Page 1 of 20

IS CORRUPTION EVER A GOOD THING?Farhan Hyder Sahito

Institute for Software Technology

Graz University of Technology

Graz, Austria

fsahito@ist.tugraz.at

Corruption as one of the oldest phenomenon in human society exists in every country,

and probably no country is free of corruption. Though, the amount certainly differs by

a large margin in different places or institutions (Tanzi, 1998). Corrupt peoples are

considered to be parasites and evils who misuse their position for personal benefits in

an ill-famed fashion. And yet, despite the stigma that it carries, it is a widespread

phenomenon. The World Bank estimates that corruption amounts to 5 percent of the

world GDP or around 200 billion dollars per year worldwide. However, Africa loses

25% of its GDP (Boris et al., 2008).

Common wisdom sights corruption as an obstacle to development and growth. Mauro

(1995) also observed a negative relationship between corruption and investment.

Various other scholars claim that it sands the wheel of economic growth and collapses

political regimes (Gupta et al, 2002; Tanzi, 2002 & Wei, 2000). Corruption is also

considered to be the single greatest obstacle to economic and social development

around the world that links to underdevelopment (Gupta et al., 2002). Others believe

that corruption hinders political development, instability and possible national

disintegration (Hodess, 2004; and Schlesinger & Kenneth, 2002). Various

international organizations: for example, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the

World Bank, the United Nations (UN), the Organization for Economic Cooperation

and Development (OECD), different (Non Governmental Organizations) NGOs and

Transparency International (TI) are also active in fighting against this barrier on many

fronts (El-Sharkawy, 2006).

Is corruption ever a good thing? According to Gupta and others, at first sight the

question seems ironic and even provocative, because this is a question in which the

opinion and interests of the economist and scholars are likely to conflict (Gupta et al.,

Page 2 of 20

2002). So, given corruption's complex nature, this question is still controversial

among scholars and economists (Gupta et al., 2002). But needless to say, corruption

and its effects can be seen from a large number of viewpoints and it can be argued

that corruption certainly does have two sides to it (Hislope, 2005).

This article will attempt to answer above question and will advance reverse thesis of

propaganda of international community about corruption. It will argue that corruption

is a good thing and it has many advantages. These arguments will be supported by

various evidences and examples. It will further discuss that corruption is a good thing

because some form of corruption may allow us to achieve required objectives within

ineffective and inefficient environments with better outputs; these outputs are

unachievable, if we are strictly honest and ethical (Lui, 1996). It is also good in a

sense that, it compensates the consequences of a defective bureaucracy and bad

policies and may helpful in economic growth, political development and national

integration.

The main thrust of the article will be centred on the above arguments. However, the

paper will be divided into three parts with an analysis and a discussion. The analysis

will deal with the definition of the concept corruption. An attempt will be made to

look at positive relation of corruption with economic growth, political development

and national integration with underdeveloped countries. That will provide us better

perspective as to why corruption is beneficial. The first part will look at the positive

relation of corruption with economic development. It will be argued that corruption

greases the wheel of the economy that speeds up the process of investment and boost

economic growth. Furthermore, Lui’s (1996) queuing model will be discussed, that

may decrease administrative delay, improves the quality of bureaucracy and made the

wheels of administration turn more efficiently. The second part will discuss that,

corruption is a form of political machine. This machine can increase the political

development by supporting and strengthens political parties. This notion also used to

hold a country together, stabilizing democracy and creates unity that may further

flourish development of the country.

The third part will argue that corruption may play its effective roles in maintaining

legitimacy by integration among minorities and elites of the country. In this part, the

Page 3 of 20

concept of corrupt exchange will also be explored. It will be argued that this exchange

reduces the possibility of interethnic violence and creates multiethnic coalition that

may foster interethnic peace and nationalism. Finally, a discussion will be made that

will identify that corruption brings many advantages and benefits, especially for the

developing countries. However, these benefits have some limitations. Furthermore, it

will be discussed that, international community has to understand the complexity of

this issue rather than only promoting propaganda against this survival strategy

(corruption) of developing countries.

