Corruption in Russia has become the main and dynamically growing sector of the economy. What is corruption in simple words Types of corruption and examples

Fighting corruption without removing its causes only increases its scale: bribes are now taken less frequently, but on a larger scale. The rise in price of such “services” is one of the main reasons why inflation in Russia is falling so slowly. The only way to defeat corruption in all its Russian diversity is to free the economy from state control and stop oppressing the opposition and the media. The problem is that the costs of truly combating bribery exceed the costs of bribery itself, the authors write.

Not a single developed country has yet managed to get rid of corruption. But in the West it is mostly “business” - i.e. affects the relationship between business and government.

Russia has prepared for itself a cocktail of all possible types of corruption, which has replaced all other economic incentives.

The evolution of corruption in Russia

1. For "Western corruption" characterized by low everyday corruption, the absence of corruption networks, as well as strong lobbying on the part of big business and its attempts to influence the government, which is formally separated from this business.

2. In case of corruption "eastern type" the level of everyday bribery is high, and the entire economy is permeated with threads of patron-client relations.

3. "Latin American Corruption" used by business as an instrument of political control, and big capital dominates power. Direct taxes are taken from small businesses.

4."African corruption"- this is a type of patriarchal relationship in a large family, where power controls everything.

5. "Socialist corruption" arises in a planned economy due to constant shortages of goods and shortcomings of central planning.

In Russia at the beginning of the twentieth century, corruption was of the Western type in business and of the Eastern type in everyday life, although it did not exist at all in education and health care.

During Soviet times, it became half Eastern, half socialist.

With the beginning of perestroika (1985-1991), according to experts, new corruption features were added to the late Soviet system: Western and Latin American.

Under Yeltsin, typical patriarchal corruption of the African type appeared in the national republics and some other regions, the Soviet one lost all ground and disappeared, and a burning mixture of Western and Latin American types spread throughout the economy. Now there is clearly a mixture of African and Latin American variants in the country, and in everyday life - hospitals, universities, schools, military registration and enlistment offices - Eastern bribery is still widespread.

Everyday corruption in Russia

The first anti-corruption law was introduced by Vladimir Putin back in 2001, after which in four years its volume increased 9 times. In 2008, the new President Dmitry Medvedev signed a decree on anti-corruption measures, which, according to him, showed “modest” results.

But there was still a result. As a survey by the INDEM Foundation shows, the result of the fight against bribery is that officials, although they are afraid to take, still take it with a large premium for the risk. This was especially evident in the “domestic sphere”.

The volume of markets for everyday corruption services is growing, despite the fight against bribes

Now they take less often, but more

• The number of corrupt transactions has decreased by a third since 2005 - from 47 million to 31 million, which is also due to the anti-corruption campaign.
• The willingness to pay bribes has decreased overall, but not in all “industries”: more people are willing to pay, for example, for a promotion.
• Due to the shortening of service life, military registration and enlistment offices now receive 7 times less bribes. They pay 3 times less for real estate registration.
• The police also began to take less. This is not explained by the renaming, but by the fact that the “grain branches” - migration control and registration at the place of residence - were taken away from the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
• But the size of bribes that police officers take has increased significantly. Annual revenues from corruption in the market for security services provided by the police have increased 13-fold since 2005.
• The income of corrupt officials in the medical services market has doubled. In preschool institutions, which are in short supply, the volume of the bribe market has grown fourfold.
• The traffic police remain among the leaders in the corruption economy.

Doctors charge more than traffic cops

Business corruption in Russia

The real average size of a bribe that officials received from businessmen increased more than 13 times over four years. In 2001, the average bribe could buy 30 square meters of housing, and in 2005 - already 209 square meters.

• The share of large bribes increased from 5% to 25%.
• The volume of the business corruption market has grown 9 times. Entrepreneurs gave about a third of their income to bribes.
• In 2005, income from oil exports was half the volume of the business corruption market - $149 billion versus $318 billion.
• According to economists, shadow turnover in 2005 amounted to about 40% of the total turnover of all firms.
• The growth of corruption in the middle of the last decade was obviously influenced by the Khodorkovsky case, after which entrepreneurs for the most part chose a corrupt business strategy rather than a legal one - due to the high costs of the latter.
• Representatives of the executive branch took the largest number of bribes due to the fact that the economy was already dominated by the state. The judiciary has been left far behind, but this does not apply to the segment where there is the interest of a third party - the authorities. The courts, the report's authors believe, are susceptible to political corruption.
• In 2005, small businesses often had to pay bribes to the police, large businesses paid the most to the tax authorities, and medium businesses paid the most to the licensing authorities.
• Direct extortion has disappeared. Kickback schemes have become more long-term and complex.

All these trends took hold in the second half of the 2000s. According to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the size of bribes has increased even more. The anti-corruption campaign has a negative impact here too, analysts write. “They are now taking like it was the last time,” one of the big business representatives they interviewed characterizes the increase in bribes.

Best Corrupt Practices

The most successful companies in Russia are those that profess two strategies at once: corrupt interaction with the authorities and the seizure of business by government officials or with their help in order to obtain rent.

Another effective strategy is the systematic “feeding” of the authorities. If you give small bribes and do it rarely, then the effectiveness will be low.

Is it possible to fight corruption?

Scientists name the reasons why the fight against corruption does not bring results:

• Problems with public administration give rise to bribery, and bribery gives rise to problems with public administration.
• The costs of overcoming corruption are higher than the costs of corruption itself.
• Giving a bribe is a social norm.
• Corruption has infiltrated the security forces.
• Corruption destroys morality and causes degradation of the legal consciousness of citizens, which gives rise to new corruption.
• It leads to the destruction of legal relations, which are replaced by corrupt practices.
• Economic laws do not apply in the economy, and the main source of cost inflation is the increase in the amount of bribes. Consequently, bribes are also paid by those who do not give them.

Scientists see only a radical way out of the vicious circle of corruption: the state must restore political competition in the country, return the principle of separation of powers and withdraw from the economy as far as possible.

Corruption as a social phenomenon

The term “corruption” is based on the Latin verb “rumpere”, meaning “to violate something”. In general, this translation gives a general idea of ​​the essence of corruption - the corruption of power through bribery. The Latin-Russian dictionary, in addition to the above meanings, also lists such meanings as “seduction, decline, perversion, bad condition, vicissitude (of opinion or views), as well as to upset, damage, degrade, destroy, destroy, seduce, seduce, corrupt, distort, falsify, disgrace, dishonor.” In Roman law, this term denoted the activities of several individuals aimed at disrupting the normal course of the judicial process or the management of society, and a number of acts related to falsification and damage to government documents, bribery of judges, or moral corruption of someone else’s slave were considered corruption. The concept of corruption refers to complex, multidimensional categories, to the disclosure of the essential content of which researchers approach from different positions. We can talk about corruption as a criminal act and consider this phenomenon in legal aspect(that is, through the concepts of legality and illegality).In context sociological discourse corruption is studied as a complex, multidimensional social phenomenon, which covers all areas of social relationships between civil society and the state and takes root in society, becoming a social norm. In sociology, corruption is interpreted as a type of deviant (deviant) behavior, as a violation role functions members of society under the direct influence of private interests, such as incompatible with status public servant selfish act (“refusal of expected standards of behavior on the part of government officials for the sake of illegal personal gain”). At the same time, it seems that corruption is a social phenomenon consisting in the decomposition of power, when state (municipal) employees and other persons authorized to perform public functions use their official position, status and authority of their position for selfish purposes for personal enrichment or in group interests. She is regarded as a disease of developing societies, a result of poverty. There is also everyday understanding corruption, which is formed on the basis of the experience of the population. The phenomenon of corruption here is often reduced to a bribe, nepotism, while it is mythologized and presented as an inevitable, integral part of culture, certain rules of the game, which, due to the lack of choice, must be unconditionally accepted by everyone. Bribery, “administrative delight” (as F. Dostoevsky aptly described it), nepotism become a social norm, finding its expression in everything, even in folklore (“if you don’t grease, you won’t go”). Russians consider bribes rather “economic costs” and treat them as “the norm.” The most complete and profound understanding of corruption is possible by studying it as social phenomenon, social practice, stereotypes of consciousness and their emotional perception. Corruption in social terms is one of the manifestations of corruption. The process of social construction of corruption includes: the presence of many facts of corruption (bribery) of various civil servants and officials; awareness of these facts as a social problem; criminalization of some forms of corrupt activities; reaction of politicians, law enforcement agencies, lawyers , the media, the population on corruption, etc. In modern society, including Russian, corruption is social institution, element of the management system, closely interconnected with other social institutions - political, economic, cultural. The institutionalization of corruption is evidenced by: 1 its implementation of a number of social functions- simplification of administrative connections, acceleration and simplification of management decision-making, consolidation and restructuring of relations between social classes and groups, promotion of economic development by reducing bureaucratic barriers, optimization of the economy in conditions of resource shortages, etc. the presence of well-defined subjects corruption relationships (patron - client), distribution social roles(bribe giver, bribe taker, intermediary); the presence of certain rules of the game, norms, known to subjects of corruption activities; established slang And symbolism(for example, the well-known and generally understood gesture of rubbing the thumb of the index and middle fingers) of corrupt practices; established and known to interested parties dachshund services. For example, tax collection traffic police officers was published back in 1996 by the Strela newspaper. Existing taxes in the field have been published "law enforcement": fee for not initiating a criminal case ($1000-10000), for changing the preventive measure with release from custody ($20000-25000), for mitigating the punishment ($5000-15000), for ignoring customs violations ($10000-20000 or 20-25% of customs duty). And here is the “service price” for highest federal level: the cost of appointing a State Duma deputy to the position of committee chairman is about $30,000, the cost of introducing any bill for consideration by the State Duma is about $250,000, the status of an assistant to a deputy is estimated at $4,000-5,000. It turned out that the shadow reality is not only a “second economy” or corruption, but covering the entire society as a whole, a complete institutional system (economics, law, administrative relations, etc.), is entirely outside the scope of legal law.” And corruption is only an element (albeit one of the most important, perhaps the most important) of this shadow reality of our existence.

The concept of corruption, its signs and types, forms of manifestation

In the Basic Provisions of the draft Federal Law “Fundamentals of Anti-Corruption Policy”: corruption- bribery (giving or receiving a bribe), as well as any illegal use by a person of his public status, associated with obtaining benefits (property, services or benefits, including non-property ones) both for himself and for his loved ones, contrary to legitimate interests society and the state, or providing such benefit to a specified person. However, there are other definitions of corruption. For example , corruption– this is a social phenomenon expressed in the use by a person of his power, organizational and administrative or administrative and economic functions in order to obtain material and other benefits; this is the abuse of power by persons performing managerial functions in state and non-state organizations and institutions to obtain property benefits in the interests of themselves and their loved ones, which has caused harm to the rights and legitimate interests of citizens and organizations, the interests of society and the state protected by law; this is an abuse (exceeding) of power (official) powers for personal and corporate interests; this is a state of public authority in which the exercise of its functions becomes possible only on a reimbursable basis, etc. Indeed, corruption in the narrow sense - this is when officials deliberately neglect their duties or act contrary to these duties for the sake of a certain material reward. Along with corruption in the narrow sense, there is bribery and independent bureaucratic entrepreneurship. Bribery differs from corruption in that an official is bribed not for the sake of violating his duties, but for the sake of their fulfillment. Official entrepreneurship differs from corruption in the absence of a bribery party. The customer of the official violation here is the performer himself, who derives income from the monopoly on decision-making. All of these forms are united by the use of official position for private interests - “privatization of the state.”

Types of corruption. As I mentioned above, corruption is a very complex, due to its ambiguity, and poorly studied phenomenon. Usually in the literature there are two types of corruption inherent in absolutely all its mechanisms: - top - bottom. First covers politicians, senior and middle bureaucrats and is associated with making decisions that have a high price. For example, formulas of laws, government orders, changes in forms of ownership of a significant part of state-owned property. Here, corruption begins when the goals of protecting the interests of the state and society are replaced by the selfish interests of an official, embodied in specific actions. The problem is very simple, for example, the state budget is not transparent, and depending on the situation, some may receive funds at the beginning of the year, while others - two years after the adoption of the budget. If someone is entitled to some kind of industry support, then, of course, any employee of the Ministry of Finance who distributes these amounts is a very important figure. This is one side of the matter. These are the three most significant services that can be obtained from a government official. Such conditions are accompanied by many acts for the issuance of government loans, budget funds, as well as in the distribution of government orders. The cooperation of officials with commercial banks made it possible to change the forms of receiving bribes in cash and move to preferential loans, inflated interest on deposits and other forms of gratitude. At the same time, the transfer of illegal proceeds abroad reduces the risk of corrupt transactions and thereby encourages corruption.

Second common at the middle and lower levels, and is associated with constant, routine interaction between officials and citizens (fines, registrations, etc.). The situation in which lower-ranking officials took bribes and part of the money received was transferred to higher-level officials existed only in the first 2–4 years of the development of a market economy in Russia. Then there was a common scheme in which access to a higher official was carried out through a lower official. This limited competitors' ability to access high-level officials. Then the financial capabilities of the oligarchic groups increased so much that they no longer needed intermediaries to access senior officials.

The following types of corruption are distinguished: Everyday corruption is generated by the interaction of ordinary citizens and officials. It includes various gifts from citizens and services to the official and his family members. Nepotism (nepotism) also falls into this category. Business corruption arises from the interaction between government and business. For example, in the case of a business dispute, the parties may seek to enlist the support of a judge in order to make a decision in their favor.
Corruption of supreme power refers to political leadership and supreme courts in democratic systems. It concerns groups in power whose dishonest behavior consists of implementing policies in their own interests and to the detriment of the interests of voters. The official definition of corruption is given in the Federal Law of December 25, 2008 No. 273-FZ “On Combating Corruption” in the following form: abuse official position, giving a bribe, receiving a bribe, abuse of power, commercial bribery or other illegal use by an individual of his official position contrary to the legitimate interests of society and the state in order to obtain benefits in the form of money, valuables, other property or services of a property nature, other property rights for themselves or for third parties, or the illegal provision of such benefits to the specified person by other individuals.
Legislatively, the concept of “corruption” is defined in two meanings (simple and complex - if we resort to the language of criminal law): 1) as an identified and proven fact of abuse of official position by a person (official or other person). The forms of such abuse are further clarified: bribe (giving or receiving), commercial bribery or other use by an individual of his official position contrary to the legitimate interests of society and (or) illegally;
2) as an identified and proven fact of abuse by a person of official position on behalf of or in the interests of a legal entity.
A special approach to the definition of the concept under consideration is noted, based on the collective content.

Forms of corruption. Based on the types of corruption listed above, the following forms of corruption are distinguished: bribery for the legal and illegal provision of goods and services; protectionism, manifested in official promotions of individuals on the basis of kinship, friendship or personal loyalty; merging of government employees with criminal elements and concealment of crimes of individuals and ensuring their impunity; support and lobbying of the interests of the shadow economy in response to political support or promotion to positions in government structures; investment in private enterprises and organizations at the expense of the state or local budget; privatization with the illegal transfer of state property into private hands, aptly named among the people “privatization”; provision of benefits, secret official information to interested parties; providing the right or opportunity to enter into profitable contracts; assistance in concluding contracts with foreign companies that are unfavorable for the state, and others. Existing

forms of corruption varied: bribery is a collective term that covers two independent elements of official crimes against state power, the interests of the civil service and service in local governments - receiving and giving a bribe; exceeding and abusing official powers is a crime against the interests of the state (municipal) service. It consists in the use by an official of his official powers contrary to the interests of the service or clearly beyond the scope of official powers, if this act was committed out of selfish or other personal interest and entailed a significant violation of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens or organizations, or legally protected interests of society or the state; favoritism - historically: a sociocultural phenomenon that aimed to elevate a specific person (or group of people) in connection with the personal favor of the monarch for the favorite; nepotism (nepotism) - historically: the distribution by the popes of lucrative positions, highest church titles or lands to close relatives for the sake of strengthening their power. Higher officials, like

As a rule, they do not have the opportunity to transfer their power directly to their children, but they use their power to provide it to their close relatives. The harm from nepotism is to limit competition and suppress the selection of the best people; protectionism is the illegal provision of assistance in employment, promotion

service, encouragement of a subordinate, as well as other patronage in the service, committed out of selfish or other personal interest, that is, the desire of an official to extract non-property benefits, due to such motives as careerism, nepotism

arrogance, the desire to embellish the actual situation, to obtain a reciprocal favor, to enlist support in resolving any issue and to hide one’s incompetence; lobbying - any activity of organizations or individuals influencing public authorities, putting pressure on a parliamentarian through a personal or written appeal, or in another way (organizing mass petitions, a stream of letters, publications), the purpose of which is to achieve the adoption or rejection of a bill in order to promote one’s own interests, as well as the interests of business and organized crime in general; illegal distribution and redistribution of public resources and funds, illegal support and financing

political structures, parties, movements; blat (providing services to relatives and friends) - acquaintances or connections used for personal purposes and infringing on the interests of third parties.

Today, corruption is trumpeted on all corners, they blame it for all troubles and failures, and also consider it their duty to complain about careless officials, who are all very often bribe-takers. Everyone knows that this is the worst enemy of the country’s social well-being and economic development, but the most paradoxical thing is that no one really wants to fight corruption. Well, why, if corruption is so convenient?

