Popular in Course
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Business
This 42 page Document was uploaded by an elite notetaker on Monday December 21, 2015. The Document belongs to a course at a university taught by a professor in Fall. Since its upload, it has received 14 views.
Reviews for Landscape-Assessment-of-Corruption-in-Jamaica
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 12/21/15
A LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT OF POLITICAL CORRUPTION IN JAMAICA Dr. Lloyd Waller Mr. Paul Bourne Ms. Indianna Minto Dr. John Rapley A PUBLICATION OF THE JAMAICAN ECONOMY SINCE INDEPENDENCE PROJECT 29 MUNROE ROAD,SE, KINGSTON 7 JAMAICA TEL: 1-876-970-3447, 1-876-970-2910 & 1-876-977-3062 FAX: 1-876-970-4544 Email: JEP@UWIMONA.EDU.JM WEBSITE: WWW.TAKINGRESPONSIBILITY.ORG Copyright © June 2007 About the Authors Lloyd Waller, BSc, MSc (University of the West Indies, Mona-Jamaica), PhD (University of Waikato, New Zealand), is a Lecturer in Methodology at the University of the West Indies, (Mona-Jamaica). Dr. Waller specializes in the development, advancement and use of relevant research methodologies, methods and analytical tools to integrate technology, business, go vernment and society for the purpose of development. Dr. Waller's primary areas of research are: Research Methods, Corruption, Electronic Governance and Development Studies. Secondary areas include: Project Management and Strategic Management. Dr. Waller is the Strategic Polling and Survey Manager in the Research Unit of the Centre for Leadership and Governance, as well as the Logistic Survey Manager for the Carl Stone Polls (University of the West Indies, Mona-Jamaica). He has been involved in several corruption-related research projects including the Lat in American Public Opinion Project of Vanderbilt University and the UNDP funded study on Political Corruption and Organized Crime in Jamaica. Dr. Lloyd Waller can be contacted at email@example.com Paul Andrew Bourne is finalizing a Ma sters of Science degree in Demography; and holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Economics and Demography from the University of the West Indies, Mona, Kingston, Jamaica, West Indies, and aDiploma in Teaching from the Univer sity of Technology.Currently, he is a Teaching Assistant for Political Research Methodology in the department of Government. He has recently co-authored a book titled Probing Jamaica’s Political Culture:Main Trends in the July-August 2006 Leadership and Governance Survey, Volume 1 . His areas of interest include: Statistics, Demography, Political Sociology, Well-being, Elderly and Research Methods. Indiann a D. Minto is currently employed as a Research Assistant at the Skoll Centre for Social Entrepreneurship based at the Said Business School at the University of Oxford, working on the research project ‘Cultural Shift South-East’. The project aims to assess the role of so cial enterprises in the delivery of public services as well as to develop a set of guidelines for entrepreneurial partnerships between the public sector and social ente rprises. A former student of the UWI, Mona where she gained two degrees in the Public Administration Department, she is also now pursuing a PhD in Law at the London School of Economics. Her research interests include: partnership s (involving public, private and voluntary sectors) and the social sector, public policy and administration, and regulation. John Rapley, B.A. (Hons.) Carleton, M.A., Ph.D. Queen's with postdoctoral fellowship at Oxford University. Dr. Rapley is the president of the Caribbean Policy Research Institute. Hehas studied and worked at universities in Canada, the USA, Britain, France and Jamaica; has been a fellow at Georgetown Univ ersity and the University of Oxford;is a visiting lecturer at the Inst itut d'Etudes d'Aix-en-Provence; and since 1995, has been the foreign affairs columnistfor the Jamaica Gleaner. A frequent commentator on radio and television –in Jamaica and abroad – he is asked regularly to speak at conferences and meetings around the world. He has written three books and dozens of articles on a wide variety of topics in political economy. The Caribbean Policy Research Institute (CaPRI) is a Caribbean think tank, the first in the region. CaPRI promotes evidence-based policymaking in the CaPRI Caribbean. CaPRi LANDSCAPE espouses a methodology, ASSESSMENT OF Political CORRUPTION IN built on the vales of JAMAICA multi-disciplinary work, team work and the CONTENTS utilization of the Diaspora in our search for 1. Introducing the Text 1 evidence. CaPRI is deeply 2. ConceptFlramework 6 committed to the idea of an involved academic 3. The Problem of Political Corruption in Jamaica 13 community and has 4. Conclusnnduggested strong linkages with the Recommendations27 private sector and civil society, as well as the 5. eferences32 academic community EXECUTIVE SUMMARY From an economic perspective, corruption inhibits private investment and growth, distorts public investment, subverts the merit principle, rewards those who do not play by the rules, and contributes toundermining sustainabl e livelihoods in an economy, especially for the poor. This , Transparency International argues, are costs which are normally shouldered by th ose who can least afford to bear the burden (Transparency International, 2000). According to international organizations such as Transparency International and the World Bank, understanding the dynamics of corruption through, among other things, perceptions of (1) how it is deined by a society; (2) its presence and prevalence in a society; (3) whether or not the people problematize it; (4) its causes; (5) its impact on development; a nd (6) the effectiveness of detection mechanisms. An awareness of these issues plays an important role in improving the efficiency and effectiveness ofgovernments, engender good governance, and promote development. Although there has been much work done on various aspects of corruption in Jamaica by loca l, regional and inter national bodies, not many research projects have sought to address these issues empirically. This study attempts to address this gap. The st udy presents the findings of a national survey on perceptions of corruption in Jamaica. This research employed a descriptive research design, the survey research methodology, and sampled 1140 individual residing in all 14 Parishes across Jamaica. From the data analyzed it was found that most persons interviewed (1) defined corruption as the misuse of public office for private gain; (2) believed that corruption was prevalent in all government institutions but more so in the Customs Department, Police Force and the Parish Council Offices; (3) were of the opinion that corrupti on is a serious problem in the country and negatively impacts on development; (4) were of the opinion that personal graft and greed were the primary causes of corruption in Jamaica; and (5) strongly believed that the anti-corruption rules are adequate, but Government agencies are too weak to enforce them and that these anti-corr uption rules are adequate, but they are intentionally not enforced. It is hoped that the findings from this re search will help us to better understand corruption and, in particular, how it impacts on the eco nomic development of the country. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A number of individuals and organizati ons contributed to the success of this project. Specifically, we would li ke to thank Mrs. Shakira Maxwell and Ms. Sandra E. Williams for theirprofessional administrative support; Professor Anthony Harriott for his scholar ly and technical advice; Dr. Eris Schoburgh, who contributed several of e corruption-related questions used in this research; Dr. Lawrence Powell who prepared the questionnaire; as well as the stathe Department of Government, UWI for their administrative assistance. Our appreciation must also be extended to Ms. Anya Gloudon who provided assi stance with the formatting of the initial document and to Mr. Andrew Kei Miller as well as Mrs. Cecille Maye- Hemmings for his keen eye with the editing and proof-reading of the document. We would like to thank several funding agencies whose support made this all possible. These include: o INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH CENTRE (IDRC) o SUPER PLUS FOOD STOES o NATIONAL COMMERCIAL BANK (JAMAICA) LIMITED (NCB) o PLANNING INSTITUTE OF JAMAICA (PIOJ) o CANADA FUND FOR LOCAL INITIATIVES o CANADIAN HIGH COMMISSION o UNITED STATES EMBASSY- PUBLIC AFFAIRS SECTION o JAMAICA MONEY MARKET BROKERS o THE GLEANER COMPANY o WISYNCO o WORLD BANK o COBB FAMILY FOUNDATION o AIR JAMAICA o AMERICAN FRIENDS OF JAMAICA o COK CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT UNION o JAMAICA NATIONAL BUILDING SOCIETY 1 1. INTRODUCING THIS TEXT “I want to In March 2006, in her inau gural address, the Most Honourable Portia Lucretia Simpson-Mither, Jamaica’s first female Prime Minister, made the following oath “I want to pledge to the Jamaican people to work tirelessly to eradicate corruption and extortion. I am committed to their eradication” work (Jamaica Information Service, 2003: 1tirelessly to assurance was the second of several goals she outlined to “facilitate change” in Jamaica (Ibid). corruption It should therefore come as no surprise, neither to and the novice nor the schooled Jamaican criminologist, that corrupt ion claimed high priority on the new Prime Minister ’s agenda. am the 2005 Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), which measures corruption amonged public officials and politicians within countries around the world, Jamaica received a eradication6 out of 10. A sco10 designates an almo” (Portia clean slate where corruption is concerned, while 0 signifies a highly corrupt country. Jamaica’s score of 3.6 placed the country 64the 158 countries surveyed. Within the Caribbean,er, Prime Jamaica was fourth behind Barbados (which scored 6.9), Trand Tobago and Cuba Minister of (which both scored 3.8). Jamaica, 2006) 2 The island was however ranked higher - meaning less corrupt - than other Caribbean countries such as the Dominican Republic (3.0) and Haiti (1.8). “Many Jamaican scholarship upholds some of these allegations of corrupt ion (see Charles, 2003; Jamaicans Harriott, 2000; Munroe, 1999). So, too, do have been sections of the Jamaican public, many of which witnesses, often display a curiosity about the discourse of corruption, particularly via radio talk show through the programmes. This curiosity seems justified. popular Many Jamaicans have been witnesses, media, of through the popular media, of claims (but rarely convictions) of bribery, extortion, fraud, claims (but nepotism and cronyism. rarely convictions) Persistent assertions in this regard appear to indicate a lack of integrity or honesty on the of bribery, part of elected officials, the misuse of public extortion, office for private gain and other forms of fraud, kleptocracy (an informal, pejorative term used to describe a highly corrupt government or one nepotism and which is ruled by thugs and thieves). Such an cronyism” environment – a kleptocratic environment – is perhaps the most problematic for nation states, especially developing countries. 3 This is best highlighted by Dr. Lloyd Barnett, a scholar on law and legality in Jamaica, who argues that: Over the 50 years of representative government in Jamaica, it has been generally alleged and often assumed, without the substantiation of specific allegations and proven cases that a considerable amount of corruption exists in nati onal affairs. The political experience is that the parties in opposition have usually accused the party in power of conducting a corrupt administration. Historically, when the accusing party has gained power and established Commissions of Inquiry to conduct a widespread investigation of the previous administration very little has been unearthed to substantiate the allegations … The rumors are, however, too persistent and the statements made in private by reliable persons too frequent to ignore the allegations (Barnett, The Carter Centre, 1999). The present reality of Jamaica is that the laws governing acts of political corruption – the Jamaica Constitution, The Corruption Prev ention Act of 1931 and the Representation of the People’s Act of 1944 – are weak in some instances and/or not enforc ed in others. However, recent amendments to the Corruption Prevention Act are