Administrative Corruption

Corruption among public servants has always existed in one form, or the other although its shape, dimensions, textures and shades have been changing from time to time and place to place. At one time, bribe was paid for getting wrong things done but now the bribe is paid for getting right things done at the right time.

Which acts have been called ‘corrupt’ in public service? Though the term “corruption’ has wide connotations, the following patterns of behaviour among public servants can be described as corrupt’ within the provisions of law.

Acceptance of gratification as reward for work done in an official capacity.
Obtaining any object or pecuniary advantage illegally.
Fraudulent misappropriation of public property.
Being in possession of financial resources or property disproportionate to one’s known disproportionate to com sources of income.
Misuse or abuse of official position.
“Borrowing money for purchasing a costly article from a person with whom one has official dealings with a known’ understanding that the “borrowed money will not be returned.
Accepting gifts by persons of position from persons with whom they have positional relations.
Disregard of neglect of rules purposely to help the citizen in avoiding dues /tax/duty due to be paid to government.
Refusal to do a duty on some plea which may benefit the other party (e.g., police officer not registering a case to protect a criminal).

Causes Of Corruption

Administrative Reforms Commission ( 1966) mentioned the following causes of corruption:

Lack of proper education and training of civil servants;
low salaries;
Inadequate and inefficient supervision
political patronage of officials: complicated and dilatory procedures;
collection of funds through officials;
poor public opinion
lack of examples from above;
unwillingness of people to complain against corrupt officials for various reasons;
inadequate or ineffective action against corrupt officials;
different standards of conduct for officials and politicians;
tedious and ineffective machinery to bring corrupt officials to book;
the tortuous and costly judicial procedure.

The Santhanam Committee appointed by the Government of India in 1962 and presented its report in 1964, studied corruption in detail. It found corruption prevalent in most of the departments, police and even judiciary. It cited a crisis in values as a possible cause. It said,

Alongside of the weakening of the social mores of the simpler society, signs are visible of materialism….. importance of economic power and deviations from social ethics.

The committee found corruption greater at two levels namely

Where substantive decisions are taken, and
The points where some of these decisions are implemented vis-a-vis the public.

The example of the first kind is works relating to giving of contracts, approval of works and acceptance of supplies as in the Public Works Department or Railways or Defence supplies. The example of the second type ‘covers areas like assessment & collection of a taxes determination of eligibility for obtaining licenses, ensuring fair utilisation of licences and goods obtained there under etc.

It therefore suggested a proper identification of the sensitive areas in administration, and review of the rules and procedures regarding

discretionary powers
the levels at which discretionary powers are exercised
the manner of their exercise and
the control mechanism within the organisation over the exercise of these powers.

The World Development Report 1997 issued by the World Bank, mentions some causes of corruption and its remedies. It is based on econometric analysis of 69 countries included in its survey. It shows that:

The greater the policy distortion through controls, the greater the corruption.
The more predictable the judiciary, the less the corruption.
The better civil servants are paid, the less the corruption.
The more recruitment (of public servants ) is based on merit, the less the corruption.
Corruption is equal to monopoly windfalls plus discretion in decision-making minus accountability (C-M+D-A). The solution lies in reducing monopoly and the discretionary power of politicians and bureaucrats, and increasing their accountability. Three lines of action are suggested to achieve this

a) Policies should be such that increase competitions to enable them to combat corruption.

b) Give ordinary people a greater voice, through democratic decentralisation and a stronger civil society.

Studies on corruption done in the United States of America show that public officials act in a corrupt manner for a very simple reason: They perceive that the potential benefits of corruption exceed the costs. As Klitgaard expresses it, If the benefits of corruption minus the probability of being caught times the penalties for being caught are greater than the benefits of not being corrupt, then an individual will rationally choose to be corrupt. He mentions four causes of corruption-historical/cultural, political structural, and bureaucratic.

The historical /cultural explanation of political corruption holds that corruption is the result of the weaknesses of individuals as a pattern of politics that has routinely accepted corruption. In other words, “corruption exists because individuals perceive that there are benefits to corruption and that the costs are relatively low compared to the benefits. It says that there is a link ( in the United States ) between political . corruption and urbanism, ancestry of ethnic immigrants and crime rates. It says that the more the education, the less the corruption.

Regarding corruption in bureaucracy, Wilson says that Men steal when there is lot of money lying around loose and no one is watching. In other words, all public servants are susceptible to corruption, and corruption is increased by the opportunity for it. As the size of the government increases, the potential rewards corruption should also increase. The argument goes that corruption exists because public service offers a way to become rich that is not available to private citizens. That means that corruption should increase as the size of the government increase and more opportunities for corruption are presented. This argument is supported by India’s own recent history. Corruption became much more widespread during the war years and after Independence. The rapid expansion of government activities in new fields afforded unprecedented opportunities to the unscrupulous. To quote Krishna Gopinath in his article Corruption in Political and Public Offices (IJPA 1992).

The period between 1939 and 1945, when administration shouldered war-time efforts, led to the growth of a new organisation culture where propriety of means did not matter. war also created countless opportunities for amassing wealth by doubtful means.

After Independence, India adopted socialistic pattern of society as its goal and wanted to place the public sector on the commanding heights of the nation’s economy. This resulted in the placing of several types of restrictions on private initiative and enterprises in the name of preventing monopolies, regulating capacities, protecting certain specified areas and activities. This ushered into an era of big government and licence, permit, everything had a price tag, and the rising industrial and commercial class was willing to pay this price.

As the Santhanam Committee pointed out Corruption can exist only if there is someone willing to corrupt and capable of corrupting. Both this willingness and capacity to corrupt is found in a large measures in the industrial and commercial classes.

Check out more causes of corruption in detail.