The phenomenon of corruption in the modern world. Corruption and its danger in modern society

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Hosted at http://www.allbest.ru/

1. Introduction

2. Historical aspect of anti-corruption activities

3. Socio-economic consequences of corruption

4. International experience in fighting corruption

5. Anti-corruption policy of the Russian Federation: legislative framework

6. Conclusion

7. References

Introduction

Corruption in public authorities is a great social threat to both society and the state as a whole. It directly or indirectly affects morality, values, and the foundations of society. Therefore, in my opinion, this problem is the most urgent today.

According to Transparency International, Russia ranks 154th out of 178 countries in terms of corruption. Next to us are the most backward African countries (Congo, Guinea-Bissau), as well as Papua New Guinea and Tajikistan. Transparency International has recognized Russia as the most corrupt country among the world's leading G20 countries. Our BRIC colleagues - Brazil, China, India (69th, 78th and 87th respectively) - look much better.

Corruption in the state authorities of Russia is one of the most acute problems, without the solution of which the effective development of Russian society is impossible. The problem of large-scale corruption, characterized by the diversity and high organization of its forms (bribery, lobbying, oligopoly, political corruption, abuses committed by officials, etc.) is what modern Russia faced on the way to integration into the world community. Highly developed countries have already faced and accumulated experience in counteracting these negative phenomena, and we need to develop our national "immunity" in order to maintain economic and political independence and to increase our significance on the world stage.

Significant experience in the fight against corruption has been gained by foreign scientists and public administration practitioners. In recent years, Russia has also published a significant number of works devoted directly to the problem of corruption and possible ways to solve it. The problems of corruption were seriously analyzed in the works of V.V. Bakusheva,

AND I. Bogdanova, A.I. Kirpichnikova, I.M. Klyamkina, V.O. Rukavishnikova, G.A. Satarova, L.M. Timofeeva, A.B. Tsaplina and others. The most acute issues of corruption are of concern to many modern scientists, both domestic and foreign, which is reflected in the holding of specialized conferences, publications in various scientific collections, and discussions on the pages of the periodical press.

After reading and researching the works of scientists on this topic, laws, regulations, conference materials, one can come to the conclusion: how many people are interested in this problem, offer their own measures to eradicate this disease, using not general phrases, but specific facts. However, unfortunately, from a general discussion of the problem of corruption and its relationship with criminal structures with an invariable statement of the harm caused, the society has essentially not moved a single step along the path of a real fight against its manifestations.

The complexity of studying the problem of corruption lies in the fact that it has a hidden character until a certain time: the relative closeness of statistics; the need for judicial evidence of the presence of actions of a corrupt nature that fall into the category of criminal; a significant backlog of public reaction to the illegal actions of officials.

These circumstances determine the relevance and practical significance of studying the problem of corruption in public authorities of the Russian Federation and ways to overcome it.

The object of study of this work is the state authorities of the Russian Federation.

The subject of the study is corruption in the state authorities of the Russian Federation.

The purpose of the work is to study the issue of corruption in state bodies in more depth and find a way to solve this problem.

Achieving the main goal of the course work involves solving the following tasks:

1) find out where the roots of corruption come from

2) analysis of corruption as a social phenomenon and its impact on the state and society

3) get acquainted with the international experience in the fight against corruption, namely in the countries: USA, Hong Kong, Italy, Singapore, trying on the experience of these countries to Russia.

4) Consider the anti-corruption policy in the Russian Federation and its legislative framework.

Corruption is an insurmountable brake on any development, an obstacle to any reforms, it is a terrible scourge for the state. And if you do not start to deal with this problem in time, then gradually it will lead to degradation, decline and disappearance of the state. To fully familiarize yourself with the problem and search for effective solutions in the fight against corruption, you need to get acquainted with the history of the emergence of corruption, its roots. The first chapter of the course work is devoted to this issue.

Historical aspect of anti-corruption activities

corruption struggle legislature

Modern corruption in Russia is a product of the collapse of the USSR and the formation of a new state, including the Russian Federation. In connection with the collapse of the entire system of organization of the state, social, economic and cultural, corruption has become very deep and systemic.

It is no coincidence that corruption in Russia has a long history, its existence is associated with the traditions, mentality of the population, and the peculiarities of the functioning of government institutions. For corruption to become unacceptable to Russian society, a considerable time must pass, but for the time being, stereotypes about the invincibility of corruption are still strong in the public mind.

In Russia, for the first time the term "corruption" was introduced into the legal apparatus by A.Ya. Estrin in his work "Bribery". The author gave the following definition: corruption is the bribe and corruption of government officials, officials, as well as public and political figures in general.

A.V. Kurakin speaks about the definition of corruption directly in the public service system. In his opinion, corruption in the civil service system can be defined as the unlawful acceptance by a civil servant personally or through intermediaries of property benefits, the abuse of office by a civil servant using his status, as well as the bribery of a civil servant by individuals or legal entities.

It should be noted that the concept of corruption is contained in some international legal acts. Thus, in accordance with Article 2 of the Civil Law Convention on Corruption, corruption means asking, offering, giving or accepting, directly or indirectly, a bribe or any other improper advantage or promise thereof, which distorts the normal performance of any duty or conduct, required from the recipient of a bribe, an improper advantage or a promise thereof.

Federal Law of 25.12. 2008 No. 273-FZ (as amended on November 21, 2011) "On Combating Corruption", also establishes the concept of corruption, where Article 1 defines corruption as:

a) abuse of official position, giving a bribe, receiving a bribe, abuse of authority, 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 illegal provision of such benefits to the specified person by other individuals;

b) commission of acts specified in subparagraph "a" of this paragraph, on behalf of or in the interests of a legal entity.

After analyzing the definitions of corruption by some authors, let's move directly to the historical aspect of anti-corruption activities.

The history of corruption is not inferior in antiquity to the history known to us.

The historical roots of corruption probably go back to the custom of giving gifts to chiefs or priests to win their favor.

An expensive gift distinguished a person from other petitioners and contributed to his request being fulfilled. Therefore, in primitive societies, paying a priest or leader was the norm.

Among malfeasance, bribery is the earliest known to mankind. Evidence of the antiquity of this act can be the words of Ovid (1st century BC): "Gifts carry away, believe me, people and gods, Jupiter himself puts up at the sight of gifts."

The first legislative restriction of corruption belongs to Ivan III. And his grandson Ivan the Terrible first introduced the death penalty as a punishment for excessive bribery.

Almost the only popular anti-corruption riot. It took place in Moscow in 1648 and ended with the victory of the Muscovites: part of the city burned down along with a considerable number of civilians, and at the same time the tsar handed over to the crowd two corrupt “ministers”, the head of the Zemsky order, Pleshcheev, and the head of the Pushkarsky order.

Under Peter the Great, both corruption and the tsar's fierce struggle against it flourished. A characteristic episode is when, after many years of investigation, the Siberian governor Gagarin was exposed for corruption and hanged in front of the entire establishment. And then, three years later, Chief Fiscal Nesterov, who exposed Gagarin, was quartered for bribery.

Throughout the reign of the Romanov dynasty, corruption remained a considerable source of income for both petty civil servants and dignitaries. For example, the Elizabethan Chancellor Bestuzhev-Ryumin received 7,000 rubles a year for serving the Russian Empire, and twelve thousand in the same currency for services to the British crown (as an "agent of influence").

It is clear that corruption was inseparable from favoritism. Of the last pre-revolutionary episodes, in addition to Rasputin, it makes sense to mention the ballerina Kshesinskaya and Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich, who, together for huge bribes, helped manufacturers receive military orders during the First World War.

There are documented grounds for asserting that the change in the state system and form of government in October 1917 did not abolish corruption as a phenomenon, but instead formed a hypocritical attitude towards it, which greatly contributed to the rooting of bribery and extortion in the new administrative environment.

After the Moscow Revolutionary Tribunal on May 2, 1918, considered the case of four employees of the investigating commission, accused of bribes and blackmail, and sentenced them to six months in prison, the Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars V.I. Lenin insisted on reviewing the case. The All-Russian Central Executive Committee again returned to this issue and sentenced three of the four to ten years in prison. The archives contain a note by Lenin D.I. Kursky about the need to immediately introduce a bill on the strictest penalties for bribery and a letter from Lenin to the Central Committee of the RCP (b) with a proposal to put on the agenda the issue of expelling judges from the party who issued too lenient sentences in the case of bribery.

The Decree of the Council of People's Commissars "On Bribery" dated May 8, 1918 was the first legal act in Soviet Russia that provided for criminal liability for bribery (imprisonment for a period of at least five years, combined with forced labor for the same period). Interestingly, in this decree, an attempt to receive or give a bribe was equated to a crime committed. In addition, the class approach was not forgotten either: if the bribe giver belonged to the propertied class and sought to maintain his privileges, then he was sentenced to “the most difficult and unpleasant forced labor,” and all property was subject to confiscation. The history of the struggle of the Soviet government against corruption ended with the government itself, without success. This struggle is characterized by several interesting and important features.

Firstly, the authorities did not recognize the word "corruption", allowing it to be put into use only at the end of the 80s. Instead, the terms "bribery", "abuse of official position", "connivance", etc. were used. By denying the term, they denied the concept, and therefore the phenomenon. Thus, the analysis of this phenomenon and any struggle against its particular criminal consequences were doomed to failure in advance.

Secondly, the Soviet "legal consciousness" unproductively explained the causes of corruption phenomena. Shortcomings in the work of party, trade union and state bodies, primarily in the field of education of workers, were listed as reasons for corruption.

The note of the Department of Administrative Bodies of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the CPC under the Central Committee of the CPSU on strengthening the fight against bribery in 1975-1980, dated May 21, 1981, states that in 1980 more than 6,000 cases of bribery were detected, which is 50% more than than in 1975. It tells about the appearance of organized groups (for example, more than 100 people in the USSR Ministry of Fisheries, headed by a deputy minister). It is said about the facts of condemnation of ministers and deputy ministers in the republics, about other union ministries, about bribery and merging with criminal elements of employees of control bodies, about bribery and bribery in the prosecutor's office and courts. The notes list the main components of crimes: sale of scarce products; allocation of equipment and materials; adjustment and reduction of planned targets; appointment to positions of responsibility; hiding scams. The reasons given are: serious omissions in personnel work; red tape and red tape when considering the legitimate requests of citizens; poor handling of complaints and letters from citizens; gross violations of state, planning and financial discipline; liberalism in relation to bribe-takers (including in court sentences); bad work with public opinion. It is reported about the punishment of leading party workers (the level of the city committee and the district committee) for connivance with bribery. It is proposed to adopt a resolution of the Central Committee. Thus, one can see a strict correspondence between the poor understanding of corruption phenomena, the primitive explanation of their causes and inadequate means of combating them.

Thirdly, the highest Soviet and party dignitaries were practically inviolable. Rare exceptions include the cases of Tarada and Medunov from the top regional leadership in Krasnodar, the case of Shchelokov. When Deputy Minister of Foreign Trade Sushkov was convicted of bribery and abuse, the KGB and the General Prosecutor's Office of the Union reported to the Central Committee about the side results of the investigation: Minister Patolichev systematically received expensive items made of gold and other precious metals, rare gold coins as gifts from representatives of foreign firms. The matter was hushed up.

Fourthly, only representatives of this apparatus fought against corruption among the state apparatus. This led to two consequences: those who fought were organically unable to change the root causes that give rise to corruption, since they dated back to the most important conditions for the existence of the system; the fight against corrupt officials often developed into a fight against competitors in the market of corrupt services.

