New study: Beyond Unidimensional Measurement of Corruption

[Anthropos]

I have always said that Sweden is quite a corrupt place. A new study shows that I'm right. The author argues that standard measuring techniques measure one type of corruption well, but misses other kinds.

http://lnu.diva-portal.org/smash/rec...49&dswid=-9655

[Also]

I think all countries are very corrupt, corruptions is not just bribery like it is said but moral corruption aswell like putting private interests above the common good, favouring allies when nominating people for public offices and manipulating information to use people as maneuver masses, like for instance faking information to make them support a war that only benefits private interests.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

I think all countries are very corrupt, corruptions is not just bribery like it is said but moral corruption aswell like putting private interests above the common good, favouring allies when nominating people for public offices and manipulating information to use people as maneuver masses, like for instance faking information to make them support a war that only benefits private interests.

A bit telling that you don't include bribery under moral corruption.

The article is flawed in that you can expect in any society people trying to gain influence and use their influence within state institutions to promote their own interests and that of allies. Every society, whether it's a First World Nation or Third World Nation has institutions that if you can play a major role within you wield a great deal of power. Only in a failed state would it not apply. Bribery is a better indicator of corruption in that it effects all levels of society.

[Also]

A bit telling that you don't include bribery under moral corruption.

The article is flawed in that you can expect in any society people trying to gain influence and use their influence within state institutions to promote their own interests and that of allies. Every society, whether it's a First World Nation or Third World Nation has institutions that if you can play a major role within you wield a great deal of power. Only in a failed state would it not apply. Bribery is a better indicator of corruption in that it effects all levels of society.

Well, all human corruption is moral if you want to be strict, I was just refering to corruption that doesn't involve someone getting paid directly to misbehave not making a statement about the ethics of certain types of corruption.

I am not sure it is fair to single bribery out, all types of corruption affects all levels of society, even when there doesn't seem to be a direct connection, someone holding a public office working in favor of private or personal interests can be as harmful and potentially even more than someone being bribed, the end result is the same, the perversion of a public duty and is what happens when large corporations fund public campaigns, they end up running the legislators that legistates their acitivities while the masses of the general population have almost no way to influence the politics.

[Colonel Frank Grimes]

Well, all human corruption is moral if you want to be strict, I was just refering to corruption that doesn't involve someone getting paid directly to misbehave not making a statement about the ethics of certain types of corruption.

You inadvertently revealed you didn't view bribery as being morally corrupt. It wasn't a question of what society finds ethical. You made a distinction between bribery and gave examples of what you saw as morally corrupt. Your entire attempt was to lower other societies that aren't stereotyped as corrupt as the true immoral ones because of large scale wars, etc. I already pointed out why such thinking is flawed in my previous post.

I am not sure it is fair to single bribery out, all types of corruption affects all levels of society, even when there doesn't seem to be a direct connection, someone holding a public office working in favor of private or personal interests can be as harmful and potentially even more than someone being bribed, the end result is the same, the perversion of a public duty and is what happens when large corporations fund public campaigns, they end up running the legislators that legistates their acitivities while the masses of the general population have almost no way to influence the politics.

It's very simple: compare societies where bribery is at its worst and compare it to a society where you perceive all the things you mentioned is at its worst. Now tell me which society has shown itself to to not only be historically more stable but also which society has a higher level of trust between people?

The amusing part of all this is when you speak of corporations funding public campaigns, tricking the masses to go to war (earlier post) you're not thinking of Sweden, which is the example being used in the study cuz, well, Sweden hasn't invaded anyone. You're piggy backing off this study for your own political agenda.

I think we can all agree life is much better in Sweden (apparently very institutionally corrupt) than in Brazil (known for the common use of bribery) for the average person. So now tell me again which is worse for a population again (while keeping in mind that both types of corruption exist in every nation but at different degrees; in fact institutional corruption is worse in nations where bribery is the norm in society. I found it odd that the study tried to pretend it wasn't by degrading the sophistication of poorer nation's institutions)?

[Also]

You inadvertently revealed you didn't view bribery as being morally corrupt. It wasn't a question of what society finds ethical. You made a distinction between bribery and gave examples of what you saw as morally corrupt. Your entire attempt was to lower other societies that aren't stereotyped as corrupt as the true immoral ones because of large scale wars, etc. I already pointed out why such thinking is flawed in my previous post.

I've already explained to you this, I don't know why you like to insist that I have a certain position when I explicitly said I do not. No one would think bribery is not immoral, even though I understand why my post could initially mislead you to think so I've said clearly this is not the case. The logic is not flawed, you merely pointed out that this is something that can be expected which says nothing about its moral character, also you were wrong to think only bribery affects all levels of society, this can be said of all corruption stemming people holding public offices.

It's very simple: compare societies where bribery is at its worst and compare it to a society where you perceive all the things you mentioned is at its worst. Now tell me which society has shown itself to to not only be historically more stable but also which society has a higher level of trust between people?

The amusing part of all this is when you speak of corporations funding public campaigns, tricking the masses to go to war (earlier post) you're not thinking of Sweden, which is the example being used in the study cuz, well, Sweden hasn't invaded anyone. You're piggy backing off this study for your own political agenda.

I think we can all agree life is much better in Sweden (apparently very institutionally corrupt) than in Brazil (known for the common use of bribery) for the average person. So now tell me again which is worse for a population again (while keeping in mind that both types of corruption exist in every nation but at different degrees; in fact institutional corruption is worse in nations where bribery is the norm in society. I found it odd that the study tried to pretend it wasn't by degrading the sophistication of poorer nation's institutions)?

Big corporations funding public campaigns happens in many countries, Brazil included, even though recently we passed a law making it illegal which is, in my view, a great win for democracy and something other countries should follow us. Having private institutions funding campaigns is bad for the general population and only good for a few people in positions of power, the article makes a strong connection between conflict of interest and corruption, when a campaign is funded by private institutions there could easily come a conflict of interest between what is best for the private funders and what is best for the general population. Thus corupting the politician from its role as a public servant even if there was no bribery involved.

Tricking the masses to support a war happens in most countries that are active in wars, yes the US included as a classical example, but it could happen in Sweden or Brazil had we been more involved in wars and I am sure it happened in the past, it is a form of corporate corruption other than bribery, that's why it was cited. I am sure the OP didn't think I was singleing out Sweden as if this was more pertinent to his country.

If life is better in Sweden than in Brazil for the average person this does nothing to dismiss Anthropos' thesis or my post, no one is defending the opposite thesis here not even me, but that we can take a new look on what is corruption beyong a strict simplistic view that is reduces to bribery and that some countries are actually far more corrupt than we usually think of them as. As the study says

During the 1990s a view of corruption developed that basically saw it as the same as bribery, and also viewed it as a result of insufficient economic liberalization. Although the focus on bribery might be relevant in influence markets, it is only the tip of the iceberg