ANALYSISThere is usually the difficulty to explain the definition of corruption. Because of it’s

complexity it is hard to put forward a dogmatic definition of this concept. According

to the Transparency International, corruption is “the use of public office for personal

gain or “misuse of entrusted power for private benefits.” However, these definitions

of corruption are not agreeable and satisfactory, because there are also evidences of

corruption in private sectors (Thomas & Meagher, 2004). Therefore, the most

influential definition of corruption can be defined as “behaviour that deviates from

formal duties because of private gains” (Mishra, 2006). Yet, some scholars also raise

the question about that particular behaviour. In sum up, we defined corruption in

many different ways, but each definition lacking in some aspect. So, it can be argued

that, this complex concept manifests itself in various ways. As Tanzi (1998) argues

that, “like an elephant, while it may be difficult to describe, corruption is generally

not difficult to recognize when observed.”

Yet these definitions mention above did not justify that corruption is a bad thing.

Transparency international’s definition (“use of public office for private gains”) is

also not clearly mentioned that corruption is bad for overall welfare of the country

(Miranov, 2005). However, number of empirical researches was initiated by various

scholars in different time periods tried to address above concerns. They attempted to

see the relation of corruption with investment, growth and political development.

Mauro (1995) and Shleifer and Wei (2000) in their different researches found

negative relation between corruption and growth. However, Egger and Winnerb (2005)

Page 4 of 20

in his research for a sample of 73 countries found positive relation between corruption

and economic growth in developing countries.

In relation with Egger and Winnerb’s (2005) research, it can be argued that corruption

may be ethically unsavoury, but, according to many economists and scholars the

spectrum of corruption is very wide and there are indeed some types of corruption that

can benefit the rich and poor alike (Bardhan, 1997). This notion is common in

underdeveloped economies where legitimate transactions take a long time to process

because of bureaucratic inefficiencies (Bardhan, 1997 & Hisolpe, 2005). However,

numbers of scholars are agreeing that corruption is more prominent in developing

countries. There are various grounds that support this argument. Such as: inequality in

distribution of wealth, high taxes, low salaries, strict regulations, less accountability

and the weakness of the legitimacy of governmental institutions that would have a

more immediate impact on the behaviour of civil servants and public (Egger and

Winnerb, 2005 & Gupta et al., 2002) and lead them towards corruption.

In above situation, corruption may seem to work well and a little grease can speed up

the transaction in developing countries rather than obstacle to economic growth.

These circumstances may become suitable for those who don’t want to lose time

waiting in queue for simply getting a passport or licence, or when there is limited

supply of goods and services such as health, education or natural resources (Lui,

1996). Specially, when inefficient bureaucracy makes it hard to start companies,

import or export goods (where every day of delay causes a huge loss to the

businessman). In these situations, corruption can cut through the red tape and

motivate bureaucrats who would otherwise shirk their duties (Tanzi & Davoodi, 2000).

Proponents agree that, bribes make it expensive to start a new business, but if bribes

don't work, it is impossible to start a new business, which is clearly even worse.

Furthermore, the actors involved in this scenario, such as corrupt officials,

businessman and the national economy are better off because of these bribes.

Economists argue that, this behaviour that benefit to different actors is called

functional corruption (Gould, 1999). This corruption may allow achieving different

objectives in highly inefficient bureaucratic environment and both parties receive a

benefit from the transaction. Similarly, the first impulse of the economist is that, such

Page 5 of 20

a mutually beneficial trade cannot be bad and the reason is: in corruption nobody is

forced into anything and both sides make a gain, so it can not be called poor or even

evil? These analyses proved that, the corruption may help defeat the damaging effects

of bad corruption associated with poor institutions and significantly promotes

development and growth in underdeveloping countries (Lui, 1996 & Nye, 1967).

Subsequent paragraphs will also discuss this advancement in relation with economic

growth, political development and national integration.

ECONOMIC GROWTH

Leff (1964) and Huntington (1968) argued that, the corruption has positive relation

with economic growth. Hisolpe (2005) further defined this relation as “ersatz

mechanism.” This mechanism may allocate resource more efficiently when markets

are not perfectly developed or state distorts prices. It may also encourage the rise of

risk-taking corporations, who are otherwise hindered by state regulations (Hisolpe,

2005). Leff (1964) and Huntington (1968) also suggest that under rigid regulation and

inefficient bureaucracy, corruption might foster economic growth. Lui (1968) further

calls it as “second best” principle. According to her, in existing policy distortion,

corruption may offer additional twist that may in fact encourage economic efficiency

and welfare. Beck and Maher (1986) and Lien (1986) also believe that this corruption

may raise efficiency and growth by this principle. Huntington (1968) further believes

that in these circumstances, corruption “oils the mechanism” and enhance the

efficiency to the South East countries. Evidences also proved that, the growth rates

are very high in India and China due to the corruption. And the reason is: corruption

eliminates the government-imposed rigidities that slow down the investment and

impede with those economic conditions that are favourable to growth (Nye, 1967 &

Huntington, 1968).

Among the possible economic benefits of corruption, the important benefit is an

equilibrium queuing model. Lui (1996) defines this model as a cooperative game OR

an illegal mutual agreement where both parties involved will benefit. According to

her, bribes can minimize the waiting cost that spent in queues. This model can be

considered a good relief for whom the time has the greatest value. They get decisions

Page 6 of 20

quickly because bribe reduces administrative delays. This reduction further speeds up

the process of investment when agents use speed money to get around bad laws and

institutions (Lui, 1985). In sum up, some kinds of government corruption can not be

considered as bad, because corruption promote efficiency in a sense that it inform us

how regulations are administered, and how to counterbalance the poor investment

decisions made by bureaucracies (Lui, 1985, 1996).

Joel Waldfogel (2006) further defined the usefulness of queue model by summarizing

a recent study in Delhi, India. This study was done with 800 people who needed

driver’s licenses. He discussed the benefits of corruption by saying that, if you need a

license than by offering bribes you can save your time if you are in a big hurry. This

corruption is beneficial in a sense that, one has to spend about few minutes in waiting

line, as opposed to five hours for those who did not hire an agent. This example shows

that, in some countries, the offer of a bribe in exchange for quicker processing—

reducing the social cost of waiting in line. Sometime, offering bribes also ease the

pressure on public, if supply and access provided by the government is limited.

Similarly, those who need to access within limited supply and would be willing to pay

the bribes, they can get higher access in what government is providing.

Beck & Maher (1986) and Lien (1986) further define above phenomenon by arguing

that, this queue model also promotes efficiency in corporations. However, efficient

firms are often those who can afford the highest bribe. Though, those firms that adopt

an honest approach are more likely to fail in its attempt to procure contracts and terms

as inefficient (Kaufmann & Wei, 1999). For instance, in bidding competitions or in

limited supply the most efficient corporations, those who are well organised can offer

the highest bribes to win that competition. The grounds are: secret information about

evaluation criteria or competitors’ bids reduces economic risks, and improved

economic framework (Kaufmann & Wei, 1999). According to Tanzi (1998)

corruption may also improve the allocation of resources in these circumstances. These

arguments illustrate that, the limited supply is reachable and the massive amount of

time spent by the citizens or business firm in a queue can be reduced through the

payments of bribes. However, these bribes could also give bureaucrats an incentive to

speed up the process, in an otherwise lethargic administration (Leys, 1964).

Page 7 of 20

Moreover, above benefits can also promote efficiency and growth or in other words it

greases the wheels of development. Bardhan (1997) reminds history of US and

Europe, where entrepreneur get favoured to grow out of bribes-so called “grease the

wheels” hypothesis. Huntington (1968) further states that, in 1870’s and 1880’s in the

United States, utility, railroad and industrial corporations grew faster because of

corruption. This hypothesis suggests that this corruption may be advantageous in a

“second best” principle. This happens especially when distortions emerge by ill-

functioning institutions (Leff, 1964 & Huntington, 1968). Different scholars and

economist also consider “grease the wheels” hypothesis as a trouble-saving device.

According to them, this device raises efficiency, investment and ultimately growth.

However, these scholars also suggest that, this hypothesis may be only beneficial in

those developing countries where governance is ineffective, and remains harmful (Lui,

1996; Mirnov, 2005; & Egger and Winnerb, 2005).

In less developed countries, from the point of view of public, corruption appears as an

elegant and comparatively cheap solution for an individual. From the point of view of

the corrupt bureaucrat, the bribe just appears as an additional opportunity to make

some income (Tanzi & Davoodi, 2000). Tanzi (1998) also supports these arguments.

He says that, those countries, where public sector wages are low, such as India; it is

not practical or realistic to increase the wages without reducing the size of the

employees. This reduction is politically difficult and creates more problems in poor

countries. However, corruption plays a vital role in this situation and may

counterbalance the needs of both government and the public employees, and could

beneficial in the short run for both directly involved (Tanzi, 1998).

Moreover, Bailey (1966) argues that, this corruption is not only beneficial but it can

also improve bureaucracy by expanding the quality of its civil servants, especially in

developing countries. As Lui (1996) and Beck & Maher (1986) believe that, in nearly

all Asian countries, officials are not well paid to meet the ends. In those circumstances,

when wages in government service are insufficient, then bribe is almost a

conventional fee that “made the wheels of administration turn more efficiently” (Wint,

1955). This may also attract able civil servants who would have otherwise opted for

another line of business. Nye (1967) goes further and argues that, the bureaucratic

corruption is also an important source of capital formation, especially when state

Page 8 of 20

lacks a capacity to tax a surplus out of workers openly or when private capital is

limited. However, this notion raises a question here that whether this capital uses to

grow economy or winds up in Swiss bank?

POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT

The less political resources are a big problem in less developed countries, such as

India, because politicians rely on material incentives to get enough power to govern

(Shleifer & Vishny, 1991). However, Hislope (2005) suggests that, in deeply divided

societies, where political consensus is weak and the state is fragile, corruption can

offer a much-needed adhesive policy for political stability. Susan Rose-Ackerman

(1997, p. 40) also believes that, the “Democracy gives citizens a role in choosing their

political leaders.” In this sense, corrupt material can make democracy possible by

strengthening parties. This can be a profitable political glue by allowing political

parties to get funds, that can be used to hold a country together and under certain

condition corruption actually benefits society (Tanzi, 1998).

Nye (1970) believes that, this corruption may further increase government capacity by

financing the political parties. And can also be beneficial to the continuation of the

political system in the same way that reforms are (Huntington, 1970: 3). Theobold

advanced further and said that, many political parties in the western experience were

also initially relied on corruption to unite their disparate groups, once established they

endorsed a “vision of the public interest that opposed the private exploitation of the

state” (1990: 122). However, it is also evident that, state actors adopt this strategic

approach in those conditions when the tools of approval and force are not politically

viable (Theobold, 1990). On the other side, Huntington (1968:196) suggests that,

utilizing of government and public funds to illegally develop stronger political party is

“only a mild form of corruption” if it all. Because the later outcomes of these public

and state funds will be beneficial for growth and development of the country

(Graziano, 1980). For instance, the Nineteenth century experience of England and

USA is a positive example in the use of state and public funds. Both countries used

these funds properly to assemble the strengths of their political parties (Perkins, 2000).

Page 9 of 20

Robert Hislope (2005) further defines the benefits of the political corruption by saying

that corruption is a form of political machine. It works, when political and

administrative system unable to address certain social necessities. Political machine

may play a vital role in managing disparate and conflict interests of civil society. This

machine not only gives access to the urban poor, new immigrants and ethnic

minorities to state resources, but, it also facilitates business elites for different

privileges (Hislope, 2005). Perkins (2000) suggests that, regimes in less developed

societies should encourage this political machine as they support hatchling business

organizations, because “development and consolidation benefit from them.”

According to him this machine may also build up the strong political staff. This staff

will have capability to defend, stabilize and unite the democratic rule. Moreover,

society will receive the benefit of this unity that may promote assistance in stabilizing

democracy and thriving economy (Perkins, 2000). Besides these arguments, Tanzi

(1998) feels that, this party financing may allow the state to maintain a lower tax

burden, which can also favour growth in a country. However, Tullock (1996) raises a

question here and asks that, whether this lower burden is more profitable to growth

than a lower degree of corruption?

Many scholars, including Voskanyan (2000) and Junichi Kwata (2006) also criticize

the relation of corruption and political development. According to them corruption

undermines the legitimacy of government and has harmful effects on political

development. They also demand for strict regulation and zero tolerance policy for

eroding corruption. However, in response, Hisolpe (2005) condemns this policy of

reducing corruption. He argues that, in this policy, the international community and

the developed countries undermines the only political mechanism of developing

countries that lies between “politics-as-bargaining and politics-as-war.” In short,

“corruption is capable of fostering social forces that undermine its own existence”

(Hisolpe, 2005).

NATIONAL INTEGRATION

Page 10 of 20

Society grows better if the political structure of the country maintains its legitimacy

and the members of the society share their sense of community (Hislope, 2005). In the

1960s and 1970s, different revisionists, such as Joseph Nye (1967) Samuel

Huntington (1968) and others argued that, under certain circumstances, corruption

could have positive and beneficial effects in maintaining legitimacy and development

in a society. It is basically a survival strategy for ethnic minorities, dispossessed and

subaltern in a society (Hislope, 2005). On the other side, it also facilitates elites into

their networks of self-interests. These both benefits make the bridge between the

minorities and the elite class that create unity and integration (Nye, 1967 & Hislope,

2005).

