Chapter 4

Causes of and Conditions for Corruption

Which circumstances, developments or characteristics influence the level and forms of corruption in a country? What explains the cases that occur? In short, what are the causes of corruption? Unless the causes of corruption are clearly identified, it is difficult to prioritise effective anti-corruption strategies, which should address these causes in order to prevent corruption from occurring in future.

Arguably, the choice of analytical framework employed to analyse corruption influences the view on the causes of corruption and associated control measures. For example, using public choice theory where corruption is seen to arise from interactions between clients — whether businesspeople, ordinary citizens, politicians and public officials who are assumed to be narrowly self-seeking in their behaviour — economic reforms and downsizing the state are viewed as the principal anti-corruption reform measures.

According to Johnston, entrenched corruption features in societies with the following characteristics:

low political competition;

low and uneven economic growth;

a weak civil society; and

the absence of institutional mechanisms to deal with corruption.19

In contrast, those societies which are relatively free of corruption are premised on respect for civil liberties, accountable government, a wide range of economic opportunities, and structured political competition. These are mainly, but not exclusively, characteristics of developed western states.

Huntington postulated a variety of propositions about the conditions favouring corruption in government. Several of these find resonance in the South African context:

Corruption tends to increase in a period of rapid growth and modernisation, because of changing values, new sources of wealth and power, and the expansion of government.



There tends to be less corruption in countries with more social stratification, more class polarisation and more feudal tendencies. These conditions provide a more articulated system of norms and sanctions, which reduces both the opportunity for and the attractions of corrupt behaviour.



A country’s ratio of political to economic opportunities affects the nature of corruption. If the former outweigh the latter, then people enter politics in order to make money, which will lead to a greater extent of corruption.



If foreign business is prevalent, corruption tends to be promoted.



The less developed political parties are, the more prevalent is corruption.20

Causes of corruption in South African society

This section explores experts’ opinions on the cause of corruption in South African society, in general, and more specifically in government. In order to elicit a better understanding of the causes of corruption, a number of conditions and popular assumptions were also probed. These include the perception that government officials are so poorly paid that they have no choice but to ask for extra payment; paying bribes to government officials or doing favours for them helps to overcome the red tape of bureaucracy; democratic systems increase the incidence of corruption in a country; and privatisation increases the potential for corruption.

When asked to identify the main causes of corruption in South Africa, respondents provided a wealth of different answers. These have been grouped into five categories for purposes of analysis.

A decline in morals and ethics was the most commonly cited reason for corruption in South African society, in general, accounting for nearly a third (31%) of responses (figure 10). This was followed by greed and the desire for self-enrichment (25%), and socio-economic conditions such as poverty and unemployment (18%). Institutional reasons such as weak checks and balances accounted for more than a tenth (14%) of the responses, followed by the apartheid legacy and the process of transformation (12%)

When asked about the causes of corruption in government, similar reasons were given to those perceived in society (figure 11). However, these were prioritised slightly differently by the experts. Weak checks and balances together with mismanagement were the most common reasons given (38%) as the main causes of corruption in government. Greed and self-enrichment were again ranked second, accounting for 28% of responses. The general decline in morals and ethics was the next most common cause (17%), followed by the legacy of apartheid (9%) and socio-economic conditions (8%).

The reasons cited by white experts were more evenly distributed across the various categories than those given by black experts, who tended to focus on issues relating to the legacy of apartheid (26%), and the abuse of power (39%).

Other relevant research findings

Huberts’ panel was asked to indicate the importance of 20 social, economic, political, organisational and individual factors which are mentioned as causes of corruption in literature on the issue. While most of the 20 factors were considered to be important by the majority of experts, more than 80% of the panel were convinced of the importance of the eight causes listed in table 7.

With a few exceptions, there was significant consensus between the respondents from both the lower and higher income countries about the causes of fraud and corruption. "Mismanagement and misorganisation", "public sector culture" and "increasing strength of organised crime" were three factors considered to be important by more than 80% of the experts from both the higher and lower income countries. There were, however, several factors that were more important to lower income countries, which are clearly related to developmental problems. These include social inequality, rapid social change, rapid economic growth, strong interrelationships between politics and administration and low salaries in the public sector.