indications of possible strengthening of corruption laws. This is even while some of the main entities monitoring corruption in Jamaica, such as the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption, have encountered challenges in pursuance of this duty. For instance, countless complaints by civil society on various radio talk-show programmes often suggest that some of these challenges include political victimization and poor support from the Jamaican public. We explore some of these issues in this study. International organizations such as Transparency International argue that corruption is directly inhibiting private in vestment and growth in developing and lesser developed countries. Corruption also distorts public investment, undermines the democratic process and c ontributes to undermining sustainable livelihoods in these econom ies, especially for the poor. Furthermore, it is believed that corruption can have a particularly negative effect on the functioning of a nation and on the ability of institutions in society to attain stated objectives. 4 Where a society is perceived to be highly corrupt, risks and hence unpredictabili ty are heightened, trust may be reduced and economiand social relations become more complex and costly. Potentially, these can have negative consequences for societal relations: of insofar as citizen confidence is reduced, colthe study is to action and governance becomes difficult. capture current Not many empirical studies have been undertaken perceptions in Jamaica to substantiate these hypotheses and assumptions. Certainly, lack of awareness among corruption policy makers and devement planners regarding in Jamaica for how Jamaicans perceive rruption is problematithe purpose especially where effective and targeted policy making is concerned (sensitizatand awareness, capacity of developing building, transparency tegies, introducing orbetter policy amending legislation, and so on). solutions to enhance good This study attempts to address this gap. It presents the findings of a national survey, conducted governance in September of 2006, which sought to review the Jamaican political culture and economy since and independence, and make policy recommendations.evelopment” The survey is an interdisciplinary study which utilizes quantitative methodologies and methods of data collection and analysis.oal of the study is to capture current perceptions on corruption in Jamaica for the purpose of developing better policy solutions to enhance good governance and development. 5 Research Design The Research Design used for this study was both descriptive and exploratory. The Survey Research Methodology along with the Case Study Methodology was used. A total of 1140 persons were interviewed for this research – The Sample. They were proportionally selected from Jamaica’s 14 parishes as a part of a multi-stage sampling technique. Data Collection occurred over a 40-da y period. A team of approximately 30 surveyors were used to collect the information from across the island. In addition to this, several Focus Group Sessions and Elite Interviews were conducted with various public sector workers to further explore and thus understand the findings from the survey. Two different Data Analysis Strategies were used for this research. At one level – a Quantitative level – Descriptive Univariate Statistical Analytical techniques (analyzing th e responses to one particular question) were used to analyze the quantitative data collected for this research. At a more Qualitative level, the contents of the Focus Group Sessions and the Elite Interviews were consta ntly compared to identify patterns and themes. 6 2. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK The popularization of the connection between governance and development highlighted in the 2002 United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Human Development Report “ Deepening democracy in a fragmented world” brought to the forefront the long-standing issue of political corruption (henceforth – corruption) to policy-makers and academics around the globe. The frenzy surrounding the report, the focus on corruption as a development -inhibiting phenomenon, and reports of other international bodies such as the World Bank, the International Chamber of Commerce, the International Federation of Accounts, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and Transparency International (TI) in the late 1990s to ear ly 2000s had already existed in many spaces around the world for decades. Although people have been writing on corruption since Plato (Wilson, 1989; Onuf, 1998; Warren, 2004;) it was Huntington (1968), Leff (1964), Nye (1967) and Bayley (1966) who, as far back as the 1960s, had highlighted and drawn attention to the existence, prevalence, causes and consequences of corruption in many different types of societies, ranging from pre-industrial to post-industrial ones, and brought the issue to the modern scholarly and policy podium. Since then, there have been many other studies conducted to either deepen or expand their analyses ( See, for example, Theobald, 1990; Charap and Haram, 1999; World Bank, 1997; Rose-Ackerman, 1999; Olson, 1993; Johnson, 1982; Transparency International, 2000-2007). This chapter explores many of the assumptions about the causes and consequences of corruption that have been put forward over the years, particularly those which we believe relate to the Jamaican society and political economy. This literature review, looks at some of these articulations, especially those which we believe will provide a platform from which to contextualize the findings of this 7 The Forms and Causes of Corruption Transparency International (2000) identifies severa l forms of corruption. These include: treason, misappropriation of funds; abuse of power; deceit and fraud; perversion of justice; non-performance of duties; ex tortion, bribery and graft; nepotism, election tampering; misuse of inside knowledge and confidential information; unauthorized sale of public offices, public property and public licences; manipulation of regulation; purchases and supplies, contracts and loans; tax evasion; acceptance of improper gifts, fees, speed money and entertainment; black market