The
measure of corruption
Iin P. Handayani, A PROFESSOR AT MURRAY STATE UNIVERSITY,
KENTUCKY, USA
Sumber
: JAKARTA POST, 6 Januari 2012
Corruption is one of the
most dangerous evils within society that attacks directly the progress and
development of a country. Increasing attention to corruption prevention issues
in Indonesia have been covered in recent headlines (Dec. 12, 2011, Dec. 30,
2011, Dec. 31, 2011 and Jan. 1, 2012).
President SBY has set eradicating corruption as the second most-important goal for his newly installed Cabinet to pursue during the remaining three years of his tenure. He has issued a new regulation with an increased focus on prevention by signing Presidential Instruction (Inpres) No. 17/2011 on the Prevention and Eradication of Corruption. This was signed on Dec. 19, 2011, and it will come into force in January 2012.
The Presidential Working Unit for Development Monitoring and Control (UKP4) will be assigned to monitor the implementation of the action plan every three months as mandated by the new Inpres. The government will implement six strategies as recommended by the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC).
The six strategies include prevention within law enforcement agencies; prevention within other agencies; enforcement; regulation harmonization; recovery of assets from corrupt practices; international cooperation; and reporting. To be successful, a monitoring plan is required so that the progress of reducing corruption can be measured periodically and effectively. To do that, we have to know what corruption is and how to assess it.
What is corruption? According to Transparency International (TI), corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. This definition encompasses corrupt practices in both public and private sectors. Therefore, a public employee who uses his/her public position to derive benefits for him or herself — or friends, relatives or associates — is engaging in an act of corruption. It is also worth noting that not all cases of corruption involve the payment and acceptance of bribes.
How can we measure corruption? There has been no attempt to successfully measure corruption. It is not clear what one would wish to measure. Should one attempt to measure acts of corruption? Or the amount in bribes paid? Or the number of persons involved? Or the number of transactions contaminated by corruption? It is not clear which one to choose. For this reason, there is no direct measurement of corruption available for any country.
While no direct measurement of corruption exists, one common measurement in recent years has been to measure not corruption per se but people’s perceptions of the prevalence of corruption. This is called the Corruption Perception Index (CPI).
What is a CPI? Based on the definition by TI, a CPI is an aggregate indicator that combines different sources of information about corruption, making it possible to compare countries. It ranks countries according to the perception of corruption in the public sector. With this approach, informed observers are asked to rank countries, often on a score of 1 (most corrupt) to 10 (least corrupt).
In 2010, a CPI was achieved by collating different assessments and business opinion surveys conducted by independent and reputable institutions. It contained information about the administrative and political aspects of corruption. In general, the surveys and assessments used to build the index included questions relating to the bribery of public officials, kickbacks in public procurement, embezzlement of public funds, and questions that examined the strength and effectiveness of public sector anti-corruption efforts.
Over time, perceptions have demonstrated to be a reliable estimate of corruption. Investigating scandals and prosecutions and reflecting less on the prevalence of corruption in a country and more on other factors are examples of the perceptions of corruption. TI considers the main priorities in measuring both corruption and integrity, and does so in the public and private sectors at global, national and local levels. Therefore, the CPI is one of many TI measurement tools that serve the fight against corruption.
For example, the data below shows Indonesia’s CPI rankings and scores over the past eight years. The gaining of higher marks is considered to show less corruption and vice versa.
However, these scores are not good enough for Indonesia. In 2011, New Zealand was given top ranking with a CPI score of 9.5. Of our neighboring countries, Singapore ranked 5th with a score of 9.2, and Australia ranked 8th with a score of 8.8.
Indonesia’s rankings in Transparency International’s global CPI show that the attitude toward corruption has improved slightly. There are legitimate and widespread concerns that corruption has not stopped yet, but it is not growing worse either. The figures also prove that the Indonesian government has acknowledged the prevalence of corruption and recognized the dangers of corruption to economic growth and has, therefore, set itself the task of fighting corruption.
The improvement of the CPI score from 2008 to 2010 was supported by the facts concerning increasing investment by both local and foreign investors. There was slower economical growth in 2008 but in 2010-2011, growth returned to an average of 6 percent. The government made economic advances under the first administration of President SBY by introducing significant reforms in the financial sector, including tax and customs reforms, the use of treasury bills, and capital market development and supervision.
However, Indonesia still faces challenges in poverty and unemployment, inadequate infrastructure, corruption, a complex regulatory environment and unequal resource distribution across regions. In late 2010, higher inflation caused by increased and volatile food prices contributed an additional challenge to economic policymakers and threatened to push millions of people below the poverty line. In 2011, the government faced the ongoing challenge of improving Indonesia’s infrastructure to remove impediments to growth while addressing climate change concerns, particularly with regard to conserving forests and peat land. All of these might have contributed to the slight increase in the CPI score from 2010 to 2011.
Indonesia has a long way to go to eradicate corruption, but the recent tough approach by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) has improved the CPI score from 2.6 in 2008 to 3.0 in 2011. The KPK has also reported a 100 percent conviction rate for corruption cases involving some of the country’s highest-ranking officials.
Another benefit of the CPI can be seen in Singapore’s experience. Jon Quah, a former professor of political science at the National University of Singapore, reported that the success of declining corruption in Singapore was a result of two strategies that minimized both the opportunities and incentives for corruption.
In reality, the two key approaches are to lower the opportunity for corruption and to have strong political will. He stated that the situation becomes hopeless if the political leaders and senior civil servants only pay lip service to implementing anti-corruption strategies. All of this information was assessed for the CPI measurement.
In conclusion, actions to fight corruption in Indonesia need to be monitored and quantitatively measured. By having the CPI score, all developed countries can join hands to eradicate the kingdom of corruption from developing countries. This will eventually help to improve the progress of good governance and peace around the world. ●
President SBY has set eradicating corruption as the second most-important goal for his newly installed Cabinet to pursue during the remaining three years of his tenure. He has issued a new regulation with an increased focus on prevention by signing Presidential Instruction (Inpres) No. 17/2011 on the Prevention and Eradication of Corruption. This was signed on Dec. 19, 2011, and it will come into force in January 2012.
The Presidential Working Unit for Development Monitoring and Control (UKP4) will be assigned to monitor the implementation of the action plan every three months as mandated by the new Inpres. The government will implement six strategies as recommended by the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC).
The six strategies include prevention within law enforcement agencies; prevention within other agencies; enforcement; regulation harmonization; recovery of assets from corrupt practices; international cooperation; and reporting. To be successful, a monitoring plan is required so that the progress of reducing corruption can be measured periodically and effectively. To do that, we have to know what corruption is and how to assess it.
What is corruption? According to Transparency International (TI), corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. This definition encompasses corrupt practices in both public and private sectors. Therefore, a public employee who uses his/her public position to derive benefits for him or herself — or friends, relatives or associates — is engaging in an act of corruption. It is also worth noting that not all cases of corruption involve the payment and acceptance of bribes.
How can we measure corruption? There has been no attempt to successfully measure corruption. It is not clear what one would wish to measure. Should one attempt to measure acts of corruption? Or the amount in bribes paid? Or the number of persons involved? Or the number of transactions contaminated by corruption? It is not clear which one to choose. For this reason, there is no direct measurement of corruption available for any country.
While no direct measurement of corruption exists, one common measurement in recent years has been to measure not corruption per se but people’s perceptions of the prevalence of corruption. This is called the Corruption Perception Index (CPI).
What is a CPI? Based on the definition by TI, a CPI is an aggregate indicator that combines different sources of information about corruption, making it possible to compare countries. It ranks countries according to the perception of corruption in the public sector. With this approach, informed observers are asked to rank countries, often on a score of 1 (most corrupt) to 10 (least corrupt).
In 2010, a CPI was achieved by collating different assessments and business opinion surveys conducted by independent and reputable institutions. It contained information about the administrative and political aspects of corruption. In general, the surveys and assessments used to build the index included questions relating to the bribery of public officials, kickbacks in public procurement, embezzlement of public funds, and questions that examined the strength and effectiveness of public sector anti-corruption efforts.
Over time, perceptions have demonstrated to be a reliable estimate of corruption. Investigating scandals and prosecutions and reflecting less on the prevalence of corruption in a country and more on other factors are examples of the perceptions of corruption. TI considers the main priorities in measuring both corruption and integrity, and does so in the public and private sectors at global, national and local levels. Therefore, the CPI is one of many TI measurement tools that serve the fight against corruption.
For example, the data below shows Indonesia’s CPI rankings and scores over the past eight years. The gaining of higher marks is considered to show less corruption and vice versa.
However, these scores are not good enough for Indonesia. In 2011, New Zealand was given top ranking with a CPI score of 9.5. Of our neighboring countries, Singapore ranked 5th with a score of 9.2, and Australia ranked 8th with a score of 8.8.
Indonesia’s rankings in Transparency International’s global CPI show that the attitude toward corruption has improved slightly. There are legitimate and widespread concerns that corruption has not stopped yet, but it is not growing worse either. The figures also prove that the Indonesian government has acknowledged the prevalence of corruption and recognized the dangers of corruption to economic growth and has, therefore, set itself the task of fighting corruption.
The improvement of the CPI score from 2008 to 2010 was supported by the facts concerning increasing investment by both local and foreign investors. There was slower economical growth in 2008 but in 2010-2011, growth returned to an average of 6 percent. The government made economic advances under the first administration of President SBY by introducing significant reforms in the financial sector, including tax and customs reforms, the use of treasury bills, and capital market development and supervision.
However, Indonesia still faces challenges in poverty and unemployment, inadequate infrastructure, corruption, a complex regulatory environment and unequal resource distribution across regions. In late 2010, higher inflation caused by increased and volatile food prices contributed an additional challenge to economic policymakers and threatened to push millions of people below the poverty line. In 2011, the government faced the ongoing challenge of improving Indonesia’s infrastructure to remove impediments to growth while addressing climate change concerns, particularly with regard to conserving forests and peat land. All of these might have contributed to the slight increase in the CPI score from 2010 to 2011.
Indonesia has a long way to go to eradicate corruption, but the recent tough approach by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) has improved the CPI score from 2.6 in 2008 to 3.0 in 2011. The KPK has also reported a 100 percent conviction rate for corruption cases involving some of the country’s highest-ranking officials.
Another benefit of the CPI can be seen in Singapore’s experience. Jon Quah, a former professor of political science at the National University of Singapore, reported that the success of declining corruption in Singapore was a result of two strategies that minimized both the opportunities and incentives for corruption.
In reality, the two key approaches are to lower the opportunity for corruption and to have strong political will. He stated that the situation becomes hopeless if the political leaders and senior civil servants only pay lip service to implementing anti-corruption strategies. All of this information was assessed for the CPI measurement.
In conclusion, actions to fight corruption in Indonesia need to be monitored and quantitatively measured. By having the CPI score, all developed countries can join hands to eradicate the kingdom of corruption from developing countries. This will eventually help to improve the progress of good governance and peace around the world. ●
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar