« On the Farewell Lecture @ the World Bank | Main | Pirámides Ponzi en Rusia, Colombia y EEUU: de Mavrodi a Murcia a Madoff (MMM) »
Illinois Governor Blagojevich: sign of endemic corruption in the US?
By Kaufmann | December 11, 2008 1 Comment »
The new corruption scandal embroiling Illinois Governor Blagojevich is already resulting in sweeping generalizations about the hopelessly corrupt state of that State. And commentators from other States are jumping in to suggest that their State can compete with Illinois in having such high levels of corruption.
Wait a second. First, let us take a world-wide perspective. Granted, the US in general is not a model for the world in terms of control of corruption. Countries like New Zealand and the Nordics are closer to being a model of integrity instead. There are 18 countries rating better than the US in controlling corruption according to the Worldwide Governance Indicators. Yet there are about 190 countries rating worse.
Rating among the top 20 countries in the world may still not be good enough for a powerhouse such as the US. And particularly so when such rating would be lower if subtler forms of corruption -that do prevail in the US- such as legal corruption and capture, were taken into account in these global ratings (such subtler and more ‘legal’ forms of corruption were contributing factors to the financial crisis). But the US is not hopelessly corrupt today. In fact, the country has made enormous strides historically, having experienced very high and pervasive levels of corruption in the 19th century.
Second, in the US, corrupt politicians (which are not the majority, even if their number is not as low as it should be…) do face detection, investigation, indictment…and even prosecution. This sets the country apart from some others. In Illinois, since the late 1960s, George Ryan. Dan Walker and Otto Kerner served as Governors, and then went on to serve time in federal prison. Similar fate befell on Louisiana Gov. Edwin Edwards and Maryland’s Marvin Mandel (not to speak about Nixon’s ex-VP Spiro Agnew). In some other countries, there is no such record of ever serving in jail, not necessarily because of higher probity, but because of impunity, or, some do end up in jail, but because of their activism, ideological or political affiliation.
Third, the brazen ongoing case of Illinois Gov. Blagojevich (if proven guilty) may turn out to be a bit of an aberration, for particular reasons regarding his character and perception of what reality is (or is not), rather than reflecting systemic rot. Recall the psychological failings of a Nixon in cheating on taxes while President.
In the US, there is Rule of Law, which is the exact opposite to Rule of Man (remember Kings?). Yet some powerful office-holders come to believe that it is the latter that applies to them, the former applying to all others (or only to common citizens…). Such cognitive dissonance is usually an individualized challenge, and does not necessarily infect the whole system, particularly if these individual office holders are acting alone and are effectively detected and prosecuted.
Fourth, while the US in general, or, for that matter any particular State throughout the country, are not afflicted by endemic levels of corruption, it is the case that there are differences across States: some States in the US are more corrupt than others. Some years back, a source that rates corruption across States, from the Corporate Crime Reporter, did list Louisiana, Alaska, Mississippi, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Illinois, Florida and New York among those with higher levels of corruption, contrasting Nebraska, Oregon, Washington State, New Hampshire, Colorado, Utah, Minnesota, Kansas and others, rating among the cleanest. It is relevant to still ask: why such differences in corruption within the US, given that it is one country, with so many features in common across States?
Fifth, a line of inquiry from political scientists (such as Joel Hellman) points to differences across States (and cities) depending on very different immigration (or lack thereof) patterns, and due to that, different evolution (or lack thereof) of the political machinery in the big city and State, and thus of patronage politics. From the old days, vulnerable and poor immigrants were provided with a basic welfare net to get settled by the city bosses, in return for their votes as a block. Political corruption in the form of patronage politics, as potently exemplified by Chicago, Boston, Miami and New York ensued. In contrast with Denver or Portland, I surmise.
With the advent of the modern and federal welfare system, and a much more open media (at times muckraking) and investigative journalism, the culture of patronage politics started to be replaced, and such political machineries evolved for the better, and corruption declined, though some legacy may still persist. More recently, the IT revolution, including effortlessly having You Tube online videos of the crime being committed, may further help now.
Still, the extent to which this type of patronage machinery and political corruption still persists today in some places in the US, and why, is worth studying further, because corruption in some large cities and states is still a challenge, even if they are not endemically corrupt. And the gray areas of capture and legal corruption, discussed in previous blog entries, are alive and well, and even if less brazen than the acts that Governor Blagojevich is accused of, have much costlier consequences.
Topics: Corruption, Rule of Law | | 1 Comment
December 12th, 2008 at 12:08 am
what’s all this talk about calling for Blagojevich to “resign?” … “throw him in prison” sounds a lot more fitting