operations; cronyism; illegal surv eillance; misuse of office seals and stationery; public officials linking with criminal actors (Transparency International, 2000). Although the literature on corr uption suggests that it ex ists in all states, this literature concedes that ther e are some countries, societies and states, which are more prone to corruption than others. This very structural approach (as opposed to an approach which focuses on agency, like that of Rose-Ackerman, 1978 and Klitgaard, 1988, or the call for a more dialectic approach by some such as Collier, 2000) assumes that corruption comes about as a result of various economic, political and cultural/sociological, historical variables which influence human behaviour (Huntington, 1968; Theobald, 1990). Accordi ng to Deborah Stokes (1997) for example, much of these forms of corruption thrive in societies which are predominantly poor, have fragile systems of accountability, display a political will that is weak, and have poor monitoring and enforcem ent mechanisms. In these societies, the state plays a significant role in economic activities, and there exists a weak private sector and a weak democratic system. Charap and Haram (1999) have furt her argued that stable functioning democracies normally have lower levels of corruption. Similar arguments have been promoted by Transparency International , whose Corruption Perception Index (CPI) has demonstrated a correlation between corruption prevalence and functioning democracies (Transparency International, 2000–2007). 8 Located within these discussions on t he types of societies which are likely to encourage corruption, are arti culations regarding the causes of corruption. Many assumptions abound. Th e most dominant of these seem to suggest that corruption is often caused by over-bureaucratic structures, poverty and inequality, cultural configurat ions, inadequate remuneration for public officials, personal graft and greed, low risk of detection, low risk of punishment, political patronage, weak enforcement mechanisms, absence of an ethical framework – in the indivi dual or in the company or agency, low levels of transparency, low levels of public a ccountability, weak management systems, powerful networks of ‘secret’ organizations (cronyism) and societal pressures. Many of these causes are as a result of many of the conditions (present in certain societies) outlined by Stokes (1997) above. The work of Lipset and Lenz (in Harrison and Huntington 2000) is, however, highlighted here. The main themes present in their work can easily be used to describe the configurations of the Jamaican society. Expanding on Merton’s work on deviance in the United States of America and drawing on global cross-national socio- economic data and models, Lipset and Lenz find support in Merton’s assumption that “corruption is motivated behaviour stemming from social pressures that result in norm violations” (2000: 116). According to the authors, many societies have social goals which people aspire to achieve – institutionalized norms. Not all persons have the knowledge, skills nor – generally speaking – opportunities to do so legally, as many societies either directly or indirectly restrict access to resources (what they refer to as the “opportunity structure”). This is largely as a result of class, race, ethnicity, gender, lack of capital, skills and so on. In such instances, many people seek alternative – often illegal – means to ac hieve their goals. In other words what Lipset and Lenz posit is t hat in societies that “str ess economic success as an important goal but neverthel ess strongly restrict access to opportunities” (p. 117) people will “reject the rules of the game and try to succeed by unconventional (innovative or criminal) means. This, they argue, is atypical. 9 Lipset and Lenz tested this hypothesis using data from the cross- national 1990–1993 Worl d Values Survey and found that “the le ss affluent countriesss with high achievement motivation” were affluent found to be the “most corrupt” (Ibid)countries with included countries such as Russia, South Korea and Turkey, which were at that time deemed the most corrupt. By contrast, achievement those societies with low achievement motivation were motivation and high access to resources such as Denmark, Norway and Sweden found to be the had lower levels of co rruption. Lipset and most corrupt” Lenz also undertook a mu ltiple regression analysis using data from the 1990 World Values Survey. From the findings they concluded: “Those societies with As noted, Merton’s theoretical analysis implies that serious low with high levels of achievements orientation and low access to achievement means (Lipset and Lenz, 2000: motivation and p. 118) They further concluded that: high access to the availability of resources had institutionalized means to lower levels of levels of corruption (Lipset and Lenz, 2000: p. 118). corruption” 10 Consequences of Political Corruption From an economic perspective, corrupti on, it is argued, inhibits growth in a number of ways (Johnson, 1982; Ste ligson, 2006; Olson, 1996; Paulo, 1995; Bardhab, 1997; Transparency Inte rnational, 2000). Beyond the well- documented and well-talked-about link between the prevalence of corruption in a nation state and foreign investm ent (See in Wei, 2000 various nuanced discourses), there are many local configurative elements as well. According to Transparency International, citing the wo rk of Dieter Frisch former Director- General of Development at the European Commission, corruption ...raises the cost of goods and service; it increases the debt of a country (and carries with it recurring debt-servicing costs in the future; it leads to lowering of standards, as substandard goals are provided and inappr opriate or unnecessary technology is acquired; and it resu lts in project choices being made based more on capital (because it is more rewarding for the perpetrator of corruption) than on manpower , which would be the more useful for development (Transparency International, 2000: 3). This can occur in instances where the widely recognized norms, legal arrangements and standards which govern economic transactions are violated (Olson, 1996; North, 1981 and 1990). Corruption thus also distorts private and public investment (for example channels funds into highly corrupt sectors such as construction). It subverts the meri t principle and rewards those who do not play by the rules (thereby reducing com petition), weakens the authority of the rules/law and the methods and processes that lay at the heart of the democratic process, and contributes to undermining sustainable livelihoods in these economies, especially for the poor. These ‘corruption stimuli’s, Transparency International argues, are costs which are normally shouldered by those who can least afford to bear the burden (Transparency International, 2000). The livelihoods of the poor are parti cularly at risk (Johnston, 1982; Whelan and Murin, 1979; Nice, 1986). 