Managing Conflict of Interest - Organisation for Economic Co ...
Managing Conflict of Interest - Organisation for Economic Co ... Managing Conflict of Interest - Organisation for Economic Co ...
26 Managing Conflict of InterestRussia 17During the Soviet period, the personal goals of all citizens weresupposed to be aligned with the goals of the state. In practice, ofcourse, they were not, especially when the state failed to deliver onits promises. Under Stalin, citizens were forced into line or perishedin the gulag. In the later period, it was well known that CommunistParty leaders took advantage of their positions to advance theirown interests and those of their families.For employees of the state at lower levels, the position was moreambiguous. For the economy to work as well as it did, the formalrules and controls had to be selectively sidestepped by the managersof state businesses with the complicity of officials. In going alongwith these “informal practices,” officials were arguably acting in thepublic interest while also often benefiting personally by acceptingfavors in return. In these circumstances, concepts of public dutyand honesty became blurred, and most officials were in one way oranother conflicted. Most people were forced by the contradictorydemands of the system into breaking the rules for personal ends,though some were more greedy and less honest than others.The introduction of a market economy and a democraticallyelected government post-1989 might in theory have put an end tosuch conflicts. However, it did not, for several reasons. First, the neweconomic rules were often defective, and it was necessary for themanagers of newly privatized businesses to continue to use “informalpractices” if they were to survive. Moreover, the “informal norms”—i.e., codes of conduct and ethics—of the earlier period continuedto prevail, so that officials and managers saw nothing wrong withcontinuing with the old “informal practices,” though sometimes inmodified form. Thus, opportunities for officials to extract rents fromthe economy for their own personal benefit—particularly with thesale of state assets—increased enormously. And finally, the checksand balances outlined earlier were grossly inadequate. Essentially,there was no serious attempt by political leaders to control the17This section draws on Ledeneva, Alena. 2006. How Russia Really Works: TheInformal Practices that Shaped Post-Soviet Politics and Business. CornellUniversity Press; and Hellman, Joel, and Daniel Kaufman. 2001. Confrontingthe Challenge of State Capture in Transition Economies. Finance and Development38 (3; September).ADB/OECD Anti-Corruption Initiative for Asia and the Pacific
Defining Conflict of Interest 27abuses, since they themselves were also indulging. Neither the parliamentnor the courts, or the press proved effective in stoppingthem either.Rent seeking and bribery have been associated with both theformation and the implementation of the rules and policies on avast scale. Major business interests (the oligarchs) effectively “captured”the state. And there is now a further sinister twist: the FederalService of Security (formerly the KGB) has effectively gained controlof some of Russia’s largest assets.The interdependence between big money and the political leadershiphas become endemic and has seriously undermined both theworking of the economy and the legitimacy of the state. The oligarchsdepend on the politicians for preferential treatment and havea major influence on policy; the politicians rely on the oligarchs forlarge financial rewards and for their political survival. Thus, conflict ofinterest in government remains rampant and largely unchecked.Russia finds itself in a vicious circle because the oligarchs (nowjoined by the FSB), having won control of the rules and of policies,strongly resist any attempts to reform, and the politicians resistreform because it would weaken their hold on power. The situationhas been aggravated, for the reasons explained earlier (by thefact that Russia has become flush with “resource rents”). Althoughthe WGI data show some improvement since the late 1990s, Russiaremains in the bottom quartile.People’s Republic of China 18There are some similarities between the People’s Republic ofChina (P.R. China) and Russia. Under Mao’s command economy,there were conflicts of interest and corruption at the top; and therewere “informal practices” lower down that were outside the formalrules. Following the movement toward a market economystarting in 1978, corruption also began to rise. The coexistence ofplanning with the free market (especially the coexistence of marketand controlled prices) offered huge opportunities for fraud; and18This section draws on He, Z. 2000. Corruption and Anti-Corruption inReform China. Communist and Post-Communist Studies 33 and Sun, Yan.2005. Corruption, Growth and Reform: The Chinese Enigma. Current History( September).ADB/OECD Anti-Corruption Initiative for Asia and the Pacific
- Page 17 and 18: Executive Summary xvThe Organisatio
- Page 19 and 20: Executive Summary xviiThe People’
- Page 21 and 22: Keynote AddressesADB/OECD Anti-Corr
- Page 23 and 24: Keynote Addresses xxiI, therefore,
- Page 25 and 26: Keynote Addresses xxiiiConvention A
- Page 27 and 28: Welcome RemarksTaufiequrachman Ruki
- Page 29 and 30: Welcome RemarksArjun ThapanDirector
- Page 31 and 32: Keynote Addresses xxixIt is also he
- Page 33 and 34: Remarks at the Opening DinnerH. E.