Although everyone knows what the term “corruption” means, few people know that this problem is as old as the world. You may be surprised, but even in primitive societies it was customary to make offerings to leaders or priests in order to gain their favor. Then a logical question arises - if corruption has existed in the world for exactly as long as people have lived on this earth, then perhaps corruption is an integral part of the existence of any human society? Then how to deal with it if it is part of human nature?

It sounds logical, but how then can you explain that there are countries in which there is no corruption? Of course, it is very easy and convenient to blame Mother Nature for everything, but it is very difficult to argue with the facts. offers to talk simply about difficult things and finally figure out why we can’t cope with this disaster.

Definition of Corruption

Surely you know very well what this concept is. Basically, corruption refers to the use of official position for the purpose of obtaining personal gain. As a rule, this concept is identified with the concept of “bribery”. However, it is worth noting that the meaning of the word “corruption” is not limited to this. The word corruptio in Latin means “decomposition, damage.” Corruption has many manifestations: corruption; misappropriation of goods, services and assets (including funds); nepotism, etc. Moreover, corruption exists not only in the public service system, but also in the private sector.

The key feature of this phenomenon is precisely the conflict of interests of an official and his employer, that is, an enterprise, society, state, etc. The main factor determining the existence of corruption is precisely the opportunity to obtain some kind of benefit (not necessarily material), and the key deterrent in this case is the opportunity to be punished for what has been done. Other factors that determine the possibility of corruption are legal skepticism, legal illiteracy of citizens and a low level of civic consciousness.

Corruption is a social phenomenon, and this implies the involvement of two parties in this process. One party provides the other with some benefit in exchange for satisfying its interests, as well as the opportunity to abuse the official position of the second party. And the second party, in turn, acts as the recipient of this benefit and fulfills the requirements of the first party. This may include fulfillment/failure to fulfill one’s official duties, provision of any information, etc.

Types and forms of corruption

The concept of corruption is incredibly multifaceted; accordingly, depending on certain parameters, several can be distinguished: main types:

Depending on the scope of manifestation:

• administrative corruption and its everyday variety;
• business corruption;
• political corruption.

Depending on the form of benefit sought:

• bribe;
• mutually beneficial exchange of pleasantries (patronage, nepotism).

Depending on the level of distribution:

• grassroots (individual);
• apex (institutional);
• international.

Depending on the manifestation, the following are distinguished: main forms of corruption:

• corrupt practices;
• abuse of position and power;
• insider trading;
• nepotism/patronage/favoritism;
• lobbying;
• embezzlement;
• misuse of funds.

Causes of corruption

There are countless reasons for the existence of such a phenomenon as corruption. Of course, we will not list them all; we will focus on only the main ones.

Maybe main motive What makes people commit such a crime is simple human greed. It is greed that pushes people to such actions, making them forget about moral principles. Other primary motives are:

• low level of education, upbringing, social responsibility, self-awareness, lack of sense of duty and other personal characteristics of participants in the act of corruption;
• low level of income, lack of opportunities for growth and self-realization;
• dysfunction of the legal and judicial system, lack of adequate punishment for such an offense, duality of laws (the same article can be interpreted differently);
• lack of unity of the executive branch, professional incompetence, bureaucracy;
• low level of legal literacy of the population;
• the interest of both parties involved in the act of corruption.

The most corrupt areas

Transparency International, a non-governmental international organization that combats corruption and studies its level around the world, annually publishes a report presenting the results of their research, and also calculates the Corruption Perception Index for almost all countries in the world.

According to a 2017 Transparency International report, in countries such as Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Russia, many citizens admit that they have not only been forced to pay a bribe at least once in their lives, but are also regularly forced to pay so-called “charity” contributions.

The Global Corruption Barometer report reports that bribery is particularly rampant in government, public procurement, education, healthcare, law enforcement, customs, police, courts, the military, construction and sports. . Moreover, it turned out that even the clergy did not have anything sacred, because corruption exists even in the church. Research results have demonstrated that it is also successfully developing in the housing and communal services sector.

Examples

Cases of bribery are now, to put it mildly, not uncommon. The news feed is often replete with messages about the exposure of another large-scale corruption scheme. We have all heard about the Onishchenko case, Kurchenko’s gas schemes, Operation Yantar, the Alexey Ulyukaev case, the Oboronservis case and many others.

Corruption in the field of public procurement is generally a separate issue. The system of state and municipal procurement itself is one of the most “favorable” for the implementation of corruption schemes. According to some statistics, from 60 to 90% of all government procurements are carried out with violations. In general, the entire economic sphere favors the flourishing of corruption.

However, few people realize that we deal with corrupt officials literally every day in our daily lives. We encounter them most often in the field of education. So, for example, at a school the director often collects money for repairs or for new curtains, at universities students buy paper for the needs of the department, etc. Corruption in medicine is also already taken for granted. Charitable contributions are common in hospitals, let alone “gifts” to doctors and nurses. Corruption in the army is commonplace. For example, “compensation” is often paid at military registration and enlistment offices. Corruption in the investigative committee, in the prosecutor's office and in court does not concern most citizens, but cases of bribery in this area are incredibly frequent. We often hear in the news that a businessman who hit people has been acquitted, or that the hearing of a case has been delayed indefinitely.

Why is corruption dangerous?

If you think that corruption is a harmless phenomenon, then you are deeply mistaken. Its negative impact on the state, society and every citizen in particular is difficult to overestimate. Corruption undermines the moral foundations of society, hinders the economic growth and development of the state, spoils its image in the international arena, and also leads to a number of the following problems:

• inadequate allocation and use of government budgets and resources or mismanagement of company income and expenses;
• loss of taxes (profits);
• decrease in the efficiency of functioning of the economy in general and its subjects in particular;
• deterioration of the operating conditions of the economy in general and its subjects in particular;
• a decrease in the investment attractiveness of the economy in general and its subjects in particular;
• a decrease in the quality of services provided (we are talking about both public services and services provided by the commercial sector);
• misuse of international assistance to developing countries, which leads to an increase in the state's debt burden; misuse of credit funds, which often leads to bankruptcy of enterprises;
• increasing social inequality;
• the rise of organized crime;
• growth of social discontent, etc.

Statistics in the CIS and the world

Transparency International annually conducts statistical studies to determine the level of corruption in various countries of the world; based on the data obtained, the Corruption Perception Index is calculated and a ranking of countries around the world is compiled.

A country	2017	2016	2015
Denmark	2nd place	1 place	1 place
Singapore	6th place	7th place	8th place
Germany	12th place	10th place	10th place
USA	16th place	18th place	16th place
Azerbaijan	122nd place	123rd place	119th place
Kazakhstan	122nd place	131 places	123rd place
Ukraine	130th place	131 places	130th place
Russia	135th place	131 places	119th place

According to information presented in the latest Global Corruption Barometer report, the majority of residents of the CIS countries (56%) do not believe that the effectiveness of the fight against corruption depends on them. On average in the CIS, 30% of citizens were forced to pay bribes. It is worth noting that the same figure for the countries of the European Union is only 9%.

In addition, according to data obtained during a study by the auditing company PwC, almost 30% of senior managers of large companies in the CIS countries have dealt with bribery and other forms of corruption.

It is worth noting that over the past few years, damage from corruption has increased fivefold. Also, the study results report that 57% of respondents are dissatisfied with the way their governments are fighting corruption (in Ukraine this figure is off the charts - 87%).

Anti-corruption methods

Anti-corruption is a set of measures aimed at timely prevention, detection, suppression and investigation of corruption offenses, as well as minimizing and (or) eliminating the consequences of such crimes.

Currently, almost all countries of the world are actively fighting corruption, and those who have managed to cope with it keep the situation under control and carry out regular prevention. Moreover, international organizations have already declared war on corruption today, an example of this is the UN and Transparency International. The greatest successes in the fight against corruption have been achieved by countries such as Singapore, Hong Kong, Denmark, and Sweden.

There is no single approach to eradicating this social problem, but the basic idea of ​​all approaches is the same - in order to reduce the level of corruption to a minimum, it is necessary to eliminate all the factors that make its existence possible.

Probably the most radical method of fighting corruption is an absolute renewal of the entire system - to dissolve the government, carry out reforms in the judicial system, rewrite the foundations of public administration.

In addition, there are 3 more effective method of fighting corruption:

• tightening penalties for such crimes, as well as creating conditions for the timely detection and suppression of corruption;
• creation of economic mechanisms that will allow persons with special powers and authority to earn more without breaking the law, as well as provide them with the opportunity for personal and career growth;
• strengthening the influence of the market economy, which helps reduce the size of the potential benefits from corruption.

Among the innovative methods of combating corruption, it is necessary to highlight the possibility of introducing technology for storing public data. In 2017, the technology began to be tested in the governments of individual countries. Experts are confident that the implementation of blockchain can extremely reduce the possibility of illegal copycat schemes due to the storage of information in an open registry.

Moreover, working with society has proven its effectiveness in the fight against corruption. In this context, we are talking about increasing the level of legal and political literacy of the population, providing information to citizens, increasing the level of civic responsibility and self-awareness, etc.

conclusions

In this article, we briefly discussed what corruption is and how to fight it. This phenomenon has a detrimental effect on the economy and well-being of the country. By promoting the growth and prosperity of bribery, we make things worse for ourselves. Unfortunately, you and I live in a country where even a child knows what “corrupt official” means. You may think that this problem does not concern you, but in reality this is far from the case. Corruption affects everyone. Don't abdicate your responsibility. Believe me, the success of the fight against the decay of society depends on each of us.

Formulations.

In the second half of the 20th century, corruption increasingly began to become an international problem. Bribery of senior officials abroad by corporations has become widespread. Globalization has led to the fact that corruption in one country has a negative impact on the development of many countries. However, the countries with the highest levels of corruption were no longer limited to the Third World: liberalization in the former socialist countries in the 1990s. accompanied by flagrant abuses of office. In its issue of December 31, 1995, the Financial Times declared 1995 the “year of corruption.” To promote awareness of corruption, the UN established International Anti-Corruption Day (December 9).

Typology

Corruption should be distinguished from lobbying. In lobbying, an official also uses his or her power to increase the chances of reappointment or promotion in exchange for actions in the interests of a certain group. The difference is that lobbying satisfies three conditions:

1. The process of influencing an official is competitive and follows rules that are known to all participants.
2. There are no secret or side payments.
3. Clients and agents are independent of each other in the sense that no group receives a share of the profits earned by the other group.

However, some researchers consider lobbying only an integral part of corruption.

The most dangerous forms of corruption are classified as criminal offenses. These primarily include embezzlement (theft) and bribes. Embezzlement consists of spending resources entrusted to an official for a personal purpose. It differs from ordinary theft in that initially a person receives the right to dispose of resources legally: from a boss, a client, etc. Bribe is a type of corruption in which the actions of an official consist of providing any services to an individual or legal entity in exchange for the latter providing a certain benefit to the former. In most cases, if giving a bribe is not a consequence of extortion, the bribe giver receives the main benefit from the transaction. Buying votes is also a criminal offense (although some consider it not a form of corruption, but a type of dishonest election campaign).

Corruption is often the basis for calls for a violent change of government. At the same time, accusations are often brought against not only a specific political elite, but also the political system as a whole. As Oscar Arias Sanchez notes, authoritarian regimes are able to successfully hide the vast majority of abuses of power from the public, so that the conclusion about their corruption is made based on an analysis of circumstantial evidence and detrimental consequences for the entire society. In contrast, corruption in democratic regimes is often widely publicized and stopped before it causes significant damage. However, periodic scandals cause citizens to doubt their ability to influence the country's political decision-making process and become disillusioned with democracy.

Types of corruption

Everyday corruption is generated by the interaction of ordinary citizens and officials. It includes various gifts from citizens and services to the official and his family members. Nepotism (nepotism) also falls into this category.

Business corruption arises from the interaction between government and business. For example, in the case of a business dispute, the parties may seek to enlist the support of a judge in order to make a decision in their favor.

Corruption of the supreme power refers to political leadership and supreme courts in democratic systems. It concerns groups in power whose unscrupulous behavior consists of implementing policies in their own interests and to the detriment of the interests of voters.

Market for corruption services

The most common decentralized ( external) corruption when transactions are concluded individually between an official and a private person. However, adding internal corruption - between members of the same organization - gives it the characteristics of organized crime.

Boss		Subordinate
pros	minuses	pros	minuses
Percentage from bribes of subordinates - stable income There is no direct participation in giving a bribe There is less chance that the subordinate will reveal himself	If a subordinate is caught, he can betray the boss	More opportunities - more bribes It is safer to take bribes under the patronage of your boss	Organized group - aggravating circumstance Gives away a percentage of bribes

Interest of a private person

Extortion("government racketeering") is practiced by officials who have the discretionary power to prevent someone from obtaining licenses, special permits, or any other services within the authority of the official. If an official has the power to assess the amount of due payments (for example, taxes or duties), this also opens the door to extortion.

When faced with extortion by a government official, a private individual is faced with a choice: either pay a bribe (which carries the risk of exposure) or appeal the actions of the government employee through an internal or external supervisory authority. The decision depends on how costly the appeal procedure is, as well as how aware the citizen is of his legal rights and responsibilities as a civil servant.

Collusion arises under the same conditions as extortion, but differs in that it is beneficial to both parties and consists in completing a transaction that causes damage to the state. For example, in exchange for a bribe, a customs inspector may underestimate the amount of an import and thereby reduce the amount that the importing firm must pay in duties. The structures responsible for supervising the official may also be involved in the transaction.

Enrichment areas

One of the main ways of corrupt enrichment for the bureaucracy, especially for the top political elite, is government spending.

Investment projects are largely determined by decisions that senior officials make at their own discretion. Large investment projects (especially those involving foreign corporations) often involve the transfer of monopoly rights to the winner of the competition, which promises officials especially large bribes. Some projects are created specifically so that certain groups receive rent (“ state rent» ) from those appointed as project executors.

State procurements, as a rule, involve choosing the objectively best offer from several based on a competition, but sometimes an official can ensure the victory of the seller who promised the largest “commission” (“kickback”) from the transaction. For this purpose, participation in the competition is limited, its rules are not fully announced, etc. As a result, purchases are made at an inflated price.

Off-budget accounts are often created for legitimate purposes (pension funds, road funds, etc.) However, in some funds, for example, to help the disabled, income can significantly exceed real expenses, which stimulates the desire of some officials to appropriate the “surplus.” On the contrary, in the event of a shortage, officials often decide at their own discretion who will ultimately receive the money. In some countries, funds received through foreign aid or from the sale of natural resources are allocated to special funds, which are less transparent and less controlled than budget money. Due to minute-by-minute fluctuations in prices for goods, it is not easy to determine the true amount of the transaction and the amount of contributions to such funds, which allows part of the money to be redirected into the pockets of officials.

Other areas most lucrative for corruption include:

• Sale of raw materials at prices below market prices
• Zoning as it affects land values
• Natural resource extraction
• Sale of state assets, especially privatization of state-owned enterprises
• Providing monopoly power to a certain type of commercial (especially export-import) activity
• Control over the shadow economy and illegal business (extortion, protection from prosecution, destruction of competitors, etc.)
• Appointment to responsible positions in government bodies

Corruption in the judiciary

The following forms of corruption apply primarily to judges, but in the case of administrative offenses they may also apply to officials authorized to consider the relevant cases (internal affairs bodies, fire inspection authorities, tax, customs authorities, etc.)

"Forks" in legislation. Many rules allow the judge to choose between soft and harsh penalties so that he can take into account as much as possible the degree of guilt, the severity of the offense and other circumstances. At the same time, the judge has leverage over the citizen who committed the offense. The greater the difference between the upper and lower limits of the punishment, the larger the bribe the citizen will be willing to pay.

Alternative administrative penalty. There are rules of law with the imposition of an alternative administrative penalty, for example, a fine or arrest. What distinguishes them from most “fork” norms is not only a wider range of punishments (and therefore a stronger motivation for the violator to give a bribe), but also the fact that justice is administered by representatives of the executive, rather than the judicial, authorities. Many lawyers believe that the use of sanctions of this type is justified only in criminal proceedings, but has little basis in administrative proceedings: “Firstly, the judicial process is built on the principles of openness (publicity), adversarial, oral and direct proceedings. In administrative proceedings, in most cases, a citizen is left alone with a representative of the authorities. Secondly, even the highest penalty for an administrative offense is not so severe for the offender as in criminal law that it makes sense to differentiate it.”

Reclassification of the offense. Another type of “fork” is duplication of the offense in various codes. This opens up the possibility of reclassifying the committed offense into a softer category (for example, from criminal to administrative or civil) or vice versa, into a more severe category. The distinction between crimes and other offenses is often difficult due to the vagueness of the legislation, and in such situations judges (or officials) make decisions at their own discretion, which opens the door to bribes and extortion.

Non-monetary losses of citizens. Some rules of law can cause corruption if they impose losses on the individual associated with subordination to the rule of law. Even in cases where the amount of the fine and the bribe for the crime are nominally equal, it is worth noting that payment of the fine is accompanied by a non-monetary expenditure of time on making the payment at the bank and providing proof of payment (receipts) to the agency that issued the fine. Non-monetary losses caused by legal norms are varied and unpleasant to citizens to varying degrees. It is also worth considering that not all citizens are ready to defend their rights in court.

