Competition helps curb corruption: Scholar<\/p>\n
A'an Suryana, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta<\/p>\n
Liberalization and law enforcement constitute key factors in
\nthe elimination of widespread corruption in transitional
\ncountries, such as Indonesia and Russia, an international
\nresearcher said on Monday.<\/p>\n
The two approaches would put an end to the state being
\nbeholden to economic actors, a major source of corruption in
\ntransitional countries, said Joel Hellman, lead specialist on
\ngovernance issues in the World Bank's Europe and Central Asia
\nRegion.<\/p>\n
This frequently manifested itself as the private 'purchase' of
\nlegislative votes, executive decrees, court decisions and illicit
\npolitical party financing, said Joel.<\/p>\n
He said the phenomenon contributed to the presence of massive
\ncorruption in transitional countries, a major stumbling block for
\nreform and economic growth for those countries.<\/p>\n
According to Joel, the transitional countries, which have been
\nfreed from dictatorial and corrupt regimes, still faced huge
\nproblems on how to combat corruption.<\/p>\n
The new era of perestroika (openness) -- Russia after 1990 and
\nIndonesia after 1998 -- has created new vested interests in both
\nthe business and public sectors, where rent-seeking activities
\nare widespread.<\/p>\n
In Russia, for example, large companies aggressively lobbied
\nthe state for privileges and opposed other reforms aimed at
\ncreating a more competitive environment, he said.<\/p>\n
A recent survey showed that some 30 percent of Russian
\ncompanies were involved in bribery, said Joel,<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, in Indonesia, it has been widely known that
\npolitical parties have struggled to get control of state
\nenterprises to secure their financial position.<\/p>\n
As in Indonesia, the Russian experience had also shown that
\npoliticians frequently turned to big firms, including state
\nenterprises, to raise funds to finance their parties before
\nelections, said Joel.<\/p>\n
The phenomenon was an indication of how firms shaped the rules
\nof the game to their advantage through the illicit,
\nnontransparent provision of private benefits to public officials,
\nhe said.<\/p>\n
Therefore, economic liberalization, including privatization,
\nwas essential to create greater transparency in the economic and
\npolitical sphere, which would finally prevent such practices,
\nwhich often led to corruption.<\/p>\n
If politicians still controlled state enterprises and firms,
\nbackroom deals between state officials and the firms would remain
\nwidespread, he said.<\/p>\n
\"Privatization, for example, will create a more open and
\ncompetitive environment in business, since the competitive drive
\nwill prevent politicians from engaging and interfering with
\ndecision-making in the firms,\" he told participants of a
\ndiscussion held at the World Bank's Indonesia representative
\noffice here.<\/p>\n
The discussion was titled, \"Anti-Corruption in Transition:
\nLessons for Indonesia from the former Soviet Union.\"<\/p>\n
Besides the liberalization, which increased transparency in
\nthe market and politics, strong law enforcement was also
\nnecessary in order to stifle corruption.<\/p>\n
Law enforcement would be a deterrent so that people would
\navoid becoming involved in corrupt practices.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/competition-helps-curb-corruption-scholar-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}