Public interest law refers to legal practices undertaken to help poor or marginalized people, or to effect change in social policies in the public interest, on 'not for profit' terms (pro bono publico).
It is not a body of law or a legal field. Rather, it denotes the
clientele they represent. Instead of serving powerful economic
interests, it stands for the advocacy of otherwise under-represented or
vulnerable individuals, especially those living in poverty. It has grown
to encompass a broader range of activities, typically the field of
non-lawyers like civil rights, civil liberties, women's rights, consumer
rights, environmental protection, and so on.
Nevertheless, a common ethic for public-interest lawyers in a growing
number of countries remains "fighting for the little guy".
By jurisdiction
Central and Eastern Europe
At
the end of the communist period in the early 1990s, the national legal
systems of Central and Eastern Europe were still in a formative stage.
The most important source of legal authority for the new human rights
groups came from outside the region: the Council of Europe, with its European Convention on Human Rights, and the European Court of Human Rights.
Over time, in the mid-1990s, U.S. experiences became more
relevant. The Council of Europe's prerequisite that lawyers use their
own country's courts first to seek legal remedies before turning to the
European bodies gradually became more than a pro forma exercise, and
civil society organizations began to make more effective use of domestic
means of adjudication. But by the time local activists were ready to
consider the utility of impact litigation,
test cases, and other tactics familiar from the U.S. experience, they
already understood that their ultimate tactical weapon in any piece of
litigation was to use the threat or reality of a supportive decision at
the European Court of Human Rights. With this background in mind, it
made more sense for the promoters of public interest law in Central and
Eastern Europe to talk about "strategic litigation" than about public
interest litigation. Using the instrumentality of the European Court of
Human Rights effectively required a strategic approach. Not all human
rights cases were likely to receive a favorable ruling; a negative
ruling could produce more damage to the human rights cause than no
ruling at all. The European Court had a rich case law that could provide
clues to how a future case might be decided, and there were procedural
aspects, such as the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies, to
consider.
The core lesson from the U.S. experience for local activists was
how courts could be used effectively as a tool for civil society
engagement in governance.
Italy
The changes
to the Italian electoral law from 2014 to 2017 were both "caused by
actions born from the bottom (...) the result of a methodical, studied
and concerted action. It has been featured by university professors,
constitutional and electoral law-makers, parliamentarians and other
elected representatives (...), representatives of civil society and
ordinary citizens. Their names are, as voters, in more than twenty
introductory pleadings (quotations or appeals)", all of them brought pro bono.
China (mainland)
Public
interest law (公益法) is an accepted term in China, where the basic
institutions supporting the rule of law are still extremely nascent.
China does not have a common-law system in which lawyers are expected to
play a key role in "making law." Nevertheless, a small but effective
community of lawyers has gained acceptance of public interest litigation
as a legitimate means of resolving social issues and contributing to a
harmonious society, and non-governmental actors have significantly
improved the enforcement of rights for migrant workers, women, children
and those suffering from environmental degradation, among others. For
example, public interest lawyers in China have filed lawsuits in court
successfully challenging workplace sexual harassment and the involuntary
confinement of healthy people to mental hospitals.
Chinese reformers believe that one avenue for speeding the
development of public interest law is implementing an associational
standing rule by which organizations can instigate lawsuits to protect
the interests of its members. Currently,
China's Civil Procedure Law is undergoing revision. One of the proposed
amendments would create a form of associational standing. In theory,
the new law would give domestic NGOs the power to file lawsuits in their
own name on behalf of their members, but the proposed amendment has
engendered spirited debate and its fate is unclear.
Hong Kong
In Hong Kong public interest law is an emerging field. The chief
vehicle for pursuing public interest claims is judicial review. This is
the process by which decisions of the government are challenged in the
courts. There has been a surge in judicial review cases since 2000.
Environmental issues and minority rights are among the most litigated areas.
One of the pioneers in public interest law in Hong Kong was
Pamela Baker. In the late 1980s she litigated a series of landmark
courtroom cases challenging the government's treatment of Vietnamese
refugees. In 1995 the Hong Kong Human Rights Monitor was established with the aim of promoting better human rights protection in Hong Kong. Today, the majority of cause lawyers
who represent citizens and social groups in human rights and public
policy litigation on a consistent basis in Hong Kong are also members of
political parties or active participants in social movements outside
the courts.
In Hong Kong, the Legal Aid Department provides funding to legal services for those who pass the means and merits test.
The two Legal Aid Schemes that it operates, namely the Ordinary Legal
Aid Scheme (OLAS) and the Supplementary Legal Aid Scheme (SLAS) have
facilitated the practice of public interest law through narrowing the
resource inequality between economically disadvantaged litigants and the
government. However, NGOs and charitable organizations are not eligible to get legal aid.
The NGOs and Charitable organizations contributed to opening of avenues
for people who deserved justice but lacked interest to approach courts
and helped them in becoming petitioners to get justice.
Apart from legal aid, the Hong Kong Bar Association and The Law Society of Hong Kong jointly provides the Duty Lawyer Scheme which offers free legal representation to eligible defendants on the first day of court appearance.
They also run the Free Legal Advice Scheme at their Legal Advice
Centres within nine District Offices in Hong Kong with the aim to
provide one-off preliminary legal advice to the general public without
imposing any means test. The Hong Kong Bar Association and The Law Society of Hong Kong operate their own Bar Free Legal Service Scheme and Free Legal Consultation Scheme
respectively where enrolled law firms and barristers specializing in
different fields volunteer to give consultations on a pro bono basis.
In addition, unlike in the United States where NGOs and public
interest law groups routinely bring public interest lawsuits on behalf
of aggrieved individuals, in-house counsel working in NGOs and charities
in Hong Kong are not allowed to directly represent the people these
organizations serve.
Some commentators believe that the inability of NGOs to directly
represent clients in legal proceedings has dampened the growth of public
interest law in Hong Kong.
Law schools in Hong Kong also organize various programs to promote the idea of pro bono legal service to students.
Pro bono committees of law firms in Hong Kong also meet on a bimonthly
basis in the Hong Kong Legal Community Roundtable, a forum for
international law firms to discuss development of pro bono work in Hong
Kong and the region.
India
"Public Interest Litigation" or PIL right since its inception in the Indian judicial system, has shown some good examples of safeguarding the rights of the people of India and has strengthened the position of the Supreme Court of India as preeminent guardian of Fundamental Rights enumerated in the Indian Constitution. It was introduced in India around 1979-80 by the Supreme Court judges, Justice V. R. Krishna Iyer along with Justice P. N. Bhagwati.
And since then there had been instances when the Courts are keen to
decide the matters of public importance without delay, as the case in
Shyam sundar where the court accepted the matter even when the
application was made by a letter sent through post.
South Africa
South
Africa has seen significant public interest litigation throughout its
constitutional history. During colonial and apartheid rule, public
interest litigation was used as a tool of struggle to resist unjust
laws. During the late apartheid period from 1979, three public interest
organisations were formed: the Legal Resources Centre,
the Centre for Applied Legal Studies and Lawyers for Human Rights.
Despite the hostile political environment and a legal system that was
inimical to public interest lawyering, they achieved some notable
successes opposing forced removals and contesting the system of pass
laws and other racist laws.
However, even as early as the late 19th century, litigation had been
used as a strategy for resistance, especially by early black lawyers,
many of whom were among the founders of the African National Congress.
Following the transition to democracy, the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa
introduced radical changes to the legal system that have facilitated
public interest litigation, including a justiciable Bill of Rights,
broad rules of standing and flexible remedial powers for courts. Since
1995, the South African public interest litigation sector has grown,
with a number of specialist organisations being established, alongside
the older generalist organisations. South Africa has since seen
extensive public interest lawyering seeking to give effect to the
transformative promise of the Constitution, in particular to enforce
socio-economic rights and shore up democratic institutions.
"Public interest law" is a term that became widely adopted in the
United States during and after the social turmoil of the 1960s. It built
on a tradition exemplified by Louis Brandeis,
who before becoming a U.S. Supreme Court justice incorporated advocacy
for the interests of the general public into his legal practice. In a
celebrated 1905 speech, Brandeis decried the legal profession,
complaining that "able lawyers have to a large extent allowed themselves
to become adjuncts of great corporations and have neglected their
obligation to use their powers for the protection of the people."
In the late 1960s and 1970s, large numbers of American law school
graduates began to seek "relevance" in their work—wishing to affect the
social issues that were so visibly and hotly debated within American
society at that time. They defined themselves as public interest lawyers
in order to distinguish themselves from the "corporate adjuncts"
referred to by Brandeis.
Summing up the movement's history in the United States, Stanford
University Law Professor Deborah Rhode writes: "Public interest lawyers
have saved lives, protected fundamental rights, established crucial
principles, transformed institutions, and ensured essential benefits for
those who need them most....In virtually every major American social
reform movement of the last half century, public interest lawyers have
played an important role."
Public interest law is institutionalized in the United States. Nongovernmental organizations
that work to promote and protect human rights using the U.S. legal
system, fight to protect the environment, or advocate on behalf of
consumers, call themselves public interest law organizations. A large
community of lawyers practices public interest law in the form of
providing legal aid
free of charge to those who cannot afford to pay for it. However, the
grim reality remains that lawyers are underpaid and grossly overworked, offering perfunctory representation. Clinical legal education,
which is well established in the United States, provides opportunities
for law students to do practical legal work on basic legal matters as
well as more complex public interest issues, such as women's rights,
anti-discrimination law, constitutional rights, and environmental
protection, among others. Some law schools have public interest law
centers, which advise law students interested in pursuing public
interest law careers. Pro bono
programs at bar associations and law firms provide opportunities for
commercial lawyers to donate time to public interest law activities.
Funding of Public Interest Law
Most
of the work done by public interest law organizations does not make
money because their clients often cannot afford private counsel. In
addition, the other activities they perform such as community outreach,
organizing coalitions, talking to the press, and initiating grassroots
campaigns, do not generate revenue. These organizations rely on federal
funds, private foundation grants, donations, state funds, attorney's
fees, membership dues, fundraising events, and fellowships for new
lawyers. Federal funds and private foundation grants are the largest
sources of funding for most organizations, however funding varies based
on the type of organization. For example, economic liberalism and
environmental organizations follow the membership-oriented approach of
leading civil rights organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union, whereas poverty organizations are more likely to use Legal Services Corporation (LSC) funds. The source of funding influence the impact and strategy pursued.
Since the 1960s/70s the amount of government funding has decreased and the kind of work LSC-funded
organizations can perform has been restricted. In 1996, the Omnibus
Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act prohibited LSC
funds for programs that "engaged in redistricting, lobbying, class
action suits, training for political activities, any activities directed
toward reforming federal or state welfare systems, abortion or prison
litigation" and recovering attorney's fees.
These restrictions cause government funded organizations to be more
vulnerable to political shifts because the government has significant
control over LSC funded organizations.
Because of the restrictions put on LSC-funded organizations, larger organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union,
that want to be able to engage in activities such as lobbying and class
action, rely on other sources of funding. Public interest law
organizations admit that the preferences of donors affect the priorities
they can work on.
For example, donors need measurable outcomes in order to see that their
money is being put to good use. They will be more likely to donate
again if there are concrete outcomes from their donations. The need for
outcomes inhibits these organizations from working on more complex
problems that tend to have less discrete solutions. It is easier to take
on similar cases in order to attract the same donors that were moved to
donate in the past. Grassroots organizing and coalition building,
because they are not as visible as high profile litigation are not
prioritized when resources are limited. However, in order to empower
communities, grassroots organizing and coalition building is very
important and has led to significant social reforms in the past.
An overall lack of funds necessary to meet the legal needs of the
poor and underrepresented is one of the most significant issues facing
organizations. Legal aid clinics across the country are forced to
decline many of the requests they receive because of lack of resources.
Lack of resources and failure to coordinate with individuals causes
low-income household to obtain legal aid for less than 20% of their
legal needs.
During periods of increased hostility toward minorities, lawyers are
forced to prioritize only the most severe violations of rights. By only
being able to take the most severe cases, many people's needs remain
unmet.
United Kingdom
In law, public interest is a defence against certain lawsuits (for instance some libel suits in the United Kingdom) and an exemption from certain laws or regulations (for instance freedom of information laws in the UK). Also, judges in common law systems can make judgements on the grounds of public policy, a related term.
Painting
representing both the judicial and legislative aspects of law. The
woman on the throne holds a sword to chastise the guilty and a palm branch to reward the meritorious. Glory surrounds her head and the aegis of Minerva signifies the armor of righteousness and wisdom.
The rule of law is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as "[t]he authority and influence of law
in society, especially when viewed as a constraint on individual and
institutional behavior; (hence) the principle whereby all members of a
society (including those in government) are considered equally subject
to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes." The term rule of law is closely related to constitutionalism as well as Rechtsstaat and refers to a political situation, not to any specific legal rule.
Use of the phrase can be traced to 16th-century Britain. In the following century, the Scottish theologian Samuel Rutherford employed it in arguing against the divine right of kings. John Locke
wrote that freedom in society means being subject only to laws made by a
legislature that apply to everyone, with a person being otherwise free
from both governmental and private restrictions upon liberty. "The rule
of law" was further popularized in the 19th century by British jurist A. V. Dicey. However, the principle, if not the phrase itself, was recognized by ancient thinkers. Aristotle wrote: "It is more proper that law should govern than any one of the citizens."
The rule of law implies that every person is subject to the law,
including people who are lawmakers, law enforcement officials and
judges. In this sense, it stands in contrast to tyranny or oligarchy,
where the rulers are held above the law. Lack of the rule of law can be
found in both democracies and monarchies, when there is neglect or
ignorance of the law. The rule of law is more apt to decay if a
government has insufficient corrective mechanisms for restoring it.
Additionally, this will allow for the breeding of corruption, making it
even more difficult to restore it as time goes on and corruption embeds
itself deeper into the governmental systems.
History
Although credit for popularizing the expression "the rule of law" in modern times is usually given to A. V. Dicey, development of the legal concept can be traced through history to many ancient civilizations, including ancient Greece, Mesopotamia, India, and Rome.
Antiquity
In
ancient Palestine , God's law was equally binding on all. Nobody was
entitled to add or subtract from it, and judges were warned not to
discriminate in favor of the mighty. (Deut. 4:2; Lev. 19:15)
In the West, the ancient Greeks initially regarded the best form of government as rule by the best men. Plato advocated a benevolent monarchy ruled by an idealized philosopher king, who was above the law.
Plato nevertheless hoped that the best men would be good at respecting
established laws, explaining that "Where the law is subject to some
other authority and has none of its own, the collapse of the state, in
my view, is not far off; but if law is the master of the government and
the government is its slave, then the situation is full of promise and
men enjoy all the blessings that the gods shower on a state." More than Plato attempted to do, Aristotle flatly opposed letting the highest officials wield power beyond guarding and serving the laws. In other words, Aristotle advocated the rule of law:
It is more proper that law should govern than any one of
the citizens: upon the same principle, if it is advantageous to place
the supreme power in some particular persons, they should be appointed
to be only guardians, and the servants of the laws.
The Roman statesman Cicero is often cited as saying, roughly: "We are all servants of the laws in order to be free."
During the Roman Republic, controversial magistrates might be put on
trial when their terms of office expired. Under the Roman Empire, the
sovereign was personally immune (legibus solutus), but those with grievances could sue the treasury.
In China, members of the school of legalism during the 3rd century BC argued for using law as a tool of governance, but they promoted "rule by law" as opposed to "rule of law," meaning that they placed the aristocrats and emperor above the law. In contrast, the Huang–Lao school of Daoism rejected legal positivism in favor of a natural law that even the ruler would be subject to.
There has recently been an effort to reevaluate the influence of the Bible on Western constitutional law. In the Old Testament, the book of Deuteronomy
imposes certain restrictions on the king, regarding such matters as the
numbers of wives he might take and of horses he might acquire (for his
own use). According to Professor Bernard M. Levinson, "This legislation was so utopian in its own time that it seems never to have been implemented." The Deuteronomic social vision may have influenced opponents of the divine right of kings, including Bishop John Ponet in sixteenth-century England.
Middle Ages
In Islamic jurisprudence rule of law was formulated in the seventh century, so that no official could claim to be above the law, not even the caliph.
Alfred the Great, Anglo-Saxon king in the 9th century, reformed the law of his kingdom and assembled a law code (the Doom Book)
which he grounded on biblical commandments. He held that the same law
had to be applied to all persons, whether rich or poor, friends or
enemies. This was likely inspired by Leviticus
19:15: "You shall do no iniquity in judgment. You shall not favor the
wretched and you shall not defer to the rich. In righteousness you are
to judge your fellow."
In 1215, Archbishop Stephen Langton gathered the Barons in England and forced King John and future sovereigns and magistrates back under the rule of law, preserving ancient liberties by Magna Carta in return for exacting taxes. This foundation for a constitution was carried into the United States Constitution.
The first known use of this English phrase occurred around AD 1500. Another early example of the phrase "rule of law" is found in a petition to James I of England in 1610, from the House of Commons:
Amongst many other points of happiness and freedom which
your majesty's subjects of this kingdom have enjoyed under your royal
progenitors, kings and queens of this realm, there is none which they
have accounted more dear and precious than this, to be guided and
governed by the certain rule of the law which giveth both to the
head and members that which of right belongeth to them, and not by any
uncertain or arbitrary form of government ...
In 1607, English Chief Justice Sir Edward Coke said in the Case of Prohibitions
(according to his own report) "that the law was the golden met-wand and
measure to try the causes of the subjects; and which protected His
Majesty in safety and peace: with which the King was greatly offended,
and said, that then he should be under the law, which was treason to
affirm, as he said; to which I said, that Bracton saith, quod Rex non debet esse sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege (That the King ought not to be under any man but under God and the law.)."
Among the first modern authors to use the term and give the principle theoretical foundations was Samuel Rutherford in Lex, Rex (1644). The title, Latin for "the law is king", subverts the traditional formulation rex lex ("the king is law"). James Harrington wrote in Oceana (1656), drawing principally on Aristotle's Politics, that among forms of government an “Empire of Laws, and not of Men” was preferable to an “Empire of Men, and not of Laws”.
The natural liberty of man is to be free from any
superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative
authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule. The
liberty of man, in society, is to be under no other legislative power,
but that established, by consent, in the commonwealth; nor under the
dominion of any will, or restraint of any law, but what that legislative
shall enact, according to the trust put in it. Freedom then is not what
Sir Robert Filmer tells us, Observations, A. 55. a liberty for every
one to do what he lists, to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by
any laws: but freedom of men under government is, to have a standing
rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the
legislative power erected in it; a liberty to follow my own will in all
things, where the rule prescribes not; and not to be subject to the
inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man: as
freedom of nature is, to be under no other restraint but the law of
nature.
In 1776, the notion that no one is above the law was popular during the founding of the United States. For example, Thomas Paine wrote in his pamphlet Common Sense that "in America, the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other." In 1780, John Adams enshrined this principle in Article VI of the Declaration of Rights in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
No
man, nor corporation, or association of men, have any other title to
obtain advantages, or particular and exclusive privileges, distinct from
those of the community, than what arises from the consideration of
services rendered to the public; and this title being in nature neither
hereditary, nor transmissible to children, or descendants, or relations
by blood, the idea of a man born a magistrate, lawgiver, or judge, is
absurd and unnatural.
The influence of Britain, France and the United States contributed to
spreading the principle of the rule of law to other countries around
the world.
Meaning and categorization of interpretations
The Oxford English Dictionary has defined rule of law this way:
The authority and influence of law in society, esp. when
viewed as a constraint on individual and institutional behaviour;
(hence) the principle whereby all members of a society (including those
in government) are considered equally subject to publicly disclosed
legal codes and processes.
Rule of law implies that every citizen is subject to the law. It
stands in contrast to the idea that the ruler is above the law, for
example by divine right.
Despite wide use by politicians, judges and academics, the rule of law has been described as "an exceedingly elusive notion". Among modern legal theorists, one finds that at least two principal conceptions of the rule of law can be identified: a formalist or "thin" definition, and a substantive or "thick" definition; one occasionally encounters a third "functional" conception.
Formalist definitions of the rule of law do not make a judgment about
the "justness" of law itself, but define specific procedural attributes
that a legal framework must have in order to be in compliance with the
rule of law. Substantive conceptions of the rule of law go beyond this
and include certain substantive rights that are said to be based on, or
derived from, the rule of law.
Most legal theorists believe that the rule of law has purely
formal characteristics. For instance, such theorists claim that law
requires generality (general rules that apply to classes of persons and
behaviors as opposed to individuals), publicity (no secret laws),
prospective application (little or no retroactive laws), consistency (no
contradictory laws),
equality (applied equally throughout all society), and certainty
(certainty of application for a given situation), but formalists contend
that there are no requirements with regard to the content of the law.
Others, including a few legal theorists, believe that the rule of law
necessarily entails protection of individual rights. Within legal
theory, these two approaches to the rule of law are seen as the two
basic alternatives, respectively labelled the formal and substantive
approaches. Still, there are other views as well. Some believe that
democracy is part of the rule of law.
The "formal" interpretation is more widespread than the
"substantive" interpretation. Formalists hold that the law must be
prospective, well-known, and have characteristics of generality,
equality, and certainty. Other than that, the formal view contains no
requirements as to the content of the law.
This formal approach allows laws that protect democracy and individual
rights, but recognizes the existence of "rule of law" in countries that
do not necessarily have such laws protecting democracy or individual
rights. The best known arguments for the formal interpretation have been
made by A.V Dicey, F.A.Hayek, Joseph Raz, and Joseph Unger.
The substantive interpretation preferred by Dworkin, Laws, and
Allan, holds that the rule of law intrinsically protects some or all
individual rights.
The functional interpretation of the term "rule of law",
consistent with the traditional English meaning, contrasts the "rule of
law" with the "rule of man".
According to the functional view, a society in which government
officers have a great deal of discretion has a low degree of "rule of
law", whereas a society in which government officers have little
discretion has a high degree of "rule of law". Upholding the rule of law can sometimes require the punishment of those who commit offenses that are justifiable under natural law but not statutory law. The rule of law is thus somewhat at odds with flexibility, even when flexibility may be preferable.
The ancient concept of rule of law can be distinguished from rule by
law, according to political science professor Li Shuguang: "The
difference ... is that, under the rule of law, the law is preeminent and
can serve as a check against the abuse of power. Under rule by law, the
law is a mere tool for a government, that suppresses in a legalistic
fashion."
Status in various jurisdictions
2005 map of Worldwide Governance Indicators, which attempts to measure the extent to which agents have confidence in and abide by the rules of society.
90–100th percentile*
75–90th percentile
50–75th percentile
25–50th percentile
10–25th percentile
0–10th percentile *Percentile rank indicates the percentage of countries worldwide that rate below the selected country.
The rule of law has been considered as one of the key dimensions that determine the quality and good governance of a country. Research, like the Worldwide Governance Indicators,
defines the rule of law as: "the extent to which agents have confidence
and abide by the rules of society, and in particular the quality of
contract enforcement, the police and the courts, as well as the
likelihood of crime or violence."
Based on this definition the Worldwide Governance Indicators project
has developed aggregate measurements for the rule of law in more than
200 countries, as seen in the map at right.
In France and Germany the concepts of rule of law (Etat de droit and Rechtsstaat
respectively) are analogous to the principles of constitutional
supremacy and protection of fundamental rights from public authorities
(see public law), particularly the legislature. France was one of the early pioneers of the ideas of the rule of law. The German interpretation is more "rigid" but similar to that of France and the United Kingdom.
Finland's constitution
explicitly requires rule of law by stipulating that "the exercise of
public powers shall be based on an Act. In all public activity, the law
shall be strictly observed."
United Kingdom
In the United Kingdom the rule of law is a long-standing principle of the way the country is governed, dating from Magna Carta in 1215 and the Bill of Rights 1689. In the 19th century, A. V. Dicey, a constitutional scholar and lawyer, wrote of the twin pillars of the British constitution in his classic work Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (1885); these two pillars are the rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty.
Americas
United States
All government officers of the United States, including the President, the Justices of the Supreme Court, state judges and legislators, and all members of Congress, pledge first and foremost to uphold the Constitution. These oaths affirm that the rule of law is superior to the rule of any human leader. At the same time, the federal government
has considerable discretion: the legislative branch is free to decide
what statutes it will write, as long as it stays within its enumerated powers and respects the constitutionally protected rights of individuals. Likewise, the judicial branch has a degree of judicial discretion, and the executive branch also has various discretionary powers including prosecutorial discretion.
Scholars continue to debate whether the U.S. Constitution adopted
a particular interpretation of the "rule of law", and if so, which one.
For example, John Harrison asserts that the word "law" in the
Constitution is simply defined as that which is legally binding, rather
than being "defined by formal or substantive criteria", and therefore
judges do not have discretion to decide that laws fail to satisfy such
unwritten and vague criteria. Law Professor Frederick Mark Gedicks disagrees, writing that Cicero, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and the framers of the U.S. Constitution believed that an unjust law was not really a law at all.
Some modern scholars contend that the rule of law has been
corroded during the past century by the instrumental view of law
promoted by legal realists such as Oliver Wendell Holmes and Roscoe Pound.
For example, Brian Tamanaha asserts: "The rule of law is a
centuries-old ideal, but the notion that law is a means to an end became
entrenched only in the course of the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries."
Others argue that the rule of law has survived but was
transformed to allow for the exercise of discretion by administrators.
For much of American history, the dominant notion of the rule of law, in
this setting, has been some version of A. V. Dicey's: "no man is
punishable or can be lawfully made to suffer in body or goods except for
a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner
before the ordinary Courts of the land." That is, individuals should be
able to challenge an administrative order by bringing suit in a court of
general jurisdiction. As the dockets of worker compensation
commissions, public utility commissions and other agencies burgeoned, it
soon became apparent that letting judges decide for themselves all the
facts in a dispute (such as the extent of an injury in a worker's
compensation case) would overwhelm the courts and destroy the advantages
of specialization that led to the creation of administrative agencies
in the first place. Even Charles Evans Hughes, a Chief Justice of the
United States, believed "you must have administration, and you must have
administration by administrative officers." By 1941, a compromise had
emerged. If administrators adopted procedures that more or less tracked
"the ordinary legal manner" of the courts, further review of the facts
by "the ordinary Courts of the land" was unnecessary. That is, if you
had your "day in commission", the rule of law did not require a further
"day in court". Thus Dicey's rule of law was recast into a purely
procedural form.
James Wilson said during the Philadelphia Convention
in 1787 that, "Laws may be unjust, may be unwise, may be dangerous, may
be destructive; and yet not be so unconstitutional as to justify the
Judges in refusing to give them effect." George Mason
agreed that judges "could declare an unconstitutional law void. But
with regard to every law, however unjust, oppressive or pernicious,
which did not come plainly under this description, they would be under
the necessity as judges to give it a free course." Chief Justice John Marshall (joined by Justice Joseph Story)
took a similar position in 1827: "When its existence as law is denied,
that existence cannot be proved by showing what are the qualities of a
law."
Asia
East Asian cultures are influenced by two schools of thought, Confucianism, which advocated good governance as rule by leaders who are benevolent and virtuous, and Legalism,
which advocated strict adherence to law. The influence of one school of
thought over the other has varied throughout the centuries. One study
indicates that throughout East Asia, only South Korea, Singapore, Japan,
Taiwan and Hong Kong have societies that are robustly committed to a
law-bound state. According to Awzar Thi, a member of the Asian Human Rights Commission, the rule of law in Cambodia, and most of Asia is weak or nonexistent:
Apart from a number of states and territories, across the
continent there is a huge gulf between the rule of law rhetoric and
reality. In Thailand, the police force is favor over the rich and
corrupted. In Cambodia, judges are proxies for the ruling political
party ... That a judge may harbor political prejudice or apply the law
unevenly are the smallest worries for an ordinary criminal defendant in
Asia. More likely ones are: Will the police fabricate the evidence? Will
the prosecutor bother to show up? Will the judge fall asleep? Will I be
poisoned in prison? Will my case be completed within a decade?
In countries such as China and Vietnam, the transition to a market
economy has been a major factor in a move toward the rule of law,
because the rule of law is important to foreign investors and to
economic development. It remains unclear whether the rule of law in
countries like China and Vietnam will be limited to commercial matters
or will spill into other areas as well, and if so whether that spillover
will enhance prospects for related values such as democracy and human
rights. The rule of law in China has been widely discussed and debated by both legal scholars and politicians in China.
In Thailand, a kingdom that has had a constitution since the
initial attempt to overthrow the absolute monarchy system in 1932, the
rule of law has been more of a principle than actual practice.
Ancient prejudices and political bias have been present in the three
branches of government with each of their foundings, and justice has
been processed formally according to the law but in fact more closely
aligned with royalist principles that are still advocated in the 21st
century.
In November 2013, Thailand faced still further threats to the rule of
law when the executive branch rejected a supreme court decision over how
to select senators.
In India, the longest constitutional text in the history of the world has governed that country since 1950. Although the Constitution of India
may have been intended to provide details that would limit the
opportunity for judicial discretion, the more text there is in a
constitution the greater opportunity the judiciary may have to exercise judicial review. According to Indian journalist Harish Khare, "The rule of law or rather the Constitution [is] in danger of being supplanted by the rule of judges."
Japan had centuries of tradition prior to World War II,
during which there were laws, but they did not provide a central
organizing principle for society, and they did not constrain the powers
of government (Boadi, 2001). As the 21st century began, the percentage
of people who were lawyers and judges in Japan remained very low
relative to western Europe and the United States, and legislation in
Japan tended to be terse and general, leaving much discretion in the
hands of bureaucrats.
Organizations
Various organizations are involved in promoting the rule of law.
The Council of Europe
The Statute of the Council of Europe
characterizes the rule of law as one of the core principles which the
establishment of the organization based on. The paragraph 3 of the
preamble of the Statute of the Council of Europe states: "Reaffirming
their devotion to the spiritual and moral values which are the common
heritage of their peoples and the true source of individual freedom,
political liberty and the rule of law, principles which form the basis
of all genuine democracy." The Statute lays the compliance with the rule
of law principles as a condition for the European states to be a full
member of the organization.
International Commission of Jurists
In 1959, an event took place in New Delhi and speaking as the International Commission of Jurists,
made a declaration as to the fundamental principle of the rule of law.
The event consisted of over 185 judges, lawyers, and law professors from
53 countries. This later became known as the Declaration of Delhi.
During the declaration they declared what the rule of law implied. They
included certain rights and freedoms, an independent judiciary and
social, economic and cultural conditions conducive to human dignity. The
one aspect not included in The Declaration of Delhi, was for rule of
law requiring legislative power to be subject to judicial review.
a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and
entities, public and private, including the State itself, are
accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and
independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international
human rights norms and standards. It requires, as well, measures to
ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of law, equality before
the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the
law, separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal
certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness and procedural and legal
transparency.
The General Assembly has considered rule of law as an agenda item
since 1992, with renewed interest since 2006 and has adopted resolutions
at its last three sessions. The Security Council has held a number of thematic debates on the rule of law, and adopted resolutions emphasizing the importance of these issues in the context of women, peace and security, children in armed conflict, and the protection of civilians in armed conflict. The Peacebuilding Commission has also regularly addressed rule of law issues with respect to countries on its agenda. The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action also requires the rule of law be included in human rights education. Additionally, the Sustainable Development Goal 16, a component of the 2030 Agenda is aimed at promoting the rule of law at national and international levels.
International Bar Association
The Council of the International Bar Association passed a resolution in 2009 endorsing a substantive or "thick" definition of the rule of law:
An independent, impartial judiciary; the presumption of
innocence; the right to a fair and public trial without undue delay; a
rational and proportionate approach to punishment; a strong and
independent legal profession; strict protection of confidential
communications between lawyer and client; equality of all before the
law; these are all fundamental principles of the Rule of Law.
Accordingly, arbitrary arrests; secret trials; indefinite detention
without trial; cruel or degrading treatment or punishment; intimidation
or corruption in the electoral process, are all unacceptable. The Rule
of Law is the foundation of a civilised society. It establishes a
transparent process accessible and equal to all. It ensures adherence to
principles that both liberate and protect. The IBA calls upon all
countries to respect these fundamental principles. It also calls upon
its members to speak out in support of the Rule of Law within their
respective communities.
World Justice Project
As used by the World Justice Project,
a non-profit organization committed to advancing the rule of law around
the world, the rule of law refers to a rules-based system in which the
following four universal principles are upheld:
The government and its officials and agents are accountable under the law;
The laws are clear, publicized, stable, fair, and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons and property;
The process by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced is accessible, fair, and efficient;
Access to justice is provided by competent, independent, and ethical
adjudicators, attorneys or representatives, and judicial officers who
are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the
makeup of the communities they serve.
The World Justice Project has developed an Index to measure the
extent to which countries adhere to the rule of law in practice. The WJP Rule of Law Index
is composed of 9 factors and 52 sub-factors, and covers a variety of
dimensions of the rule of law – such as whether government officials are
accountable under the law, and whether legal institutions protect
fundamental rights and allow ordinary people access to justice.
International Development Law Organization
The International Development Law Organization
(IDLO) is an intergovernmental organization with a joint focus on the
promotion of rule of law and development. It works to empower people and
communities to claim their rights, and provides governments with the
know-how to realize them.
It supports emerging economies and middle-income countries to
strengthen their legal capacity and rule of law framework for
sustainable development and economic opportunity.
It is the only intergovernmental organization with an exclusive mandate
to promote the rule of law and has experience working in more than 170
countries around the world.
The International Development Law Organization has a holistic definition of the rule of law:
More than a matter of due process, the rule of law is an
enabler of justice and development. The three notions are
interdependent; when realized, they are mutually reinforcing. For IDLO,
as much as a question of laws and procedure, the rule of law is a
culture and daily practice. It is inseparable from equality, from access
to justice and education, from access to health and the protection of
the most vulnerable. It is crucial for the viability of communities and
nations, and for the environment that sustains them.
The
International Network to Promote the Rule of Law (INPROL) is a network
of over 3,000 law practitioners from 120 countries and 300 organizations
working on rule of law issues in post-conflict and developing countries
from a policy, practice and research perspective. INPROL is based at
the US Institute of Peace (USIP) in partnership with the US Department
of State Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement, the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Strategic
Police Matters Unit, the Center of Excellence for Police Stability Unit,
and William and Marry School of Law in the United States.
Its affiliate organizations include the United Nations Office on Drugs
and Crime, Folke Bernadotte Academy, International Bar Association,
International Association of Chiefs of Police, International Association
of Women Police, International Corrections and Prisons Association,
International Association for Court Administration, International
Security Sector Advisory Team at the Geneva Centre for the Democratic
Control of Armed Forces, Worldwide Association of Women Forensic Experts
(WAWFE), and International Institute for Law and Human Rights.
INPROL provides an online forum for the exchange of information
about best practices. Members may post questions, and expect a response
from their fellow rule of law practitioners worldwide on their
experiences in addressing rule of law issues.
In relation to economics
One important aspect of the rule-of-law initiatives is the study and analysis of the rule of law's impact on economic development.
The rule-of-law movement cannot be fully successful in transitional and
developing countries without an answer to the question: does the rule
of law matter to economic development or not? Constitutional economics
is the study of the compatibility of economic and financial decisions
within existing constitutional law frameworks, and such a framework
includes government spending on the judiciary, which, in many transitional and developing countries, is completely controlled by the executive. It is useful to distinguish between the two methods of corruption of the judiciary: corruption by the executive branch, in contrast to corruption by private actors.
The standards of constitutional economics can be used during annual budget process,
and if that budget planning is transparent then the rule of law may
benefit. The availability of an effective court system, to be used by
the civil society
in situations of unfair government spending and executive impoundment
of previously authorized appropriations, is a key element for the
success of the rule-of-law endeavor.
The Rule of Law is especially important as an influence on the
economic development in developing and transitional countries. To date,
the term "rule of law" has been used primarily in the English-speaking
countries, and it is not yet fully clarified even with regard to such
well-established democracies as, for instance, Sweden, Denmark, France,
Germany, or Japan. A common language between lawyers of common law and
civil law countries as well as between legal communities of developed
and developing countries is critically important for research of links
between the rule of law and real economy.
The "rule of law" primarily connotes "protection of property rights". The economist F. A. Hayek
analyzed how the rule of law might be beneficial to the free market.
Hayek proposed that under the rule of law, individuals would be able to
make wise investments and future plans with some confidence in a
successful return on investment when he stated: "under the Rule of Law
the government is prevented from stultifying individual efforts by ad hoc
action. Within the known rules of the game the individual is free to
pursue his personal ends and desires, certain that the powers of
government will not be used deliberately to frustrate his efforts."
Studies have shown that weak rule of law (for example,
discretionary regulatory enforcement) discourages investment. Economists
have found, for example, that a rise in discretionary regulatory
enforcement caused US firms to abandon international investments.
The rule of law can be hampered when there is a disconnect between legal and popular consensus. An example is intellectual property. Under the auspices of the World Intellectual Property Organization,
nominally strong copyright laws have been implemented throughout most
of the world; but because the attitude of much of the population does
not conform to these laws, a rebellion against ownership rights has
manifested in rampant piracy, including an increase in peer-to-peer file sharing. Similarly, in Russia, tax evasion
is common and a person who admits he does not pay taxes is not judged
or criticized by his colleagues and friends, because the tax system is
viewed as unreasonable. Bribery likewise has different normative implications across cultures.
In relation to education
Education has an important role in promoting the rule of law (RoL) and a culture
of lawfulness. In essence, it provides an important protective function
by strengthening learners’ abilities to face and overcome difficult
life situations. Young people can be important contributors to a culture
of lawfulness, and governments can provide educational support that
nurtures positive values and attitudes in future generations.
Through education, learners are expected to acquire and develop the cognitive, socio-emotional and behavioural experiences and skills they need to develop into constructive and responsible contributors to society. Education also plays a key role in transmitting and sustaining socio-cultural norms and ensuring their continued evolution.
Through formal education, children and youth are socialized to adopt
certain values, behaviours, attitudes and roles that form their personal
and social identity and guide them in their daily choices.
As they develop, children and youth also develop the capacity to
reflect critically on norms, and to shape new norms that reflect
contemporary conditions. As such, education for justice promotes and upholds the principle of the RoL by:
Encouraging learners to value, and apply, the principles of the RoL in their daily lives, and;
Equipping learners with the appropriate knowledge, values,
attitudes, and behaviours they need to contribute to its continued
improvement and regeneration in society more broadly. This can be
reflected, for instance, in the way learners demand greater transparency in, or accountability of, public institutions, as well as through the everyday decisions that learners take as ethically responsible and engaged citizens, family members, workers, employers, friends, and consumers etc.
Global Citizenship Education (GCE)
is built on a lifelong learning perspective. It is not only for
children and youth but also for adults. It can be delivered in formal,
non-formal and informal settings. For this reason, GCE is part and
parcel of the Sustainable Development Goal 4
on Education (SDG4, Target 4.7). A competency framework based on a
vision of learning covers three domains to create a well-rounded
learning experience: Cognitive, Socio-Emotional and Behavioural.
Educational policies and programmes can support the personal and societal transformations that are needed to promote and uphold the RoL by:
Ensuring the development and acquisition of key knowledge, values, attitudes and behaviours.
Addressing the real learning needs and dilemmas of young people.
Supporting positive behaviours.
Ensuring the principles of the RoL are applied by all learning institutions and in all learning environments.
Over time, corruption has been defined differently. For example,
in a simple context, while performing work for a government or as a
representative, it is unethical to accept a gift. Any free gift could be
construed as a scheme to lure the recipient towards some biases. In
most cases, the gift is seen as an intention to seek certain favors such
as work promotion, tipping in order to win a contract, job or exemption
from certain tasks in the case of junior worker handing in the gift to a
senior employee who can be key in winning the favor.
Some forms of corruption – now called "institutional corruption"
– are distinguished from bribery and other kinds of obvious personal
gain. A similar problem of corruption arises in any institution that
depends on financial support from people who have interests that may
conflict with the primary purpose of the institution.
An illegal act by an officeholder constitutes political
corruption only if the act is directly related to their official duties,
is done under color of law or involves trading in influence.
The activities that constitute illegal corruption differ depending on
the country or jurisdiction. For instance, some political funding
practices that are legal in one place may be illegal in another. In some
cases, government officials have broad or ill-defined powers, which
make it difficult to distinguish between legal and illegal actions.
Worldwide, bribery alone is estimated to involve over 1 trillion US
dollars annually. A state of unrestrained political corruption is known as a kleptocracy, literally meaning "rule by thieves".
Consequences
Consequences on politics, administration, and institutions
Countries with politicians, public officials or close associates implicated in the Panama Papers leak on April 15, 2016
Political corruption undermines democracy and good governance
by flouting or even subverting formal processes. Corruption in
elections and in the legislature reduces accountability and distorts
representation in policymaking; corruption in the judiciary compromises
the rule of law; and corruption in public administration results in the inefficient provision of services. For republics, it violates a basic principle of republicanism regarding the centrality of civic virtue.
More generally, corruption erodes the institutional capacity of
government if procedures are disregarded, resources are siphoned off,
and public offices are bought and sold. Corruption undermines the
legitimacy of government and such democratic values as trust and
tolerance. Recent evidence suggests that variation in the levels of
corruption amongst high-income democracies can vary significantly
depending on the level of accountability of decision-makers. Evidence from fragile states also shows that corruption and bribery can adversely impact trust in institutions.
Corruption can also impact government's provision of goods and services.
It increases the costs of goods and services which arise from
efficiency loss. In the absence of corruption, governmental projects
might be cost-effective at their true costs, however, once corruption
costs are included projects may not be cost-effective so they are not
executed distorting the provision of goods and services.
Consequences on economy
In the private sector,
corruption increases the cost of business through the price of illicit
payments themselves, the management cost of negotiating with officials
and the risk of breached agreements or detection. Although some claim
corruption reduces costs by cutting bureaucracy,
the availability of bribes can also induce officials to contrive new
rules and delays. Openly removing costly and lengthy regulations are
better than covertly allowing them to be bypassed by using bribes. Where
corruption inflates the cost of business, it also distorts the field of
inquiry and action, shielding firms with connections from competition
and thereby sustaining inefficient firms.
Corruption may have a direct impact on the firm's effective
marginal tax rate. Bribing tax officials can reduce tax payments of the
firm if the marginal bribe rate is below the official marginal tax rate.
However, in Uganda, bribes have a higher negative impact on firms’
activity than taxation. Indeed, a one percentage point increase in
bribes reduces firm's annual growth by three percentage points, while an
increase in 1 percentage point on taxes reduces firm's growth by one
percentage point.
Corruption also generates economic distortion in the public sector by diverting public investment into capital projects where bribes and kickbacks
are more plentiful. Officials may increase the technical complexity of
public sector projects to conceal or pave the way for such dealings,
thus further distorting investment.
Corruption also lowers compliance with construction, environmental, or
other regulations, reduces the quality of government services and
infrastructure, and increases budgetary pressures on government.
Economists argue that one of the factors behind the differing economic development in Africa and Asia is that in Africa, corruption has primarily taken the form of rent extraction with the resulting financial capital moved overseas rather than invested at home (hence the stereotypical, but often accurate, image of African dictators having Swiss bank accounts). In Nigeria, for example, more than $400 billion was stolen from the treasury by Nigeria's leaders between 1960 and 1999.
University of Massachusetts Amherst researchers estimated that from 1970 to 1996, capital flight from 30 Sub-Saharan countries totaled $187bn, exceeding those nations' external debts. (The results, expressed in retarded or suppressed development, have been modeled in theory by economist Mancur Olson.)
In the case of Africa, one of the factors for this behavior was
political instability and the fact that new governments often
confiscated previous government's corruptly obtained assets. This
encouraged officials to stash their wealth abroad, out of reach of any
future expropriation. In contrast, Asian administrations such as Suharto's New Order
often took a cut on business transactions or provided conditions for
development, through infrastructure investment, law and order, etc.
Corruption is often most evident in countries with the smallest per
capita incomes, relying on foreign aid for health services. Local
political interception of donated money from overseas is especially
prevalent in Sub-Saharan African nations, where it was reported in the 2006 World Bank Report
that about half of the funds that were donated for health usages were
never invested into the health sectors or given to those needing medical
attention.
Instead, the donated money was expended through "counterfeit drugs,
siphoning off of drugs to the black market, and payments to ghost
employees". Ultimately, there is a sufficient amount of money for health
in developing countries, but local corruption denies the wider
citizenry the resource they require.
Corruption facilitates environmental destruction. While corrupt
societies may have formal legislation to protect the environment, it
cannot be enforced if officials can easily be bribed. The same applies
to social rights worker protection, unionization prevention, and child labor. Violation of these laws rights enables corrupt countries to gain illegitimate economic advantage in the international market.
The Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen
has observed that "there is no such thing as an apolitical food
problem." While drought and other naturally occurring events may trigger
famine
conditions, it is government action or inaction that determines its
severity, and often even whether or not a famine will occur.
Governments with strong tendencies towards kleptocracy can undermine food security even when harvests are good. Officials often steal state property. In Bihar, India, more than 80% of the subsidized food aid to poor is stolen by corrupt officials.
Similarly, food aid is often robbed at gunpoint by governments,
criminals, and warlords alike, and sold for a profit. The 20th century
is full of many examples of governments undermining the food security of
their own nations – sometimes intentionally.
Effects on humanitarian aid
The scale of humanitarian aid to the poor and unstable regions of the world grows, but it is highly vulnerable to corruption, with food aid, construction and other highly valued assistance as the most at risk.
Food aid can be directly and physically diverted from its intended
destination, or indirectly through the manipulation of assessments,
targeting, registration and distributions to favor certain groups or
individuals.
In construction and shelter there are numerous opportunities for
diversion and profit through substandard workmanship, kickbacks for
contracts and favouritism in the provision of valuable shelter material.
Thus while humanitarian aid agencies are usually most concerned about
aid being diverted by including too many, recipients themselves are most
concerned about exclusion. Access to aid may be limited to those with connections, to those who pay bribes or are forced to give sexual favors.
Equally, those able to do so may manipulate statistics to inflate the
number of beneficiaries and siphon off additional assistance.
Malnutrition, illness, wounds, torture, harassment of specific
groups within the population, disappearances, extrajudicial executions
and the forcible displacement of people are all found in many armed
conflicts. Aside from their direct effects on the individuals concerned,
the consequences of these tragedies for local systems must also be
considered: the destruction of crops and places of cultural importance,
the breakdown of economic infrastructure and of health-care facilities
such as hospitals, etc., etc.
Effects on health
Corruption plays a huge role in health care system starting from the
hospital, to the government and lifted to the other institutions that
promote quality and affordable health care to the people. The efficiency
of health care delivery in any country is heavily dependent on
accountable and transparent systems, proper management of both financial
and human resources and timely supply of services to the vulnerable
populace of the nation.
At the basic level, greed skyrockets corruption. When the
structure of the health care system is not adequately addressed
beginning from oversight in healthcare delivery and supply of drugs and
tendering process, mismanagement and misappropriation of funds will
always be observed. Corruption also can undermine health care service
delivery which in turn disorients the lives of the poor. Corruption
leads to violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms as people
supposed to benefit from the basic health care from the governments are
denied due to unscrupulous processes driven by greed. Therefore, for a
country to keep citizens healthy there must be efficient systems and
proper resources that can tame the evils like corruption that underpin
it.
Effects on education
Education forms the basis and the fabric in which a society is
transformed and different facets of well-being are shaped. Corruption in
higher education has been prevalent and calls for immediate
intervention. Increased corruption in higher education has led to
growing global concern among governments, students and educators and
other stakeholders. Those offering services in the higher education
institutions are facing pressure that highly threatens the integral
value of higher education enterprise. Corruption in higher education has
a larger negative influence, it destroys the relation between personal
effort and reward anticipation. Moreover, employees and students develop
a belief that personal success does not come from hard work and merit
but through canvassing with teachers and taking other shortcuts.
Academic promotions in the higher education institutions have been
disabled by unlimited corruption. Presently, promotion is based on
personal connections than professional achievements. This has led to
dramatic increase in the number of professors and exhibits their rapid
status loss.
Utmost the flawed processes in the academic institutions has led to
unbaked graduates who are not well fit to the job market. Corruption
hinders the international standards of an education system.
Additionally, Plagiarism is a form of corruption in academic research,
where it affects originality and disables learning. Individual
violations are in close relation to the operation ways of a system.
Furthermore, the universities may be in relationships and dealings with
business and people in government, which majority of them enrol in
doctoral studies without the undergraduate program. Consequently, money,
power and related influence compromise education standards since they
are fueling factors. A Student may finish thesis report within a shorter
time upon which compromises the quality of work delivered and questions
the threshold of the higher education.
Other areas: public safety, trade unions, police corruption, etc.
Corruption is not specific to poor, developing, or transition
countries. In western countries, cases of bribery and other forms of
corruption in all possible fields exist: under-the-table payments made
to reputed surgeons by patients attempting to be on top of the list of
forthcoming surgeries,
bribes paid by suppliers to the automotive industry in order to sell
low-quality connectors used for instance in safety equipment such as
airbags, bribes paid by suppliers to manufacturers of defibrillators (to
sell low-quality capacitors), contributions paid by wealthy parents to
the "social and culture fund" of a prestigious university in exchange
for it to accept their children, bribes paid to obtain diplomas,
financial and other advantages granted to unionists by members of the
executive board of a car manufacturer in exchange for employer-friendly
positions and votes, etc. Examples are endless.
These various manifestations of corruption can ultimately present
a danger for public health; they can discredit specific, essential
institutions or social relationships. Osipian summarized a 2008 "study
of corruption perceptions among Russians ... .30 percent of the
respondents marked the level of corruption as very high, while another
44 percent as high. 19 percent considered it as average and only 1
percent as low. The most corrupt in people's minds are traffic police
(33 percent), local authorities (28 percent), police (26 percent),
healthcare (16 percent), and education (15 percent). 52 percent of the
respondents had experiences of giving money or gifts to
medical professionals while 36 percent made informal payments to
educators." He claimed that this corruption lowered the rate of economic
growth in Russia, because the students disadvantaged by this corruption
could not adopt better work methods as quickly, lowering thereby total factor productivity for Russia.
Corruption can also affect the various components of sports
activities (referees, players, medical and laboratory staff involved in
anti-doping controls, members of national sport federation and
international committees deciding about the allocation of contracts and
competition places).
Cases exist against (members of) various types of non-profit and
non-government organizations, as well as religious organizations.
Ultimately, the distinction between public and private sector
corruption sometimes appears rather artificial, and national
anti-corruption initiatives may need to avoid legal and other loopholes
in the coverage of the instruments.
In the context of political corruption, a bribe may involve a payment
given to a government official in exchange of his use of official
powers. Bribery
requires two participants: one to give the bribe, and one to take it.
Either may initiate the corrupt offering; for example, a customs
official may demand bribes to let through allowed (or disallowed) goods,
or a smuggler might offer bribes to gain passage. In some countries the
culture of corruption extends to every aspect of public life, making it
extremely difficult for individuals to operate without resorting to
bribes. Bribes may be demanded in order for an official to do something
he is already paid to do. They may also be demanded in order to bypass
laws and regulations. In addition to their role in private financial
gain, bribes are also used to intentionally and maliciously cause harm
to another (i.e. no financial incentive). In some developing nations, up to half of the population has paid bribes during the past 12 months.
The Council of Europe dissociates active and passive bribery and to incriminates them as separate offences:
One can define active bribery as "the promising, offering
or giving by any person, directly or indirectly, of any undue advantage
to any of its public officials, for himself or herself or for anyone
else, for him or her to act or refrain from acting in the exercise of
his or her functions" (article 2 of the Criminal Law Convention on
Corruption (ETS 173) of the Council of Europe).
Passive bribery can be defined as "when committed
intentionally, the request or receipt by any [...] public officials,
directly or indirectly, of any undue advantage, for himself or herself
or for anyone else, or the acceptance of an offer or a promise of such
an advantage, to act or refrain from acting in the exercise of his or
her functions" (article 3 of the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption
(ETS 173)).
This dissociation aims to make the early steps (offering, promising,
requesting an advantage) of a corrupt deal already an offence and, thus,
to give a clear signal (from a criminal-policy point-of-view) that
bribery is not acceptable.
Furthermore, such a dissociation makes the prosecution of bribery
offences easier since it can be very difficult to prove that two parties
(the bribe-giver and the bribe-taker) have formally agreed upon a
corrupt deal. In addition, there is often no such formal deal but only a
mutual understanding, for instance when it is common knowledge in a
municipality that to obtain a building permit one has to pay a "fee" to
the decision maker to obtain a favorable decision. A working definition
of corruption is also provided as follows in article 3 of the Civil Law
Convention on Corruption (ETS 174):
For the purpose of this Convention, "corruption" means requesting,
offering, giving or accepting, directly or indirectly, a bribe or any
other undue advantage or prospect thereof, which distorts the proper
performance of any duty or behavior required of the recipient of the
bribe, the undue advantage or the prospect thereof.
Trading in influence
Reformers like the American Joseph Keppler depicted the Senate as controlled by the giant moneybags, who represented the nation's financial trusts and monopolies.
Trading in influence, or influence peddling,
refers a person selling his/her influence over the decision making
process to benefit a third party (person or institution). The difference
with bribery is that this is a tri-lateral relation. From a legal point
of view, the role of the third party (who is the target of the
influence) does not really matter although he/she can be an accessory in
some instances. It can be difficult to make a distinction between this
form of corruption and some forms of extreme and loosely regulated lobbying
where for instance law- or decision-makers can freely "sell" their
vote, decision power or influence to those lobbyists who offer the
highest compensation, including where for instance the latter act on
behalf of powerful clients such as industrial groups who want to avoid
the passing of specific environmental, social, or other regulations
perceived as too stringent, etc. Where lobbying is (sufficiently)
regulated, it becomes possible to provide for a distinctive criteria and
to consider that trading in influence involves the use of "improper
influence", as in article 12 of the Criminal Law Convention on
Corruption (ETS 173) of the Council of Europe.
Patronage
Patronage
refers to favoring supporters, for example with government employment.
This may be legitimate, as when a newly elected government changes the
top officials in the administration in order to effectively implement
its policy. It can be seen as corruption if this means that incompetent
persons, as a payment for supporting the regime, are selected before
more able ones. In nondemocracies many government officials are often
selected for loyalty rather than ability. They may be almost exclusively
selected from a particular group (for example, Sunni Arabs in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the nomenklatura in the Soviet Union, or the Junkers in Imperial Germany) that support the regime in return for such favors. A similar problem can also be seen in Eastern Europe, for example in Romania, where the government is often accused of patronage (when a new government comes to power it rapidly changes most of the officials in the public sector).
Nepotism and cronyism
Favoring relatives (nepotism) or personal friends (cronyism) of an official is a form of illegitimate private gain. This may be combined with bribery, for example demanding that a business should employ a relative
of an official controlling regulations affecting the business. The most
extreme example is when the entire state is inherited, as in North Korea or Syria. A lesser form might be in the Southern United States with Good ol' boys, where women and minorities are excluded. A milder form of cronyism is an "old boy network",
in which appointees to official positions are selected only from a
closed and exclusive social network – such as the alumni of particular
universities – instead of appointing the most competent candidate.
Seeking to harm enemies becomes corruption when official powers
are illegitimately used as means to this end. For example, trumped-up
charges are often brought up against journalists or writers who bring up
politically sensitive issues, such as a politician's acceptance of
bribes.
Gombeenism refers to an individual who is dishonest and corrupt for the purpose of personal gain, more often through monetary, while, parochialism which is also known as parish pump politics relates to placing local or vanity projects ahead of the national interest. For instance in Irish politics, populist left wing political parties will often apply these terms to mainstream establishment political parties and will cite the many cases of Corruption in Ireland, such as the Irish Banking crisis, which found evidence of bribery, cronyism and collusion,
where in some cases politicians who were coming to the end of their
political careers would receive a senior management or committee
position in a company they had dealings with.
Electoral fraud
Electoral fraud is illegal interference with the process of an election. Acts of fraud
affect vote counts to bring about an election result, whether by
increasing the vote share of the favored candidate, depressing the vote
share of the rival candidates, or both. Also called voter fraud, the mechanisms involved include illegal voter registration, intimidation at polls, voting computer hacking, and improper vote counting.
Embezzlement
Malaysia's former Prime Minister Najib Razak was found guilty in the corruption trial over the multi-billion-dollar 1MDB scandal.
Embezzlement
is the theft of entrusted funds. It is political when it involves
public money taken by a public official for use by anyone not specified
by the public. A common type of embezzlement is that of personal use of
entrusted government resources; for example, when an official assigns
public employees to renovate his own house.
Kickbacks
A kickback is an official's share of misappropriated funds allocated from his or her organization to an organization involved in corrupt bidding. For example, suppose that a politician is in charge of choosing how to spend some public funds. He can give a contract to a company
that is not the best bidder, or allocate more than they deserve. In
this case, the company benefits, and in exchange for betraying the
public, the official receives a kickback payment, which is a portion of
the sum the company received. This sum itself may be all or a portion of
the difference between the actual (inflated) payment to the company and
the (lower) market-based price that would have been paid had the
bidding been competitive.
Another example of a kickback would be if a judge receives a
portion of the profits that a business makes in exchange for his
judicial decisions.
Kickbacks are not limited to government officials; any situation
in which people are entrusted to spend funds that do not belong to them
are susceptible to this kind of corruption.
Unholy alliance
An unholy alliance is a coalition among seemingly antagonistic groups for ad hoc
or hidden gain, generally some influential non-governmental group
forming ties with political parties, supplying funding in exchange for
the favorable treatment. Like patronage, unholy alliances are not
necessarily illegal, but unlike patronage, by its deceptive nature and
often great financial resources, an unholy alliance can be much more
dangerous to the public interest. An early use of the term was by former US President Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt:
"To destroy this invisible Government, to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day." – 1912 Progressive Party Platform, attributed to Roosevelt and quoted again in his autobiography, where he connects trusts and monopolies (sugar interests, Standard Oil, etc.) to Woodrow Wilson, Howard Taft, and consequently both major political parties.
An illustrative example of official involvement in organized crime can be found from the 1920s and 1930s Shanghai, where Huang Jinrong was a police chief in the French concession, while simultaneously being a gang boss and co-operating with Du Yuesheng, the local gang
ringleader. The relationship kept the flow of profits from the gang's
gambling dens, prostitution, and protection rackets undisturbed and
safe.
Some research indicates that political corruption is contagious: the
revelation of corruption in a sector leads others in the sector to
engage in corruption.
It is argued that the following conditions are favorable for corruption:
Information deficits
Lacking freedom of information legislation. In contrast, for example: The Indian Right to Information Act
2005 is perceived to have "already engendered mass movements in the
country that is bringing the lethargic, often corrupt bureaucracy to its
knees and changing power equations completely."
Lack of investigative reporting in the local media.
Weak accounting practices, including lack of timely financial management.
Lack of measurement of corruption. For example, using regular
surveys of households and businesses in order to quantify the degree of
perception of corruption in different parts of a nation or in different
government institutions may increase awareness of corruption and create
pressure to combat it. This will also enable an evaluation of the
officials who are fighting corruption and the methods used.
Tax havens
which tax their own citizens and companies but not those from other
nations and refuse to disclose information necessary for foreign
taxation. This enables large-scale political corruption in the foreign
nations.
Lack of benchmarking,
that is continual detailed evaluation of procedures and comparison to
others who do similar things, in the same government or others, in
particular comparison to those who do the best work. The Peruvian
organization Ciudadanos al Dia has started to measure and compare
transparency, costs, and efficiency in different government departments
in Peru. It annually awards the best practices which has received
widespread media attention. This has created competition among
government agencies in order to improve.
Individual officials routinely handle cash, instead of handling payments by giro or on a separate cash desk – illegitimate withdrawals from supervised bank accounts are much more difficult to conceal.
Public funds are centralized rather than distributed. For example,
if $1,000 is embezzled from a local agency that has $2,000 funds, it is
easier to notice than from a national agency with $2,000,000 funds.
Large, unsupervised public investments.
Pay disproportionately lower than that of the average citizen.
Government licenses needed to conduct business, e.g., import licenses, encourage bribing and kickbacks.
Long-time work in the same position may create relationships inside
and outside the government which encourage and help conceal corruption
and favoritism. Rotating government officials to different positions and
geographic areas may help prevent this; for instance certain high rank
officials in French government services (e.g. treasurer-paymasters general) must rotate every few years.
Costly political campaigns, with expenses exceeding normal sources of political funding, especially when funded with taxpayer money.
A single group or family controlling most of the key government
offices. Lack of laws forbidding and limiting number of members of the
same family to be in office .
Less interaction with officials reduces the opportunities for
corruption. For example, using the Internet for sending in required
information, like applications and tax forms, and then processing this
with automated computer systems. This may also speed up the processing
and reduce unintentional human errors.
A windfall from exporting abundant natural resources may encourage corruption.
War and other forms of conflict correlate with a breakdown of public security.
Tribal solidarity, giving benefits to certain ethnic groups. In the
Indian political system, for example, it has become common that the
leadership of national and regional parties are passed from generation
to generation, creating a system in which a family holds the center of power. Some examples are most of the Dravidian parties of south India and also the Nehru-Gandhi family of the Congress party, which is one of the two major political parties in India.
Lack of strong laws which forbid members of the same family to
contest elections and be in office as in India where local elections are
often contested between members of the same powerful family by standing
in opposite parties so that whoever is elected that particular family
is at tremendous benefit.
Media
Thomas Jefferson
observed a tendency for "The functionaries of every government ... to
command at will the liberty and property of their constituents. There
is no safe deposit [for liberty and property] ... without information.
Where the press is free, and every man able to read, all is safe."
Recent research supports Jefferson's claim. Brunetti and Weder
found "evidence of a significant relationship between more press freedom
and less corruption in a large cross-section of countries." They also
presented "evidence which suggests that the direction of causation runs
from higher press freedom to lower corruption." Adserà, Boix, and Payne found that increases in newspaper readership led to increased political accountability and lower corruption in data from roughly 100 countries and from different states in the US.
Snyder and Strömberg found "that a poor fit between newspaper
markets and political districts reduces press coverage of politics. ...
Congressmen who are less covered by the local press work less for their
constituencies: they are less likely to stand witness before
congressional hearings ... . Federal spending is lower in areas where
there is less press coverage of the local members of congress." Schulhofer-Wohl and Garrido found that the year after the Cincinnati Post
closed in 2007, "fewer candidates ran for municipal office in the
Kentucky suburbs most reliant on the Post, incumbents became more likely
to win re-election, and voter turnout and campaign spending fell.
An analysis of the evolution of mass media in the United States and European Union
since World War II noted mixed results from the growth of the Internet:
"The digital revolution has been good for freedom of expression [and]
information [but] has had mixed effects on freedom of the press": It
has disrupted traditional sources of funding, and new forms of Internet
journalism have replaced only a tiny fraction of what's been lost.
Media responses to whistleblower incidents or reports, and to
matters which generate skepticism in established law and government but
may not technically be whistleblower incidents, are limited by the
prevalence of political correctness and speech codes in many Western nations. In China and many other East Asian countries the state-enforced speech codes limit or, in their view, channel the efforts of the media and civil society to reduce public corruption.
Size of public sector
Extensive
and diverse public spending is, in itself, inherently at risk of
cronyism, kickbacks, and embezzlement. Complicated regulations and
arbitrary, unsupervised official conduct exacerbate the problem. This is
one argument for privatization and deregulation.
Opponents of privatization see the argument as ideological. The
argument that corruption necessarily follows from the opportunity is
weakened by the existence of countries with low to non-existent
corruption but large public sectors, like the Nordic countries. These countries score high on the Ease of Doing Business Index, due to good and often simple regulations and have rule of law
firmly established. Therefore, due to their lack of corruption in the
first place, they can run large public sectors without inducing
political corruption. Recent evidence that takes both the size of
expenditures and regulatory complexity into account has found that
high-income democracies with more expansive state sectors do indeed have
higher levels of corruption.
Like other governmental economic activities, also privatization,
such as in the sale of government-owned property, is particularly at the
risk of cronyism. Privatizations in Russia, Latin America, and East
Germany were accompanied by large-scale corruption during the sale of
the state-owned companies. Those with political connections unfairly
gained large wealth, which has discredited privatization in these
regions. While media have reported widely the grand corruption that
accompanied the sales, studies have argued that in addition to increased
operating efficiency, daily petty corruption is, or would be, larger
without privatization and that corruption is more prevalent in
non-privatized sectors. Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that
extralegal and unofficial activities are more prevalent in countries
that privatized less.
In the European Union, the principle of subsidiarity is applied: a
government service should be provided by the lowest, most local
authority that can competently provide it. An effect is that
distribution of funds in multiple instances discourages embezzlement
because even small sums missing will be noticed. In contrast, in a
centralized authority, even minute proportions of public funds can be
large sums of money.
Conditions unfavorable for corruption
Wealth
and power can have a compounding effect on political corruption,
however, the immunity from the law that money and influence bring will
not come into effect when a powerful individual injures or harms another
powerful individual. An example of this immunity being broken is Bernie
Madoff, who while being rich and powerful himself, stole from other
rich and powerful individuals. This resulted in his eventual arrest
despite his status.
If the highest echelons of the governments also take advantage of
corruption or embezzlement from the state's treasury, it is sometimes
referred to the neologismkleptocracy. Members of the government can take advantage of the natural resources
(e.g., diamonds and oil in a few prominent cases) or state-owned
productive industries. A number of corrupt governments have enriched
themselves via foreign aid. Indeed, there is a positive correlation
between aid flows and high levels of corruption within recipient
countries.