Fifth, corruption often acted as the only possible means of introducing market relations into the planned economy. It is futile to fight against the laws of nature. This was evidenced by the rootedness of corruption as an organizer of the shadow market. That is why it expanded as total control weakened.

The last chance to influence the state of affairs was presented to the former government in July 1991, when the Resolution of the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the CPSU "On the need to strengthen the fight against crime in the economic sphere" was adopted. But, oddly enough, there was not a word about bribery or corruption in it. Throughout the post-war period, during perestroika and after it, the growth of corruption took place against the background of the weakening of the state machine. It was accompanied by the following processes: a decrease in centralized control, then the collapse of ideological bonds, economic stagnation, and then a drop in the level of economic development, and finally, the collapse of the USSR and the emergence of a new country, Russia, which at first could only nominally be considered a state. Gradually, the centrally organized corruption of the centralized state was replaced by a "federal" structure of many corrupt systems. Thus, the current state of corruption in Russia is largely due to long-standing trends and a transitional stage, which in other countries in a similar situation was accompanied by an increase in corruption. Among the most important factors that determine the growth of corruption and have historical roots, in addition to dysfunctions of the state machine and some historical and cultural traditions, it should be noted:

· a rapid transition to a new economic system, unsupported by the necessary legal framework and legal culture;

· the absence in Soviet times of a normal legal system and relevant cultural traditions;

disintegration of the party system of control.

Socio-economic consequences of corruption

Corruption, as a social phenomenon, is inextricably linked with the development of economic, legal and political institutions of society. The level of development of these institutions determines the "state of corruption". Economic relations, due to their dynamics, are developing much faster than the regulatory legal acts that regulate them are being improved, and, as a result, a social conflict arises, which is a determinant of corruption. Certain conflict situations will inevitably exist, but their depth depends on the quality of the legal norms governing these relations. Normative legal acts by themselves will not reduce the level of corruption, and therefore it is necessary to create conditions that would ensure the implementation of these legal acts by all subjects of public relations. There are various methods of influencing the subjects of public relations in order to oblige them to comply with legal requirements. These include measures of criminal, administrative, civil law and other influence.

However, in my opinion, the implementation of these norms by the subjects of social relations should be ensured by moral norms. In a society where moral norms are decisive in people's behavior, corruption as a social phenomenon is minimal and does not have any impact on the positive development of social relations. Legal norms in their effectiveness cannot replace moral norms that determine the behavior of people according to their own will and discretion. An excessive number of laws in a society testifies to its moral and moral flaws. In such a society, corruption as a social phenomenon poses a real threat to its national security and can lead to a social explosion.

Corruption is an insurmountable brake on any development, an obstacle to any reforms, it is a terrible scourge for the state, leading to its degradation, decline and disappearance.

Corruption, as a social phenomenon, is a complex, multidimensional phenomenon that covers all spheres of social relations between civil society and the state and encroaches on many legally protected benefits in various ways. In addition to legal ones, it affects a number of other problems: psychological, cultural, interpersonal, which naturally causes difficulties in developing its general concept and distinctive features, and developing any specific measures to combat it. In general, from the point of view of sociology, corruption is considered as a social phenomenon, one of the types of social relations from the standpoint of the system-wide principles of the functioning of society. Corruption is a dysfunction of the social system and a failure of the normative system of society.

The situation in our country is very alarming. Corruption has already reached such proportions that it threatens the fundamental national interests of the country. It is corruption that creates the conditions for the manifestations of terrorism, which is today the most acute threat to the security of citizens and the country as a whole. Corruption, discrediting law as the main instrument for regulating the life of the state and society, destroys the legal and democratic institutions of the state and society. It has a particularly negative impact on the judicial and law enforcement systems.

The impact of corruption on the economic sphere is also devastating. Competition mechanisms are violated, obstacles are created to freedom of entrepreneurial activity, property rights are infringed, budgetary funds are used inefficiently, prices and tariffs are unreasonably increased. All this leads to the expansion of the shadow economy, hinders the inflow of foreign direct investment into Russia against the backdrop of a high level of capital outflow from the country. Thus, corruption hinders the formation of a competitive economy in Russia, the reduction of poverty, the growth of the well-being of Russians, and the formation of a strong civil society.

Corruption stimulates the unfair redistribution of funds in favor of individual corporate and social groups at the expense of the most vulnerable social strata. The poorest part of society, the least protected citizens, have almost no opportunity to resist extortion and other corrupt practices. Corruption leads to a large-scale displacement of citizens from the sphere of free compulsory public services, primarily in the field of education and medicine, which leads to massive violations of the constitutional rights of citizens.

Corruption contributes most directly to the criminalization of society. Merging with corrupt groups of officials and entrepreneurs, organized crime is growing stronger, which not only expands the possibilities of "money laundering", but also gains access to political power.

All this undermines the confidence of citizens in state power, destroys the legitimacy of state institutions, hinders the necessary reforms for Russia, increases social tension, increases the threat of terrorism and extremism, and contributes to the fall of the country's prestige in the world community.

Currently, we can talk about various reasons for the growth of corruption in our country, such as the imperfection of legislation, violation of the principles of equality of legislative, executive and judicial powers, the spirit of money-grubbing and legal nihilism, the dependence of the judiciary on the executive, personnel miscalculations. The moral state of society is decisive and all the existing causes of corruption are directly dependent on this state. The higher the moral foundations of society, the less manifestations of corruption and vice versa. At present, a situation has developed in our country where corruption is the tool that ensures the operation of all systems of society and the state.

The motives for bribery are quite diverse.

In the first place in terms of size are bribes to ensure the start of a business that otherwise could not start at all, or bribes to eliminate competitors of a future enterprise. In these cases, the pay is predominantly to receive government contracts.

Second in importance were bribes for the sake of facilitating access to public services, on which firms were entitled to expect, but could not receive them in a timely manner at the whim of officials. Such services include registration of products, permits for construction work, customs clearance of imported goods. Some firms pay bribes to reduce tax arrears.

Speaking about the official environment, or conditions of service, then, first of all, one should pay attention to three circumstances that are most often involved in the production of corruption.

Firstly, the amount of wages of employees, which would allow them and their families to live with dignity. Sometimes the pay is so negligible that it is as if it is implied that the employee will switch to "customer feeding". At the same time, in Russia during the reform period, the delay in the payment of wages to many civil servants was the rule rather than the exception. This created a situation of extreme need in families. Under the influence of the latter, some of the employees were motivated to commit a corruption crime. The situation became aggravated in the conditions of sharp contrasts in the wages of employees of even one organization, not due to good reasons.

Low income is perceived by the majority of the population as evidence of failure in life; when people are differentiated according to the scale of prestige, it throws them down, oppresses the vanity of a person with high self-esteem, regardless of his profession and education. According to social expectations, a man should be the breadwinner of the family, who earns a livelihood, and these funds should be more than the income of his wife. Material security, a large contribution to the family budget allows a man to maintain a high informal status and have the right to decide in the family and perform an important economic function in the household: to distribute cash income. The inability to perform the duties of a breadwinner, that is, to meet the needs of the family in a prosperous life, often gives rise to an intrapersonal conflict of a role nature as a result of a conflict of duty to society and to the family.

Secondly, the type of management matters. In the first, so-called situational management, various kinds of tasks are solved to a large extent at the discretion of individual employees. Legal regulation is carried out only in the most general order. There is scope for personal discretion and arbitrariness. Ultimately, a significant number of citizens who get tired of the numerous, not precisely defined in advance demands of employees, are ready to pay off them. Sometimes the very presentation of ambiguous and changing demands is assessed as extortion of a bribe and provokes it. In the second, normative management, it is mainly about applying in certain types of situations the legal norms that regulate them in detail, and not just about taking into account the norms that introduce certain restrictions.

Thirdly, the socio-psychological situation is essential. For example, the recognition of corruption among civil servants as a normal phenomenon, like tips among doormen, is an important factor in the formation of criminal motivation.

This can be combated by changing the civil service system accordingly. The adoption of the first corrupt decision can be facilitated by the information environment surrounding the official. An honest official, who hears and reads the same thing every day: “They take everything from us!”, may begin to perceive himself as a black sheep, a loser, to whom no one even offers bribes. It remains only to wait for the "good chance". An important feature of the socio-psychological climate in society, which contributes to the flourishing of corruption, is a double moral standard. On the one hand, corruption, especially at the top, is considered socially unacceptable. This is supported in every possible way by everyday morality, the press, and political practice that exploits anti-corruption topics. On the other hand, corruption, especially grassroots, is a part of everyday life that is accepted “by default”. Zones continue to exist that are almost closed to the actions of law enforcement agencies. Accusations of corruption have become so commonplace that the line between normal and abnormal is blurred. The social aspects of corruption manifest themselves in the political, economic, cultural and other spheres of the life of Russian society on a scale close to a critical indicator. The influence of corruption on the administrative and social environment of civil servants, the transformation of their moral norms and values, the corporate culture of the civil service is very high today.

Thus, one of the main measures to combat corruption is the development and strengthening of moral principles and sustainable moral principles in society. In my opinion, a citizen who respects himself as a person will never become the subject of corruption-related crimes, but, on the contrary, will effectively resist these manifestations.

International experience in fighting corruption

Corruption in one form or another exists in many foreign countries, and its international character is generally recognized. Corruption in international legal acts is defined as one of the global problems in the field of ensuring the international legal order. The international community is striving to unite efforts in the matter of preventing and combating corruption. Currently, measures to prevent corruption are presented in international anti-corruption programs:

UN Global Program against Corruption;

UN Declaration on Combating Corruption and Bribery in International Business Transactions;

UN Convention against Corruption, etc.

The Federation Council studies and summarizes the experience of the CIS countries, foreign states and the practice of international cooperation in combating corruption. For this purpose, international conferences are held within the framework of the Inter-Parliamentary Assembly of the CIS states, lectures and seminars dedicated to the UN and Council of Europe anti-corruption conventions.

The first documents ratified by the Russian Federation in the field of combating corruption are the UN Convention against Corruption and the Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention on Corruption.

International cooperation should help states develop unified administrative and legal means to fulfill their obligations in the field of preventing and combating corruption in the civil service.

Foreign experience in the fight against corruption is important and can be taken into account in national legislation.

During the 20th century, among the industrialized countries, the United States, Italy, Hong Kong and Singapore launched the most large-scale and uncompromising fight against corruption.

One of the initiators of the active fight against corruption within the country and in the international arena was the United States, which has significant experience in combating this phenomenon.

In the US Constitution, adopted in 1787, taking a bribe is one of the most serious crimes. According to the Constitution, the president of the United States can be impeached for this crime.

In the late 1960s, corruption in the United States decided to fight with special methods. In particular, the FBI specialists developed and successfully carried out an operation called "The Sheik and the Bee."

FBI agents infiltrated corruption networks disguised as middlemen for Arab millionaires and offered large bribes to high-ranking government officials and congressmen to advance their commercial interests.

As a result of the operation, in just one year, more than two hundred state officials were convicted of corruption crimes and subsequently fired.

However, the beginning of a real fight against corruption in the United States dates back to the 70s of the last century. The shock of a high-profile corruption scandal related to the activities of the American company Lockheed in Japan, which led to the resignation of the government of the country, prompted American legislators to pass the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in 1977. This Act outlawed the bribery of foreign officials by American citizens and companies.

However, after the adoption of this law, the American business community began to complain that the US tough stance on corruption seriously undermines the position of American companies operating in the corrupt environment of the third world countries. As a result, in 1988, appropriate amendments were made to the act.