Different proponents of corruption also advanced the view that, corruption may

helpful in reducing discrimination among minority groups. This factor is also helpful

in economic growth of that country by utilising their skills (Lipset & Lenz, 2000).

This corruption may make a bridge among different groups that might otherwise end

in clash and conflict (Hislope, 2005). Similarly, Nye (1967) argues that, it is possible,

if there is more corruption in developing country. In this sense, entrepreneurs from

minorities ultimately get access to political decision making process that leads to less

discrimination and integration among different actors of the society. Corruption may

further allow these groups to assimilate each other and integrate their leaders into the

“existing upper class” (Nye, 1967).

Nye (1967) further states that, in early nationalist period, in the West Africa and the

Central America, corruption played vital role in the integration of their elite leaders.

Integration of millions of immigrants in the 19th century was also based on corruption.

Moreover, this integration may comfort the transition from traditional life to modern,

because integration maintains soft relation between literate official and illiterate

country person (Lipset & Lenz, 2000). The traditional life of country man will

improve, if he approaches the corrupt official with some money or gift (Nye, 1967).

As Shils' argues that, corruption “humanizes government and makes it less awesome"

(Dike, 2003).

Above arguments shows that, the corruption works as inclusion for the dispossessed, a

furnishing additional instruments for the promotion of elite unity and national

Page 11 of 20

integration (Holmes, 2005). However, some scholars criticize on the philosophy of

this theme and argue that, integration for one group may be disintegrative for another

(Voskanyan, 2000). In response, Holmes (2005) replies that the corrupt exchange

might be the remedy of this issue, because it may tame nationalism and foster

multiethnic coalitions.

CORRUPT EXCHANGE

According to Lipset & Lenz (2000), states are unable to resolve the contradictory

interests that occur in ethnically divided societies. This incapability produces

disintegrative violence and numerous external challenges. In this way, the corruption

exchange is a mechanism that may reduce the possibility of interethnic violence and

creates multiethnic coalition in rapidly changing societies (Holmes, 2005).

Furthermore, corruption tames nationalism that strengthens the regime stability and

moves towards disunity to consensual unity. Corruption may also provide a political

system to cope with the above issues with a rate of social change, which blocks the

political influence and coalitions among members (Holmes 2005). According to Scott

(1967: 508) this political system further leads to “politics-as-war” to “politics-as-

bargaining.”

According to Gagnon (2004), in the concept of corrupt exchange, the coalitions

among members are based on reciprocity. On these grounds, corrupt multiethnic

coalitions will likely create de-mobilizing regimes (Gagnon, 2004). This regime is

feasible, as no participant has concern in troubling and mobilizing its group against

the other. Such regimes may avoid interethnic disputes and violence and move

towards peace and unity (Horowitz, 1985). This unity can purchase peace by giving

each side a stake and a personal interest in the system. However, due to the elements

of reciprocity this coalition can move towards disintegration with in a year (Gagnon,

2004). Though, Holmes (2005) states that, long term coalition is possible, if these

ethnic party elites regularly interacts each other. This interaction may develop an

overarching network of influence and communication among elites. Furthermore, this

relation will dispel the hostile stereotypes and may discover the common norms.

These rules may further foster the mutual friendship and unity that tames the sense of

nationalism (Holmes 2005).

Page 12 of 20

Holmes (2005) further notifies the case study of Macedonia. In 2001, the state of

Macedonia successfully maintained interethnic peace with corrupt exchange. After

independence this state had numerous internal ethnic cleavages and challenges by

neighbouring countries. However, corrupt exchange facilitated effective elite unity

and made Macedonia enabled to survive its regional and domestic crises. Finally, the

Macedonian and Albanian party elites created robust coalition government. As in the

words of Holmes (2005) “corrupt exchange served as both glue and dissolvent in

Macedonia’s post-communist trajectory.” Servet Avziu, a state minister, once argued

in public that, people are in peace today, because we handled the situation and

maintained the peace in the state of Macedonia. However, Hugh Pope1 argued in his

response that “The people in power know what peace means and the price of peace.”

DISCUSSION:

In the current era, many scholars and international community frame corruption as

cancerous, and consider its impacts as `negative on economic, social and political

development (Larsson, 2006). However, this article elaborates that this complex issue

can be seen as positive and beneficial for many. Argument and evidences in the article

also illustrates that corruption is a good thing. For instance, it was argued that

corruption greases-the-wheels of commerce, strengthens political development and

brings integration in the society. It was also argued that corrupt exchange reduces the

possibility of interethnic violence and creates multiethnic coalition in ethnically

divided societies. In this sense, corruption can not be considered as negative, because

all forms of corruptions are not similar, and that some corruption might actually be

good (see, for example, Leff, Huntigton, and Lui).

Recent economic literature presents a good and a “romantic view of corruption”

(Tanzi & Davoodi, 2000). However, this concept may also contain some limitations.

For instances, these benefits may hold negative effects on progress and growth in the

developed countries. In another point of view, Lui (1996: 28) found that, corruption

1 Hugh Pope, “A Nation Clinging to Peace,” Los Angeles Times, (March 29, 1994): 2.

Page 13 of 20

has two effects: short term and long term. In short term, corruption produces

“allocative efficiency” and works as second best solution to market distortions, these

distortions may be created by government strict policies and regulations. On the other

hand, in long term, corruption itself produces market distortions and decreases its

efficiency. In sum up, even if corruption can be a useful means of bypassing

inefficiencies in the short term, in the long term it tends to create inefficiencies of its

own (Lui, 1996).

Moreover, Nye (1967) further defines the limitations of the corruption. He argues that,

corruption is only beneficial in favourable conditions, because in un-favourable

conditions, neither type of corruption is useful and may create various problems

detrimental to one another. Unfavourable conditions are defined by Nye as: Economic

development, national integration, more accountability, intolerant culture and secure

elites. On the other side, he described favourable conditions as: tolerant culture,

corrupted elites, dominance of more tolerant groups, less resources and less

accountability. Nye further argues that, corruption will be beneficial, if the

government will have some intervening problems or obstacles to development. For

instance, if the country is unable to make capitals by legal means, or ethnic hatred

issues threaten the legal activities in society. In this way, despite the high risk and cost,

corruption will be useful for the development. However, Hirschman (1965) indicates

the dangers in measuring the “obstacle to development”. He says that, corruption in

this situation may be beneficial to some one but might be harmful for others. So, there

is a need to understand different types of corruption in relation with different types of

problem.

On the other side of the mirror, some authors argue that, developed countries do not

recognize corruption as a useful concept. The reason is: with high resources and strict

regulation, they can “afford the luxury of wasting some of its wealth” (Frisch, 1996).

On the other side, corruption in developing countries plays an efficient role in low

resources, rigid regulations, inefficient bureaucracy and bad laws. This role further

provides the solutions that how to utilize financial resources in the best way possible

(Frisch, 1996). Andreas (2004) further argues that, such “clandestine commerce is

also an essential survival strategy for many people in the face of dire economic

conditions.” He believes that, rather than only condemning and promoting agenda

Page 14 of 20

against this act by the international community and developed countries, there is a

need for the deeper understanding of this issue. As Cirtautas (1999) believes that,

“This global anti-corruption agenda has been promoted with such a missionary zeal

that some call it the new “ethical infrastructure” of capitalism.” According to her,

corruption reflects the changing balance of power between the government and

capitalism in current international scenario.

As discussed in the article that, corruption brings lot of benefits and advantages. On

the other hand, this is also true that, if there are some people who can benefit by

paying bribes, this means that many other people will bear the costs. However, if

governments and international community want to win the fight against corruption,

they should know that: this fight can not be won with only creating an anticorruption

office and increasing penalties and then to expect quick and positive results from it.

Practically speaking, corruption without changing the policy of the state and without

improving the institutions would have a negative effect on economic and political

development of transition countries (Mauro, 1998 & Klitgaard, 1988).

CONCLUSION

Corruption is a complex phenomenon. Some consider it, as an obstacle to economic

and political development and believe that it creates disintegration. However, this

article advanced reverse thesis of this concept. It was argued by various evidences and

instances that corruption has a positive relation with economic growth, political

development and national integration in underdeveloped countries. It was further

argued that corruption is a political machine, that may strengthens the political parties

and stabilize democracy. This notion can also reduce interethnic violence and may

tame nationalism. It was also discussed that, these benefits have some limitations.

