In other news, hundreds of thousands of corrupt Communist Party cadres were arrested in a general purge of Party corruption, under the general instructions of Comrade Joseph Stalin. They’ll get around to arresting millions of other citizens later.

December 9, 2006 @ 4:13 pm | Comment

I think it’s pretty much all the CCP can do.

There was (oddly enough) a similar situation towards the end of the last dynasty. At the end of the 19th century, corruption was endemic, degrees and positions were being sold off to make money, and public services were in shambles.

The solution? Campaigns to reinvigorate a sense of “Confucian” morality among officials and an overemphasis on “selecting the upright.”

The real problem was an imperial system with insufficient checks on official behavior or sufficient staff or money to run an empire that had tripled in size in 250 years. But of course to question the system and call for real reform would have meant undermining the legitimacy of the ruling dynasty. First, such direct challenges never ended well for the challenger. Second, most of these officials, despite their complaints of corruption, directly or indirectly benefited from the system. Their position in society depended upon the propping up of the old Confucian order–even if that order was now run at the top by Manchus.

I see a similar thing going on now. Repeated campaigns for “morality” and “public service” rather than hard looks at a system where officials exist without accountability to the people they serve. Even those cadres and officials who do lament the sorry state of affairs know that their hold on power and status in the PRC is tied to the fate of the CCP. From their perspective, there is only so much that can be done.

December 9, 2006 @ 11:20 pm | Comment

Towards the end of this article, it mentions that the cadres whose job it is to root out corruption are essentially reporting to higher officials who they are supposed to be policing.

So, no, it doesn’t seem like it will work terribly well.

December 10, 2006 @ 1:06 am | Comment

This doesn’t seem to be an issue institution either. India has perfectly liberal constitutional republic, yet corruption is even worse there. There got to be additional variables.

So I guess for any “lover of liberty,” the strong argument they could use in the Chinese case really shouldn’t be efficiency or corruption, etc. They might have to start a priori. The whole thing then becoms a shouting match between “Asian values” (whatever that means) and “liberal democratic values” (again, whatever that means.)

Call me a nihilist, but I am sick and tired of abstract discourse of political philosophy.

P.S. I have more than a handful of examples on both sides, Singapore, Brazil, and the list goes on…

December 10, 2006 @ 5:41 am | Comment

I might suggest–with sincere apologies to Tolstoy–that countries with limited corruption tend to share some of the same characteristics, corrupt countries seem to be corrupt each after their own fashion.

December 10, 2006 @ 6:38 am | Comment

That isn’t true either. Look at Singapore. Lee Kuan-Yew didn’t like dissidents. So they round’em all up in Santosa. Lee Kuan-Yew didn’t like Jury trial. So they abolished it. Lee Kuan-Yew didn’t like independent judiciary. So they replaced life-tenured judges with fixed-term commissioners. Lee Kuan-Yew did not like democracy, so Singapore didn’t become a democracy.

Yet it is one of the least corrupt countries in the world.

India, of course, went along the opposite course.

Morever, suppose you’re right, that countries with limited corruption tend to “share some of the same characteristics.” But this doesn’t tell us the causation. Did those characteristic cause the “less corruption”? Are they the only characteristic that could reduce corruption? If your argument is the former, I have India for you. If your argument follows along the latter, I have Singapore for you.

What then?

December 10, 2006 @ 6:56 am | Comment

I agree with James. There’s no evidence that “democracy” = “less corruption”. Most countries in Latin America and East Europe are democracies in the eyes of the US, but their corruption levels are very high. But Singapore is “one party rule”, but very uncorrupt.

In fact, even in the US, corruption is simply in a “advanced form”. The US’s Vice President is practicing the highest level of corruption by helping Oil Company’s interests and starting wars to help them, this is a much more serious level of corruption than CCP officials receiving cash and women, right? At least the CCP officials do not invade another country just to help his connected companies’ interests….

So, corruption in China is on a very low level. Corruption in the US is on a high and “intelligent” level. CCP cadres need to learn from the American Vice President.

December 10, 2006 @ 7:19 am | Comment

Woa, well done James. Now pigsun thinks that you’re a compatriot. That’s the kind of situation that nihilism will get you into. By the way, you’re the only one here who is engaging in abstract discourse of political philosophy. Jeremiah in his first comment, was only suggesting that the lack of check and balance on officials’ behaviour in China throughout history might have contributed to the corruption that China is facing today. So going back to Confucius value is probably not the way to go. But a reform of its legal system, putting in more check and balance mechanism will probably help.

December 10, 2006 @ 7:43 am | Comment

Regardless of your political system, checks and balances and transparency are necessary to prevent corruption. I don’t know very much about Singapore, except that as I understand it, rules and laws are enforced with some consistency. Aside from that, I don’t think it’s a good example. Singapore is very small and it’s much easier to maintain control in a small state than in large countries, be they democracies or not.

You are more likely to have the necessary checks and balances and transparency in a democracy because of the political competition and a free press, but this by no means an absolute, as India demonstrates.

I agree with Pigsun (yikes) that Cheney’s activities and many other activities the Bush administration are examples of high level corruption indeed. My hope is that the aforementioned political competition, open press and checks and balances will help the country correct itself and punish those who have been robbing us blind for the last six years. From all accounts, expect to see many, many Congressional investigations when the new congress takes office in January.

However, I would say that on a daily basis, with the institutions we have to deal with, the rate of corruption in the States is relatively low. I’ve never been asked to pay a bribe or encountered anything of the sort.

December 10, 2006 @ 8:47 am | Comment

There are certain challenges of ‘representativeness’ whenever Singapore is brought up as a case study. Its size provides the island nation both with benefits and challenges not seen in other countries.

I lived in Singapore for a year. Loved it. But at the same time, I think comparing it to China and India presents a serious apples/oranges problem.

December 10, 2006 @ 9:04 am | Comment

However, I would say that on a daily basis, with the institutions we have to deal with, the rate of corruption in the States is relatively low.

I said that corruption in the US in “advanced forms”. Corruption in China is still in “primitive form”.

“Primitive Form” = Taking cash as bribes and having many women….

“Advanced Form” = Lobbying Companies, Fundraisers for Political Parties, Special Interest Groups.

“Advanced Form” is more dangerous because it is hard to detect because they are legal. And most citizens do not even understand those procedures and think about those things.

December 10, 2006 @ 10:59 am | Comment

Pigsun

While you do have a point about the corruptions that goes on high level in the USA and other advance countries but they do have checks and balances. They(former ruling goverment) was voted off albeit after a long while but they could not fool the American public for too long. In China the same checks and balances may not work completely as is shown by India. But at least in India they poor do have a voice for eg the BJP neglected the rural populations in their development plans and was focused only on urban development. Despite their ‘India Shining’ slogan they were voted out much to the urban populations surprise and the Cogress Party took over. And ever since rural developments was given priority. That does not mean corruption is less rampant in India under the Congress government but the poor through the votes were able to extract something from system. May I ask you in China what avenues do the poor and disenfranchised extract something out of the system?

December 10, 2006 @ 8:16 pm | Comment

Corruption occurs whenever you have government of any kind – as soon as you have a body established to take taxes, you will have corruption.

In the US, as in every other country, this is the case, but the US does have a good track record of prosecuting and punishing those who abuse the system, Democrats and Republicans alike. But this type of corruption is very different from the kind you see in China and other less developed countries. It is hardly noticed because it doesn’t inflict direct and immediate suffering on the population – contractors will skim money off their lucrative government deal and share it with the politician who helped them land it. That’s par for the course. What you will not see are shakedowns of the disenfranchised, forcing them to cough up obscene percentages of their tiny incomes in “taxes.” What you will not see are people thrown out of their houses at the whim of a corrupt local official in cahoots with developers, For that, we have a very aggressive media that helps makes such malfeasances very difficult if not impossible. And we have a legal system that works, albeit with varying degrees of success – witness the recent convictions of Ney and Cunningham for taking huge paybacks from lobbyists. Witness the entire Jack Abramoff scandal, touching very high figures in government. Exposure and punishment of corruption at the highest levels is a daily occurrence in America, because of our free media and legal system. In China, those who try to speak out against corruption are often thrown in jail or terrorized by thugs. In China, the tentacles of corruption reach into the lives of millions and millions of the poor. In America, the corruption exists, but it in no way impacts the daily lives of citizens in any way, shape or form comparable to the situation in China, where citizens have to deal with corruption every day.

