THESIS: Corruption is caused by a mis-alignment between the size of the polity, and people's identification of their community of mutual interest.
People in Denmark don't steal from the state/society through corrupt practices because they expect Denmark writ large to support them if they need the help (over and above their local communities and even their families). By stealing from Danish society / the Danish state they'd essentially be stealing from themselves.
Conversely, where people depend more on their local communities and their families for support, and don't identify their interests with people who just happen to be part of the same economic area and tax base, it makes sense to steal what they can since it enriches their support group at the expense of these outsiders.
POINT: Is the solution to corruption to devolve authority to a level where people start seeing the point in following the rules?
Would an Italian who doesn't see the problem in cheating on his taxes think otherwise if the tax pool was reduced to his more local community? Would a Mexican who flouts laws set at the distant federal or state level think otherwise if they were all set by his city or district? Would a Kenyan bureaucrat who's happy to take bribes working on behalf of the country think otherwise if they were employed by their village?
And if so how do you apply this logic in the real world?
p.s. does this line of thinking have a name?
>>827312
Somalia isn't that corrupt honestly unless your a outlander.
>>827312
Corruption on those top5 countries are usually made in the open, its no big deal. Sweden for example, all top politicians in the govt have +10$ apt paid by unions paid by member fees, big scandal, now forgotten...
Theres so much public money being wasted in those countries, but people usually dont care cause living standards are still high, no1 bothers.
Intuitively it makes sense, but then you'd expect to see a correlation between the size of a country and level of corruption. I'm not sure I see that in that map.
>>827323
Its a -perception- index.
I'll share my analysis of Brazil, as I see it.
It comes from selfishness, the thought that you, your family and close ones matter more than anyone else.
Many politicians take money for themselves not because they are evil people that'd rather see the world burn, but because they probably have somebody at home they'd like to sustain a better life, or even themselves. And once they start, they see the opportunities before them and do not stop, even if in theory that means ruining somebody else's life or their country, they're unable to see that. Many of them know the consequences of what they're doing from the first second.
Another thing that usually happens is that the subject's family and friends support it. If a man finds a law loophole and starts abusing it to profit, in corrupt countries it's likely his close ones will ask for a little for themselves rather than telling him to quit it or even reporting him.
Low corruption rates usually come from countries where families and friends are rather "cold" to one another, and would generally report and shun a fellow family member that "dishonors" them rather than trying to help the fellow or even making profit of it.
A most notorious example that keeps repeating itself in Brazil is that of the teen/young adult that murders somebody else and their mother keeps covering him against cameras and showing support for him even if it's been proved that her child committed outright murder.
>>827312
>Corruption is caused by a mis-alignment between the size of the polity, and people's identification of their community of mutual interest.
So you're saying corruption is essentially Durkheimian anomie?
Sounds like a leap to me. I think misalignment of an individual's feelings toward the polity is way more likely to cause suicide or terrorism than it is corruption.
Corruption is more likely to simply be an effect of capitalism if you ask me.
>>827470
>Low corruption rates usually come from countries where families and friends are rather "cold" to one another, and would generally report and shun a fellow family member that "dishonors" them rather than trying to help the fellow or even making profit of it.
I get this impression as well.
The more individualistic / less family-oriented a society, the BETTER is operates, since there are no intermediate allegiances between the individual and the state/law/order.
In the most advanced countries, it makes sense to turn in even your parents / children, since ultimately you rely on the state (for your health and welfare, pension, etc) much more than family.
You can see this play out also within countries with the defensive 'dindu' reaction of less successful segments to criminality in their midst vs. the 'tough love' attitude prevalent among the more successful.
>>827502
>capitalism
Corruption was hilariously rife in every Communist state ever. Capitalism has nothing to do with it.
I think corruption in Denmark simply takes a different form. I know more masons and smiths here in Jutland that do "black" work than ones who do legit work, but everyone sees it as doing each other favours.
>>827590
I think it has something to do with it, because everyone has a self-interest to gain money for themselves in a capitalist system, and this attitude is at odds with a concern for the well-being of the society you're a part of.