- Page 35 and 36: Keynote Addresses xxxiiibe struck b
- Page 37 and 38: Keynote Addresses xxxvthe best huma
- Page 39 and 40: Closing RemarksHidayat Nur WahidCha
- Page 41: Keynote Addresses xxxixeasier than
- Page 45 and 46: Chapter 1Defining conflict ofintere
- Page 47 and 48: The United Nations Convention Again
- Page 49 and 50: Defining Conflict of Interest 7•
- Page 51 and 52: Defining Conflict of Interest 9Conc
- Page 53 and 54: Defining Conflict of Interest 11dut
- Page 55 and 56: Defining Conflict of Interest 13Cou
- Page 57 and 58: Defining Conflict of Interest 15Pol
- Page 59 and 60: Defining Conflict of Interest 17Con
- Page 61 and 62: Defining Conflict of Interest 19A C
- Page 63 and 64: Defining Conflict of Interest 21Gov
- Page 65 and 66: Defining Conflict of Interest 23•
- Page 67: Defining Conflict of Interest 25to
- Page 71 and 72: Defining Conflict of Interest 29by
- Page 73 and 74: Defining Conflict of Interest 31Pet
- Page 75 and 76: Defining Conflict of Interest 33sai
- Page 77 and 78: Defining Conflict of Interest 35of
- Page 79 and 80: Defining Conflict of Interest 37Est
- Page 81 and 82: Defining Conflict of Interest 391,5
- Page 83 and 84: Defining Conflict of Interest 41Tab
- Page 85: Defining Conflict of Interest 43to
- Page 88 and 89: 46 Managing Conflict of Interestand
- Page 90 and 91: 48 Managing Conflict of Interestref
- Page 92 and 93: 50 Managing Conflict of InterestImp
- Page 94 and 95: 52 Managing Conflict of Interestof
- Page 96 and 97: 54 Managing Conflict of InterestThe
- Page 98 and 99: 56 Managing Conflict of Interest•
- Page 100 and 101: 58 Managing Conflict of Interestpub
- Page 102 and 103: 60 Managing Conflict of Interestwor
- Page 104 and 105: 62 Managing Conflict of InterestRes
- Page 106 and 107: Asset declaration in the Philippine
- Page 108 and 109: 66 Managing Conflict of InterestImp
- Page 110 and 111: 68 Managing Conflict of Interestwit
- Page 112 and 113: 70 Managing Conflict of Interestthe
- Page 114 and 115: 72 Managing Conflict of InterestSum
- Page 116 and 117: 74 Managing Conflict of InterestAnn
26 <strong>Managing</strong> <strong><strong>Co</strong>nflict</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Interest</strong>Russia 17During the Soviet period, the personal goals <strong>of</strong> all citizens weresupposed to be aligned with the goals <strong>of</strong> the state. In practice, <strong>of</strong>course, they were not, especially when the state failed to deliver onits promises. Under Stalin, citizens were <strong>for</strong>ced into line or perishedin the gulag. In the later period, it was well known that <strong>Co</strong>mmunistParty leaders took advantage <strong>of</strong> their positions to advance theirown interests and those <strong>of</strong> their families.For employees <strong>of</strong> the state at lower levels, the position was moreambiguous. For the economy to work as well as it did, the <strong>for</strong>malrules and controls had to be selectively sidestepped by the managers<strong>of</strong> state businesses with the complicity <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficials. In going alongwith these “in<strong>for</strong>mal practices,” <strong>of</strong>ficials were arguably acting in thepublic interest while also <strong>of</strong>ten benefiting personally by acceptingfavors in return. In these circumstances, concepts <strong>of</strong> public dutyand honesty became blurred, and most <strong>of</strong>ficials were in one way oranother conflicted. Most people were <strong>for</strong>ced by the contradictorydemands <strong>of</strong> the system into breaking the rules <strong>for</strong> personal ends,though some were more greedy and less honest than others.The introduction <strong>of</strong> a market economy and a democraticallyelected government post-1989 might in theory have put an end tosuch conflicts. However, it did not, <strong>for</strong> several reasons. First, the neweconomic rules were <strong>of</strong>ten defective, and it was necessary <strong>for</strong> themanagers <strong>of</strong> newly privatized businesses to continue to use “in<strong>for</strong>malpractices” if they were to survive. Moreover, the “in<strong>for</strong>mal norms”—i.e., codes <strong>of</strong> conduct and ethics—<strong>of</strong> the earlier period continuedto prevail, so that <strong>of</strong>ficials and managers saw nothing wrong withcontinuing with the old “in<strong>for</strong>mal practices,” though sometimes inmodified <strong>for</strong>m. Thus, opportunities <strong>for</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficials to extract rents fromthe economy <strong>for</strong> their own personal benefit—particularly with thesale <strong>of</strong> state assets—increased enormously. And finally, the checksand balances outlined earlier were grossly inadequate. Essentially,there was no serious attempt by political leaders to control the17This section draws on Ledeneva, Alena. 2006. How Russia Really Works: TheIn<strong>for</strong>mal Practices that Shaped Post-Soviet Politics and Business. <strong>Co</strong>rnellUniversity Press; and Hellman, Joel, and Daniel Kaufman. 2001. <strong>Co</strong>nfrontingthe Challenge <strong>of</strong> State Capture in Transition Economies. Finance and Development38 (3; September).ADB/OECD Anti-<strong>Co</strong>rruption Initiative <strong>for</strong> Asia and the Pacific