December 10, 2006 @ 10:16 pm | Comment

Richard

Corruption in the US does not affect directly the poor? Come on Richard. Maybe not the directness of robbing them of their land or something like that but just look at Katrina, why was the levy not fixed or reinforced when repeated recommendations was for it to be reinforced? The allocations of funds was not there because of Iraq. I cannot believe the Iraq war was not started by some corruptions and the need to lie about the WMD. Who got hurt? The innocents and the poor ,like the soldiers from the Midwest, the poor in New Orleans that do not have the means to evacuate, the poor innocent civilians in Iraq etc etc. It does not take a big strecth of the imagination to think how the poor are affected by the corruptions in Washington.

December 10, 2006 @ 11:18 pm | Comment

Flabbergasted, I agree that the war in Iraq is replete with examples of high-level corruption – it’s something that almost transcends the term “corruption” as it’s generally used because it is such a blatant abuse of power, and of the power of the state. I am hoping that the next two years will bring thorough investigations of what has gone on during the Bush administration and that the guilty parties will be punished, that this group of people will be thoroughly repudiated and that we will have learned a lesson about falling for this brand of propaganda. I’m not counting on it, but I’m hopeful.

re: Katrina, though I’m certain there has been corruption in the aftermath, I’d characterize the initial response as more jaw-dropping incompetence and lack of caring than corruption per se.

Certainly decisions like the war in Iraq have had a terribly detrimental effect on the American economy and that this disproportionally affects the poor and the middle class. I’m just not sure if calling it “corruption” quite captures the situation. Maybe Pigsun’s definition of “advanced corruption” is useful to describe things like this – huge decisions that affect large socioeconomic segments to benefit the very few. I’d say that sort of decision-making goes on in China as well, though perhaps it’s more fragmented.

But I think that “corruption” as it’s being referred to in this study pertains to the criminality that affects peoples’ daily business and daily lives. Are contracts enforceable? Are bribes frequently necessary? Are business and governmental processes transparent, and can ordinary citizens depend on the sorts of agreements that directly affect their daily lives?

On the other hand, I’d never discount “advanced corruption,’ either. As Pigsun said, it’s covered by a veneer of legality, and a set of assumptions that are so deeply embedded that it’s hard to see the pattern at times. In my political lifetime, I’ve never seen anything quite on the level of the Bush administration – it will take decades to recover from their poor decisions and blatant criminality.

December 11, 2006 @ 3:15 am | Comment

For all have sin so the saying goes but Pigsun that is not the central to the problem that China has. It is the CCP ability to rein in these corruptions that is in question.These rampant corruptions if allowed unchecked it will destroy the good work the economic progress have achieved so far and what ever the West may say, have benefitted large sections of the urban poor interms of jobs and has improved social mobility significantly. The shio pai shin will look at the inequality and more importantly the injustices and revolt. I think the CCP knows that well but as questioned by the commentators here, does the CCP have the wherewithal to keep it in check given the present political set up. All said corruption is not the sole problem of China but many developing countries that had practised democracies for long periods. Theoretically it should be easier to wipe out corruption in a totalitarian state provided the one who holds the gun has the will power to do so.

December 11, 2006 @ 11:21 am | Comment

It’s easy to be cynical but I think this new development has the potential to make a huge difference in reining in corruption in China. Previously, members of disciplinary committees at the local levels consisted of local party cadres who were appointed by the local party committee. When an anti-corruption organ is drawn from and appointed by the people that they are supposed to monitor, it’s not going to be very effective. Now, it seems that at least for the provinicial level, this is changing. It’s not just Shanghai, Beijing, and Tianjin, this is happening in other provinces too, with heads of provincial disciplinary committees being appointed by the party center from candidates from outside of these provinces. I’d say this is the most important organizational change in the party in the last 25 years. It still has to be seen whether similar changes will be implemented in lower levels (city, county, etc) and how effective these changes will be in checking corruption, but it’s obvious that the old ways weren’t working and this at least has the potential to change things around.

December 11, 2006 @ 2:43 pm | Comment

I would say it is a huge improvement. But these party cadres from the center can also be corrupted when they are far from the emperors but then I have a cynical world paradigm.

December 11, 2006 @ 4:27 pm | Comment

Fantastic. China wipes out corruption. Again. You’d almost think it was election time.

Call me doubly cynical, but in my humble-yet-expert opinion, corruption is the only grease that lets the wheels turn at all. If everybody followed the system in place now, everytime they tried to do a deal or buy a property, the whole system would grind to a halt.

December 11, 2006 @ 10:24 pm | Comment

The thing is, IT IS NOT A MATTER OF CORRUPTION VS. NO-CORRUPTION. IT IS A MATTER OF AN AUTHORITARIAN ONE-PARTY STATE VS. A LIBERAL DEMOCRACY.

I love how some bloggers love to intentially confuse their readers when they write about regime-change. They would write “less corruption” when they really mean “freedom.” But what’s so shameful about liberal democracy? Why can’t you just be honest for one moment and say, I hate CCP because it is authoritarian, and I would stop hatin’ it as soon as it becomes democratic, regardless of how corrupt/not-corrupt it is??

December 12, 2006 @ 12:26 am | Comment

James

You have now open an area of discussion here that is somewhat nebulous. We are defining corruption as bad i.e. promoting gross ineffieciencies and the lack or law and order. The debate is whether the democratic or authouritarian government can bring about the reduction of corruption. Ultimately we also question( now I sound like my lecturer) if the CCP model can actually rein in corruption. But now that we think about this corruption root causes may not be due to the political organisation of a country but the social and economic development of that country. Case in point China and India are polls apart in the way the governments are run but corruption is rampant in both but a well run semi authoritarian state like Singapore( I know it is not the best example but I struggle to find another well run authoritatrian state which also could prove a point, maybe Saudi Arabia is abetter example). Singapore/Saudi Arabia per capita economic development is well advance compared to the two much larger countries. So if a country grows economically to a certain stage where it’s citizens( a well developed middle class as an example) begins to take the long term view instead of immediate short term gains we will reduce corruption significantly or grows to a corruption of the same sophistication as practised in the more develop countries( I am not naming names here)

December 12, 2006 @ 8:23 am | Comment

Corruption in the US does not affect directly the poor? Come on Richard. Maybe not the directness of robbing them of their land or something like that but just look at Katrina, why was the levy not fixed or
reinforced when repeated recommendations was for it to be reinforced?

I reject that as an example of corruption that is in any way comparable to China’s. That was a typical case of the government not acting on something it was warned about for the simple reason that the government practically never takes action on things like this until after there is a crisis. Just like we’re idiotically not doing things to prevent the consequences of global warming, over-fishing of the oceans and just about everything else. The government will react only after the crisis becomes acute. We had shitty airport security until 911. Other examples are countless. This is not an intelligent example of corruption – who got rich by not acting on the levees? Contractors lost out.

December 12, 2006 @ 9:35 am | Comment

Richard

The corruption was the misallocation of funds to the war in Iraq instead of what is needed in New Orleans levees and many people got rich there, no?

December 12, 2006 @ 10:03 am | Comment

Well, and of course, Halliburton was given contracts for New Orleans reconstruction too. But I still think we need another name for this sort of ‘uber-corruption’ – it doesn’t describe the kinds of things this study was looking at, e.g., the daily corruption that directly affects many people as they go about their business, the necessity to pay bribes, etc.

December 12, 2006 @ 10:47 am | Comment

Fascinating, how pigsun derailed this thread from a discussion about Chinese corruption, to one about American corruption. Classic Communist propaganda technique: Misdirection.

December 12, 2006 @ 10:58 am | Comment

Lisa

I wanted to write otherlisa but it did not sound right, hope you don’t mind?

In my mind it( meaning compariosn of corruption) is just a matter of width, scale, sophistication and the modus operandi. The essence of the corruption there is no difference and how it affects lifes is not different. The least and the last in what ever society we are talking about bears the major brunt of it’s effect.

December 12, 2006 @ 11:06 am | Comment

Lisa

I wanted to write otherlisa but it did not sound right, hope you don’t mind?

In my mind it( meaning comparison of corruption) is just a matter of width, scale, sophistication and the modus operandi. The essence of the corruption there is no difference and how it affects lifes is not different. The least and the last in what ever society we are talking about bears the major brunt of it’s effect.

