Four things countries like China can work on, to really tackle corruption
- Dan Hough says the new corruption index shows little has changed in China, Hong Kong and elsewhere. Broadly speaking, independent institutions and a free press are vital to keeping a check on those in power, and laws need to be implemented
All countries in the Asia-Pacific region claim to want to fight corruption. Yet, if the newest data from anti-corruption watchdog Transparency International is to be believed, very few are making much progress.
But many more countries perform poorly. A score under 50 indicates a serious corruption problem, while a score below 30 shows endemic corruption. This time round, 22 Asia-Pacific nations have scores under 50, out of which seven have scores below 30. Clearly, the region’s high-flyers are oases in a pretty barren desert.
The CPI itself is certainly not beyond criticism. The scores are based on perceptions of reality, after all, and not accurate measures. Boiling down corruption to a single number also seems to be simplification on steroids. Plus, the data is sourced from a relatively small number of surveys conducted by other organisations; Transparency International simply puts together what is effectively a poll of polls.
Be that as it may, for most Asia-Pacific countries, the data doesn’t make pretty reading. Hong Kong is ranked 14th, with 76 points, a drop of one place and one point from 2017. In China, President Xi Jinping’s anti-corruption drive appears to have brought little improvement. The mainland’s score inched from 37 to 41 between 2015 and 2017, and it is now bumbling along, in 87th place with 39 points. The Philippines’ score is 36, the same as for 2013. Vietnam’s score of 33 is two points down from 2017, but still an improvement on 2015 (31 points). Leaving aside minor ups and downs, this is a story of continuity rather than change.
So what is going wrong? Sometimes, anti-corruption reforms take time to filter through such rankings. The new government of Malaysia, for example, has unveiled encouraging pieces of anti-graft legislation, but it will take time to evaluate their potential impact.
More broadly, too few countries in the region are willing to seriously engage in meaningful reforms. Firstly, independent institutions that can keep a check on those with executive power need strengthening. There is no one model to follow, but independent oversight and the ability for those with oversight functions to act freely are vital to sending the right message to those in power.
Secondly, many states have impressive sets of laws on their statute books. Indeed, some of the countries with the most significant corruption problems might have the most comprehensive legal tool kits. It is the implementation gap that is the problem. Nice-sounding laws are fine and dandy, but they don’t mean a great deal unless they are actively enforced. Asia-Pacific countries generally do worse in this regard.
Thirdly, enforcement isn’t just throwing people into prison. It must involve a justice system that acts in an open and accessible manner. Civil society organisations also need to be allowed to help flag corrupt practices and, indeed, speak truth to power. Shutting them down is not the way to go.
Finally, in an era of fake news and persistent meddling in the media, a free and independent media becomes ever more important. A free media is sometimes unedifying. It is sometimes a real irritant for those in power. Journalists can make mistakes and get things wrong. But take away their right to do that and we are left in a world with much more darkness than light; and it is in that darkness that corruption flourishes.
Too many states around the world pay lip service to these pillars of an effective anti-corruption infrastructure. In practice, however, too few do justice to these ideas.
Dan Hough is a professor of politics at the University of Sussex and director of the Sussex Centre for the Study of Corruption. His new book is Analysing Corruption