However, it was argued that whatever the limitations are, international community has

to understand that, corruption is basically a survival strategy for many countries. So

rather than promoting agenda against it they should understand the complexity of this

issue. Furthermore, if they really want to curb corruption they must improve the

institutions of the state. Without progressing these institutions this propaganda would

have a negative effect on economic and political development of the developing

Page 15 of 20

countries. “They also should know that corruption is not an existential evil, it is the

desire for justice distorted by fear” (Bond, 2000, p.8).

REFERENCES:

Andreas, P. (2004). The Clandestine Political Economy of War and Peace in Bosnia,International Studies Quarterly 48, pp. 29-51.

Boris, P., Jia, S., Djuro, N., Plamen, C. I. &. Eugene, S. (2008). Influence of

Corruption on Economic Growth Rate and Foreign Investments. Eur. Phys. J. B: 63,

pp. 547–550.

Bond, E. (2000). The Hidden Plot, London: Methuen.

Beck, P.J. & Maher, M. (1986). A comparison of bribery and bidding in thin markets.

Economics Letters 20, 1–5.

Bardhan, P. (1997). “Corruption and Development: A Review of Issues,” Journal of

Economic Literature, Vol. 35 (September), pp. 1320–46.

Cirtautas, A. M. (1999). “Corruption and the New Ethical Infrastructure of

Capitalism,” East European Constitutional Review, v.10, nos.2/3, (Spring/Summer

2001): 79-84.

Dike, V. E, (2003). Corruption in Nigeria: A New Paradigm for Effective Control.

Egger, P. & Winnerb, H. (2005). "Evidence on corruption as an incentive for foreign

direct investment", European Journal of Political Economy.

El-Sharkawy, A., Jarvis, M & Petkoski, (2006). Towards a More Systematic Fight

against Corruption. The Role of the Private Sector. A Report on the Global High-

Level E-Discussion.

Page 16 of 20

Frisch, D. (1996). The effects of corruption on development. The Courier ACP-EU

No. 158: pages 68 – 70.

Gupta, S., Hamid, D., & Rosa, A. T. (2002). “Does Corruption Affect Income

Inequality and Poverty?” Economics of Governance 3: 23–45.

Gould, D. J. (1999). “Administrative Corruption: Incidence, Causes, and Remedial

Strategies in A. Farazmand ed. Handbook of Comparative and Development Public

Administration, Marcel Dekker: New York.

Graziano, L. (1980). Clientelismo e Sistema Politico, Il Caso dell Italia . Milan: F.

Angeli.

Gagnon, V. P. (2004). The Myth of Ethnic War: Serbia and Croatia in the 1990s.

Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Horowitz, D. L. (1985). Ethnic Groups in Conflict, (Berkeley: University of

California Press): 365-395.

Hislope, R. (2005). When Being Bad is Good: Corrupt Exchange in Divided

Societies”, (Conference paper: “Postcommunist States and Societies: Transnational

and National Politics,” Maxwell School of Syracuse University, September 30–

October 1, 2005).

Huntington, S. P. (1968). Political Order in Changing Societies. New Haven: Yale

University Press.

Huntington, S. (1970). "Modernization and corruption", in A.J. Heidenheimer

(Eds),Holt, Reinhart and Winston, New York.

Hodess, R. (2004). ‘Introduction to Political Corruption’, in Global Corruption

Report 2004, Transparency International, Pluto Press, London, 9-18.

Page 17 of 20

Hirschman, A. (1965). "Obstacles to Development: A Classification and a Quasi-

Vanishing Act," Economic Development and Cultural Change, 13 (July 1965), 385-

393.

Kawata, J. (2006). Comparing Political Corruption and Clientelism. Cambridge

University Press.

Kaufmann, D. & Wei, S. J. (1998). "Does 'Grease Money' Speed up the Wheels of

Commerce?" paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Economic

Association (Chicago, January).

Lien, D. H. (1986). "A Note on Competitive Bribery Games." Economic Letters. 22.

pp. 337-41.

Lui, F. (1996). ‘Three aspects of corruption’, Contemporary Economic Policy, 14 (3),

26-29.

Leys, C. (1964). “What is the Problem about Corruption?” Journal of Modern

African Studies 3(2): 215-24.