However, the situation has not changed. In particular, in one of the studies published in the journal "The Economist" in 1995, it was argued that in 1994-1995. American companies lost about 100 contracts abroad for a total of about $45 billion, which went to less principled rivals and competitors.

According to a US Department of Commerce report prepared in 1996 with the assistance of US intelligence agencies, American firms suffered losses estimated at $11 billion because their competitors resorted to bribery.

On this basis, a campaign was launched in the United States to force other OECD countries to make it a crime to pay bribes to foreign officials.

At that time, the Clinton administration declared negotiations at the OECD on bribery one of the priorities in the activities of the US State Department. Thus, the Americans wanted to put their competitors on an equal footing.

In order to strengthen the fight against corruption and assist American companies in solving this problem at the international level, at the beginning of the third millennium, the US Department of Commerce created a "hotline" on its Internet.

Thus, now any firm can report cases of use of bribes known to it when concluding international contracts directly to the US Department of Commerce.

However, in recent years, bribery in the US economy has again reached such a level that the government has been forced to launch a wide-ranging attack against companies that use bribes to advance their interests abroad.

In recent years, the US government has passed a number of new anti-corruption laws and is prosecuting a growing number of officials and businessmen.

Another striking example of an effective fight against corruption, which I think we should follow, is the Clean Hands operation carried out in Italy in the early 90s, the operation had stunning results.

The cult of offerings and gifts reigns in the Apennines, so a bribe in the minds of the townsfolk has long ceased to be a serious crime. But by the early 1990s, corruption entangled the entire state system and provoked a political crisis, and business played a significant role in this. In Italy, the parties have real power, so the entrepreneurs bought their protection by funding politicians. Gradually, the practice became the norm, and strong corrupt ties formed between business and functionaries. In some places, politicians even set a tax: for example, one company from Calabria monthly donated 4.5% of profits to party needs, part of the money - about 3% - settled in the local branch, the rest was sent to the headquarters. At first glance, donations are harmless. But it's not. The closer the ties became, the more opportunities appeared for dishonest businessmen: government orders, important contracts, insider information.

Using corrupt politicians, businessmen often settled scores with competitors.

The “protection” market was crippled by a bribe of 14 million liras (about $5,000). When Mario Chiesa, the director of the Trivulzio nursing home in Milan, got caught, no one attached much importance to it. But when he saw the printouts of the accounts of the accused, the prosecutor's office investigator Antonio Di Pietro was very surprised. There was an explanation for the wealth of the defendant: he was a member of the ruling Socialist Party. From the director of the boarding house, the thread stretched to major Italian politicians. Member of the Socialist Party, Prime Minister Bettino Craxi hastened to renounce Chiesa, and he, offended, began to surrender his comrades-in-arms one by one. Then the domino principle worked. Thus began the famous Operation Clean Hands (1993-1994), which became a textbook in the history of the fight against corruption.

Its results are impressive: more than 500 politicians received prison terms, including Senator Giulio Andreotti for life and Prime Minister Craxi. About 20,000 people were under investigation. To avoid accusations, more than 80% of officials resigned. Business also got it: employees of Fiat, Olivetti and other corporations came to the attention of the authorities. Convicted corrupt officials received not only prison sentences, they were subjected to a well-known measure in the USSR - confiscation of property. The expropriated houses housed state institutions: hospitals, courts, police stations. The bottles of wine, which was made from grapes grown on confiscated lands, demonstratively flaunted the inscription: "Made in a vineyard taken from the mafia." The money of corrupt officials was directed to the social sphere and agriculture. It was a very well thought out PR stunt that increased public support for the anti-corruption campaign.

It may seem that this whole operation is an accident from beginning to end. But it's not. In any case, its success was predetermined by the following factors.

* Democratic system. In Italy, neither the prime minister, nor even the president, has absolute power, and strong parties really fight for power, compete and, therefore, do not forgive each other's mistakes. Even as prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi testified several times in court. In addition to everything, by the end of the 1980s - the beginning of the 1990s, the political situation in Italy became aggravated. The two most powerful parties, the Socialist and the Christian Democrats, which were the most involved in corruption, usurped power. Naturally, other political players did not like it. Therefore, they seized on the "Chieza case" and did not let it be hushed up.

* Free media. They did not hide the ins and outs from television and the press, and the journalists gladly unleashed the scandal, waking up the general population.

* Consistency of law enforcement. In an article in Expert magazine, Di Pietro noted: "The purpose of the operation was to expose the full depth of the phenomenon in the expectation that others would go further - those who would continue to dismantle the corrupt system." Others went.

* Strong and independent judiciary. The independence of the magistracy (prosecutors, judges, investigators) in Italy was proclaimed by the 1947 Constitution. Only the Supreme Council can appoint or remove from office the ministers of Themis, the majority of whose members are chosen by the magistracy itself. In his decisions, he does not depend on anyone. That is why Di Pietro, who launched a campaign that made life difficult for so many influential people, was not fired and was able to continue what he started. In addition, already during the campaign, the investigating authorities were allowed to freely interrogate members of parliament, which greatly facilitated the course of Operation Clean Hands.

Of course, one campaign could not eradicate corruption completely. But she woke up a passive society and launched the mechanism of renewal and purification.

Another country that deserves attention is Hong Kong.

Hong Kong is one of the financial capitals of the world. To achieve this, the authorities needed thirty years and gigantic efforts. In the early 1970s, Hong Kong was a hotbed of crime - racketeering, drug trafficking and prostitution flourished under the wing of a corrupt police force. And then the authorities decided on drastic measures - they abolished the useless anti-corruption service that was part of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and in 1973 they established the Independent Commission to Combat Corruption (ICAC) in its place. She began to report directly to the governor of Hong Kong. Fearing an influx of corrupt police officers into the NKBC, progressive youth were taken there: graduates of the best universities and young professionals who had not yet had time to acquire harmful connections. The governor personally appointed each member of the commission - for six years without the possibility of re-election.

The NCAC consists of three departments: operational, preventive and public relations. The operative is engaged in detective work: calculates and develops bribe-takers, interrogates them and sends cases to court. Preventive reveals corruption ties in the state apparatus and studies the schemes of bribe-takers. Its main task is to find vulnerabilities in the state machine. The Public Relations Department conducts advocacy work and monitors public sentiment.

Over the years, corruption in Hong Kong has developed into an extensive system. Realizing this, the NKBC took up the big fish first. By imprisoning the most powerful of corrupt officials, she decapitated corruption. It is very important that in the minds of the townsfolk, the members of the commission did not become punishers who seized stealing officials at night. This was facilitated by the fact that their work was actively covered by the media from the very beginning. In parallel with the power actions, the government carried out propaganda, trying to involve the whole society in the problem.

The NKCC has received unprecedented powers. In fact, its employees work according to the laws of a court-martial: they can arrest an official, guided only by reasonable suspicions, keep him under arrest for a long time without charge, freeze bank accounts. Many radical innovations are enshrined in legislation. One of the laws established a presumption of guilt for officials living in grand style. This is enough for the NKBC to open a criminal case. The accused will avoid prosecution only if he proves the legality of the origin of the money. Otherwise, he faces ten years in prison.

Employees of the NKBC themselves could easily join the ranks of bribe-takers, but the government made sure that this did not happen. Salaries in the NKBC are on average 10% higher than those of other employees, and they are overseen by public committees made up of officials, businessmen and intellectuals.

The work of the NKBK began to bear fruit in a year. In 1974, the number of corruption cases brought to trial doubled from the previous year - 218 to 108. Now Hong Kong is one of the least corrupt countries in the world.

"Asian tigers" have succeeded in the fight against corruption. Another confirmation of this is Singapore. Having gained independence in 1965, the country was forced to solve many problems at the same time. One of them was corruption.

However, work in this direction began even a little earlier. The country's meager budget prevented the government from launching a costly campaign. The first step was to change the law. Back in 1960, the Corruption Prevention Act (ROSA) was passed. He pursued two goals: to neutralize corruption-intensive articles and to toughen punishment for bribery. Even before that, a special body was created - the Anti-Corruption Agency (ABA), the director of which reported directly to the country's prime minister. But before the adoption of ROSA, the work of the agency did not bring tangible results. ROSA has removed several major obstacles.

First, he gave a clear and concise definition of all types of corruption. The bribe-takers could no longer shirk, receiving "thank you" in the form of gifts and hiding behind vague wording.

Secondly, ROSA regulated the work of the agency and gave it serious powers. Thirdly, he increased prison terms for bribes. All this freed the Agency's hands: it received permission to detain potential bribe-takers, search their homes and workplaces, check bank accounts, and so on. The department has three departments: operational, administrative and informational. The last two, in addition to supporting operational work, are also responsible for the “cleanliness” of the bureaucracy. They are in charge of the selection of candidates for high government positions, preventive measures and even the organization of tenders for government orders.

Later, Singaporean legislation was supplemented several times, for example, in 1989, confiscation of property was introduced. Tight control gave good results, so the authorities moved to the second stage of the fight against bribery - "soft".

Starting from the second half of the 1980s, the government began to work on the "quality" of the bureaucracy. Officials were seriously raised salaries (in the future, this was done every few years), which was supposed to keep them from taking bribes. Now the salaries of the highest officials of the country are calculated depending on the average earnings in business and reach $20-25 thousand per month. Both parliamentarians and the population took this initiative with distrust, but Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew publicly justified its expediency.

The government decided to make the profession of an official not only highly paid, but also respected. In Singapore, the principle of meritocracy is preached at the state level. The path to the top is open to the most intelligent, progressively thinking and capable. The Anti-Corruption Agency is responsible for this. Recruitment takes place at school, and then the future elite is led: they help them enter the university, send them to study and internships abroad, and encourage success. So gradually the bureaucracy was updated with properly trained and educated personnel, many of which joined the ranks of the agency. All this against the backdrop of severe pressure from corrupt officials.

The policy of carrot and stick has borne fruit: the level of corruption in Singapore has fallen significantly.

The local bureaucracy is considered one of the most efficient in the world. And the most highly paid - the salaries of officials are higher than those of equal status employees in the United States.

No strategy can be copied "as is" - mental and economic differences will not allow this to be done. But the analysis of all four campaigns allows us to understand the main thing: in order for the fight against bribery to bring results, special conditions are needed (democracy, as in Italy, or paramilitary status and meritocracy, as in Asian countries). Below we will try to assess what needs to be done in Russia for a successful anti-corruption policy based on the experience of these four countries.

1) Remove systemic obstacles.

* No external control over the bureaucracy. If in Italy, Sweden or any other developed democratic country, politicians control the army of officials, then in Russia officials are not controlled by anyone. As long as there is no party competition, there can be no talk of a normal anti-corruption campaign.

* There are no independent socio-political media. Here we can cite Italy as an example, where the media promoted the case of Mario Chiesa, and then covered the entire operation. Party leaders simply did not have leverage over editors and publishers.

* Civil society is not developed. Civil society (it is strong in Europe and the USA, it is not yet developed in the countries of Southeast Asia, but there is respect for the authorities there) is the key to the success of anti-corruption campaigns. In Italy, Di Pietro and his colleagues relied on the public, and this played a decisive role.

* Power is opaque. This is a consequence of the first three reasons.

It is necessary to start the “treatment” of the system from corruption precisely with these problems, and then take quite understandable tactical steps: create an independent judicial system, if necessary, a special service like the Hong Kong NKBC, clean up the ranks and change the principle of remuneration of officials.

2) Rework the legislation

Bad laws can destroy any anti-corruption initiative, well-thought-out ones are guaranteed to make it easier.

First, to change the principle of formation of laws. Russian legislation was created from the best world laws. It is impeccable, but not "tuned" for our country. If in the USA the law on securities appeared after the market started to work, then in Russia it happened almost simultaneously. Many of our institutions are out of touch with reality If the need to change customs legislation is ripe, it is better to listen to the murmurings of importers than to catch them by the hand in government offices. The reaction is always late, which means that the fight against corruption can go on forever.

Secondly, as far as possible, "whitewash" the legislation. Some procedures are now outlawed, although there is nothing criminal in them. A striking example is the bill on lobbying, which the Duma rejected several times. If you think about it, the situation is strange: big business is forced to commit crime and pay bribes, even promoting breakthrough technology. But an attempt to convey one's position to the attention of legislators is not a crime. Everyone will benefit from a clearly defined procedure for introducing business initiatives. There will be no need for business to give a bribe to be listened to, and the authorities will de-energize a powerful corruption scheme.

Thirdly, to get rid of "legal voids" - inaccuracies, omissions and general formulations in laws. So far, there are many. There is no category of "illicit enrichment" in the legislation, as in the UN convention. If it appeared, it would be possible to prosecute officials who cannot explain the origin of their capital.

One of the most effective forms of influence on mercenary criminals is confiscation, which is widely used in the US and Europe. The deputies also proposed to introduce this bill into the legislation, but the Duma, like the law on lobbying, rejected it. I don't know what the government is guided by when it rejects bills that are really needed. It's probably the law of self-preservation. After all, they do not propose to write off the article on confiscation from the norm of Soviet times, where the confiscation was complete: a person was literally left with a bed, a jersey, a spoon and a cup. Everything illegally acquired, or its equivalent, if illegally acquired has already been spent, should be subject to confiscation. But legislators did not like this interpretation.

3) Carry out a criminological and corruption examination of the legislation, and it is very necessary. An example is Article 575 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which allows civil servants to accept gifts if their value does not exceed five minimum wages. Apparently, the Russian government should start with filling the "legal voids".

4) Find the "reference" class

The Hong Kong government relied on the progressive and determined youth that formed the backbone of the NKPC. The Singaporean authorities themselves fashioned a class of honest bureaucrats and now they can safely count on them.

There is no such social group in Russia yet. Perhaps such a social group can be the growing middle class - progressive educated people with clear life goals and moral principles. It is only necessary not to interfere with its development, and then in a few years it will become a conductor of anti-corruption philosophy.

5) Create an enabling environment

In Italy and in Asian countries, the fight against bribery was actively supported by the population. In Russia, corruption is taken for granted, and this is a big problem.

Work with young professionals and students. Here you can use the Asian principle of meritocracy. Until we begin to form the right view of things among young people, until they are imbued with the realization that it is bad not only to steal, but also to take bribes, things will not get off the ground.

Having thus prepared the ground and achieved tangible success in building a civil society, you can launch your Clean Hands. As a rule, serious reforms in Russia took place after the change of power. The elite is cemented with personal ties, and as long as these are not destroyed, the system will resist any transformation. So global changes must be timed to coincide with the change of the elite - there is no other way out.

Unfortunately, in the field of combating corruption, Russia has more failures than successes, but one cannot console oneself with the fact that "it was born together with the state and can only die with it," since it seems possible to restrain it within certain limits and this is an example positive experience of foreign countries. Having analyzed the most successful anti-corruption campaigns - the United States, Singapore, Italy and Hong Kong, we tried to apply their experience to Russia, taking into account our characteristics, in my opinion, some of the experience of these countries can still be applied to Russia. In the last chapter of our course work, we will directly consider modern methods of combating corruption in Russia.

Similar Documents

The historical aspect of anti-corruption activities. Analysis of corruption as a social phenomenon and its impact on the state, society. International experience in the fight against corruption. Characteristics of corruption in state bodies. Anti-corruption policy of the Russian Federation.

term paper, added 05/28/2014


Corruption: history of formation and development, legal consolidation of state measures to counteract. Anti-corruption policy of the Russian Federation and its perspective directions. Foreign experience in the fight against corruption in the system of state power.

thesis, added 04/14/2016


The history of the development of corruption in Russia. Corruption as a socio-economic phenomenon. Corruption crimes in the modern world. The main directions of the fight against corruption crimes in foreign countries. Anti-corruption policy of Russia.

thesis, added 08/16/2012


Legal consolidation of state measures to combat corruption. Anti-corruption policy of the Russian Federation, its perspective directions. Means of combating corruption in the system of state power. Foreign experience in the fight against corruption.

thesis, added 02/21/2017


Corruption as a socio-political phenomenon, its causes and consequences in the sphere of public administration. Anti-corruption policy: world and domestic experience, priority tasks. Improving the management system of the law enforcement system.

term paper, added 01/06/2014


Legislation to combat corruption and its practical implementation in the activities of government bodies. Measures to eradicate corruption at the regional level on the example of the Kemerovo region. Foreign experience in the fight against corruption.

thesis, added 08/23/2014


Grounds for corruption in the public administration system. Systemic dysfunctions of the public service. Implementation of anti-corruption mechanisms in public authorities. Measures to combat corruption in the Federal Migration Service.

term paper, added 08/12/2009


Legislative framework for the fight against corruption. The specifics of corruption in modern conditions and the main methods of combating it. Evaluation of the effectiveness of anti-corruption methods in the Russian Federation. Improving the regulatory framework in the anti-corruption policy in the Russian Federation.

term paper, added 06/17/2017


Analysis of social, economic and political consequences of corruption. Study of successful experience and legal practice of combating it in foreign countries. Fight against bribery. Legislative base of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the fight against corruption.

thesis, added 10/25/2015


Analysis of the problem of combating corruption. Etymology of the term "corruption". Corruption and bribery: Russian and international practice. Service environment in which corruption crimes are committed. Ways to solve the problem in the public service system.

The best reports at the scientific student conference
"Social responsibility of the state, business and civil society"
MGIMO-University, December 5, 2008

“Their hands are turned to be able to do evil;
the boss demands gifts, and the judge judges for bribes,
and nobles express evil desires
their souls, and pervert the work"
Micah 7:3

Since ancient times, power and corruption have been inseparable. Throughout history, parallel to the evolution of the state, corruption has evolved. If at the dawn of the formation of statehood, payment to a priest, leader or military commander for a personal appeal to their help was considered as a universal norm, then later, with the complication of the state apparatus, professional officials began to officially receive only a fixed income - which meant the transition of bribes to the shadow economy.

The first mention of corruption (and, accordingly, the fight against it) can be attributed to the second half of the 24th century. BC e., when Urukagina - the king of the ancient Sumerian city of Lagash in the territory of modern Iraq - reformed public administration in order to stop the numerous abuses of his officials and judges. However, the fight against corruption in the ancient world usually did not bring the desired results, especially in the eastern despotisms. According to the author of the ancient Indian treatise Arthashastra, "it is easier to guess the path of birds in the sky than the tricks of cunning officials." Corruption reached its peak in the era of the decline of antiquity in the Roman Empire - and became one of the reasons for its collapse. The word "corruption" itself is of Latin origin - corrumpere means "to corrupt, spoil, damage."

The world has changed, and so has the scale of corruption. Globalization and the formation of the world economy have allowed corruption to reach the international level and become one of the most massive and dangerous phenomena of our time. Corruption is one of the most serious problems in the world today: according to Daniel Kaufmann, director of global programs at the World Bank Institute, in 2007 bribes amounted to more than a trillion dollars - more than 2% of world GDP. About what corruption is, what are its causes and impact on the state, society and economy, and whether it is possible to successfully fight it in the 21st century - all this will be discussed in this work.

1. The concept of corruption

Corruption is defined by Transparency International as the abuse of entrusted power for private interests. The Federal Law of the Russian Federation “On Combating Corruption” provides the clearest possible definition: “abuse of official position, giving a bribe, receiving a bribe, abuse of authority, 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” .

The United Nations considers corruption to be "a complex social, cultural and economic phenomenon that affects all countries", without giving a more detailed explanation of the term. It is noteworthy that even the text of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) does not contain a definition of what the participating countries are called to fight. However, this is explained by the fact that the phenomenon of corruption is too complex and multifaceted to be able to give a comprehensive and at the same time sufficient detailed definition. According to the author, a more complete and correct idea of ​​corruption can be obtained if all corruption phenomena are classified according to various criteria. Criteria can be formulated as questions - who, how, why and how often?

First criterion- type of activity of a corrupt official (Scheme 1 - who).

Scheme 1. Typology of corruption relations by type of activity of a corrupt official

Second criterion— forms of corrupt relations ( how and why):

• bribery, bribery, obtaining illegal income (extortion, kickbacks);
• theft and privatization of public resources and funds;
• misappropriation (forgery, forgery, falsification, theft; misappropriation of money, property by fraudulent means), abuse in the use of state funds, embezzlement;
• nepotism or nepotism, favoritism (appointment of relatives and friends to posts and positions);
• promotion of personal interests, collusion (granting preferences to individuals, conflict of interest);
• accepting gifts to expedite problem resolution;
• protection and protection (“covering”, perjury);
• abuse of power (intimidation or torture);
• manipulation of regulation (falsification of elections, decision-making in favor of one group or person);
• electoral violations (vote buying, electoral fraud);
• rent seeking - extortion (civil servants illegally set fees for services or artificially create shortages);
• clientelism and patronage (politicians provide material services in exchange for the support of citizens);
• illegal contributions to election campaigns (gifting gifts to influence the content of the policy).

Third criterion— how often corruption phenomena occur (Scheme 2 — how often)

Scheme 2. Typology of corruption relations by degree of prevalence

Having understood the essence of corruption relations, let us briefly outline the approaches to interpreting these phenomena (Table 1). These concepts, however, are rather not alternative, but complementary.

Table 1. Different approaches to the interpretation of the concept of corruption

Concept
Rational Approach (Economics of Crime)	An individual weighs all the costs and benefits of his criminal actions and rationally decides to commit a crime if the expected utility of such actions is higher than if he remained honest and spent his time and resources in other ways.
The theory of rent-seeking behavior	Economic rent - payment for resources in excess of the maximum value of opportunity costs in the non-monopoly use of these resources. Rent-oriented behavior - efforts aimed at the implementation of state intervention in the market distribution of resources in order to appropriate the income artificially created in this way in the form of rent. Corruption refers to the form illegal rent-seeking behavior
institutional approach	Corruption is a contractual interaction between economic agents with the aim of abusing the position for the sake of private benefits.
principal-agent model	Corruption exists due to the asymmetry of information and the high costs of monitoring the activities of an agent-official
Theory of opportunistic behavior	Corruption is a special case of opportunistic behavior
classical liberalism	Corruption as a failure of the state and as a failure of the market, as a “public anti-good” that harms all members of society (negative externalities).

Source: Bondarenko I.A., Corruption: economic analysis at the regional level.

St. Petersburg, "Petropolis", 2001, p.23-45

So, we have seen that corruption is indeed a complex political, economic, social and ethical phenomenon. Having understood what corruption is, it is possible to investigate the causes of its occurrence - which is the subject of the next section.

2. Causes of corruption

“The roots of this phenomenon [of corruption] lie in the fact that
that a large part of the population
just spits on the observance of the laws "
YES. Medvedev, President of the Russian Federation

The author will allow himself to disagree with the opinion of the head of state. Disrespect for the law is only one of the factors determining the development of corruption in the country. There are many reasons for this - and we will try to consider both the main and secondary ones. So what are the roots of corruption?

Some researchers give a concise and witty answer to this question. One of the first to do this was Professor Robert Klitgaard, the creator of the famous “corruption formula”

K \u003d M + P - O,

where K is corruption, M is the power of monopolies, P is the arbitrariness of decisions, and O is responsibility.

In other words, corruption is determined by the degree of monopoly

the power and the right to make arbitrary decisions, which are vested in public officials, as well as the measure of their responsibility for their actions.

Another, no less interesting model of corruption looks like this:

where I is the country, t is the year.

Indices such as CPI (Corruption Perception Index) in Transparency International or WGI (Worldwide Governance Indicators) in World Bank are calculated using a similar formula.

Let's analyze the formula:

1) First, the higher the level economic well-being(GDP per capita), the less the propensity of officials to resort to illegal methods of obtaining profits, the stricter anti-corruption measures and the stronger civil society.

2) Secondly, the more developed democracy, the greater the risk for an official to lose his place and the more opportunities for anti-corruption authorities.

3) Thirdly, development judicial system also prevents the expansion of corruption processes.

4) Fourth, the bigger and harder bureaucracy, the more opportunities open up for corruption. An important role is played by the centralization of the state: in most rigidly centralized empires, corruption reached unimaginable proportions, as in the Roman and Byzantine empires. On the other hand, not all experts are inclined to consider decentralization as a guarantee of a low level of corruption.

5) Fifth, although until recently researchers have neglected historical factors, the author considers it necessary to consider this group of reasons. For example, in the "old" states, corruption mechanisms have been debugged by many years of practice and are more of a sociocultural phenomenon - as, for example, in the Russian Empire. On the other hand, in the “young states”, large-scale privatization and the underdevelopment of state mechanisms provide almost limitless opportunities for corruption - and the best illustration of this will be not only the Russian Federation, but almost all countries of the former socialist camp.

6) Role geographical factors(in combination with the factor of centralization of power) can be clearly illustrated by the same Roman Empire. The huge size of the country inevitably entails difficulties in managing and controlling the activities of local officials (remember the comedy The Inspector General by N.V. Gogol). In addition, state control over natural resources (which are also classified as geographic factors) opens one of the most lucrative avenues for corrupt activities for officials, both in the form of extortion and bribery.

I would like to separately note that the phenomenon of Russian “otkatonomics” is based on historical and geographical factors, and this once again emphasizes the need to consider them when analyzing the causes of corruption.

Abstracting from the above model, we can conditionally divide all the causes of corruption into six large groups (Table 2):

Table 2. Factors of corruption

Group of factors	Factors
Fundamental	Imperfect economic institutions and economic policy; imperfection of the political decision-making system, underdevelopment of competition, excessive state intervention in the economy, monopolization of certain sectors of the economy, state control over the resource base, low level of development of civil society, inefficiency of the judicial system,
Legal	Weakness of the law, lack of a clear legislative framework and too frequent changes in economic legislation, non-compliance with international law, inadequate penalties for corrupt transactions, the possibility of influencing court decisions, the existence of rules that allow subjective interpretation of regulations
Organizational and economic	Weak system of control over the distribution of public (especially natural) resources, difficulties in managing a large territory, cumbersome and inefficient bureaucracy, relatively low wages for employees, discrimination in access to infrastructure networks, severe trade protectionism (tariff and non-tariff barriers), other forms of discrimination
Informational	Lack of transparency of the state mechanism, information asymmetry, lack of real freedom of speech and press, presence of offshore zones, lack of research into the problem of corruption
Social	Clan structures, traditions of nepotism, exploitation of "friendly ties", blat, tradition of "giving" gifts-bribes, low levels of literacy and education
Cultural and historical	The existing system of norms of bureaucratic behavior; mass culture, forming a condescending attitude towards corruption; features of historical development; attaching little importance to the concepts of honesty and honor

Sources: V.M. Polterovich "Factors of corruption", M. 1998; G. Brodman and F. Ricanatini “The Roots of Corruption. Are Market Institutions Important?, World Bank, 2008; B. Begovic « Corruption: concepts, types, causes and consequences”, CADAL, 2005, etc.

“Corruption, like cancer, hinders
economic development"
James Wolfensohn,
President of the World Bank 1995-2005

Negative Effects effects that corruption has on various spheres of society are grouped in Table 3.

Table 3. Consequences of corruption

Political sphere	Economic sphere	Social sphere
Failure to implement democratic principles	Inefficient distribution and spending of public funds and resources	Growing social inequality, poverty
Shifting policy goals from national development to ensuring the rule of oligarchic groups	High time and material costs in doing business; Growth of financial and commercial risks	The inability of the authorities to solve social problems due to "kickbacks" to the detriment of the public sector
Violation of the rule of law	Seeking rent to the detriment of material production	Rise of organized crime
Ineffective political and judicial institutions	Distortion (increase) in prices	Impunity for criminals
Decreased trust in power, its alienation from society	Reduced competition to the detriment of economic development	The formation of mafia groups
The fall of the prestige of the country	The growth of the shadow economy, tax losses	Discrediting the law in the eyes of the public
The disappearance of real political competition	Deterioration of the investment climate, decline in investment	Moral standards lose their meaning
State fiasco	Decreased efficiency of the country's economy as a whole	Growing social tension

Sources: see references

However, it is no coincidence that there is a statement: “Corruption can be likened to grease, thanks to which the wheels of business begin to spin faster” . In particular, some researchers argue that in some cases positive consequences Corruption can have positive externalities, reduce the transaction costs of bribe givers, and expand opportunities for economic activity.

Let's illustrate these statements with examples. Let's say a foreign corporation plans to carry out energy projects in an unstable country where basic infrastructure and the rule of law are lacking. The company's energy-related capital investments in such a country can easily be expropriated, not only by the central government, but also by local authorities or quasi-state groups that can damage or slow down the company's activities. Thus, all of the listed entities can make claims of a corrupt nature to such a firm. In Angola, for example, Exxon had to meet demands from such groups for basic infrastructure services that the government was unable or unwilling to provide. Giving in to such pressure can be considered, if not illegal, then undoubtedly an act of corruption in the broadest sense of the word. Nevertheless, such actions were obviously beneficial for Exxon and at the same time had a positive impact on the Angolan economy.

The second example is that in many Latin American states, licensing restrictions on many types of businesses are so draconian that firms often operate illegally to avoid the endless hurdles and delays that legal businesses face. To keep these firms operating in the informal economy, bribes are essential. Bribes are usually given voluntarily and are therefore made on the basis of a cost-benefit analysis to reduce the cost of doing business. The author of the book "Corruption and the State" Susan Rose-Ackerman believes that corruption can indeed act as a counterbalance to excessive bureaucratization, which makes it possible to speed up the process of making managerial decisions and contribute to more efficient management.

Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the negative consequences of corruption are much more serious and larger than the positive ones: according to D. Houston, in states with the most stable situation, the negative consequences of corruption exceed the positive ones by 50-100 times. A natural question arises - how, then, to deal with this phenomenon?

4. Anti-corruption methods

If we liquidate the state,
we eliminate corruption.
Gary Stanley Becker, economist
Nobel Prize Laureate
in Economics 1992

So many works have been written on this topic that it is difficult to single out any specific “recipes” against corruption, especially since the package of measures to combat this phenomenon depends primarily on the specifics of the country (recall the model of corruption given in the second chapter) - its the level of economic well-being, institutional, historical, geographical, cultural factors. The author considers it appropriate to give examples of successful anti-corruption strategies and draw certain lessons from them.

I. Singapore strategy. After gaining independence in 1965, Singapore found itself with one of the highest levels of corruption in the world. The following steps have been taken to combat corruption:

• Strict regulation of the actions of officials, simplification of bureaucratic procedures, the most severe supervision over compliance with high ethical standards
• Created autonomous(!) Corruption Investigation Bureau (CPIB). Its main functions:
  i. receive and investigate complaints alleging public and private corruption;
  ii. investigate cases of negligence and negligence committed by public servants;
  iii. audit the activities and transactions carried out by public officials in order to minimize the possibility of corrupt practices.
• Legislation has been tightened, the independence of the judiciary has been increased (with high salaries and a privileged status of judges), economic sanctions have been introduced for giving a bribe or refusing to participate in anti-corruption investigations, and tough actions have been taken, up to the general dismissal of customs officers and other civil services.
• Deregulation of the economy
• Increasing the salaries of officials and training qualified administrative personnel.

It is noteworthy that corrupt officials, in addition to the execution of the usual court sentence, are obliged to reimburse the cost of the bribe received. For those who are unable to make a full refund, a more severe sentence is imposed. If the person accused of corruption has already died, his property is confiscated.

Thanks to this strategy, Singapore has become one of the least corrupt countries in the world - 4th place in the Corruption Perception Index 2008, recently published by Transparency International.

However, what was the driving force that ensured such a high efficiency of anti-corruption reforms? The answer is simple: political will .

II. In the Swedish strategy, the emphasis was shifted to a system of incentives that encourage the population to resist corruption. Its distinguishing features:

• The main instruments are taxes, benefits and subsidies
• Free access to internal government documents
• An independent and efficient justice system
• Setting high ethical standards for government officials
• High salaries for civil servants

Just a few years after the start of the anti-corruption campaign, honesty has become a social norm among officials. As for high salaries, at first they exceeded the wages of workers by 12-15 times, but over time this difference decreased to 2-3 times.

To date, Sweden has been assigned the first rank in the Corruption Perception Index. The secret of the strategy lies in the fulfillment of the following tasks: increasing economic well-being, achieving social equality, fighting poverty and, which is also important, the perception of honesty as a norm of official behavior.

The anti-corruption measures listed in these examples are reflected in one form or another in the strategies of other states. Without going into further details, we note that the most effective are the combined methods of "carrot and stick"; applied alone, they are unlikely to lead to significant results, if not worsen the situation at all. Russia’s anti-corruption fighters should also keep this in mind, especially given that this year the country has fallen to 147th place in Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index. Unfortunately, good intentions alone will not be enough — and the package of anti-corruption laws developed by the Presidential Anti-Corruption Council is a clear confirmation of this.

Conclusion

“It is possible to govern a country with bad
laws, but it is impossible to govern the country
with undisciplined officials"
Chancellor of the German Empire
Otto Von Bismarck

Despite the fact that corruption is often compared to hydra, there are quite effective methods of struggle with this phenomenon, which is successfully evidenced by world practice. Not fighting corruption means supporting it, and given how destructive effects such inaction arise in all spheres of society, the problem of counteracting this "internal enemy" is in any state. That is why it is so important to study reasons corruption - after all, it is necessary to fight not only with the weed itself, but also with its seeds. realizing what corruption is, by studying this phenomenon and the experience of other countries in resisting it, we gain knowledge - and knowledge, as you know, is power. The main thing is that this force finds its due use - this requires not only political will, but also support from the whole society. Otherwise, the battle against corruption will be lost.