Analysis

What are the causes of corruption? This is the first time such a question has been asked in a survey of this kind in South Africa. Experts cited declining morals and ethics, greed, socio-economic conditions, weak checks and balances and political transformation as the main causes for corruption in South African society, whereas corruption in government was seen to be more concerned with weak internal controls and systems, and mismanagement, followed by greed and a decline in morals and ethics.

These variations suggest a differentiated response to the control of corruption. Measures to address the causes of corruption in government therefore have to be aimed more at improving systems and controls rather than influencing individual or social morality. However, it would do no harm to improve the professional ethics of those working in government.

When it comes to individual moral failings such as greed and a proclivity to self-enrichment within a context of declining morals and values, where and how should interventions be introduced, especially when measures to improve ethics are seen as the soft side of anti-corruption controls? It would appear that the moral regeneration of South Africa and former president Mandela’s call for a ‘reconstruction and development programme of the soul’ is a priority intimately linked to the effective fight against corruption.

Clearly, it cannot be assumed that the technicist approach to public service reform is sufficient in preventing corruption and more fundamental interventions are required from an early age, rather than on the job training, to promote morals and values that uphold the values enshrined in the constitution.

Are South Africans an inherently corrupt, self-enriching, greedy and opportunistic bunch? How should these causes of corruption be addressed? Experts were also asked to rank a list of 30 anti-corruption strategies in terms or their potential effectiveness. It is interesting to compare these results with the underlying causes of corruption identified in South Africa.

Conditions for corruption

Low salaries

A series of common perceptions on the causes of corruption were presented to expert respondents who were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with them. While differences in opinion were analysed by race, the small groups within the sample did not allow for analysis of responses by sector.

The first statement suggested that government officials are so poorly paid that they have no choice but to ask people for extra payments.

The majority (57%) of those who strongly agreed with this statement were employed in the public sector, while a third (35%) of those who strongly disagreed worked within the public and civil society sectors. The majority of the private sector experts either disagreed (35%) or strongly disagreed (39%).

Analysis

Clearly, the majority of experts did not agree that government officials were poorly paid and that this would be a reason to extract bribes from citizens. This is confirmed by their responses to the request to rank the effectiveness of anti-corruption strategies. Increasing the salaries of government employees did not rank particularly high, although experts were able to differentiate between paying the police better salaries, something which was thought to be effective in the fight against corruption.

Recent research undertaken by the United Nations Desk for Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) on public service ethics in Africa confirms that, in the Southern African region, South African public officials are paid far above the norm. These salaries — ranging between US $4 964 and US $60 273 — compete well with private sector remuneration and the public sector therefore both attracts and retains professional employees.21

Bribery and bureaucracy

Experts were asked to express an opinion on whether the payment of bribes to government officials, or doing favours for them, helped them to overcome the red tape of bureaucracy and made it easier to get things done.

Only 52% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement that bribes paid to government officials helped to overcome the red tape of bureaucracy (table 9). Of the respondents, 39% agreed or strongly agreed that paying a bribe to a government official made it easier to get things done. Among white respondents, there was little difference between those who agreed or strongly agreed (45%) and those who disagreed or strongly disagreed (48%). However, a significant higher percentage of black respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed (58%) than those who agreed or strongly agreed (33%).

Analysis

The payment of bribes is seen by almost 40% of the respondents to overcome bureaucratic delays. From their perspective, corruption pays. It is very concerning that so many of the experts held this opinion. The question invariably arises: how many have acted on it? Strong private sector agreement with this statement could lead to the belief that common business practice might include bribing officials in order to speed up processes and make it easier to get things done.

Corruption and democracy

The next statement put to the experts suggested that democratic systems of government increase the prevalence of corruption in a country.

The majority of respondents either disagreed (45%) or strongly disagreed (34%) with the statement that democratic systems of government increase the prevalence of corruption in a country, while only 14% agreed (table 10). While little racial variation was identified, a marginally higher percentage of white respondents agreed with the statement, while a slightly lower percentage than black respondents disagreed.

Analysis

The pluralist approach assumes that political initiatives centred on the creation of new democratic institutions — such as elected legislatures, parliamentary committees and watchdog bodies — are central to the success of efforts to control corruption. Democratic systems of governance premised on commitments to accountability, openness and transparency are also thought to create conditions that discourage corruption.