Lipset, S. M. & Lenz, G. S. (2000). Corruption, Culture, and Markets, in Culture

Matters, Lawrence E. Harrison, and Samuel P. Huntington, eds., (New York: Basic

Books, 2000), p.112.

Mauro, P. (1995). “Corruption and Growth.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 110:

681-712.

Leff, N. H. (1964). “Economic Development through Bureaucratic Corruption.”

American Behavioural Scientist 8(3): 8-14.

Lui, F. (1985). “An Equilibrium Queuing Model of Bribery.” Journal of Political

Economy (4): 760-781.

Page 18 of 20

Larsson, T. (2006). "Reform, corruption and growth: why corruption is more

devastating in Russia than China", Communist and Post-Communist Studies, Vol. 39

No.2, pp.265-81.

Mauro, P. (1998). "Corruption and the Composition of Government Expenditure,"

Journal of Public Economics, 69, 263-279.

Mishra, A. (2006). “Corruption, hierarchies and bureaucratic structure” In Susan

Rose-Ackerman (Ed), The International Handbook on the Economics of Corruption,

Edward Elgar Publishing.

Miranov, M. (2005). Bad Corruption, Good Corruption and Growth,

http://home.uchicago.edu/~mmirono1/.

Nye, N. S. (1967). Corruption and political development: A cost-benefit analysis.

American Political Science Review 61: 417–427. Reprint in A.J. Heidenheimer, M.

Johnston and V.T. Levine (Eds.), Political corruption: A handbook, 963–984, Oxford,

Transaction Books.

Nye, J.S. (1970). Corruption and political development: A cost benefits analysis. In:

A.J. Heidenheimer (Ed).

Pope, H. (1994). “A Nation Clinging to Peace,” Los Angeles Times, (March 29, 1994):

2.

Perkins, D. (2000). ‘When is Political Corruption Good for Democracy? A

Comparative Analysis of Political Machines’, paper presented at the 2000 Annual

Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington DC, 31 August–3

September.

Sartori G. (1999). Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis, Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Page 19 of 20

Schlesinger, T. & Kenneth, J. M. (2002). “Variations in Corruption among the

American States.” In Political Corruption: Concepts and Contexts, Third Edition,

edited by Arnold J. Heidenheimer and Michael Johnston. New Brunswick, NJ:

Transaction, pp. 627-643.

Shleifer, A., Vishny, R.W. (1993), "Corruption", Quarterly Journal of Economics,

Vol. 108 pp.599-617.

Susan-Rose Ackerman, (1997). "Corruption, Inefficiency and Economic Growth,"

Nordic Journal of Political Economy, Nordic Journal of Political Economy, vol. 24,

pages 3-20.

Tanzi, V. & Davoodi, H. (2000). Corruption, Public Investment and Growth. Policies,

institutions and the dark side of economics, pp. 154-170. Cheltenham, U.K. and

Northampton, Mass.: Elgar.

Tanzi, V. (1998). "Corruption Around the World: Causes, Consequences, Scope, and

Cures." IMF Working Paper WP/98/63, pp.3, 6, 10-16.

Tanzi, V. (2002). "Corruption around the world." Applied Econometrics and

International Development 2 (1), 2002, 110-115.

Tullock, G. (1996). “Corruption Theory and Practice,” Contemporary Economic

Policy, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 6-13.

Theobold, R. (1999). “So What is Really the Problem about Corruption?” Third

World Quarterly, v.20, n.3, pp. 491-502.

Thomas, M. & Meagher, P. (2004). A Corruption Primer: An Overview of Concepts

in the Corruption Literature, Report prepared for the Office of Net Assessment U.S.

Department of Defence.

Theobald, R. (1990). Corruption, development, and underdevelopment. Durham, NC:

Duke University Press.

Page 20 of 20

Theobald, R., & Doig, A. (2000.) Corruption and democratisation. London: Frank

Cass.

Voskanyan, F. (2000). A study of the Effects of Corruption on Economic and Political

Development of Armenia. A published M. Sc. Thesis of the Graduate School of

Political Science and International Affairs November 2000.

Wint, G. (1955). Spotlight on Asia. Harmondsworth, Middlesex.

Wei, S. (2000). "How taxing is corruption on international investors?" Review of

Economics and Statistics 82 (1), 2000, 1-11.

Waldfogel, J. (2006). Driving in New Delhi. Don’t complain about standing in line at

the DMV. http://www.slate.com/id/2144122/.