List of used literature

1. B. Begovic “Corruption: concepts, types, causes and consequences”, CADAL, 2005

2. Carlos Leite, Jens Weidmann, “Does Mother Nature Corrupt? Natural Resources, Corruption, and Economic Growth”, IMF working paper, 1999

3. Douglas A. Houston, “Can corruption ever improve an economy?”, The Cato Journal, 2007

4. Global Corruption Report 2008, Cambridge University Press

5. Ian Senior, “Corruption—the World’s Big C: Cases, Causes, Consequences, Cures”, Institute of Economic Affairs, 2006

6. Lindbeck A. Swedish lessons for post-socialist countries. — Institute for International Economic Studies, Seminar Paper no. 645, Stockholm, 1998, p.4

7. Pranab Bardhan, “Corruption and Development: A Review of Issues”, Journal of Economic Literature Vol. XXXV (September 1997), pp. 1320-1346

8. Rajeev K. Goel and Michael A. Nelson, “Causes of corruption: History, geography and government”, BOFIT Discussion Papers, Helsinki, 2008

9. Shang-Jin Wei, “Corruption in Economic Development: Beneficial Grease, Minor Annoyance, or Major Obstacle?”, Harvard University and National Bureau of Economic Research

10. U Myint, “Corruption: Causes, Consequences, and Cures”, Asia-Pacific Development Journal Vol. 7, no. December 2, 2000

11. “United Nations Convention Against Corruption”

12. Wayne Sandholtz, William Koetzle, “Accounting for Corruption: Economic Structure, Democracy, and Trade”, 2000, International Studies Quarterly, 44, pp. 31-50

13. Bondarenko I. A., "Corruption: economic analysis at the regional level" St. Petersburg: "Petroposlis" 2001, p. 23-45

14. Brodman G. and Rikanatini F., “The Roots of Corruption. Are Market Institutions Important?”, World Bank, 2008.

15. Nomokonov V.A., “Organized crime: trends, prospects for struggle”, Vladivostok: Dalnevost Publishing House. university, 1998

16. Polterovich V.M., "Factors of corruption", M., 1998

17. “Russia and corruption: who wins?”, analytical report of the Indem Foundation, M. 2008

Annex 1. Measuring corruption

Measuring corruption is an important part of anti-corruption strategies. The assessment of corruption in the country allows you to perform the following tasks:

• Government Decision Making: identification of "hot spots" and factors that generate corruption in order to form an effective anti-corruption policy;
• Policy execution: raising public awareness of the dangers of corruption, putting public pressure on governments; supporting regular monitoring of corruption to strengthen policy enforcement mechanisms;
• Decision making in the private sector: recommendations for investment and other decisions.

Until recently, the idea of ​​immeasurable corruption dominated. Indeed, the researchers faced many serious challenges, such as:

• Novelty of research topics;
• The hidden nature of corruption;
• Lack of objective statistics;
• Lack of government interest in collecting such statistics.

However, in 1995, the CPI, the Corruption Perceptions Index developed by Transparency International, was first published. This composite index is by far the most authoritative. The 2008 CPI used in this work is composed of 13 sources (Table 4), each of which has its own system of ranking and scoring. The task of Transparency International experts is to standardize ranks and convert scores to bring them to a single form, which is CPI. Expert groups (often entrepreneurs from the studied countries), sociological survey respondents, representatives of various international organizations participate in the preparation of the initial indices.

Table 4. CPI 2008 sources

Abbreviation	Source	Index name	Research topics	Countries
	Asian Development Bank	Country Performance Assessment Ratings		29 countries of the region
	African Development Bank	Country Policy and Institutional Assessments	Corruption, conflicts of interest, waste, experience and achievements in the fight against corruption	52 countries of the region
	Bertelsmann Foundation	Bertelsmann Transformation Index	The ability of the state to effectively fight corruption	125 developing countries and countries with economies in transition
		Country Policy and Institutional Assessment	Corruption, conflicts of interest, waste, experience and achievements in the fight against corruption	75 countries affiliated with IDA (International Development Association)
	Economist Intelligence Unit	Country Risk Service and Country Forecast	Abuse of power for personal gain/political party gain
		nations in transit	The perception of corruption by society and the media, anti-corruption initiatives and methods	29 countries/territories
		Country Risk Ratings	Probability of encountering corruption phenomena of all kinds	203 countries
IMD (2007 and 2008)	IMD International	IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook	State efficiency, losses from corruption
	Merchant International Group	Gray Area Dynamics	Corruption, bribes
PERC (2007 and 2008)	Political and Economic Risk Consultancy	Asia Intelligence Newsletter	Level of perception of corruption in the public sector	15 countries of the region
	World Economic Forum	Global Competitiveness Report	International corruption, the level of corruption and the volume of bribes in the public sector, in the export/import of goods, in the judicial and tax systems	131 countries

Indicators of corruption (which are quantitative and quality) vary in the subject and scope of the study:

• Level of corruption in the country/city/region/sector: practices of corruption (eg amount and frequency of bribes, services requiring large payments);
• Level of corruption: perceptions of corruption (for example, the possibility of obtaining services through bribes, the reliability of giving a bribe, general attitudes towards the possibility of bribery);
• Governance indicators (e.g. independence of the judiciary, burden of regulation, informal sector)
• Indicators of public trust (for example, the general level of trust of citizens in government at the national and local levels; general trust in the executive, legislative, judicial authorities, law enforcement agencies)
• Business performance
• Risks of business corruption
• Other criteria (freedom of information, political corruption)

To conduct a reliable study, it is necessary to take into account that:

In conclusion, we note that descriptions of specific methods of corruption research are usually attached directly to the results of these studies.

Appendix 2. Main Provisions of the Draft Federal Law “On Combating Corruption”

Article 1. Basic concepts used in this Federal Law

For the purposes of this Federal Law, the following basic concepts are used:

1) corruption:

a) abuse of official position, giving a bribe, receiving a bribe, abuse of authority, 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 for himself or for third parties or illegal provision of such benefit to the specified person by other individuals;

b) commission of acts specified in subparagraph "a" of this paragraph, on behalf of or in the interests of a legal entity;

2) combating corruption - the activities of federal state authorities, state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, local self-government bodies of municipalities, civil society institutions, organizations and individuals within their powers:

a) to prevent corruption, including the identification and subsequent elimination of the causes of corruption (prevention of corruption);

b) to identify, prevent, suppress, disclose and investigate corruption offenses (fight against corruption);

c) to minimize and (or) eliminate the consequences of corruption offenses;

3) members of the family of a state or municipal employee - a spouse (husband) and minor children.

Article 6. Corruption Prevention Measures

Prevention of corruption is carried out by applying the following main measures:

1) formation in society of intolerance to corrupt behavior, including through anti-corruption propaganda;

2) anti-corruption expertise of legal acts and their drafts;

3) presenting, in accordance with the procedure established by law, special (qualification) requirements for citizens applying for filling state or municipal positions and positions of state or municipal service, as well as verifying, in accordance with the established procedure, the information submitted by these citizens;

4) establishing as a basis for dismissal of a person filling a position of a state or municipal service included in the list established by the regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation from a replaced position of a state or municipal service or for applying other measures of legal liability in respect of his/her other measures of legal liability, failure to provide information or submission false or incomplete information about their income, property and property obligations, as well as the submission of knowingly false information about the income, property and property obligations of their family members;

5) introduction into the practice of personnel work of federal state authorities, state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, local self-government bodies of municipalities of the rule, according to which the long-term, impeccable and effective performance by state or municipal employees of their duties must be taken into account when appointing him to a higher position, conferring him a military or special rank, class rank, diplomatic rank or promotion;

6) development of institutions of public and parliamentary control over compliance with the legislation of the Russian Federation on combating corruption;

7) establishing liability for committing corruption offences.

Article 7

The main activities of state bodies to improve the effectiveness of combating corruption are:

1) implementation of a unified state policy in the field of combating corruption;

2) creation of a mechanism for the interaction of law enforcement and other state bodies with public and parliamentary commissions on combating corruption, as well as with citizens and civil society institutions;

3) the adoption of legislative, administrative and other measures aimed at attracting, first of all, state and municipal employees, as well as individuals, to a more active participation in combating corruption, at forming a negative attitude towards corrupt behavior in society;

4) improvement of the system and structure of state bodies, creation of mechanisms for public control over their activities;

5) the introduction of anti-corruption standards, that is, the establishment of a unified system of prohibitions, restrictions and permits for the relevant area of ​​social activity that ensures the prevention of corruption in this area;

6) unification of the rights and restrictions, prohibitions and obligations established for civil servants, as well as for persons holding public positions in the Russian Federation;

7) providing citizens with access to information about the activities of federal state authorities, state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local self-government bodies of municipalities, increasing the independence of the media;

8) strict observance of the principle of independence of judges and non-interference in judicial activities;

9) improving the organization of the activities of law enforcement and regulatory authorities to combat corruption;

10) development of a system of measures aimed at improving the procedure for passing the state and municipal service;

12) ensuring transparency, competition and objectivity in holding competitions and auctions for the right to conclude state or municipal contracts;

13) elimination of unreasonable prohibitions and restrictions, especially in the field of economic activity, narrowing the sphere of the shadow economy;

14) strengthening supervision over the ownership structure of the organization in the presence of information about its involvement in corruption offenses;

15) improvement of the procedure for the use of state and municipal property, state and municipal resources

(including in the provision of state and municipal assistance), as well as the transfer of rights to use such property and its alienation;

16) increase the level of remuneration of state and municipal employees;

17) strengthening international cooperation and developing effective forms of cooperation with law enforcement agencies and special services, financial intelligence units and other competent authorities of foreign states and international organizations in the field of combating corruption and the search, confiscation and repatriation of property obtained by corruption and located abroad;

18) increasing control over the resolution of issues contained in the appeals of individuals and legal entities;

19) transfer of part of the powers of federal state authorities to state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, while introducing a system for evaluating their work and part of the functions of state bodies in the non-state sector;

20) reducing the number of state and municipal employees with the simultaneous involvement of qualified specialists in the state and municipal service and the creation of adequate financial incentives depending on the volume and results of work;

21) increasing the responsibility of federal state authorities, state authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, local self-government bodies of municipalities and their officials for failure to take measures to eliminate the causes of corruption;

22) optimization and specification of the powers of state bodies and their employees, which should be reflected in administrative and official regulations.

Article 10

1. Conflict of interest in the state and municipal service - a situation in which the personal interest (direct or indirect) of a state or municipal employee affects or may affect the objective performance of his official duties and in which a conflict arises or may arise between the personal interest of a state or municipal employee and the legitimate interests of citizens, organizations, society or the state, which can lead to harm to the legitimate interests of citizens, organizations, society or the state.

2. The personal interest of a state or municipal employee, which affects or may affect the objective performance of his official duties, is understood as the possibility for a state or municipal employee to receive income in the form of material benefit or other unlawful advantage directly for the state or municipal employee, members his family or other persons, as well as for citizens and organizations with which a state or municipal employee is associated with financial or other obligations.

The draft federal law also:

• provides for provisions on “the obligation of state and municipal employees to provide information on income, property and property-related obligations” (Article 8), on “the obligation of state and municipal employees to report corruption offenses, failure to provide information on income, property and property-related obligations and on appeals for the purpose of inciting to commit offenses” (Article 9)
• determines the procedure for preventing and resolving conflicts of interest in the state and municipal service (Article 11)
• talks about the restrictions imposed on a citizen dismissed from the state or municipal service when he concludes an employment contract (Article 12)
• determines the responsibility of individuals (Article 13) and legal (Article 14) persons for corruption offences.

In addition to the draft Federal Law, the National Anti-Corruption Plan includes a package of other documents. The main documents are freely available, published on the website of the President of Russia.

Compare with the definition given back in the 16th century by N. Machiavelli: “the use of public opportunities for private interests”

Introduction.

Since ancient times, power and corruption have been inseparable. Throughout history, parallel to the evolution of the state, corruption has evolved. If at the dawn of the formation of statehood, payment to a priest, leader or military commander for a personal appeal to their help was considered as a universal norm, then later, with the complication of the state apparatus, professional officials began to officially receive only a fixed income - which meant the transition of bribes to the shadow economy.