December 12, 2006 @ 11:09 am | Comment

Flabbergasted, I suggest that you should scroll up and read Sam_S’s comment carefully again. Then perhaps you’ll have a better idea of how the state of affair in China is significantly different from the kind of corruption that’s going on in the US, Singapore, Malaysia, Japan, or even Taiwan.

December 12, 2006 @ 1:21 pm | Comment

That was my point I guess. When Ivan says, “I hate PRC,” instead of saying how Chinese people are a bunch of opium addict and corrupt eunuchs up for no good, he should simply say “they are authoritarian!” And as a lover of liberty I would have concurred with him instantly. But no. He has to beat the bush, and say how nasty Chinese propaganda is, etc. He would tell us that he hates CHina because:

1) China is authoritarian
2) China, viewed from a geopolitical perspective, may be a threat to the U.S.

Both are completely legit reasons, but Ivan, for some peculiar reason, just wouldn’t admit to them. Or maybe not. Maybe he simply doesn’t like us slitty eyed yellow lil’ men.

December 12, 2006 @ 1:54 pm | Comment

Flabbergasted,

“Lisa” is fine!

I don’t exactly disagree with you – I pretty much agree with both you and Pigsun about this issue – but I think in the US, people for the most part have the expectation that they will be able to do business without paying a bribe, that contracts they sign are enforceable and binding, and that if people act contrary to these expectations there are legal remedies to pursue.

The kind of corruption that the Iraq War represents – well, there is the blatant corruption praticed by KBR and Halliburton, where the US government is paying out billions with no oversight, and money is being spent in what our legal system defines as an illegal manner. There is what you are calling corruption where as you mentioned, resources that could be going to infrastructure and to funding social programs have been sucked into the black hole of the war effort. I think this is terribly immoral and unjust and foolish, but is it “illegal”? (I happen to think that the entire war is illegal, but that’s another subject). It doesn’t necessarily follow that the money going to the war would actually have gone towards helping the poor and the less fortunate (matter of fact, given the Bush administration, I’d be willing to bet that it wouldn’t have).

Certainly there are numerous examples of high-level corruption in the US – can you say, “Jack Abramoff?” Or for that matter, “Enron.” But how do you label an entire system that is rigged to protect the interests of a certain small class or group of cronies at the expense of the majority?

I think this exists in most countries/societies in the world. The top dogs rule; everyone else survives with varying degrees of comfort and success. And some societies are clearly more equitable than others.

But if you asked most Americans if they felt “corruption” was a problem in their daily lives, I think they’d say “no,” because it doesn’t impact most people directly.

On the other hand, the corruption of the Republican Party was one of the big reasons they lost so badly during the midterms, so obviously corruption is a concern of many people here.

December 12, 2006 @ 2:15 pm | Comment

Fat Cat

That rolled off the tongue well. I know what Richard, Lisa , Sam and the others mean and I am sure Pigsun knows it too. I do travelled , work and lived in the most corrupt countries in this region. There are places in these region that if you have a small crime done to you , for eg someboidy steals your chicken or something like that, you do not go to the local police as the cost of engaging the police will be much higher than your loss due to the theft. We have organised extortion by the people whose job is to protect you. So the hidden cost of doing business is there and it can not be estimated well. I have seen it first hand and knows how these system works or does not work and how the poor are suffering as a result of these corruptions.
What I am saying is these type of corruptions are well documented not only by the commentators here but elsewhere and we should highlight it continuosly. But I have also lived in so call corruption free places in the world where the veneer respectability has a shiny sheen but under neath that veneer lies some greater degree of corruption of the system that they hypocritically also swore to uphold. That should also be highlighted as it is of greater sophistication and destroy as many lifes if not more. The check and balances merely improved their evading tactics and sophistry.

December 12, 2006 @ 3:08 pm | Comment

And in the Enron and Abramoff cases, very, very rich and well-connected people are going to jail for a long time. Personal friends of the White House. For all its terrible flaws, the American justice system is still good for something.

December 12, 2006 @ 3:16 pm | Comment

absolutely. the rule of law, checks and balances, separation of powers, the constitution, the bill of rights – these are all things about America of which I am genuinely proud.

now, if we can manage to repair the damage of two terms of bush, I really will be a true believer. because what they’ve done has stretched the system very nearly to its breaking point, if it isn’t already broken.