Harm from corruption

Optimal level of corruption

As the government eradicates corruption, the costs of fighting corruption increase so that it will take endless effort to completely eliminate corruption. By comparing losses from corruption and the costs of eradicating corruption for each level, one can find the optimal level of corruption, reflecting the smallest total losses. It turns out that it is more profitable for society not to completely eliminate corruption, simply because of the high cost of this process. However, we should not forget about the further effectiveness of funds spent on the fight against corruption. Unlike money received by corrupt officials, money spent on the fight in the future more effectively participates in the country’s economy and to a lesser extent goes abroad.

In addition, excessive focus on the fight against corruption to the detriment of eliminating its causes can deprive the administrative system of flexibility and the population of civil liberties. The ruling group may use punitive legislation to increase its control over society and persecute political opponents.

international trade

Corruption causes multi-billion dollar losses in international trade. This is one of the reasons for the growing interest in the problem of international corruption in recent years. Thus, American exporting firms argued that they often lose lucrative contracts due to the fact that, by law, they do not have the right to pay bribes to foreign officials. On the contrary, in most OSCE countries, bribes to foreign partners were not only not prohibited, but could even be written off as income when paying taxes. For example, for German corporations such expenses amounted to about $5.6 billion per year. The situation changed only at the end of 1997, when the OSCE countries signed the “Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions.” In pursuance of the convention, laws were passed over the following years that explicitly prohibited national companies from paying bribes to anyone.

Causes of corruption

Fundamental contradiction

The production of any goods requires the expenditure of certain resources, which is compensated by funds received from consumers of these goods. The salaries of employees are among the expenses that are ultimately covered by the consumer, but their activities are determined by the will of their superiors and the employer. This leads to a situation where the consumer receives a needed service or product from an employee, but cannot directly influence the activities of that employee. A special case is a public good, which is paid for by taxes and provided by government employees. Although officials are actually paid for their work by citizens, their employer is the state, which gives them the right by law to make decisions affecting the competing interests of various individuals.

In the absence of any discretionary power, corruption would be impossible. However, a person or group with supreme power is not able to independently ensure the implementation of the policies that it determines. For this purpose, it appoints administrators, to whom it invests the required powers, to whose disposal it places the necessary resources, for whom it establishes rules of conduct and over whom it exercises supervision. And here the following problem arises:

1. Conservative nature of the law. In practice, instructions change much more slowly than external conditions. Therefore, they leave room for action at their own discretion, because otherwise the management system becomes completely inflexible, and the discrepancy between strict standards and realities can completely stop the work. However, this means that in a situation not provided for by law, the administrator may begin to be guided by the most profitable rent.
2. Impossibility of comprehensive control. Supervision is costly, but in addition, overly tight control damages the quality of management personnel and leads to an outflow of creatively thinking personnel.

Thus, raising wages in the public sector relative to the private sector does not immediately reduce corruption. On the other hand, this contributes to a gradual increase in the level of qualifications of the bureaucracy and has a positive effect in the long term. In countries with the lowest levels of corruption, officials' salaries are 3-7 times higher than earnings in the manufacturing sector.

One of the most controversial issues is the role of government regulation of markets and the state as a monopolist. Free market proponents point out that a diminished role of the state and increased competition help reduce corruption because it reduces the amount of discretionary power needed and reduces the ability to achieve an advantage in the market through protective regulation, and therefore the opportunity for rent-seeking. Indeed, all countries with low corruption are characterized by relatively free economies. On the contrary, a planned economy, characterized by the monopoly power of officials and maintaining prices below market levels, creates incentives for bribery as a means of obtaining scarce goods and services.

There are also a number of objections to this argument. First, the private sector is not always able to provide satisfactory solutions to problems, and in such cases, most people consider government intervention justified. This, in turn, creates the preconditions for unscrupulous supervision and collection of state rent. Thus, complete elimination of corruption turns out to be impossible even in an open economy. Secondly, the process of economic liberalization is carried out by the government, and therefore, in its essence, is also an active intervention in the economy (which, in addition, may be accompanied by the creation of sources of corrupt enrichment through privatization). Therefore, in practice, the initial period of liberalization is often characterized by the opposite effect - a surge in corruption. Thirdly, research shows that the level of corruption in a liberal-democratic political system does not depend on whether the country’s leadership adheres to neoliberal or social-democratic ideology. Moreover, many countries with low corruption have relatively high taxes and government spending (Canada, Netherlands, Scandinavia).

Fight against corruption

To date, there are no known methods in pedagogy and management that would guarantee that a person will be an ideal official. However, there are many countries with very low levels of corruption. Moreover, there are historical examples where actions aimed at reducing corruption led to significant success: Singapore, Hong Kong, Portugal, Sweden. This clearly speaks in favor of the fact that methods of combating corruption exist.

From a formal point of view, if there is no state, there will be no corruption. The ability of people at this stage of development to effectively cooperate without the state is subject to very strong doubts. However, in conditions where corruption is widespread almost everywhere, the dissolution of corrupt government bodies seems to be one of the most effective radical ways to get rid of it.

Apart from dismantling government agencies, there are three possible approaches to reducing corruption. First, laws and their enforcement can be tightened, thereby increasing the risk of punishment. Secondly, economic mechanisms can be created that allow officials to increase their income without violating rules and laws. Third, the role of markets and competition can be strengthened, thereby reducing the potential profits from corruption. The latter also includes competition in the provision of public services, provided that some government bodies duplicate the functions of other bodies. Most of the best practices relate to internal or external oversight mechanisms.

Internal control

This includes internal mechanisms and incentives that exist within the management apparatus itself: clear standards for the performance of their duties by officials and strict supervision over each employee. In order to provide supervision, special departments are often allocated that function autonomously. For example, law enforcement agencies often report to the chief executive, just like the bureaucracy, but they retain considerable independence.

Internal control was the main way to combat corruption in the monarchies of the absolutist period and is still highly effective. In particular, Machiavelli believed that in monarchies “ruled by servants,” corruption is less dangerous because all “servants” are obliged to the favors of the sovereign and are more difficult to bribe.

External control

This includes mechanisms that have a high degree of independence from the executive branch. The UN Convention against Corruption provides a number of similar mechanisms. An independent judiciary, in which a law-breaking bureaucrat can be easily and effectively found guilty, sharply reduces the potential appeal of corruption. One of the most effective tools for controlling bureaucratic corruption is freedom of speech and the media.

External control is typical for countries with market economies and liberal democracies. Presumably, this is due to the fact that in order to implement the normal functioning of the market, clear rules and mechanisms for ensuring the fulfillment of obligations are needed, including an effective legal system that ensures a healthy competitive environment. Liberal democracy also relies on an electoral system, the rule of law, an independent judiciary, separation of powers and a system of checks and balances to achieve its goals. All these political institutions simultaneously serve as mechanisms for external control over corruption.

However, not all provisions of liberal democracy clearly contribute to the fight against corruption. An example is the principle of separation of powers. The horizontal separation of powers encourages them to supervise each other. For example, in a parliamentary democracy, the representative government has the power to dismiss the government. On the other hand, in a presidential democracy the branches of government are even more functionally separated. Despite this, corruption in presidential republics is generally higher than in parliamentary ones, which may be due precisely to the complexity of the presidential impeachment procedure. Further, the separation of powers at the territorial level and the associated transfer of most of the powers of the executive branch to the level of local self-government leads to an effective reduction in the size of government bodies. This increases the information transparency of the authorities and reduces corruption. However, the federal structure of the state, which ensures maximum decentralization, often leads to the regulation of different aspects of the same activity by officials of different levels, and, consequently, to greater corruption compared to unitary states.

Election system

In democratic countries, the main way to punish elected representatives for corruption is to remove them from power at the next election. This implies that the voter himself is responsible for the degree of honesty and responsibility of those whom he elects. Despite the high effectiveness of elections as a weapon against corruption, their effect is manifested rather slowly. Every 30 years of a stable democratic system has the same effect on corruption as the actual transition to a liberal democratic model of government.

A number of authors have suggested that flaws in the electoral process can have a significant impact on the extent of corruption. Even if elections are held without violations, the system itself can encourage the voter to vote for one candidate or another for ideological reasons, ignoring the corruption of him personally, his subordinates or his party as a whole. This hypothesis is confirmed. Corruption appears to be significantly less in countries where each constituency elects multiple representatives using a majoritarian system than in countries with proportional representation and closed party list elections, or in countries with small constituencies and the choice of one representative per constituency. This is because a majoritarian system provides the greatest amount of individual accountability, and electing multiple representatives or open party lists greatly increases the attention voters place on candidates' integrity.

General measures

Elimination of the above-mentioned associated causes of corruption also applies to anti-corruption measures.

