|
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
corruption is behavior of public officials which
deviates from accepted norms in order to serve
private gains. Another definition is given by Nye
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.
Huntington, Samuel P., 1968. Political Order
in Changing Societies. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Nye, J. S., 1967. Corruption and
Development: A Cost-Benefit Analysis. The
American Political Science Review 61, 2:
417-27.
|