
Corruption hampers the ability of the state to raise taxes, encouraging
informal businesses. The reasons are obvious. Due to corruption in the tax
machinery and complex procedures of tax collection (upon which corruption
thrives), businesses avoid getting registered for tax purposes. This direct
correlation between corruption and the informal economic sector is easy to
understand. In countries where corruption levels are high, informal sectors of
the economy are huge. Again, Pakistan is a pertinent example. According to
various estimates, the informal sector constitutes 50 to 60 percent of our
total GDP.
Further, corruption impacts decisions to start businesses because you
need information on bribes to start and run the business in a corruption-ridden
set-up. Thus potential entrants to business face uncertainty as to what bribes
to pay and when to pay. In this way, corruption acts as a barrier to the entry
of new firms into business. Additionally, it acts as a heavy drain on existing
businesses as well. Whenever there is an upward increase in tax revenue
targets, it is the existing tax-paying businesses upon which the hammer falls,
as governments are unable to tax the businesses operating in the informal
sector. This eventually harms economic growth. We can also say that the low tax
base has a direct link with corruption.
Moreover, the impact of corruption is differential and discriminatory. It
falls heavily on small businesses and disadvantaged sections of society.
Corruption deepens the chasm between the poor and the rich, big businesses and
small enterprises, the powerful and the powerless, the big man and the small
fry. It is a well-known fact that strict enforcement of the canons of rule of
law is lacking in developing countries. The elite are well connected socially
as well as politically. They can buy public services/goods like utility
connections, access to law enforcement agencies for redressal of their
grievances and dispensation of justice, whereas the cost borne by the less
powerful for such public goods in a corrupt institutional set-up is very high.
Corruption is regressive for small businesses as well. One of the potential
reasons for the less developed small and medium enterprises (SME) sector in
Pakistan can be traced to corruption. Corruption creates, sustains and
perpetuates poverty and inequality traps in society.
The question is: why is corruption so widespread in developing countries?
Surely it is not due to difference in the quality of human beings. The reasons
are many but the chief reason is over-regulation of the economy.
Over-regulation basically stems from the fact that developing countries are
low-trust societies. Unnecessary rules, procedures and multiple layers of
checks and supervision are common in developing countries. Added to this,
accountability mechanisms are weak.
Our understanding of the corruption issue is fallacious. If corruption is
high and the state feels that it needs to tackle it to recoup its eroded
legitimacy in the eyes of the public, an immediate prescription is to set up
one more anti-corruption agency, which is generally as corrupt as other
institutions. Rather, in some cases, the level of perceived corruption about
such watchdogs is higher when compared to the institutions they are supposed to
oversee.
Corruption should not be viewed merely as an administrative problem. The
corruption issue has economic dimensions as well and requires economic insight
for its solution. Economic reforms aimed at simplifying cumbersome laws and
procedures, doing away with inefficient regulations and redesigning the
incentive system for the civil services can go a long way in reducing the
levels of corruption, both real and perceived, in the 'land of the pure'.
The writer is a graduate from the Columbia University in Economic Policy
Management
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
Post message: [email protected]
Subscribe : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : [email protected]
List owner : [email protected]
Homepage : http://proletar.8m.com/Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