Unconstitutionality of corruption norms. Any rules that impose restrictions on a citizen can cause corruption, with the exception of rules describing constitutional freedoms and human rights. The latter impose restrictions not so much on individuals as on public authorities, being institutional guarantees both against excessive legal requirements and against the vesting of public authorities with discretionary powers. Corruption-prone norms inevitably violate the rights and freedoms of man and citizen enshrined in the Constitution.

Information support for citizens. This method includes an analysis of laws in order to, after analyzing the law, clearly, concisely and intelligibly explain to citizens what their rights and responsibilities are, what violations should entail, how the judicial procedure takes place and what is taken into account in it. Knowing all this, citizens will behave more confidently when they find themselves face to face with an official pushing them to give a bribe.

Openness of departmental systems. Transparency of operations occurring within departments and proper civilian control can be realized through the publication and open discussion of internal documents on the public Internet, which can seriously shake the foundation of corruption. However, such mechanisms are limited by overly strict standards for the protection of trade secrets or their use in some departments is due to the need to provide additional measures to protect personal data of citizens and classified information in defense departments and organizations. A serious problem for the implementation of open information systems is the low competence of officials who are not only unaware of the benefits of open licenses, but are also unable to include in government contracts requirements for mandatory provision of open read access to version control systems for software products developed with taxpayer money.

Social security of officials. First-class medical care, interest-free loans for the purchase of real estate, a large pension - all this is tantamount to an increase in wages in the public sector, and therefore increases the losses of an official if he is caught in corrupt activities. Research suggests that this measure does not have an immediate impact on corruption, but does improve the quality of the bureaucracy over time.

Objective difficulties

The essence of the problem in the fight against corruption was formulated by James Madison: “If men were ruled by angels, there would be no need for any supervision of government - external or internal. But in creating a government in which people will rule over people, the main difficulty is that first of all it is necessary to ensure that the rulers have the opportunity to supervise the governed; but after this it is necessary to oblige those in power to supervise themselves” (The Federalist, No. 51).

One of the most important deterrents to corruption is criminal law. In practice, laws in most countries set sufficiently narrow limits on the interpretation of the types of corruption that are considered criminal offenses to avoid the risk of selective enforcement of legislation to suppress civil liberties and opposition. Therefore, for example, a gift can only be considered a bribe if there is an intention to influence an official. If an official is not prohibited by law from accepting gifts in principle, then it is usually difficult to prove the fact of a bribe. In contrast, embezzlement is often presumed to be proven when damage exists, regardless of whether the employee had the intent to embezzle the funds or not.

Another difficulty, especially when there is large-scale corruption where most private individuals pay bribes, is known in psychology and game theory as the “prisoner's dilemma.” On the one hand, if all persons stop paying bribes, then they will all benefit from this. However, if only one private individual refuses bribes, he will place himself at an extreme disadvantage.

Finally, the sustainability of corrupt markets mentioned above is a serious problem.

Singapore Anti-Corruption Strategy

Singapore's anti-corruption strategy is rigorous and consistent, based on a "logic in the control of corruption": "attempts to eradicate corruption must be based on an effort to minimize or eliminate the conditions that create both the incentive and the opportunity to induce individuals to commit corrupt acts."

At the time of independence, Singapore was a country with high corruption. The tactics to reduce it were based on a number of vertical measures: regulation of the actions of officials, simplification of bureaucratic procedures, strict supervision over compliance with high ethical standards. The central link has become an autonomous Corruption Investigation Bureau, to which citizens can file complaints against civil servants and demand compensation for losses. At the same time, legislation was tightened, the independence of the judicial system was increased (with high salaries and a privileged status for judges), economic sanctions were introduced for giving a bribe or refusing to participate in anti-corruption investigations, and tough actions were taken, including the complete dismissal of customs officers and other government services. This was combined with deregulation of the economy, increasing salaries of officials and training of qualified administrative personnel.

Currently, Singapore ranks among the world's leaders in the absence of corruption, economic freedom and development.

Swedish anti-corruption strategy

Until the mid-19th century, corruption flourished in Sweden. One of the consequences of the country's modernization was a set of measures aimed at eliminating mercantilism. Since then, government regulation has concerned more households than firms, and has been based on incentives (through taxes, benefits and subsidies) rather than on bans and permits. Access to internal government documents was opened and an independent and effective justice system was created. At the same time, the Swedish parliament and government set high ethical standards for administrators and began to enforce them. Just a few years later, honesty became a social norm among the bureaucracy. The salaries of high-ranking officials initially exceeded the earnings of workers by 12-15 times, but over time this difference decreased to two times. Today, Sweden still has one of the lowest levels of corruption in the world.

Economic analysis of corruption

If the amount of a bribe is easy to compare with the monetary value of the amount stolen, then for the losses of subjects from punishment it is necessary to take into account opportunity costs - the number of years that the criminal will spend in prison, multiplied by the difference between his possible average annual income and the costs of keeping him in prison. You can also take into account the negative social consequences of reducing the weight of a caught criminal in society and reducing his possible income.

Model of resource allocation in an economy with corruption

Q- state goods, M.R.- marginal income.

Extortion of bribes leads to a decrease in the number of government services.

A model in which an agency produces one homogeneous product with a demand curve D(P) by private individuals. The product (service) is sold by an official who has the ability to influence the quantity of the product sold. He can simply refuse to provide goods to any individual without any risk of punishment.

The official's goal is to maximize the amount of bribes he collects from the sale of a government good, the official price for which is P, but there are no production costs for the official, since they are paid by the state. There are two cases - with and without theft, marginal costs depend on this M.C.(English) marginal cost) for an official.

If an employee receives an amount from citizens, from which he transfers the official price of the goods to the state, then M.C. will be equal P. If he does not transfer anything to the state and appropriates the entire amount received from citizens, then M.C. for him it is zero, and the citizen pays only a bribe. He cannot discriminate against citizens by assigning his own price to everyone and therefore acts as a monopolist.

According to this model, corruption spreads primarily due to competition between officials, since the most attractive positions go to those who can pay the highest price for them, which stimulates the collection of bribes. In the case of corruption with theft, the spread of corruption is accelerated due to two factors. Firstly, officials compete for budget funds. Secondly, for consumers of public services, the cost of a bribe in collusion with an official is less than the cost of a tax or duty, and therefore the bribers find themselves in a better position in the market than their law-abiding competitors.

In light of the fight against corruption, in this case it is enough to introduce strict accounting in order to make theft more difficult. The transition to corruption without theft, as can be seen from the graphs, will also reduce the number of bribes.

At the same time, the authors of the model note that it is applicable mainly to authoritarian regimes and undeveloped markets. In countries with open economies, competition generally has the opposite - deterrent - effect on corruption. If different agencies provide the same services, then the consumer has choice and the level of bribe solicitation decreases. Private firms report competitors who pay bribes to law enforcement agencies. Competition among political elites in democracies makes government more transparent.

Agents model

This model considers a situation where the guarantor (“principal”) does not have complete information about the actions of the performers (“agents”). Therefore, he enters into an agreement with them containing conditions favorable to the agents, which motivate them to behave (mainly, provide services to clients) in the interests of the principal. The main conclusions of the agent model - without using special terminology - are presented in section.

This model is also used to study the behavior of elites who are influenced by various groups. Corruption refers to the conflict of interests of these groups with the interests of voters: the principal is the nation as a whole, which concludes a social contract with elected representatives (agents). The analysis shows that the more informed voters are, the less opportunity there is for representatives to corrupt. For their part, representatives strive to pursue policies that will get them re-elected while allowing them to increase their personal incomes. An example of a decision that creates opportunities for corruption is an increase in defense budget expenditures, since this decision is determined by both politics and the economic interests of various groups.

Corruption in Russia

In early 1999, Deputy Prosecutor General of Russia Yu. Ya. Chaika stated that Russia is one of the ten most corrupt countries in the world and that corruption is one of the most destructive forces in the Russian state. In 1999, Academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences D.S. Lvov and Doctor of Economic Sciences Yu.V. Ovsienko assessed corruption in Russia as “total.”

In 2006, First Deputy Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation Alexander Buksman said that according to some expert estimates, the volume of the corruption market in Russia is estimated at more than 240 billion US dollars. According to estimates by the INDEM Foundation, this value is even higher: only in the business sector of Russia, the volume of corruption increased between 2001 and 2005 gg. from approximately 33 to 316 billion US dollars per year (not including corruption at the level of federal politicians and business elites). According to the same fund, the average level of bribes that Russian businessmen give to officials increased during that period from 10 to 136 thousand dollars.

In 2007, the chairman of the National Anti-Corruption Committee of Russia, Kirill Kabanov, said that there is no fight against corruption in Russia: the arrests of mid-level officials do not violate the bribery system, and an anti-corruption policy has not been developed.

