FORBES: MOST CORRUPT NATIONS
Forbes magazine a list of the world's most corrupt countries for this year. The list appears to be tied more to human rights violation than business freedom. This list is not to be confused with the ease of doing business list. In the past I have discussed the limitations of cross-country comparisons, so reports like this ought to be taken with a pinch of salt. Though the relationship between corruption and economic growth often appear to be weaker in the literature than one would expect it to be. However it is safe to conclude that all the countries on this list will have to put in some more effort at cleaning their acts up. African countries were well represented on the list and Nigeria came in at #18.
13Comment(s):
when did you discuss your issues wih cross-country comparisions ?
Am i right to assume that this is an improvement?
i'm sorry...i think such reports are ridiculous...if the us can make statements about other countries and what they are doing, yet no one can say anything about the us and the fact that the us is one the least corrupt nations when bush stole two elections and he and his administration have committed all sorts of other corrupt atrocities means that this report can't be taken seriously...funny how all the corrupt countries are those the us doesn't like or who have oil or are very poor...i wouldn't be surprised if bush and friends actually pay ti to create that report and not report the us as least corrupt so as not to arouse suspicion...as for naija, 18 is quite an improvement, sadly...
US-occupied Irak was in the 3 most corrupt countries last year. I'm not sure Bush would like that.
The ranking is done by Transparency International, a danish NGO, if i remember right.
Plus, having rigged elections is not really the kind of stuff that is proof of corruption.
That said, one also has to remember that the survey is about "perception of corruption", which means they're ranking how bad the businesses active in a country think corruption is in that country.
so the fact that transparency international is danish means what?...that somehow the us can't influence them?...please see the un, imf, world bank while you're at it...just look at the way bush handled the un...i'm forgetting exactly which, world bank or imf...but whichever one it is agreed the us will lead, found out that the president, appointed by bush, had given preferential treatment to his girlfriend...but that wasn't really the kind of stuff that is proof of corruption when certain countries engage in it, right...as bush went on to appoint the next president...
...if rigged elections aren't really the kind of stuff that is proof of corruption, what is?...i guess it wouldn't be because it's the type that the us engages in, right?...the corruption the us engages in isn't described as such...how convenient...although, that very rigged election has been used against nigeria, venezuela (regarding voting for certain changes in law), etc..but never in the case of the west...they have different definitions right?...
...perception of corruption...when most of the business people come from the west and are used to the garbage they are fed about the countries being corrupt, wouldn't you also think it's corrupt?...and i guess we excuse the businessmen who engage in and encourage the corruption, right, because afterall, it is already corrupt there?...please...if it was sooo corrupt, why would they go and do their business there?...people who want to take advantage of corruption to make money aren't corrupt either right?...that's not really the kind of stuff that is proof of corruption, right?...
...and i should take such a report written and supported by people who hold themselves above others and excused from certain scrutiny serious?...
I don't even know what to think of it, to be honest...
Oh boi, did random African just meet his match in Guerreiranigeriana....popcorn please.
Uzo I think this is an improvement...I suspect Ribadu had something to do with this improvement. But now..what do we have? Thanks for stopping by Uzo, long time no hear..how is naija treating you?
WTF ?
Ok, let's go back to the basics. Since their creation, there has been a tradition in the IMF and the World Bank. The IMF's president is european, the WB's american. Bush, being president of the country that chooses the president of the WB gave the job to one of his friend. His friend got caught up in a, let's be honest, sort of minor corruption scandal, friend got removed, the US choose someone else.
But he got removed.
As far as rigged elections, no it's not proof of corruption, at least not the kind of corruption Transparency International works on. After all, Nigeria did have a rigged election this year and they still improved, didn't they ? We're talking about bribes, favours and other illegal thing governments asks businesses and citizens.
people who want to take advantage of corruption to make money aren't corrupt either right?
That's why Transparency International has a Bribe Payers Index ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bribe_Payers_Index ). You know one of the recipient of bribes, one for the payers.
Now I haven't followed their surveys in depth, but somehow I don't think they only talk to western businessmen and what exactly is the incentive for western businessmen engaging in corruption to talk about it ? Seriosuly, do you think Julius Berger wants to tell the world how they make billions in Nigeria on phony contracts ?
Why do companies and people make business in corrupt countries ? there's a profit. simple. Would it be bigger if the place was less corrupt ? may be. Would it be the same but with the populations benefitting from it ? May be.
But all in all,you have to remember one important thing: there's no such thing as "no corruption". There will always be some. Anywhere, even in perfect scandinavian countries. And anybody who doesn't acknowledge that is a crook. As far as I know, T.I. is not saying that, what their ranking is saying is that there's more corruption in this place than in that one.
Now if your nigerian pride is hurt by ranking low. Well ask yourself how long can anyone go on in Naija without paying a bribe and then compare it to the places that ranked high.
If that test doesn't make sense, you can keep on with your uninformed rants, because that would mean it's hopeless.
not sure what the 'wtf?' was for, as i did not use such language with you...simply disagreed or questioned some of the things you pointed out...if the sarcastic tone pained you, sorry, i am sarcastic...i don't claim to be an expert or to know everything or even have the answers...and am always open to learning...i just get sick of how people unabashedly follow along with all these supposed 'expert', 'unbiased' and 'objective' reports and felt like expressing so on this blog...especially since reports continue to be written, countries arbritrarily move up and down in ranking and corruption in most places hasn't changed...
