DEVELOPMENT

2.5
Corruption
Jüri Saar
In accordance with the generally accepted definition,
corruption is the abuse of public power for private gain
at the expense of the public interest. In the Western
political culture, corruption is a central theme for the
relationships between people and authority, because
“power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts
absolutely”. Corruption, as a negative co-phenomenon
of power, is considered to have an inhibitory impact
on social development, and it is degrading to people.
Corruption poses a danger to the state’s security by
causing inequitable treatment, by damaging competition
and by inhibiting economic development. This
phenomenon reduces the legitimacy of the political
and institutional system, decreases social cohesion and
undermines people’s opportunities to influence collective
decision-making.
Several studies (see Lipset, Lenz 1999; Arlington,
Sandholtz, Taagepera 2005) have demonstrated that the
level of corruption can be ascertained by using cultural
characteristics. Corruption, being based on a monopolistic
freedom of decision making and on deficit of
transparency and reporting obligations, (Corruption =
Monopoly + Discretion – Accountability) is more tolerated
in some governing traditions than in others. The
type of culture that promotes institutionalised corruption,
where the entire power system revolves around a
patron-client relationship, is called clientelistic (Mauss
2000/1924). In the case of institutionalised corruption,
corrupt behaviour, in the Western sense, ensures
a position in the informal structure of the collective
body, without which it is not possible to procure formal
power. In societies with clientelistic traditions, corrupt
persons are also not unknown, but they are defined as
people who are not able to draw a line or follow the
rules, according to which “you do not bite the hand
that feeds you.” Such an understanding of corruption
does not coincide with the principles adopted in the
Western cultural space, where the main efforts to prevent
corruption are focused on the transparency of the
functioning of authority, and on responsibility that is
directed downward.
2.5.1
The spread of corruption in Estonia and
the reference states
A large number of international surveys conducted in
the last two decades provide a comparative assessment
of corruption in Estonia. An incomplete list includes
evaluations by GRECO (Group of States Against Corruption),
the World Bank, the OECD, and Freedom
House. Transparency International has been comparing
states by utilising an index that characterises the
Figure 2.5.1
Perception of corruption in Estonia and reference
countries, 2012
1
1
1
5
6
9
20
20
25
25
32
37
37
39
45
46
48
48
54
54
index
Denmark
Finland
New Zealand
Singapore
Switzerland
Netherlands
Chile
Uruguay
Austria
Ireland
Estonia
Slovenia
Taiwan
Israel
South-Korea
Hungary
Costa Rica
Lithuania
Czech Rep.
Latvia
62 Slovakia
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
index 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Source: 2012 Corruption Perceptions Index
perceptions of corruption since 1995. Direct indicators
could, for example, be the number of corruption-related
crimes and the punishments that are imposed,
the initiation of criminal proceedings, guilty verdicts,
and other characteristics related to the criminal justice
system. However, these are all unique to each state,
and this makes it difficult to compare states on the
international level.
When developing the Corruption Perceptions
Index (CPI), an attempt has been made to take into
account the variances in the definitions of corruption
and different cultural backgrounds. The composite
index ranks countries based on how corrupt a country’s
public sector is perceived to be, based on at least three
surveys that are carried out by independent institutions
(experts). The Corruption Perceptions Index was scored
on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being highly corrupt. In
Estonian Human Development Report 2012/2013
83