11 Resources needed to address the needs of the poor are siphoned off to meet the needs of an indivi dual, a political party or another group. Nice (1986) explains: When parties and politicians are pr imarily interested in material rewards of office, in jobs and contracts, and personal enrichment, their concern for policies, for promoting fundamental changes, and for promoting ideologi cal and class conflict are correspondingly reduced ... Corruption diverts the att ention of the public, the parties, and the politicians away from i deological and policy concerns, a situation which tends to discourage change (Nice, 1986: p. 288). What this essentially means then is that corruption may in some instances help to perpetuate the status quo by st rengthening the hands of people seeking to “protect advantages they already have” (Ibid) at the expense of others. It is important to note that there are counter arguments. From a socio-political perspective, corruption “breaks the link between collective decision-making and people’s po wers to influence, through speaking and voting, the vey link t hat defines democracy” (War ren, 2004; Johnson, 2005; della Porta, 1996). In essence, it bot h undermines the culture, and shrinks the domains of democracy. Corruption can also have a particularly negative effect on the functioning of a nation an d on the ability of instituti ons in society to attain stated objectives. Among thes e, the administrative system , political institutions and the judiciary are key conc erns. It inhibits upward so cial mobility, innovation and creativity. How is this possible? Corruption, frustr ates the formation of social capital. Further to this, according to the World Bank (1997), corruption “violates the public trust [and confidence] and corrodes soci al capital (pp. 102–104). The Bank further states that “[u]nc hecked, the creeping accumu lation of seemingly minor infractions can slowly erode political legitimacy.’’ (pp. 102–104). In other words, the legitimacy of a government (and ultimately the state) is undermined. 12 Nice (1986) best says it when he stated: When public funds are squandered in unproductive ways or public officials abuse the authority wit h which they have been entrusted, citizens will naturally be relu ctant to permit expansion in government operations. This situati on will be particularly important to people looking to government for assistance (p. 278) Such conditions, it is argued, puts a strain on governance, and in the end has wider implications for development (Warren, 2004). Issues such as corruption and how the public perceive the stat e tend to be wrapped up with how the citizenry view and relate to key institutions of the public sector – departments and ministries, statutory bodies and government agencies. It also influences how they perceive themselves. According to Warren (2004): ...when people are mistrustful of gov ernment, they are also cynical about their own capacities to act on public goods and purposes and will prefer to attend to narrow domains of self interest they can control (p. 328-329). Olson (1993 and 1996) also maintains the importanc e of institutions in building the trust, stability and cons ensus needed for the development of a thriving democracy. They are also key in fostering cooperat ion among firms as well as among citizens and its rulers. Development planning cannot be successful without trustworthy government organizations. 13 3. THE PROBLEM OF POLITICAL CORRUPTION IN JAMAICA Defining Corruption in Table 1: Which of theequency Percent Jamaica following statements (n) (%) matches closest YOUR understanding Defining corruption has always is?what ‘corruption' Misuse of public o515 45 been a source of contention in the for private gain literature. This has often led to much Mismanagement of 217 19 government funds confusion by many scholars, policy Cost overruns 95 9 makers as well as research projects Poor management 164 14 with objects of addressing corruption. practices Other 69 6 The focus of this research is No Answer 80 7 essentially on political corruption, Total 1140 100 which was defined earlier as the We wanted to get a sense of how misuse of public office for private gain. Jamaicans defined corruption. Therefore the following question was posed to the respondents: “Which of the following “The findings statements matches closest YOUR suggest that understanding of what ‘corruption' is? Table 1 above outlines the findings. most Jamaicans define The majority of the respondents (45%) selected ‘misuse of public office for corruption as private gain’. The findings suggest that most the misuse of Jamaicans define corruption as the misuse of public office for private gain. Other responses public office for included ‘mis-management of government private gain” funds’ (19%), ‘poor management practices’ (14%) and ‘cost overruns’ (9%). 14 The Prevalence of Corruption in Jamaica Respondents were also asked several questions regarding their perspectives of the prevalence of corr uption in the Jama ican public sector. Respondents were given a list of gover nment agencies and a sked to indicate how corrupt they felt that agency was. These agencies included the following agencies/institutions/department: Customs; Immigration; Internal Revenue; Public Works; Police; Parish Councils; Central Ministries; Executive Agencies, and Statutory Organizations. Most of thes e agencies have, at some time or the other, been identified as offenders in th e Jamaican media – some more so than others, and some, in many instances, as repeat offenders. 15 First of all, Chart 1 above suggests Chart 2: How easy can a public that all government organizations in official be corrupted in Jamaica? Jamaica are perceived as being corrupt. It was found that the three agencies perceived to be the most corrupt in Not Easy Jamaica were the Police Force, the Parish (15%) Council Offices and the Customs Department respectively. Relatively Easy More specifically, it was also (85%) discovered that 81% of the persons interviewed believed that the Police Force was either corrupt, very corrupt or somewhat corrupt; 62% believed that the Parish Council Offices were either corrupt, very corrupt or somewhat corrupt and 61% We had also attempted to believed that the Customs Department get a sense of the prevalence of were either corrupt, very corrupt or corruption which the individual somewhat corrupt. perceives to exist in the public Respondents were also asked sector today when compared to the question, ‘How easily can a public the past. The ‘past’ was left open – official be corrupted in Jamaica’? Most qualitative. This allowed for some flexibility by not tying individuals to respondents (43%) reported that it was ‘easy’ to corrupt a public official in a particular time or space. What Jamaica and 42% stated that it was we were really interested in ‘very easily’ compared to 15% who knowing was whether they believed that it was ‘not easy’. believed that corruption was Generally speaking then, more increasing or declining. The respondents (85%) believed that it was specific question that was asked in relatively easy to corrupt a public this regard was: “Do you believe official in Jamaica. This is presented in that the Jamaican pu blic sector is Chart 2, more, or less, corrupt now than it was in the past – or, is it about the same?” 16 When the respondents were asked this question, only 95% gave a response to this question. Of this 95%, ma rginally more of the respondents (36%) reported that corruption was ‘much wors e now’, and 28% indicated ‘about the same’, while 27% indicated ‘somewhat worse now’ compared to a scanty 6% who stated ‘somewhat better now’ and 3% who bel ieved that it was ‘much better now’. The responses are depicted below in Chart 3. Chart 3: Do you believe that the Jamaican public sector is more, or less, corrupt now than it was in the past – or, is it % about the same? 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 36 30 28 27 20 10 6 3 0 Much Worse About the Same Somewhat Somewhat Much Better Now Worse Now better now Now A few factors may account for this s eeming disparity. Namely, corruption and corrupt incidents may be more visible now than ever befor e in the nation’s history. This may be due to the increased rate of reporting, the availability of more information, as well as the increase in the number of avenues for spreading such information (the Internet, for example). 17 The suggestion here is that the public may be more aware of the existence of corruption, given its cu rrency in the media as well as the introduction of more legislat ion and regulatory instituti ons specific to the topic 1 (e.g. National Contracts Committee (NCC) , the Corruption Prevention Act and its accompanying Commission for the Prevention of Corruption formed in 2003). These points substantiate that made by Collins in his review of corruption in the Irish Republic (1999: 81). His proposition is t hat the appearance of an increase in corruption in countries such as Ireland may be more about heightened exposure and awareness than about any real increase. This seems to be borne out in the Jamaican case where the relative opening up and increasing knowledge of government processes, fa cilitated by public sector reform programmes over the past decade or two, have served to raise citizen awareness of government and governance. The liberalization of the Jamaican co mmunications sector since the late 1990s has also seen citizens having more scope for participating in government processes and accessing (comparative) information on the performance of agencies and more awareness of ‘acce ptable’ standards and behaviour. Additionally, the prolifer ation of interest/human ri ghts groups and talk shows has also provided a medium for citi zen participation by making ‘voice’ 1 mechanisms more available and accessible. Information flux on the governm ent and its procedures are therefore more visible and fluent. With this opening has come more transparency, making bureaucratic and political bl unders more obvious, an d doing so much more quickly. This heightened transparency has also been a feature of some public sector agencies, including Executive Agencies, which are now more open about their activities (including achievements and, increasingly, failures). Additionally, legislative reform has seen the introduction of a Freedom of Information Act and Anti-Corruption legislation which also received wide-spread coverage in the media. 18 There are, therefore, more avenues for citizens to access information and to communicate on matters relating to corruption, leading to the perception of an increase. The suggestion here is that the public may be more aware of the existence of corruption given its currency in the media as well as the introduction of more legislation and regulat ory institutions specific to the topic (e.g. National Contracts Committee (NCC) 1, the Corruption Prevention Act and its accompanying Commission for the Prevention of Corruption formed in 2003). The liberalization of the Jamaican co mmunications sector since the late 1990s has also seen citizens having more scope for participating in government processes and accessing (comparative) information on the performance of agencies and more awareness of ‘accept able’ standards and behaviour. Additionally, the prolifer ation of interest/human ri ghts groups and talk shows 1 has also provided a medium for ci tizen participation by making ‘voice’ mechanisms more available and accessible. Information flux on the government and its procedures are theref ore more visible and flue nt. With this opening has come more transparency, making bureau cratic and political blunders more obvious, and doing so much quicker. What is interesting as well is that this perception of an increase in corruption in the public sector comes in the wake of an international report from the UN which suggests that there has been a reduction in corruption locally. It is possible to argue that this has been a result of improvements made in heightening transparency within the island. But the fact that this survey took place at a time of heightened public sensitivity and when disclosures were being made about acts of corruption in the present administration may be one factor explaining the view that corruption has in fact increased. It is possible to argue that the act ual incidents or number of times a corrupt act occurs may not be as essent ial as the extent or depth of those corrupt acts that actually become pub lic. This would explain the difference between actual knowledge and perception, especially where the recent actual incidents recalled were held to be more extensive and far-reaching than those in the past. 19 Again, a rejoinder could be The suggestion here is not that the more recent events may bethat this increased intervention, more familiar and hence appear to coverage and transparency is a bad be more important, only to lose ththing because it leads to a prominence as time passes. heightened perception of corruption. Rather, heightened awareness and “Where this sensitivity demonstrated by increased coverage is positive, in perception is as that it has helped to focus attention high as it seems to on an area of Jamaican society be in Jamaica, which is largely in need of attention. then, this can have It is, however, the extent to which it a devastating is perceived to exist which is argued to be important. Where this effect on citizen perception is as high as it seems to trust and be in Jamaica, then, this can have a willingness to devastating effect on citizen trust and willingness to participate participate constructively in constructively in society. society. This is This is arguably already arguably already demonstrated in an unwillingness of demonstrated in some individuals to engage in democratic processes such as an unwillingness of some voting or even paying for public services like utilit ies. Thus the low individuals to voter turn-out, incidents of free- engage in riding, and difficulty in achieving democratic collective action beyond sporadic mass movements are held to be the processes such as result. voting” 20 Causes of Corruption in Jamaica Respondents were asked “What do you th ink are the causes of corruption”. The question was specific to corruption in the Jamaican public sector. They were given a list of possible answers. Below are the options that were provided. They are listed in the order of relevance to the respondents. 1. Personal graft and greed. 2. High reward of corruption. 3. Powerful networks of ‘secret’ organizations (Cronyism). 4. Low levels of public accountability. 5. Low salaries. 6. Low risk of punishment. 7. Politicalpatronage. 8. Low levels of transparency. 9. Opportunities for corrupt practices. 10. Weak management systems 11. Low risk of detection. The findings are outlined below in Chart 4. Chart 4: Causes of Corruption in Jamaica % 100 Personal graft and greed 90 High reward for corruption 80 Powerful network of secret organizations (Cronyism) 70 65 Low levels of public accountability 61 60 60 56 55 Low salaries 54 50 50 49 49 50 48 Low risk of punishment 40 Poltiical patronage 30 Low transparency 20 Opportunity for corrupt practices 10 Weak management systems 0 Causes Low risk of dection 21 The Impact of Corruption on Development Earlier in the text we spoke of the well-estab lished discourse that corruption can undermine the development of nation states, particularly non- industrialized countries. In this research we wanted to find out whether or not the Jamaican people we re aware of this particular consequence of corruption. Thus we asked the question, “Do you believe that corruption has hindered Jamaica’s development?” Collectively, 87% of the respondents reported that corruption has hindered Jamaica’s development while 11% of the respondents stated ‘no’, the remain ing 2% did not answer the question. This is outlined below in Chart 5. Chart 5: Corruption and Development 100 90 87.4 80 70 60 % 50 Yes 40 No 30 20 12.6 10 0 Yes No 22 The Effectiveness of Corruption Detection Mechanisms This research also sought to ascert ain how Jamaicans felt about corruption detection, the likelihood of corrupt individuals being punished for their actions as well as factors which prevent corrupt individuals from being punished. Two questions were developed to capture these views: 1. How easy is it for corruption to be detected in the Jamaican public sector? 2. How likely is it that the corrupt individuals will be punished for their actions? With regard to the question, ‘How easy is it for corr uption to be detected in the Jamaican public sector?’ , it was found that 71% believed that it was ‘difficult to detect’, of which 21% said t hat it would be ‘very difficult’, 50% said that it would be difficult and 23% said it would be easy. This is as compared to 6% who believe that it is ‘very easily detected’. This is outlined below in Chart 7. Chart 6: How easy is it for corruption to be detected in the Jamaican public sector? % 100 90 80 70 60 50 50.1 40 30 21 23.2 20 10 5.7 0 Very difficult Difficult Easy Ver Easy 23 With regard to the question, ‘How likely is it that the corrupt individuals will be punished for their actions?’ it was found that 56% believed that it was ‘not likely’, whereas 13% said very likel y and 31% said likely. Chart 8 outlines these findings. Chart 7: How likely is it that the corrupt individuals will be punished for their actions? % 100 90 80 70 60 56 50 40 31 30 20 12.6 10 0 Not likely Very likely Likely 24 Factors Preventing Corrupt Individuals from Being Punished We were also interested in finding out what possible mechanisms prevent corrupt individuals from being punished. The four main elements present in the literature reviewed were: • That ‘anti-corruption rules are adequate, but Government agencies are too weak to enforce them’ • That ‘anti-corruption rules are adequate, but they are intentionally not enforced’ • That anti-corruption rules and regulations are inadequate • That there is a general lack of knowledge of the rules and regulations on corruption. These options were presented to the respondents. It was discovered that 44% of persons believed that, ‘The anti-corruption rules are adequate, but Government agencies are too weak to enforce them’; 31% stated that, ‘The anti-corruption rules are adequate, but they are intentionally not enforced’; 15% stated that ‘Anti-corruption rules and regulations are inadequate’ and 10% believed that there was a general ‘Lack of knowledge of the rules and regulations on corruption’. See the findings in Chart 8 below Chart 8: Which of these would you say is most important in preventing corrupt individuals from being punished? The anti‐corruption rules are adequate, but Government agencies are too weak to enforce them’ 44 The anti‐corruption rules are adequate, but Government agencies are too weak to enforce them 31 The anti‐corruption rules are adequate, but th15 are intentionally not enforced’ Lack of knowledge of the rules and regulat10ns on corruption’ 0 0 0 0%8 04 2 25 4. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTED RECOMMENDATIONS Perception is the process by which indi viduals organize and interpret their sensory impressions in order to give meaning to their environment. And people’s behaviour is essentially influen ced by their perception of what they believe reality is, not by reality itf. Despite the many anti-corruption measures which have been implemented over the years, generally speaking, the critical findings of this CaPRI Taki ng Responsibility Survey revealed that there exists a broad consensus among many Jamaicans that corruption is still prevalent and persistent in all go vernment institutions. The study also revealed that corruption is a seriouproblem in the country and negatively impacts on development. People strongly believe that the anti-corruption rules are adequate, but Government ag encies are too weak to enforce them and that these anti-corruption rules aradequate, but they are intentionally not enforced. Such a perception helps in eroding the trust and confidence citizens have in the state, in diminishing theextent to which collective action and harmony can be fostered in society, and in raising transaction costs and unpredictability. These appear to be the main issues for Jamaica. This is not to suggest that the level of corruption which presently exists is acceptable or should be excused. Rather, an understa nding of the dynamics of corruption and its impact on the nation, and hence the economy, offers a better understanding of what is indeed a ver y complex issue. Such an approach, which underscores the variety of levels and effects of corruption, offers much in the way of designing more effe ctive and responsive strategies for combating this problem. 26 Since the publication of this con cept paper, CaPRI has undertaken several qualitative consultations in the form of Focus Group Sessions and Policy Forums. The aim of this was , as stated earlier in this report, to address the problem of political corruption in Jamaica through an understanding of the configurations of corruption in Jamaica. The participants have included individuals from various governmental, civil society and business related spaces op erating at different levels. Below are the more dominant recurring recommendations which have been suggested by these participants. It must be noted that all these recommendations are inherently de pendent on the commitment of political leaders, the buy-in of the public and support from civil society and the international community. • Develop a more indigenous/tailor-made anti-corruption approach. It is believed that most of the anti-corruption strategies that have been implemented in Jamaica have either been imposed upon us by foreign entities or have been models which have been adopted wholesale. They are not appropriate to the needs of the Jamaican environment. There is a need for a more tailor-made/indigen ous approach which is responsive to Jamaica’s history and culture. The aforementioned [WHERE - don’t recall this] Cultural Probe will help usto identify these historical and cultural elements so that we can develop appropriate corruption mitigation strategies. Many of the recommendations here are based on such an approach. • Devise a ‘One-at-a -time’ Strategy to deal with the problem of political corruption in Jamaica. From the Taking Responsibility Survey, we have identified what is per ceived by many Jamaicans as the main causes of corruption in Jamaica. From the focus groups conducted, it is suggested that strategies be devised to deal with each one individually. The approach can either be a ‘high-hanging fruit’ one (addressing the most pressing problems first – personal graft and greed, 27 high reward for corruption or crony ism) or a ‘low-hanging fruit’ one (devising strategies to deal with the easy-to-fix corruption problem fist – low risk of detection, w eak management systems or the opportunities for corrupt practices). Whichever approach is used, it is suggested that a few big violators (those w ho give and receive) should be targeted and highlighted in the public media once evidence exists. Similarly, the Taking Responsibility Survey has identified the most corrupt agencies in Jamaica. It has been suggested that investigati ons/reforms should start with the most corrupt agency and move on to the next one. It is believed that quick winds would give momentum to further reforms. • Develop and promote Public Educati on Strategy to instill positive beliefs and values and thus change attitude and behaviour. This can be done in many ways. Some of these include: oA comprehensive awareness and sensitization campaign regarding the importance of ethics, morals and standards. Such a project should be done in the school s, at all levels, to extend and consolidate what should be taught by the family unit. This should include activities that help in identifying corruptio n, demonizing corruption; explaining its implications and possible causes. o An identification of texts or conventions which promote deviant behaviour. Such
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'