The first mention of corruption (and, accordingly, the fight against it) can be attributed to the second half of the 24th century. BC e., when Urukagina - the king of the ancient Sumerian city of Lagash on the territory of modern Iraq - reformed public administration in order to stop the numerous abuses of his officials and judges. However, the fight against corruption in the ancient world usually did not bring the desired results, especially in the eastern despotisms. According to the author of the ancient Indian treatise "Arthashastra", "it is easier to guess the path of birds in the sky than the tricks of cunning officials." Corruption reached its peak in the era of the decline of antiquity in the Roman Empire - and became one of the reasons for its collapse. The word "corruption" itself has a Latin origin - corrumpere means "to corrupt, spoil, damage."

The world has changed, and so has the scale of corruption. Globalization and the formation of the world economy have allowed corruption to reach the international level and become one of the most massive and dangerous phenomena of our time. Corruption is one of the most serious problems in the world today: according to Daniel Kaufmann, Director of Global Programs at the World Bank Institute, in 2007 bribes amounted to more than a trillion dollars - more than 2% of world GDP. About what corruption is, what are its causes and impact on the state, society and economy, and whether it is possible to successfully fight it in the 21st century - all this will be discussed in this work.

1. The concept of corruption

As defined by Transparency International, corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private interests. The Federal Law of the Russian Federation “On Combating Corruption” provides the clearest possible definition: “abuse of official position, giving a bribe, receiving a bribe, abuse of authority, 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” .

The United Nations considers corruption to be "a complex social, cultural and economic phenomenon that affects all countries", without giving a more detailed explanation of the term. It is noteworthy that even the text of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) does not contain a definition of what the participating countries are called to fight. However, this is explained by the fact that the phenomenon of corruption is too complex and multifaceted to be able to give a comprehensive and at the same time sufficient detailed definition. A more complete and true picture of corruption can be obtained if all corruption phenomena are classified according to various criteria. Criteria can be formulated in the form of questions - who, how, why and how often?

The main criteria for the classification of corruption relations

The first criterion is the type of activity of a corrupt official

The second criterion is the forms of corrupt relations (how and why):

• bribery, bribery, obtaining illegal income (extortion, kickbacks);
• theft and privatization of public resources and funds;
• misappropriation (forgery, forgery, falsification, theft; misappropriation of money, property by fraudulent means), abuse in the use of public funds, embezzlement;
• nepotism or nepotism, favoritism (appointment of relatives and friends to posts and positions);
• promotion of personal interests, collusion (granting preferences to individuals, conflict of interest);
• accepting gifts to expedite problem resolution;
• protection and protection (“covering”, perjury);
• abuse of power (intimidation or torture);
• manipulation of regulation (falsification of elections, decision-making in favor of one group or person);
• electoral violations (vote buying, electoral fraud);
• rent seeking - extortion (civil servants illegally set fees for services or artificially create shortages);
• clientelism and patronage (politicians provide material services in exchange for the support of citizens);
• illegal contributions to election campaigns (gifting gifts to influence the content of the policy).

The third criterion is how often corruption occurs

Having understood the essence of corruption relations, let us briefly outline the approaches to interpreting these phenomena. These concepts, however, are rather not alternative, but complementary.

Concept	Summary
Rational Approach (Economics of Crime)	An individual weighs all the costs and benefits of his criminal actions and rationally decides to commit a crime if the expected utility of such actions is higher than if he remained honest and spent his time and resources in other ways.
The theory of rent-seeking behavior	Economic rent - payment for resources in excess of the maximum value of opportunity costs in the non-monopoly use of these resources. Rent-oriented behavior - efforts aimed at the implementation of state intervention in the market distribution of resources in order to appropriate the income artificially created in this way in the form of rent. Corruption is understood as a form of illegal rent-seeking behavior
institutional approach	Corruption is a contractual interaction between economic agents with the aim of abusing position for private gain.
principal-agent model	Corruption exists due to the asymmetry of information and the high costs of monitoring the activities of an agent-official
Theory of opportunistic behavior	Corruption is a special case of opportunistic behavior
classical liberalism	Corruption as a failure of the state and as a failure of the market, as a “public anti-good” that harms all members of society (negative externalities).

2. Causes of corruption

Economists usually use two models to explain the causes and nature of corrupt relations. One of them is "guarantor (principal) - executor (agent) - ward (client)"

In this model, the central government acts as a principal (P): it sets the rules and assigns agents (A), mid- and low-level officials, specific tasks. Officials act in this case as intermediaries between the central government and clients (K), individual citizens or firms. In exchange for paying taxes, the agent, on behalf of the principal, provides various services to clients (licenses the activities of firms, issues social benefits to citizens, hires employees for the public service, etc.). For example, within the framework of the tax service, the principal is the state represented by the head of the tax service, agents are tax collectors, and all taxpayers act as clients.

In exchange for paying taxes, taxpayers get the opportunity to operate legally, otherwise they will face fines and other penalties.

The quality of the regulatory system depends on whether there are conflicts of interest between the principal and the agent in this system. The government, in principle, has neither the time nor the ability to personally serve each client, so it delegates the authority to serve them to officials, prescribing certain rules to them. Officials-agents, knowing their clients better than the government-principal, can work more effectively with clients. But it is difficult for the principal to control how numerous intermediary agents perform their prescribed work, especially since officials may deliberately hide information about the true results of their activities. Since the honesty of an agent-official cannot be completely controlled, the agent himself decides whether to be "honest". The official's decision depends on the expected rewards for good work and the expected penalties for abuse. For example, in the Russian tax system, the payment of a tax official almost does not depend on the amount of funds contributed to the budget from hidden taxes identified by him. This leads to the fact that often the tax collector is more interested in receiving bribes than in honest service. Illegal remuneration to an official agent from his clients can be given for various reasons. A citizen or a firm can give a bribe so that the official gives them the required services more quickly, “out of turn” (accelerating bribe). More often, however, officials are bribed to provide their clients with more of the services offered by the state, and take less taxes than is required by law (braking bribe). It also happens that an official has ample opportunities for nit-picking on far-fetched pretexts; then bribes are given so that the official does not take advantage of his opportunities to show tyranny (a bribe “for a good attitude”).

To prevent corruption, the most responsible employees are trying to assign very high salaries and at the same time tougher penalties for violating their official duty. However, many researchers note that in many cases state salaries cannot compete with the financial capabilities of potential bribe-givers (if they are large legal businessmen or mafia bosses). A decent salary for an agent is a necessary but not sufficient condition for preventing corruption. Therefore, the principal state supplements (or even replaces) high incentives with "appeals to honest behavior." This means that the government is trying to create psychological barriers against the self-interest of agents, for example, by raising the moral level of citizens through the mechanism of education and ideological propaganda. In addition, the principal government encourages direct communication with clients (reception of complaints from the population), which serve as an additional and very important tool for controlling the actions of agent officials.

Thus, the “agent-client” relationship depends on the salary of agents and the breadth of their powers, and the “principal-agent” relationship depends on the degree of control of the principal over agents and the influence of clients on the principal. Moral norms affect all types of relations in this system, determining the degree of admissibility of deviations from the requirements of the law.

Also, some foreign economists express an extremely concise definition of the main causes of corruption by the following formula:

corruption = monopoly + arbitrariness - responsibility.

This means that the opportunities for corruption directly depend on the monopoly of the state on certain types of activities (for example, to purchase weapons) and on the lack of control over the activities of officials, but inversely depend on the likelihood and severity of penalties for abuse.

Another model often used by economists is presented below:

where I is the country, t is the year.

Let's analyze the formula:

1) Firstly, the higher the level of economic well-being (GDP per capita), the less the propensity of officials to resort to illegal methods of obtaining profit, the stricter anti-corruption measures and the stronger civil society.

Work description

Since ancient times, power and corruption have been inseparable. Throughout history, parallel to the evolution of the state, corruption has evolved. If at the dawn of the formation of statehood, payment to a priest, leader or military commander for a personal appeal to their help was considered as a universal norm, then later, with the complication of the state apparatus, professional officials began to officially receive only a fixed income - which meant the transition of bribes to the shadow economy.

Corruption in the modern world

Igor Listov (Dortmund)

Corruption itself is a crime, but it simultaneously gives rise to many other grave crimes, reducing the moral level of society.

The corruption of officials has haunted mankind since the very time when the first states appeared on earth. Even then, officials took bribes for the performance of their official duties or for resolving a “question” in favor of one or another petitioner. From that moment began the fight against corruption. Even in ancient times, rulers and statesmen understood the danger of corruption for the existence of the state, they tried to fight this phenomenon using the methods adopted at that time. The heads of corrupt officials were cut off, their hands were confiscated by unjustly acquired property, they were imprisoned, but this “disease” of civilization, although at times receded into the background, remained incurable.

The very word corruption (corruptio), meaning sale, decay, became commonplace much later and entered almost all languages ​​of the world.

Corruption in the USSR

Many of our readers, who came to Germany from the countries of the former USSR, constantly encountered corruption there in their daily lives. Money was given to the doorman to get into the restaurant without a queue with his girlfriend; paid a district therapist and received a sick leave for three days; bribed the right people to place a child in a kindergarten. And only the lazy did not talk about corruption in the internal affairs bodies and trade. Many big and small bosses considered their positions to be their own patrimony, covering up extortions with state interests (recall the movie “Prisoner of the Caucasus”).

Most citizens were very reluctant to give bribes, realizing that it was bad, but in an era of general shortages, it could not be otherwise.

However, many requisitions were not considered as such at that time, but were called “gratitude”, which was given for the performance by officials of their official duties. The level of salaries of most workers in the USSR was very low, and "gratitude" made it possible to live a little better.

What about in Germany?

Arriving in Germany, we suddenly discovered that in this country both services, all kinds of "amts", and ordinary officials function normally without "greasing", "putting a bottle" on them, or, at worst, presenting a box of chocolates. In cases where you do not agree with the official's decision, you can challenge it with a superior or in court. By the way, the “Partner” tells from issue to issue about court decisions correcting the decisions of officials. Most importantly, such actions are considered natural and are normally perceived by society.

No state is free from corruption, but it's all about the degree of corrupt officials and the impact of corruption on the daily lives of citizens. Of course, corruption also exists in Germany, but the vast majority of German citizens practically do not encounter it, and it never occurs to them to give a bribe, for example, to a traffic policeman, an official or a school teacher for their child’s high Abitur score. The German press is happy to talk about certain revealed cases of corruption of officials of any, including the highest, level.

About the degree of corruption

Today we will talk about the perception of corruption by analysts and business people around the world and about methods for assessing it. Corruption Perceptions Index(Corruption Perceptions Index, abbreviated as CPI) has been compiled by the non-governmental organization Transparency International for over 20 years. It is calculated on the basis of independent research conducted by international financial organizations with the participation of the American non-governmental organization "Freedom House" among experts and business people. Based on these data, countries are assigned scores from 0 before 100 . The higher this score, the “cleaner” the country, the less, according to experts, it is subject to corruption .

Experts name the following reasons for the high corruption of the state:

High income from trade in raw materials

Restrictions on free competition

Unreasonably high state intervention in the economy and financial system

Lack of freedom of the press

Lack of a fair and incorruptible court.

When calculating the index, the country's openness to experts, its role in international trade, and many other factors are also important.

Corruption affects the collection of taxes, the efficiency of public spending and the management system, and the competitiveness of industry and agriculture. In countries with a high level of perception of corruption, law enforcement officers are quite successful in dealing with it, and the press and public organizations immediately inform the public about detected cases of corruption.

