As noted by Lambsdorff (2007, 1), the founder of Transparency International, “corruption. “Corruption” should be seen as a universal phenomenon that plays an important role in almost all societies.Īs mentioned, corruption is rarely treated as a normal part of society in the contemporary literature. According to Treisman (2000, 399), corruption can be defined as “the misuse of a public office for private gain.” The level of corruption explains the extent to which contemporary society overlaps with the feudal model. Corruption as the Basis for Feudal TendenciesĬorruption in contemporary society is a “normal” channel that makes the exchange of political privileges for money possible. Most people with limited incomes have no chance of receiving significant privileges in economic or political life, whereas those with deep financial resources, property, or high positions in government function both as givers and receivers of privileges that contradict the official structure, whether authoritarian or liberal. Of course, people with few resources have less access to privileges than those individuals who control major assets-such as political or religious power,money, and prestige-which can be used to extract benefits in interpersonal relations. Robert Dahl, in On Political Equality, wrote that in countries such as the United States and Britain,the importance of “minority money” in political life makes the idea of fair democratic competition nonsense, because elected politicians answer more to big money donors than to voters (Dahl 2006 Ringen 2006). Economic inequality encourages feudal tendencies, a point that was noted by the advocates of Jeffersonian democracy who suggested that democracy is threatened by large concentrations of wealth. No one is entitled to privileges stemming from the abuse of property or positions in bureaucracy. The liberal model supposes that the well-being of each individual depends on the success of perfect economic and political competition. The authoritarian model supposes that each member of society is rewarded only for contributing to the might of the state or to the power of its leaders. These relations challenge the principles of both the authoritarian and liberal models. The privileges that some actors receive can range from the perks of nepotism and the use of offices as sources of additional income, to tax concessions and export licenses. The boards of directors of large organizations also hold a monopolistic position, given their control over rewards and decision-making, and the difficulties of challenging their official verdicts.Īs a matter of fact, all privileges, by definition, have an exclusive and monopolistic character, which implies an unequal distribution of some good or opportunity. Such power can be exchanged for a variety of rents, from simple acts of kindness to valuable gifts and lucrative jobs. Even the secretaries and close advisers of executives enjoy a sort of monopoly on access to the leader. The employees of large firms are well aware of the monopoly on decision-making held by top executives or CEOs. This instrument was often more effective than physical coercion. The power basis of many theological regimes in history resided in their monopolies on the right to approve or disapprove behavior. The Catholic Church still uses the fear of excommunication to temper any challenge to the pope’s monopoly on truth and the various rules of the Church. A church can use various forms of religious approval or disapproval to influence its members. Churches, for instance, have a monopoly on religious rituals. Essentially,each piece of private property and each public office is a monopoly, even if only a temporary one, for those who control it.Īs Coase and Williamson suggested, monopolies can be found in all spheres of social life (Williamson 1996, 288). More generally, a monopoly on any scarce resource-a typical feudal phenomenon-generates corruption and creates a basis for collecting extra “rent” through modes of behavior that violate hierarchical, democratic, and market principles. One such tendency occurs when social actors, from individuals to large organizations, use their private resources to extract privileges from the state in a way that is incompatible with the public goals advanced by the central administration or electorate. This inability may stem from a lack of resources or from problems associated with corruption. Feudal elements tend to emerge when the state is unable or unwilling to maintain order in society.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |