Barry Hindess — Professor in the Political Science Program, Research School of Social Sciences at The Australian National University notes “ Corruption today is commonly understood in economic terms, in relation both to its content (money in exchange for favours) and to its effects (on  economic growth, development, and so forth). In other historical contexts, corruption has been understood more generally and I will raise the question of why this narrowly economic perspective has come to be so influential”. [I. 1. p.1]

Corruption involves them is use of public office. It also involves the misuse of information gained while performing public office.

Commonly it involves the dishonest or biased use of power or position resulting in one person being advantaged over another.
It is common for commentators writing about the problem of corruption and causes of corruption to discuss it as if it were a single phenomenon.
‘Corruption’, however, is a term which encompasses many different forms of misuse of power or misuse of office. It is not a single issue, nor a single problem. For example, the term corruption can be used to describe behaviours as varied as bribing an inspector to license an unqualified person to operate machinery that might put lives in danger, theft of office resources for use at home, and police assisting criminals to commit crimes. In order to be able to begin to reduce corruption, it is important to have a clearer  target (or targets) than the broad, nebulous concept of ‘corruption’ In their attempts to minimise crime, criminologists advocate taking a crime-specific approach in order to tailor prevention strategies (Gorta  1998a). For example, one would not use the same strategies to minimise shoplifting as one would to reduce physical assaults. The same is the case for minimising corruption. If corruption is viewed as a single problem it obscures the fact that specific strategies are best employed to deal with different forms of corruption. In order to combat corruption it is important that specific forms of corrupt conduct which pose the most serious risks (to  the area of interest-or example, state/organisation/process/country) are identified. Until one has some understanding of what forms corruption takes and how it comes about, one can do little to control it.
Since there is no well-defined or universally-accepted taxonomy of different types of corrupt conduct, the first step is to identify a useful classification system for different types of corrupt conduct. However, what is most striking about these cases is that the word ‘corruption’ is used to describe the police activities in question, in spite of the fact that economic gain is obviously not the central issue. Even in Washington, home of the World Bank, there are times when it is clearly recognised that there is more to corruption than the pursuit of financial reward. Rose-Ackerman’s treatment of corruption as if it were first and foremost an issue of financial gain and economic effect may not deny the existence of these other forms of corruption but it does suggest that they should be seen as something of a sideline. Thus, one problem with the narrowly economistic understanding of corruption concerns the value judgments-for example, that a few thousand brutal slayings may be ultimately less important than economic growth-which its technical language tends to disguise. In fact, of course, the value judgments involved here are rather more complex than we have just suggested. On the one hand, it is often assumed that economic growth itself will reduce the incidence of violence in a society,and indeed of corruption more generally. The level of police brutality directed against members of the black community in the United States and the systematic corruption of the political systems in the most developed contemporary societies-Japan and the United States-suggest that this assumption may not be well founded. On the other hand, the contrast between economic and other forms of corruption-which the economistic definition tends to promote-should not be overdrawn.

Corruption still as a common phenomenon found not only in the so called developing countries and societies, but also in the developed societies such as Europe, America, Japan and the former Soviet Union regardless of their structural and cultural differences. Some authors have argued that corruption is prevalent in third world countries however, evidence has shown that corruption is even prevalent in developed countries and each country be it in developing or developed world devices suitable method to deal with corruption. For instance a U.S Fluor a multinational construction firm according to Minakimes (2009) was quoted to have said that: fighting corruption and bribery, CEO Allan Boeckman helped developed a cross industry sharing program of best practices, along with a set of strict principles to follow. Fluor uses a combination of an ethics hotline for reporting crime, an open door policy to encourage managers to consult with executives for guidance, anticorruption training sessions, a “zero-tolerance” policy for infractions and overall transparency in its operations to minimize inappropriate behaviour. [I, 2, p.38]

Literature:

  1. Peter Larmour, Nick Wolanin (editors) \ Corruption and Anti-corruption\ Asia Pacific press , 2001
  2. IYANDA DAVID O. Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter) Vol. 2, No.4, Nov. 2012

 

Sa’dieva G.F., candidate of philological Sciences, associate Professor of the Department of languages and Humanities of the State Institute of fine arts and design of Tajikistan