The impact of corruption on the country's economy

British scientists, studying the impact of corruption on the economy, note the following risks for a country affected by corruption:

Decrease in foreign investment in the national economy

Declining quality of social infrastructure: education, culture, healthcare

Decreased efficiency of state structures and execution of government decisions

Increased environmental pollution

Rising military and police spending

The transition of a significant part of cash flows to the "gray" and "black" zones, remaining outside of taxation and control

Increasing stratification of society into rich and poor, "erosion" of the middle class

A significant decrease in the number of citizens in the country who feel happy.

Table A. Level of corruption in some countries of the world, including the states of the former USSR (2015)

Place	Country	score		Place	Country	score
	Finland
	New Zealand
	Netherlands
	Norway
	Switzerland
	Singapore				Moldova
					Belarus
	Germany				Azerbaijan
					Kazakhstan
					Kyrgyzstan
					Tajikistan
					Uzbekistan
					Turkmenistan

The last two places in the table with 8 points are occupied by the DPRK and Somalia. Germany in this list has risen from 12th place in 2014 to 10th place in 2015.

Corruption in the countries of the former USSR

Readers, of course, are interested in how things are in those countries from which they came to live in Germany. The Baltic countries, despite the difficult transitional processes taking place there in the economy, are kept in places of honor, characterized by a fairly low level of corruption. Estonia shares a high 23rd place with France and the United Arab Emirates; Lithuania is ahead of Spain and the Czech Republic, while Latvia is ahead of Greece and Italy. Even Georgia, which had a high level of corruption in Soviet times, has now made significant progress in this regard and, according to Table. And, bypassed a number of European countries. The rest of the former republics of the USSR, and now independent states, share very little honorable places in terms of the perception of corruption, from 103rd to 154th.

The experts note with satisfaction that since 2012 Greece has been able to increase its Corruption Perceptions Index from 36 to 46 points (up from 80th to 58th place) and surpassed Italy (61st place with 44 points).

The level of corruption in most countries of the former USSR (except for the Baltic countries and Georgia) has remained high in recent decades and has not been reduced. Periodic changes in the corruption perception index by one or two points do not fundamentally change the level of venality in the state, since the changes are within the estimation error.

According to experts, a corruption rating in the range of 25-30 points in these countries means that the situation with corruption in them is not fundamentally different. Therefore, propaganda statements by the media of individual countries of the former USSR that the level of corruption has “improved” by 1-2 points mean absolutely nothing, because. while the country still remains in a zone of very high corruption.

(According to the materials of the German press)

Corruption in modern society.

Corruption (from lat. corrumpere - "to corrupt") - the use by an official of his powers and rights entrusted to him for personal gain, contrary to the established rules (legislation). Most often, the term is used in relation to the bureaucracy and the political elite. Any person who has power over the distribution of any resources that do not belong to him (official, deputy, judge, law enforcement officer, administrator, examiner, doctor, etc.) can be subject to corruption. The main incentive for corrupt behavior is the possibility of obtaining economic profits associated with the use of power, and the main deterrent is the risk of exposure and punishment.

Separate manifestations of corruption are singled out. Household corruption generated by the interaction of ordinary citizens and officials. It includes various gifts from citizens and services to an official and members of his family. Business corruption arises from the interaction of government and business. For example, in the event of a commercial dispute, the parties may seek to enlist the support of a judge in order to reach a decision in their favor. Corruption of the supreme power refers to the political leadership and supreme courts in democratic systems. It concerns groups in power whose bad faith is to pursue policies in their own interests and to the detriment of the interests of voters.

Systematic consideration allows us to identify a number of complementary views on the essence of the phenomenon of corruption:

Corruption as a special type of offense associated with abuse of power;

Corruption as a special way of life of people in power, which involves a number of traditional actions (bribery, self-will, selection of the “right” people);

Corruption as a special way of solving problems bypassing existing laws and regulations using bribery of officials;

Corruption as a special approach to people in power, associated with demonstrating respect for them and meeting their needs.

Such a variety of views on corruption gives rise to numerous difficulties in its eradication and the need for systemic efforts on the part of society, the state, and every person in the fight against corruption.

The following signs of corruption stand out:

1. A decision is made that violates the law or unwritten social norms.

2. The parties act by mutual agreement.

3. Both parties receive illegal benefits and advantages.

4. Both sides try to hide their actions.

Let's single out the main components of the system of anti-corruption education in our educational institution:

absence of cases of corrupt behavior in an educational institution;

· anti-corruption education: presentation of the essence of the phenomenon of corruption as a criminal act in the lessons of jurisprudence;

· gaining experience in solving life and school problems based on the interaction of teachers and students; pedagogical activities to form an anti-corruption worldview among students.

The main result of anti-corruption education is seen in the preparation of a person capable of exercising power or interacting with representatives of power structures on a legal basis, avoiding bribery, bribery and other illegal actions. To achieve this result, it is necessary to work with the child in different age periods. Due to the fact that in elementary school special attention is paid to the formation of a culture of behavior and the need to comply with the rules, anti-corruption education can be based on an analysis of the relationship of ordinary citizens with the keepers of public order. If a person is convinced that the keeper of order will always act according to the rules, then he will not break the rules and offer bribes for their violation. In addition to the information and educational block, special attention should be paid to involving students in maintaining order in the classroom. Students are encouraged to complete small assignments related to the observance of order. The simplest assignment of them is the duty officer, who controls the observance of certain rules. Submission to the officer on duty, refusal to threaten and bribe the officer on duty will be an indicator of the formation of a respectful attitude towards the keeper of the rules. At the middle level, a solution to a more complex problem is possible, aimed at the formation of the joint creation and maintenance of rules. In grades 8–9, it becomes necessary for students to consciously accept the rules for solving life problems. An element of social practice can be the organization of student self-government in the class, an increase in the number of assignments for class students with certain powers. One of the problems is the interaction with the authorities.

In work with students in grades 9-11, the main task of the anti-corruption education system is solved: the formation of an anti-corruption worldview in students, which allows them to consciously abandon the practice of corrupt behavior. In the process of solving this problem, students in the lessons of law and social science study in detail this type of offense and the reasons for its occurrence. In the process of extracurricular activities, special attention is paid to discussions on this topic, which contribute to the identification of the life position of students on this issue.

Academic subjects, the content of which directly or indirectly affects the understanding of various social phenomena by younger students (including those related to such concepts as benefit, exchange, gift, gratitude, i.e. with those terms that in modern society are associated with corruption ), are "Literary Reading" and "The World Around". A number of words, the meaning of which can be mastered through life experience and discussion, understanding them in the classroom: holiday, event, gift, service, benefit, gratitude, the great word "thank you", disinterestedness.

It is good for him to do good who remembers him.

The hand washes the hand, and both are white.

Mercy is great, but not worth a bast.

Do not regret your own thanks, but do not wait for someone else's.

You don't respect a bad person.

It’s better not to give, but after that don’t measles.

He drowned - he promised an ax, they pulled him out - it's a pity for the ax handle.

Don't put it badly, don't lead the thief into sin.

Expensive testicle for Christ's day.

Not in service, but in friendship.

The main educational work with students in grades 5-7 is aimed at creating a culture of interaction. The most productive at this age are various forms of joint work and collective creative activity. Formation of the ability to respect each other, a culture of agreement and mutual understanding will serve as the basis for the prevention of corruption. In the practice of working with children of this age, a number of situations can be identified that cause corrupt behavior in the future. The first common situation is that parents give money to a child for good grades, prepare a person who believes that his every step, and even more so the created product, should be paid. It is necessary in regular communication with parents to note the harm of this method of interaction with the child. The second situation is related to the fact that a child of this age receives undeserved remuneration for the provision of certain services. The teacher should be the example. If a child understands that a bouquet of flowers given to a teacher affects the quality of the assessment, then this will contribute to the formation of a corrupt consciousness. The third situation is related to the activities of teachers and parents according to the principle: “If you can’t, but really want to, then you can.” When teachers and parents, despite the existing prohibitions, allow children to perform prohibited actions, this leads to the formation in the mind of the child of a position that everything can be bought and everything can be done if you agree with whom you need. The next situation is the relationship between children in the system of self-government. The most acute situation becomes when the child is faced with a choice between friendship and order. It is quite natural that children allow a lot of things to their friends, unlike others. Unfortunately, within the framework of public consciousness, helping a friend (even at the expense of breaking the law) is the norm. The phenomenon of "favorites", who are allowed more than others, has become widespread in educational institutions. Taking into account the specifics of age, conducting pedagogical conversations on this topic becomes ineffective. The most productive is the organization of group work in the process of creative, educational and gaming activities. Therefore, conducting educational cases, workshops and role-playing games is the most effective way. First of all, it is necessary to organize simulation and business games, in which students receive certain powers and exercise them during the game.

For example, most children are easy to cheat. The presence of a large number of formal rules, most of which are difficult to follow, teaches that any rule can be circumvented. In the process of education, it is necessary to combine three components:

· Creation of conditions that do not allow one to be in a situation of violating the law. Creation of the most transparent and understandable procedures. Explaining to students common ways of solving problems. It should be noted the existing pedagogical paradox associated with the fact that a person improves in the process of overcoming difficulties, but seeks to avoid these difficulties in a natural way. The more complex the invented rules, the more difficult it is to comply with them and the higher the possibility of corruption.

· Learning the best ways to solve various life problems. The more students learn how to perform various learning tasks and life situations, the easier it will be to prevent situations of corruption.

· Raising respect for existing norms and laws. Compliance with them by the majority of teachers and students. Formation of respect for certain traditions.

When working with students in grades 7-9, special attention should be paid to conscious decision-making and its protection in the process of building relationships with others. Formation of a positive attitude towards the existing order, awareness of the benefits of compliance with norms and rules will help to form an anti-corruption worldview.

Features of anti-corruption education when working with students in grades 7-8 is the focus on the formation of a moral position and the denial of corruption. The main form of educational work is the discussion, during which one's own opinion is expressed.

Pupils in grades 10–11 develop an anti-corruption worldview. Unfortunately, it is quite difficult to break established habits and stereotypes. In fact, we are talking about cultivating a culture of power relations. One of the possible goals of education in modern conditions is the formation of a conscious refusal, and then a value rejection of corruption by students.

For example, the fable "The Fox and the Marmot":

“Where, gossip, are you running without looking back?” -
The groundhog asked the fox.
“Oh, my dove-kumanek!
I endure slander and was expelled for bribes.
You know I was the judge in the chicken coop
Lost health and peace in business,
In the labors of a piece I was malnourished,
Sleepless nights:
And I fell under anger for that;
And all by slander. Well, think for yourself:
Who in the world will be right if you listen to slander?
Should I take bribes? yes, I'm pissed off!
Well, have you seen, I will send for you,
That I was involved in this sin?
Think, remember well. -
“No, gossip; and often saw
What a stigma you have in fluff.

Another sighs at the same place,
As if the last ruble survives:
And truly, the whole city knows
What he has for himself
Not for a wife
And look, little by little
Either he will build a house, or he will buy a village.
Now, how to reduce his income with expenses,
Even if you can't prove it in court
But if you do not sin, you will not say:
That he has fluff on the stigma.

Not only the meaning of words becomes important, but intonation, emotions and feelings with which these words are pronounced, what bright figurative words and expressions are used in this case.

The system of anti-corruption ideas, views, principles, which reflect the negative attitude of the individual, social groups and the whole society to corrupt activities, should organically complement the worldview of the younger generation.

Development and implementation of a set of measures to increase the level of the internal culture of the individual and strengthen the moral and ethical principles of a person, especially children and youth; education of the younger generation's rejection of corruption as a phenomenon that is absolutely incompatible with the values ​​of a modern legal state, the formation of a special psychological environment in society that is extremely unfavorable for a corruption system should be put in the category of the most important areas of school activity.