In the ranking of perceptions of corruption in countries around the world, compiled annually by Transparency International, Russia in 2010 took 154th place out of 180 with an index of 2.1 points (index 0 means the maximum level of corruption, 10 means no corruption). General Director of Transparency International in Russia Elena Panfilova noted: “Last year Russia took 146th place in this ranking. Conclusion: nothing has changed over the year except for our neighbors in the rating - Papua New Guinea, Kenya, Laos and Tajikistan."

It should be noted that in many articles and discussions, when the name of this index is mentioned, the word “Perception” is usually omitted, as a result of which a false impression is created that the index reflects the real state of affairs in the field of corruption, while in fact it is , in fact, about the level of public concern about corruption issues.

The areas of activity (besides those listed in the Areas of Enrichment section) that are most susceptible to corruption in Russia include:

In order to combat corruption in Russia, in July 2008, the President of the Russian Federation approved the National Anti-Corruption Plan.

According to the public organization "Business Russia", the most corrupt regions in Russia are Moscow, Moscow, Omsk, Volgograd regions and Altai Krai.

According to the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index for countries around the world, Russia in 2010 ranked 154th out of 178 possible. In 2009, Transparency International estimated the corruption market in Russia at $300 billion.

In connection with the release of the Transparency International ranking in 2010, candidate of philosophical sciences Oleg Matveychev criticized it, saying that it does not measure the level of corruption. According to Matveychev, the real level of corruption in Russia is the same as in Eastern Europe, and the Transparency International rating only shows that Russians themselves are more concerned about the problem of corruption than other nations.

According to a study by the British auditing company Ernst & Young, conducted in the spring of 2012, in 2011, corruption risks in Russia decreased significantly and in many respects became below the world average. More than 1,500 top managers of the largest companies from 43 countries took part in the Ernst & Young study. Thus, if in 2011 39% of managers surveyed in Russia stated the need to pay bribes in cash to protect business or achieve corporate benefits, then in 2012 this figure became 16%.

Corruption indicators

Free

• World Bank's Enterprise Surveys

World Bank's Control of Corruption

• Transparency International
• Global Competitiveness Report

Paid

• International Country Risk Guide

Auxiliary surveys

• United Nations Interregional Crime Victimization Survey
• World Business Environment Survey

Portrayal of corruption

• Corruption is a board game developed by Bruno Faidutti.

see also

Literature

International law

• Convention on Criminal Law against Corruption. - Council of Europe. Series of European Treaties. No. 173. Strasbourg: 1999. January 27. .
• Convention on Civil Liability for Corruption - Council of Europe. Series of European Treaties. No. 174.
• United Nations Convention against Corruption. New York: UN, 2004.

Scientific and journalistic works

• Corruption and bureaucracy: origins and ways to overcome: Theme. Sat. / Ross. acad. state services under the President of Russia. Federations; [Ans. ed. Ivanov G.I.]. - M.: RAGS, 1998.
• Volzhenkin, B.V. Corruption. - St. Petersburg: SPbYuI, 1998.
• Fundamentals of the fight against corruption (systems of national ethics of behavior) / ed. S. V. Maksimova - M.: 1999.
• Russia and corruption: who wins. / Text prepared. Region. society Foundation "Informatics for Democracy" (INDEM Foundation). - M.: Publishing house Nezavisimaya Gazeta, 1999.
• Albats E. M. Bureaucracy: The struggle for survival. - M.: State University Higher School of Economics, 2000.
• Geveling L.V. Kleptocracy. - M.: Humanitarian, 2001.
• Kuzminov Ya. I. Theses on corruption. - M.: State. univ. Higher school Economics, 2000.
• Timofeev, L. M. Institutional corruption: Essays on theory / Lev Timofeev; [Rus. state humanitarian University]. - M.: Publishing house. Center of the Russian State University for the Humanities, 2000.
• Bogdanov, I. Ya. Corruption in Russia: Sots.-ekonom. and legal aspects / I. Ya. Bogdanov, A. P. Kalinin; Ross. acad. Sci. Institute of Social and Political Sciences research - M., 2001.
• Aminov, D. I. Corruption as a social and legal phenomenon and ways to overcome it / D. I. Aminov, V. I. Gladkikh, K. S. Solovyov; Moscow acad. entrepreneurship under the Moscow government. - M.: Lawyer, 2002.
• Rose-Ackerman, S. Corruption and the state. Causes, effects, reforms / Susan Rose-Ackerman; lane from English O. A. Alyakrinsky. - M.: Logos, 2003. - 356 p.
• Krasnov, M. A. Corruption on the roads / Krasnov, Mikhail Alexandrovich. - M.: INDEM Foundation, 2004.
• AR K782 Krasnousov, S. D. (Sergey Dmitrievich). Commercial bribery as a form of corruption in the private sector: concept and counteraction: abstract of the dissertation for the degree of candidate of legal sciences. Specialty 12.00.08 - criminal law and criminology; criminal-executive law / S.D. Krasnousov; scientific hands N.V. Shchedrin. -Vladivostok, 2012. -26
• Kozonov, E. Yu. Corruption: origins and ways to overcome / Kozonov E. Yu., Zhukaev A. M. - M.: MAX Press, Moscow State University. M. V. Lomonosova, 2006.
• Fighting windmills? A socio-anthropological approach to the study of corruption. - St. Petersburg: Aletheya, 2007. - 234 p.
• Konyshev V.N., Sergunin A.A. System of indicators of university corruption // Higher education in Russia. 2011, No. 10.
• Rumyantseva E. E. Corruption as the opposite of democracy // Scientific expert. - 2008. - No. 12. - P. 60-70.
• Rumyantseva E. E. Corruption as an alternative to democracy. - Palmarium Academic Publishing, 2012. - ISBN 978-3-8473-9286-6
• Makarov A. A. Corruption in the system of internal affairs bodies. - M.: Nota Bene, 2009. - ISBN 978-5-8188-0132-2
• Miroshnichenko D.V. Criminal legal impact on corruption. - M.: Yurlitinform, 2010. - 200 p.

Works of art

Notes

1. Bardhan P. Corruption and development // Journal of Economic Literature. - 1997. - Vol. 25. - P. 1320. (English)
2. Tanzi, V. Corruption, Governmental Activities and Markets // IMF Working Paper 94/99. - International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC. - 1994. (English)
3. The Anti-Corruption Plain Language Guide
4. See, for example, Chinhamo O., Shumba G. Institutional working definition of corruption // ACT Southern Africa Working Paper. 2007. No. 1
5. Federal Law of the Russian Federation of December 25, 2008 N 273-FZ “On Combating Corruption”
6. Bardhan P. Corruption and development: a review of issues. - In: Political corruption: concepts and contexts / Ed. Heidenheimer A. J., Johnston M. 3rd ed. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 2002. - ISBN 978-0-7658-0761-8 - P. 331. (English)
7. Glaeser E. L., Goldin C. Corruption and reform: an introduction (English) // NBER Working Paper 10775. 2004.
8. Jain A. K. Corruption: a review // Journal of Economic Surveys. - 2001. - Vol 15, No. 1. - P. 71. DOI:10.1111/1467-6419.00133 (English)
9. Zagraevsky S.V. On possible ways to combat corruption in Russia
10. Arias Sanchez, O. Preface // Fundamentals of the fight against corruption (systems of national ethics of behavior) / Ed. S. V. Maksimova - M.: 1999.
11. Order of the State Customs Committee of the Russian Federation dated April 26, 1995 No. 287 “On the state of work to combat corruption, malfeasance and tasks to ensure the own security of the customs authorities of the Russian Federation.”
12. Cm. .
13. Tanzi V. Corruption around the world. // IMF Staff Papers. - 1998. - Vol. 45, No. 4. - P. 559. (English)
14. Along with the term “state rent”, which refers to bribes and compensation received by officials, in Russia the expressions “administrative rent” (introduced by E. Gaidar in 1995 at the conference “Reforms in Russia. Established interests and practical alternatives”) and “status rent” are used "(introduced by President V. Putin in 2001 in his annual message to the Federal Assembly).

No one denies the fact that corruption is bad. Speeches about struggle and reform are made from high stands. However, this phenomenon does not change its indicators at all. Every year a ranking of the most corrupt countries is compiled, in which they only change places.

Everyday corruption is... Definition of the concept, signs and examples

As you know, to solve any problem you need to know it from the inside. Corruption usually cannot survive without favorable conditions - a system. Hence the conclusion that it is necessary to change the system so that the elements change the vector of movement.

In more advanced forms, corruption becomes systemic when it is taken for granted. A person, going to a kindergarten or school, knows that the manager or director needs to pay separately, past the cash register. And all participants are satisfied with this state of affairs.

Definition

The term “corruption” describes facts and phenomena in which an official uses his position against the interests of society, legal norms and morality. The word itself comes from Latin corrumpere- “corrupt.” Bribery of officials also falls under this definition. Such features are more often characteristic of mafia states. The term in its original understanding is much broader and covers various manifestations of illegal actions on the part of officials.

The main feature of corruption is a conflict of interest. Interests can be government, a specific person, a group of people or society. Some types of corruption are similar in content to fraudulent activities. From this point of view, business corruption, as well as everyday corruption (a term applicable to ordinary citizens), are similar to crimes against the state.

Kinds

Corruption is divided into two types: business and domestic. Something that many countries have been struggling with for many years is business corruption. It exists between government officials and the business sector. Covers a very wide range of industries:

• Financial market.
• Sphere of production.
• Services sector.
• Agrarian structure.
• Insurance.
• Other commercial structures.

Everyday corruption is bribery that occurs in all other spheres of public life. It covers:

• The field of education.
• Medicine.
• Judicial authorities.
• Other structures.

No matter how paradoxical it may sound, the everyday level of corruption is based on the good intentions of the population: in order to satisfy their needs fully, people prefer to informally reward the performer. And here the true reasons for the occurrence of this phenomenon are already emerging. It develops when the state is unable to satisfy the social needs of citizens. In other words, all types of everyday corruption arise in a weak state that is unable to fulfill basic obligations to citizens.

Persons involved

The main players are officials who are entrusted with resources that do not belong to them. For example:

• A government official whose competence includes an entire industry, territorial division or part thereof.
• A deputy who has the ability to lobby for laws.
• A law enforcement officer who can decide the fate of people by managing the investigation process.
• A judge who has the power to make decisions with or against the law.
• And even a simple administrator with access to certain resources.

As an example of everyday corruption, we can consider a typical case when a pregnant woman goes to a medical center. She will have to receive medical care for a long time: registration, monitoring the development of pregnancy and childbirth. It is possible that other manipulations or treatment will be required at some stage.

But the reality is that citizens strive to reach an agreement with the doctor: for a certain fee, he will manage the pregnancy. At the final stage, you will need to offer the same thing to another doctor to assist in the birth. For all this a certain amount is paid, which is not regulated anywhere and will not be fixed. This is just one manifestation of everyday bribery.

Motives

What motivates people to commit corrupt acts in a systematic manner? There are many options put forward regarding incentives, including the following:

• Low salaries of officials.
• The powerlessness of the law.
• The existing system in the environment.
• Insufficient competence of performers.
• Lack of mechanisms to track their actions.

But all of the above factors are based on one common motive - the goal of obtaining personal gain.

Even during the Renaissance, treatises were written on this topic and theories were developed. The works of Nicola Machiavelli, Charles Louis de Montesquieu and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are popular in this field. According to Machiavelli, business and household corruption is something like consumption: at the initial stage it is difficult to recognize, but easier to treat. At an advanced stage, it is visible, but it is extremely difficult to correct such a society.

Interpretation in Russian legislation

What is most interesting is that until recently there was no definition of corruption in Russian legislation. It appeared as part of the anti-corruption law adopted in 2008. The definition is also given there. According to Russian legislation, the term “everyday corruption” refers to the fact of abuse of official position, bribery, bribery of officials, as well as the use of official position against the interests of society and the state.

According to a number of scientists, in particular E.V. Maryina, the definition given in the law cannot be called exhaustive, since corrupt acts can be committed not only by government officials, but also by individuals and legal entities, regardless of status.

A number of scientists are inclined to believe that definitions should take into account not only the legal aspects of this phenomenon. For example, according to V.N. Kudryavtsev and V.E. Eminov, business and household corruption is a violation of ethical and moral norms in society.

Research

Research on the topic of corruption began in the 1980s. A number of sociological works were carried out. The initiators were large international organizations represented by the EBRD, IMF and the World Bank. The result of the work was the creation of an international ranking of corruption indicators in countries. Within the framework of these studies, various levels of perception of corruption were considered: everyday, scientific, practical.

The attitude towards this rating is ambiguous. Many did not believe in his objectivity. But despite this, an active anti-corruption fight has begun in many countries. Supporters of the negative attitude believe that it is impossible to express the volume of such a broad phenomenon in one indicator.

But there are also more in-depth studies. Their data is based on the relationship between the state and its citizens. Thus, the higher the level of citizens’ trust in the authorities, the lower the corruption, and vice versa. From this point of view, we can say that business and household corruption are completely surmountable problems of society.

Current trends

Research in recent years has focused more on the social and economic manifestations of corruption. All authors and research participants are unanimous in the opinion that, be it business or everyday corruption, it is a huge harm to the economy of any state, significantly slowing down development. Resources are redirected in favor of a specific individual or group of individuals. Certain decisions made through corrupt methods can change the fate of the country for the worse.

In addition, the very fact of the presence of corruption in the state serves as a powerful factor against investment. As a result, a market economy entirely of criminal content is gradually being formed.

Russian reality in the field of corruption

A number of bills have been adopted in the fight against corruption. Within their framework, work is continuously carried out to eliminate and prevent corruption schemes at various levels of government. One of the significant documents is the Order of the President of the Russian Federation dated March 14, 2010. In order to fulfill this order, the Ministry of Economy and Development conducted a number of sociological studies. It was attended by Russian citizens aged 18 years and above. Their goal is to determine the level and develop measures to eliminate the consequences of everyday corruption.

And this is what turned out. Almost 51% of respondents noted that at least once they were faced with the need to make a choice: to bribe an official or not. 29% said that they found themselves in a situation where it was necessary to “thank” representatives of government agencies. 47% reported that they would be willing to pay a bribe for a better service or to protect their interests. At the same time, the initiators of the project suggest that the indicators on the last point could be much higher, since those who underestimate the criminal significance of corruption decided to be frank.

From this point of view, the term “everyday corruption” is understood as a reality that is an indicator of citizens’ trust in the authorities.

Regulation fee

Another specificity of corruption is that citizens are often forced to pay a government official to carry out their regulated duties. The reason for this is bureaucracy. But almost all survey participants noted that they had encountered cases of deliberate delay in making decisions, issuing documents or other issues. As a rule, after informal gratitude, these processes are significantly accelerated.

Another interesting point is the formation of certain prices for the services of officials. As it turned out, the more known about the tariffs, the more likely it is to offer this amount. Conversely, if citizens have no idea how much money will be needed, they are less likely to resort to corrupt decisions.

Punishment

Articles on everyday corruption operate within the framework of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and other legal acts. In particular, in 2016, the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation was supplemented with a new article 291.2 “Petty bribery”. This step was preceded by a national anti-corruption plan developed for implementation in 2016-2017. The purpose of implementing the article is to increase the effectiveness of the fight and establish a strategic approach.

The same document provides a legal definition of everyday corruption. Under this law, everyday corruption is considered to be receiving or giving a bribe, either personally or through intermediaries, in the amount of up to 10,000 rubles. It should be noted that this rule is applicable not only to cases of bribery in the above-mentioned areas (education, medicine, etc.). The article is valid regardless of the scope of detection, circumstances, participants and other factors.

Another basis for the adoption of this article is described in the explanatory note to the draft of this law. It is noted that in the period from 2012 to 2015, the vast majority of criminal cases involved bribes of less than 10,000 rubles.

Penalties are determined depending on the specific amount of the bribe. The general provisions are as follows:

1. The intermediary faces a fine of up to 700,000 rubles, deprivation of income in the amount of wages for the last year, or deprivation of the right to hold a certain position.
2. If an official acted as an intermediary, the fine increases to 1 million rubles plus the provisions from the previous paragraph.
3. Even a promise to provide intermediary services in giving or receiving a bribe is punishable. In this case, the culprit faces a fine of up to 3 million rubles plus the provisions from the first paragraph.

Giving or receiving a bribe as part of an organized group is punishable depending on the amount.

Controversy

After the adoption of the law, a number of experts express their opinions regarding compliance with the principle of fairness in it. Thus, according to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the term “everyday corruption” refers to corruption offenses of a petty nature. Before the introduction of the new article, this wording appeared in relation to other crimes: petty hooliganism or petty theft. But the examples given, taking into account the insignificance of the harm caused, relate to administrative offenses.

Experts believe that it would be more logical to introduce a new article not into the Criminal Code, but into the Administrative Code, defining the amount of a bribe as less than 1,000 rubles. The reason for this is the presence of Article 290 in the Criminal Code, which provides punishment for corrupt acts in a general sense.

Another topic of debate is the equal responsibility of the recipient and the initiator of a bribe. According to lawyers, this situation is fundamentally contrary to the principles of justice, since receiving a bribe definitely poses a greater danger to society than giving or offering it.

But the main thing for society is not legal subtleties and theory, but real results. In a developed society, citizens must be sure that their rights will not be infringed in any way and that they will have to pay money to respect them. The state plays a major role in achieving this goal. But the conscious attitude of citizens is no less important.