Of course communist states were corrupt, but we are talking about current society.
>>827619
There are things to gain other than money. Privileges, power, etc. motivate just as well.
I really don't think 'capitalist' vs. 'socialist' has anything to do with it. Under any system you can illegitimately take resources for yourself at the expense of the larger society.
So, it's an expression of community tensions or tribalist\sectarian attitudes?
>>827634
So you don't think propaganda and socialization has anything to do with people's behavior?
The southern cone (Argentina Chile uruguay) is always leading south America in a positive way, for example, they have the highest hdi, per capita gdp, etc. They are also culturally very similar.
But in this index, while Chile and Uruguay are in the "clean" group, even above many European countries, Argentina is classified as one of the most corrupts countries in the world.
Why?
>>827679
The most corrupt countries typically have the most over-the-top nationalistic socialistic propaganda, extolling people to work together and take pride in the country. Yet these countries in practice have weak predatory states and low trust.
Contrast with the most advanced law-abiding countries, where anything that hints at nationalism and collectivism is suspect (and often politically incorrect); yet in practice these countries do the best job of spreading wealth via the state, and have high levels of trust between individuals.
I'm sure I'm not the first person to point out that overtly socialist governments inevitably lead to libertarian anarchy in practice, while classical liberal governments inevitably evolve into welfare states.
>>827679
>socialization
wew
>>827710
Not a close follower of Argentina, but the government there - all governments - strike me (from what I see in the news) as extremely arbitrary and capricious. Corruption in the name of populism.
OTOH Chile seems much more institutions and rules-based, on the model of the Anglo-Germanic countries.
>>827312
>they'd essentially be stealing from themselves.
Well, duh. It's their fucking money in the first place. The state doesn't have any money, It takes, and redistributes the money of the people.
And yeah, it makes sense. People don't steal in Denmark because they'll get money if they need it, anyhow.
>>827734
>where anything that hints at nationalism and collectivism is suspect (and often politically incorrect);
And why is that you think? It's clearly because there's already a narrative in place, and hints at nationalism and collectivism are at odds with that narrative.
While I agree that the countries that are corrupt, such as many in South-America, probably are so because of many factors including as you say a lot of propaganda, which is clearly designed to deflect people's attention away from what the ruling elites are actually doing.
However, I personally think that the most advanced law-abiding countries are simply more effective at hiding corruption, than it actually being non-existent.
>>827772
I think it depends on your definition of corruption.
In the law abiding democratic countries groups compete to further their own interests at the expense of others, as they do in any society. But the key difference is that it's done legally and openly (my impression anyway is that true illegality in government is extremely rare in top-tier countries)
E.g. a business lobbying for special favours and giving campaign donations might be taken as 'corrupt' in an abstract sense, but if it's done within the rules and transparently then it's not 'corruption' in the sense Transparency International is talking about.
Going things in an illegal fashion in these countries is both too risky to be worth it (because of effectively and vigilant states and civil societies), but it's also largely unnecessary since the political system is much more responsive. E.g. you can lobby to have some rules or procedure changed officially, vs. having to pay a bribe to have it ignored unofficially.
>>827809
I guess you have way more faith in the efficacy of the modern legal state than I do then.
Behold the proud incorruptible Dane!
>Is the solution to corruption to devolve authority to a level where people start seeing the point in following the rules?
>Would an Italian who doesn't see the problem in cheating on his taxes think otherwise if the tax pool was reduced to his more local community?
Depends on peer influence and his own upbringing, whether he does or doesn't understand the knock-on effects.
Thinking it over, I think the key is to break down family ties, not devolution of government.
If giant diverse countries like the US, Canada, and Australia can be so relatively law-abiding, following the dictates of distant authority doesn't seem to be a problem. I think it helps that people in those countries in particular are so rootless, moving around the country and having very weak family ties.
>>827312
>Botawana that high
Damn
>>827868
More like Germany absorbs the Muslims.
Denmark and Scan. is nothing special. Just wait till Germany overflows with the snackbars.