...if transparency international isn't going to look at all corruption, what exactly is the point?...to just look at certain corruption which happens to prevail in certain places, and not the other types or levels (since now we are categorizing the types of corruption) again seems to want to paint one picture, which is biased and doesn't tell the whole story...half-truths, especially those that leave nasty marks on some and not neccessarily as they should be, don't really need to be told...why the us appointed president of the world bank giving gifts to his girlfriend is considered some different kind of corruption, i don't understand (and i could be wrong, but i thought he was removed because his time/term was up...very different from actually being removed...if he was removed, it was without punishment)...if we keep saying that 'well, corruption in the uk is very different from corruption in vietnam and we happen to not count that type of corruption as major', i don't see the point of publishing the report...it's still corruption and affects the people...how can you truly say that there is more corruption in one place than another when you measure the type of corruption most prevalent in certain places and disregard the corruption in other places?...as you said, there is no such thing as no corruption...i believe that corruption is practiced so very differently in some of these western countries, that outright bribery and others that transparency international counts are no longer necessary...the fact that the imf president will be european and the president of world bank american is problematic...but, i guess that's not corruption, based on the definition transparency international uses (since they are the gospel truth on defining corruption) nor does it in any way pose possible potential for corruption in the future since it is europe and the us, places with 'less' corruption than the south, essentially, the former colonized countries (most, not all)...
...as i stated in my first post, i give two shits about these reports and rankings...they don't dictate anything for me...hence, nigerian pride wouldn't blind me to the gross corruption in nigeria...and i in no way refuted nigeria's corruption...i sarcastically stated that it was an improvement to be at 18, since at one point it was number one...if you took from my statement that i somehow think that the corruption in nigeria is the same as in the us, you misunderstoond...i am not so stupid to be blindly patriotic...but, as i was born and raised in the us, i have also been privvy to the fuckery they sell the rest of the world as their fallacy of democracy and uncorrupt ways and i like to call out bullshit...whether it be naija or the us...
...if my 'rants' as you deemed it, seem uninformed because i forgot specifics or didn't equip them with links, so be it...i don't sit and follow what is written because it was written by someone who wants me to believe and trust their report or because the report has been validated by some 'objective and unbiased' agency/group...bush also told the united states and the un that the us government had evidence to prove that iraq had weapons of mass destruction...i think we all know how that ended...or should i provide a link for you to validate that argument?...will it be okay if the link isn't one sponsored by the us government or a western european country or does that jeopardize the validity of the report?...i guess i'll also only listen to cnn, because they clearly only provide unbiased news...i wonder how some of these reports would differ if written from different perspectives...but then again, i am not an expert and can't quote stats and links nor ask questions...
...i don't take it personal as i like debate and learn in the process...you have challenged my assumptions and thoughts and made me think...for that, i am appreciative...i in no way mean any harm...but i am sarcastic...:)
I appologize for using that language.
Nobody said some types of corruption don't count. It's about prevalence. Everywhere in the world, there are corruption scandals and politicians using their office for either personnal or political benefit (like putting party workers on a ministry or a city's payroll). And neither me nor T.I. denies it. It's about how much of that goes on.
The fact that the US score has been getting lower year after year sort of makes sense, doesn't it ? Yet, even with Bush and his corrupt ways, do you really think it has gotten bad enough for the US to be considered less corrupt than say Vietnam where you have to pay bribes to buy land and where you have to give minority shares to connected people to create a business ?
As far as the Wolfowitz scandal, it's really not as bad as most think. His girlfriend was working at the WB long before he met her and long before he even dreamed about being appointed. At his appointment, she got put on leave with a salary to avoid a conflict of interest. The scandal came when she got a raise. Is it bad ? Yeah. Bad enough for him to be forced to resign ? Sure. But once again, how does that compare to what is going on in my or your country ?
So once again, it is corruption. And so are various other scandals in all the countries that rank high. It counts, TI counts it. The issue is that no matter how you put it, no matter what you think of Bush or other westerners, what is going in Vietnam, Nigeria, Congo, Colombia, Albania, Russia or even Israel is worse.
As far as the presidency of the world bank and the imf being allocated to regions, well, for one, it doesn't matter that much. The nationality of the staff, the directors, the chief economists is not part of that tradition and while the president has some influence on choices and policies, the staff is where it all happens. After all, presidents come and go, the staff doesn't. And right now, the chief economist of the World Bank is Chinese.
Sorry if i was rude and seemed snotty or whatever. But you're still wrong. I mean, there are issues with that such rankings, however I can't for the life of me figure out why would you think it's all a Bush conspiracy to convince people corruption doesn't exist in the US.
hmmmnnn...points well taken...although i don't think it is bush or his administration's conspiracy to convince people corruption doesn't exist in the US...at the end of the day, it [corruption] is worst in 'our' countries...let me go think a little and read...*sticks out her hand for a handshake*...
*shakes hand*
and sorry again for having been rude.