A corrupt dictatorship typically results in many years of general hardship and suffering for the vast majority of citizens as civil society and the rule of law disintegrate. In addition, corrupt dictators routinely ignore economic and social problems in their quest to amass ever more wealth and power.
The classic case of a corrupt, exploitive dictator often given is the regime of Marshal Mobutu Sese Seko, who ruled the Democratic Republic of the Congo (which he renamed Zaire) from 1965 to 1997. It is said that usage of the term kleptocracy gained popularity largely in response to a need to accurately describe Mobutu's regime. Another classic case is Nigeria, especially under the rule of General Sani Abacha who was de facto president of Nigeria from 1993 until his death in 1998. He is reputed to have stolen some US$3–4 billion. He and his relatives are often mentioned in Nigerian 419 letter scams claiming to offer vast fortunes for "help" in laundering his stolen "fortunes", which in reality turn out not to exist. More than $400 billion was stolen from the treasury by Nigeria's leaders between 1960 and 1999.
Judiciary corruption
There
are two methods of corruption of the judiciary: the state (through
budget planning and various privileges), and the private. Budget of the judiciary in many transitional and developing countries
is almost completely controlled by the executive. The latter undermines
the separation of powers, as it creates a critical financial dependence
of the judiciary. The proper national wealth distribution including the
government spending on the judiciary is subject of the constitutional economics. Judicial corruption can be difficult to completely eradicate, even in developed countries.
In the 1990s, initiatives were taken at an international level (in particular by the European Community, the Council of Europe, the OECD) to put a ban on corruption: in 1996, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe,
for instance, adopted a comprehensive Programme of Action against
Corruption and, subsequently, issued a series of anti-corruption
standard-setting instruments:
the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 173);
the Civil Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 174);
the Additional Protocol to the Criminal Law Convention on Corruption (ETS 191);
the Twenty Guiding Principles for the Fight against Corruption (Resolution (97) 24);
the Recommendation on Codes of Conduct for Public Officials (Recommendation No. R (2000) 10);
the Recommendation on Common Rules against Corruption in the Funding of Political Parties and Electoral Campaigns (Rec(2003)4)
The purpose of these instruments was to address the various forms of
corruption (involving the public sector, the private sector, the
financing of political activities, etc.) whether they had a strictly
domestic or also a transnational dimension. To monitor the
implementation at national level of the requirements and principles
provided in those texts, a monitoring mechanism – the Group of States Against Corruption (also known as GRECO) (French: Groupe d'Etats contre la corruption) was created.
Further conventions were adopted at the regional level under the aegis of the Organization of American States (OAS or OEA), the African Union, and in 2003, at the universal level under that of the United Nations Convention against Corruption
where it is enabled with mutual legal assistance between the states
parties regarding investigations, processes and judicial actions related
to corruption crimes, as established in article 46.
Whistleblowers
Protesters in support of American whistleblower Edward Snowden, Berlin, Germany, 30 August 2014
A whistleblower (also written as whistle-blower or whistle blower) is
a person who exposes any kind of information or activity that is deemed
illegal, unethical, or not correct within an organization that is
either private or public. The information of alleged wrongdoing can be
classified in many ways: violation of company policy/rules, law,
regulation, or threat to public interest/national security, as well as
fraud, and corruption. Those who become whistleblowers can choose to
bring information or allegations to the surface either internally or
externally. Internally, a whistleblower can bring his/her accusations to
the attention of other people within the accused organization such as
an immediate supervisor. Externally, a whistleblower can bring
allegations to light by contacting a third party outside of an accused
organization such as the media, government, law enforcement, or those
who are concerned. Whistleblowers, however, take the risk of facing
stiff reprisal and retaliation from those who are accused or alleged of
wrongdoing.
Because of this, a number of laws exist to protect
whistleblowers. Some third-party groups even offer protection to
whistleblowers, but that protection can only go so far. Whistleblowers
face legal action, criminal charges, social stigma, and termination from
any position, office, or job. Two other classifications of
whistleblowing are private and public. The classifications relate to the
type of organizations someone chooses to whistle-blow on private
sector, or public sector. Depending on many factors, both can have
varying results. However, whistleblowing in the public sector
organization is more likely to result in criminal charges and possible
custodial sentences. A whistleblower who chooses to accuse a private
sector organization or agency is more likely to face termination and
legal and civil charges.
Deeper questions and theories of whistleblowing and why people
choose to do so can be studied through an ethical approach.
Whistleblowing is a topic of ongoing ethical debate. Leading arguments
in the ideological camp that whistleblowing is ethical to maintain that
whistleblowing is a form of civil disobedience, and aims to protect the
public from government wrongdoing. In the opposite camp, some see
whistleblowing as unethical for breaching confidentiality, especially in
industries that handle sensitive client or patient information. Legal
protection can also be granted to protect whistleblowers, but that
protection is subject to many stipulations. Hundreds of laws grant
protection to whistleblowers, but stipulations can easily cloud that
protection and leave whistleblowers vulnerable to retaliation and legal
trouble. However, the decision and action have become far more
complicated with recent advancements in technology and communication.
Whistleblowers frequently face reprisal, sometimes at the hands of the
organization or group they have accused, sometimes from related
organizations, and sometimes under law. Questions about the legitimacy
of whistleblowing, the moral responsibility of whistleblowing, and the
appraisal of the institutions of whistleblowing are part of the field of
political ethics.
Measuring corruption
Measuring
corruption accurately is difficult if not impossible due to the illicit
nature of the transaction and imprecise definitions of corruption.
Few reliable measures of the magnitude of corruption exists and among
those, there is a high level of heterogeneity. One of the most common
ways to estimate corruption is through perception surveys. They have the
advantage of good coverage, however, they do not measure corruption
precisely. While "corruption" indices first appeared in 1995 with the Corruption Perceptions Index CPI, all of these metrics address different proxies for corruption, such as public perceptions of the extent of the problem.
However, over time the refinement of methods and validation checks
against objective indicators has meant that, while not perfect, many of
these indicators are getting better at consistently and validly
measuring the scale of corruption.
Transparency International, an anti-corruption NGO,
pioneered this field with the CPI, first released in 1995. This work is
often credited with breaking a taboo and forcing the issue of
corruption into high-level development policy discourse. Transparency
International currently publishes three measures, updated annually: a
CPI (based on aggregating third-party polling of public perceptions of
how corrupt different countries are); a Global Corruption Barometer
(based on a survey of general public attitudes toward and experience of
corruption); and a Bribe Payers Index,
looking at the willingness of foreign firms to pay bribes. The
Corruption Perceptions Index is the best known of these metrics, though
it has drawn much criticism and may be declining in influence. In 2013 Transparency International
published a report on the "Government Defence Anti-corruption Index".
This index evaluates the risk of corruption in countries' military
sector.
The World Bank collects a range of data on corruption, including survey responses from over 100,000 firms worldwide and a set of indicators of governance and institutional quality. Moreover, one of the six dimensions of governance measured by the Worldwide Governance Indicators
is Control of Corruption, which is defined as "the extent to which
power is exercised for private gain, including both petty and grand
forms of corruption, as well as 'capture' of the state by elites and private interests."
While the definition itself is fairly precise, the data aggregated into
the Worldwide Governance Indicators is based on any available polling:
questions range from "is corruption a serious problem?" to measures of
public access to information, and not consistent across countries.
Despite these weaknesses, the global coverage of these datasets has led
to their widespread adoption, most notably by the Millennium Challenge Corporation.
A number of parties have collected survey data, from the public
and from experts, to try to gauge the level of corruption and bribery,
as well as its impact on political and economic outcomes.
A second wave of corruption metrics has been created by Global Integrity, the International Budget Partnership, and many lesser known local groups. These metrics include the Global Integrity Index,
first published in 2004. These second wave projects aim to create
policy change by identifying resources more effectively and creating
checklists toward incremental reform. Global Integrity and the
International Budget Partnership
each dispense with public surveys and instead uses in-country experts
to evaluate "the opposite of corruption" – which Global Integrity
defines as the public policies that prevent, discourage, or expose
corruption.
These approaches complement the first wave, awareness-raising tools by
giving governments facing public outcry a checklist which measures
concrete steps toward improved governance.
Typical second wave corruption metrics do not offer the worldwide
coverage found in first wave projects and instead focus on localizing
information gathered to specific problems and creating deep,
"unpackable" content that matches quantitative and qualitative data.
Alternative approaches, such as the British aid agency's Drivers
of Change research, skips numbers and promotes understanding corruption
via political economy analysis of who controls power in a given society.
Another approach, suggested for when conventional measures of
corruption are unavailable, is to look at the bodyfat of officials,
after finding that obesity of cabinet ministers in post-Soviet states was highly correlated with more accurate measures.
Institutions dealing with political corruption
Global Witness,
an international NGO established in 1993 that works to break the links
between natural resource exploitation, conflict, poverty, corruption,
and human rights abuses worldwide
Group of States Against Corruption,
a body established under the Council of Europe to monitor the
implementation of instruments adopted by member states to combat
political corruption
Transparency International, a non-governmental organization that monitors and publicizes corporate and political corruption in international development
FreedomGuard, Ltd.,
a United States public benefit authority empowered to identify,
investigate, and civilly prosecute federal & state government
corruption
In fiction
The following are examples of works of fiction that portray political corruption in various forms.
_(cropped).jpg)
.jpeg)
_(2).jpg)
