Corruption, an Economy That Has Lost Its Shame

By: Jaharuddin, Economist at Universitas Muhammadiyah Jakarta

We seem to be living in a public sphere that is noisy with corruption. Before one case can be fully understood, another emerges with larger sums, more diverse actors, and increasingly complex methods.

The public gets angry, then tired. Some even reach the most dangerous point: they are no longer surprised. Corruption that repeats itself continuously not only erodes state funds but also erodes the nation’s moral sensitivity.

As an economist, I see corruption not merely as a criminal act. Corruption is a massive distortion in the way we manage incentives, power, budgets, and social honour. It is born when public office transforms from a trust into economic access; when public projects become political commodities; when permits, procurement, aid, and budgets are treated as rent-seeking fields.

At that point, corruption is no longer just theft. It has become a dark exchange system between power, money, and interest networks. What is most worrying is the loss of shame. There are parents who advise their children to be honest, yet simultaneously display wealth that is difficult to explain based on their official income. There are officials who speak about public service, but their lifestyle sends a different message to the younger generation: that office is a shortcut to luxury. This is a cross-generational tragedy. Young people are asked to believe in integrity, while before their eyes, some adults treat public money as if it were private property.

Data confirms this unease. Transparency International recorded Indonesia’s score in the 2025 Corruption Perceptions Index at 34 out of 100, placing the country at rank 109 out of 182 nations. A score of 0 means highly corrupt, while 100 means very clean. Meanwhile, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) continues to rely on the State Administrators’ Wealth Report (LHKPN) as an instrument for preventing corruption, collusion, and nepotism and for monitoring officials’ wealth. This means our problem is not a lack of tools, but rather insufficient courage to make that tool a serious early detection system.

On the roads, in public spaces, and on social media, the public can often easily read the irregularities. Official incomes are limited, but vehicles, properties, travel, and consumption appear to exceed reasonable logic. Of course, not all wealth is the result of corruption. An official may have a legitimate business, inheritance, or other legal sources of income. But precisely because of that, everything must be explainable transparently. In a healthy economy, wealth is not suspected because it is large; wealth is suspected when its origin is obscure. This is where we need to level up. The LHKPN must not stop at being an annual reporting ritual. It must become an instrument for auditing the reasonableness of a lifestyle. What is examined is not only whether someone has reported, but whether the growth of their assets is logical compared to their official income, taxes, debts, grants, family businesses, and lifestyle. If there is an anomalous spike in wealth, the state does not need to wait for a case to explode. The state must ask questions earlier, because prevention is always cheaper than prosecution.

However, corruption will not be eradicated simply by chasing individuals. Law enforcement is necessary, but not sufficient. As long as the economic-political system provides massive incentives for rent-seeking, as long as political costs remain expensive, as long as public projects can be used as tools for political payback, and as long as the procurement of goods and services can be manipulated, law enforcement officers will only keep harvesting cases without ever drying up the source. In economic terms, corruption is the result of a broken incentive design: large opportunities, small risks, high private gains, and social costs borne by the people.

Therefore, the question we must ask is not only, ‘Who will be arrested next?’ The more fundamental questions are: What kind of economic system continues to produce behaviour that justifies any means? Why has money become the primary measure of honour? Why are positions so often contested not for the spirit of service, but because they open access to budgets, permits, projects, and influence? Why do even good people remain silent when they are inside a flawed system?

At this point, Islamic economics becomes relevant to propose—not as a slogan, not as an identity label, and not as a claim that everything labelled Sharia is automatically clean. Islamic economics must be understood as an architecture of values and governance. It does not only ask whether an activity is profitable, but also whether it is halal, fair, transparent, not oppressive, free from bribery, free from concealment of information, and brings public benefit (maslahah).

Sharia principles in financial activities demand justice, balance, and public benefit, and prohibit gharar (excessive uncertainty), maysir (gambling), riba (usury), zulm (oppression), risywah (bribery), and haram objects. These principles are highly relevant for reading corruption. Risywah is bribery. Gharar is harmful ambiguity. Zulm is taking the rights of others. Tadlis is the concealment of information. These are not just fiqh terms; they are a moral language to explain the pathology of the modern economy.

Some might mock, ‘Can’t corruption also occur in religious circles?’ True. And precisely because of that, Islamic economics must not be reduced to mere symbols. Personal piety without a transparent system can be defeated by temptation. Conversely, a good system without a foundation of values can turn into cold procedures that are easily outmanoeuvred. What is needed is the convergence of both: human beings who fear betraying a trust, and a system that makes betrayal difficult to commit.

There are also those who might ask, ‘This is a pluralistic country, so why Islamic economics?’ The answer is simple. The values offered by Islamic economics in eradicating corruption—trustworthiness, justice, transparency, the prohibition of bribery, the prohibition of fraud, the protection of public assets, and the pursuit of public benefit—are values that anyone can accept.