|
||||||||||||
![]() |
Did corruption contribute to the economic crisis? |
|||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Just
like a heavy smoker and drinker who found himself in
despair after experiencing a serious heart attack, the
economic crisis of 1997 has exposed how bad our
economic development was. What to many observers, including
scholars, initially looked like a promising future,
suddenly our economy turned into a full-blown crash.
Even after a half-decade of the aftermath, we still
cannot figure out how to fix it. A
number of prescriptions have been proposed by many:
establishing a clean government, fixing and recovering
financial system, and etc. Although some of the financial
sector weaknesses were the result of actions by
companies and individuals, they were also products of
political processes involving, primarily, the central
bank and the ministry of finance. The weaknesses in our
financial system were therefore to a large extent also
the result of poor governance. This clearly is
demonstrated from the recent BCA’s problem. Right
after the crisis, many believed that once a clean and
democratic government leads the country, the problem
would be easier to be solved. The reason is based on the
argument that the political system and the corrupt power
were the key sources of the crisis. The collusion
and corruption between government and business, which is
at the core of our political and economic system, have
been considered as the source of evils. Corruption
is of course not a new phenomenon in the country. But
did it really a significant contributing factor to the
economic crisis and the uncertainty we are now facing? More
clearly, is there any empirical support
for the notion that political corruption, widely occurs
in the country, has undermined the country’s ability
to achieve the right path of economic development?
Understanding
the impacts of corruption is as essential as the effort
to eradicate it. So far, claims about the impacts of
corruption tend to rely upon on intuition rather than
proven results/empirical evidences. Consequently, one of
the strategies to combat corruption is to begin from the
end to the beginning: understanding its impacts. Political
Corruption What
is political corruption? According to Huntington[1]
corruption is behavior of public officials which
deviates from accepted norms in order to serve private
gains. Another definition is given by Nye[2]
who states that corruption is behavior which deviates
from the formal duties of a public role because of
private-regarding (personal, close family, private
clique) pecuniary or status gains. Both definitions simply state that political corruption is the misuse and abuse of public office for private monetary or power gain. But how such practices affect our economic development? It seems not easy to directly assess its impact. From economic theory, it argues that political corruption creates inefficiency. As it is not really satisfactory, we need a broader perspective since political corruption has various effects, from undermining democratic process to distorting economy. Then
we can pose questions: how far we would have been - in
regards to our economic development and democracy - if we were governed by a clean government? What are the
costs we bear due to the corruption practices of the New
Order Regime? How political corruption has affected the
ability of the political system to deliver the public
goods on which economic development depend? As we often
heard, massive corruption practices commonly occur in public
projects. But how do they affect our economic development
and did they really contribute to the crisis? Those are
important research agenda that need to be studied
seriously in order to learn more about the effects of
political corruption. It
is often said that the bureaucrats do corrupt but the
government does not. This is a falsehood claim.
State-regulated monopolies (Bulog and Pertamina come to
mind), licensing, rationing, regulations, tariffs, and
other measures by which the state restricts the free
operation of markets, create the so-called rent havens,
which can be captured by some combination of well-placed
businesspersons and bureaucrats. In order to capture
rent havens, market and government actors engage in
rent-seeking activities, ranging from the legal
(lobbying) to the illegal (bribery). Dennis Muller
(1989) calls this
as a socially wasteful activity. Evidence While
political corruption and rent seeking practices might be considered as
the cause of
the country’s sudden plunge into economically dire
straits, very little concrete evidence presented to support this
notion. Political corruption is a
hidden activity and this is not surprising since
categorically it is criminal acts committed by high
power and brain. It is supported by complicated and yet
smooth networks. Even after four years of
the collapse of the New Order Regime, we have not been
able to reveal publicly and significantly any corruption
practices. So far, the only significant effort is to put
Bob Hasan in to Nusakambangan. This certainly
misses the point of ‘war’ against corruption. What
we need is a serious effort to entangle the corruption
web. However,
the lack of hard evidence makes it difficult to do that.
Consequently, it is even harder to explain in detail the
impact of corrupt politicians and bureaucrats had on our
economy. We do know that a series of individual
decisions (and non-decisions) by public officials had
disastrous consequences. But we do not know for a fact
that these choices were directly driven by corruption.
They may just as well have been the result of ignorance
or incompetence. We lack material that proves (or
disproves) any direct link between individual cases of
corruption and economic policy-making. That’s why many
people linked to the Freeport, IPTN and other mega
projects - which are suspected packed of heavy corruption
- can get away easily from such cases. The
lack of empirical evidence of corruption is indeed problematic.
In particular, one must guard against the risk that
vague references to corruption are used to explain
things that are otherwise too hard to explain—such as
ignorant or irrational political behavior. As Peter (Political
Corruption and Political Geography, 1997)
argues that it is never easy to disentangle political
corruption from other irregular political processes,
chance, incompetence and indolence for
example. The difficulty in obtaining empirical facts presents us another option to combat corruption: preventive approach. We may discuss corruption forever. However, unless there is no enhancement in the state of mind of our people as well as improvement in our judicial system and law enforcement, we will end up spending time uselessly. The origins of corruption are in the people’s mind and the lack of rules and punishment. [1]
Huntington,
Samuel P., 1968. Political Order in Changing
Societies. New Haven: Yale University Press. [2]
Nye, J. S., 1967. Corruption and Development: A
Cost-Benefit Analysis. The American Political
Science Review 61, 2: 417-27.
|
|