However, Johnston suggests that democratic rights and processes as such do not make a significant contribution to reducing corruption. Indeed, there are many examples of countries where corruption has increased in spite of the existence of formal democratic institutions, India and Nigeria being prominent among them. While political competition offers opportunities for the new political élite to gain legitimacy by taking action against corruption, it can also enable them to secure greater access to existing rentseeking opportunities.

Corruption and privatisation

Experts were asked to respond to the statement that by selling government factories and businesses to private citizens (privatisation), the potential for corruption in government increases.

More than half (58%) of the respondents disagreed with the statement that privatisation increases the potential for corruption (table 11). Almost a third (31%) agreed with this statement. A higher percentage of white respondents were likely to be ambivalent about the statement than their black counterparts.

Analysis

There are persuasive arguments that the privatisation of state-run services and enterprises can curb corruption. This refers particularly to inefficient parastatals that, because of their monopoly positions, are able to extract huge sums from the public coffers, as well as from providing private sector services. By reducing the degree of interaction between the private and public sectors, privatisation directly reduces the opportunities for corrupt behaviour. Private sector accounting methods and competitive market pressures are also believed to reduce the opportunities for wrongdoing and make it more difficult to hide such activities.22 The expectation is that, by reducing the size of the public sector and the direct involvement of the state in economic activity, opportunities for rentseeking activities will diminish.

However, these benefits must be weighed against the possible adverse effects of privatisation. In practice, the evidence that it reduces corruption is far from clear-cut.23 Privatisation in the absence of effective regulation has the potential to generate high levels of economic rent, especially in natural monopolies, and the private appropriation of public assets through illegal means.24 Rather than to create a clear distinction between public and private sectors, privatisation programmes have often been characterised by the emergence of a series of quasi-governmental regulatory agencies. This process of ‘agencification’ linked to the doctrine of ‘new public management’ has created significant opportunity structures to peddling influence, as well as to remove many regulatory agencies from direct public accountability.25

Almost a third of the experts agreed that privatisation increases the potential for government corruption, an opinion possibly informed by ideological considerations that disagree, in principle, with the privatisation of state assets. As the government presses ahead with its privatisation programme, it would be wise to ensure that effective regulation is in place to avoid the creation of new opportunities for corruption.

How does corruption occur?

In attempting to probe the actual form of corrupt practices in South Africa, respondents who indicated that they had been victims of corruption were asked to describe the situation in which the corruption occurred. Three potential scenarios were provided, and respondents selected the most appropriate response.

Of the 51 experts who experienced corruption, the most likely response (43%) was that a public official requested or hinted at payment (figure 12). This is followed by a third of the respondents (33%) who experienced a situation where they, or people they knew, were expected to know in advance what the method and amount were. In less than a quarter (24%) of the situations, the offer was made spontaneously by the citizen.

Analysis

It appears as if the demand side of corruption (the public official requests or hints at payment) is more prevalent than the supply side (where the offer is made spontaneously by the citizen). This points to the arrogance of corrupt officials who are confident that they can make demands in a relatively risk-free environment with no checks or controls to influence their behaviour. However, it is the routine, transactive, entrenched form of corruption — where it is known beforehand how it is done and how much to pay — that is of the greatest concern. This could potentially indicate that corruption has a systemic nature and has become entrenched and pervasive across the public sector, influencing expectations on both sides of how things work and how they are done.

The key question is how many of those who believed that paying bribes to government officials helps overcome the red tape have actually acted on this belief. Interestingly, of those experts who either agreed or strongly agreed to the benefits of paying a bribe, almost two-thirds (61%) had had personal experience, or knew someone who had experienced an incident of corruption. This may imply that those who acknowledge the benefits of corruption, in official spheres at least, are likely to engage in some form of corruption themselves. The perception clearly exists that bribery produces benefits and expedites various otherwise arduous processes. This is exacerbated by the fact that bribery is seen as a victimless crime, in that there are two partners. For example, someone may need a passport quickly, but is prepared to pay the customs official R300 for expediting the request or bypassing certain rules and regulations. The challenge is thus to counter this perception. The fact that more than 30% of the expert group had experienced corruption personally, or knew someone else who did, is cause for some concern.