December 12, 2006 @ 3:32 pm | Comment

Flabbergasted,

No society can claim that it’s corruption free. I can’t deny that corruption exists in countries with even the best check and balance mechanism. But it is definitely not true that in the US or in Australia, people are turning a blind eye on corruption. All those grey areas that blurs the demarcation between corruption and bad practices are constantly being contested through political debates, legal reforms and public opinion.

This is in stark contrast to China. It’s true that cases of corruption are documented, to a certain extent, by the media in the West. Chinese media are also reporting cases as they see fit (and as they are sanctioned by the government). But all these reportings are barely scratching the surface of the problems. There are no public debates on corruption. Only very few victims managed to get their cases heard in a law court. The majority of them can only take their frustration to the street. Now these are what I would called “the main differences”.

December 12, 2006 @ 4:07 pm | Comment

Correction: Now these are what I would call “the main differences”.

(Sorry I’m typing too fast)

December 12, 2006 @ 4:15 pm | Comment

As for my dear friend James:

What can I say? Sorry to have embarrased everybody. Don’t worry, he is just hallucinating again. He thought Ivan is talking to him and telling him something about slitty eyed yellow lil’ men. He is then imagining himself as a “slitty eyed yellow lil’ man” so that he can get some attention.

Poor lad – you have all my sympathy.

December 12, 2006 @ 4:28 pm | Comment

Fat Cat

I am the first to agree with you as to the greater transparencies in the more developed countries but these countries have 100 of years democracies under it’s belt and also decades ahead interms of economic development. Are we expecting too much not that setting high standards is wrong. Good being the enemy of best type of arguments.

Secondly as to James take on Ivan , well I feel the same biaseness whenever he comments on China and things Chinese. I do not get the same vibes from Lisa, Richard , you and many other commentators. Leave you to judge.

December 13, 2006 @ 10:47 am | Comment

Flabbergasted:

James has been identified as a long-term troll and he has been banned here (by Richard.) Now I leave it for others to judge YOUR above comment.

December 13, 2006 @ 11:06 am | Comment

Ivan

Should I be very afraid? My comments does not come near to trolldom. I feel what I feel and leave the rest to judge.

December 13, 2006 @ 11:55 am | Comment

Flabbergasted,

I can’t speak for others. But I speak up against corruption in China because I genuinely believe that the most effective way of expediating change in dictatorial regimes is to give voices to sufferings and to victims of crime (including corruption). I do not do it for a sense of superiority or as a superfluous theoretical debate.

Imagine what would have happened if the international community did not publish news of sufferings in the Soviet Gulag? If stories that political prisoners in the Soviet labour camps risked their lives to smuggle out were largely ignored? and if no one paid any attention to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn when he published his bookThe Gulag Archipelago in 1976?

If everyone subscribed to the Soviet propaganda and believed that the Gulag was liquidated since 1960 and if the Soviet Communists were allowed to get away with lies and murders, then the world will not be the same today, as we’ll probably be worrying sick about an imminent nuclear attack.

My plea to you is very simple: whatever you do, please don’t make excuses for acts of corruption. Because, as you’ve correctly pointed out earlier, people suffer as a result of corruption, and their sufferings are real and cannot be ignored.

December 13, 2006 @ 1:30 pm | Comment

Fat Cat

Fei mao, sounds good in Chinese too. I am like minded to you and if my past comments had not made that clear, my English teachers did a bad job.

Seriously, you are right , the poor and the destitute in all these corrupt countries and China chief amongst them needs a voice and many voices. I read TDP for such but we need some balance which I hope to provide. I know about the false imprisonements, the robbing of the land and all those and I absolutely detest what they have done to the helpless and the poor. I believe what Mao and some of the CCP had done and are doing, inflict a greater harm to some of the Chinese people than what the Japanese did and can ever do.

China is very bad but it has improved but it can get much much better. And we need a system change for permanent changes as I have said the concentration of power will never make China ever great for the Chinese themselves and not for some patriotic show for the outside world and a big ego trip for a few of the elites

December 13, 2006 @ 2:47 pm | Comment