Corruption is not moral issue

As we all know that corruption is bad for growth , as concluded by several studies, such as Mauro (1993), but what do you think about the statement which tells that corruption fixes one’s moral in bad shape?

Why do you think that statement comes up to surface? I think it’s because corruption has been called as a part of a state’s culture. Corruption has become a purported culture, if you may say so, because it’s made of habit, and habit is made of persistence opportunities.

The next question is why do people corrupt? The cliché motive is economic one. Because people can’t always have bread for himself or his family regularly. His real income can’t fulfill it. So, in order to maintain his and his whole family in standard way of living, he would find a way at all cost, assuming he really loves his family. Thus, he corrupts.

As I consider the most dangerous actors of this act are bureaucrats, because they can distort public interest. Assuming that a bureaucrat is a rational man that he would respond to incentives, and vice versa, and would make a decision based on cost-benefit analysis. So, he would be very rational if he corrupts while there is no hang rope awaits. On the other hand, he would be very irrational if he doesn’t take a chance to corrupt while most of his colleagues do it.

Why? Because by not doing so he would incur cost by feeling pressure, while, assuming that most of his colleagues and even his boss do so, could not get any benefit since his boss is no different with his friends. As a result he may end up quitting his current job and may not get a job easily, considering one’s age.

Why so bothered? Weak law enforcement, low salary and flawed supervision would, by any chance, create what you call ‘korupsi berjamaah’, a situation which is very common in our beloved country. When this situation persists, a state would be in jeopardy because one would be strongly connected to one another. You won’t bet your money on having a whistle blower coming up.

So what’s the solution? First, of course, assuming general motive of corrupting is economic motive, you must raise their salary, although this won’t automatically raise their productivity, but at least you may have a reason to kick lazy ass. Second, guarantee law incentives and compensation for a whistle blower. This would bring the systemic corruption into a demise, assuming that a whistle blower would give more than two names, and they would confess, considering the most plausible point is two of them confessing, and give another name and this would create a multiplier effect; thus all of them would occupy hotel prodeo. And yet, this won’t happen if the law enforcers are readily bribed.

In conclusion, corruption is more or less not a moral issue, but an incentive issue, instead.

Notes: for my fellas, please don't point your finger only to the corruptors, but to those who have shaped them into these. Don't go shouting just for Urip's sake, but also for Hendarman Supandji, the big boss...