The findings (summarized in this NYT story) of a recent Integrity Watch Afghanistan (IWA) survey on corruption attitudes are interesting if not unsurprising: corruption is widespread, bribe amounts have increased over the years, and corruption is perceived as a normal part of dealings with the state.
Perhaps, the most startling statistic is that average bribes among those who paid them (28% of Afghan households have paid bribes at least once last year) amount to about 30% of per capita income (!!!). If that’s not enough to convince you of the magnitude of the problem, consider this – the amount of bribes more than doubled in the period between 2007 and 2009, reaching $1 billion. And, coinciding with trends in other countries – poor people (those with incomes of less than $60) are most exposed to corruption.
The authors of the report reflect on the findings by offering some reform recommendations. Those come down to strengthening the judiciary, increasing citizen’s access to information, modifying the operations and improving oversight of key government agencies, expanding definitions of corruption in the new penal code, and engaging civil society as an oversight and service delivery mechanism in key areas.
Going through the survey, I note that the most corrupt institutions (as perceived by respondents) are the ministries of interior and justice as well as the directorate of national security. In other words, the state institutions that are supposed to ensure enforcement of the law and protect the citizens are most corrupt, even more so than state’s service delivery institutions, such as the ministries of education and health.
The only bright spot appears to be courts – where there has been a substantial drop in the number of people who perceive them as most corrupt (from 53% in 2007 to 18% in the current survey).
The more discouraging statistic is that 63% of the respondents don’t believe that there has been any improvement in reducing corruption in any public institution over the past year – this, with corruption being high on the Afghan development agenda ever since the run up to last elections. The top 3 factors causing corruption in the country, according to respondents, are weak law enforcement and government control, low salaries of civil servants, and large influx of donor money.
The corruption problem is clearly huge in Afghanistan. The level of corruption continues to grow, along with citizen skepticism and frustration. This is confirmed by other surveys, including the one done by CIPE earlier this year and the UNODC report on corruption in Afghanistan released in January 2010. In fact, UNODC estimates are much higher than IWA’s – according to their report bribes reached an astounding $ 2.5 billion in 2009 (23% of GDP).
My question is how do you deal with corruption in Afghanistan, where do you start? Of course, there is no shortage of speeches on the need to fight corruption in the country. Even the US Congress is voicing willingness to reduce funding for Afghan reconstruction until corruption problem is seriously addressed. But moving from speeches to action is a difficult task.
One strategy that may prove useful for reformers in Afghanistan is de-personalizing anti-corruption efforts. Oftentimes, anti-corruption programs target bribe-givers and bribe-takers, seeking to ensure criminal prosecution and other types of penalties for people involved in corrupt activities. Yet, in large scale corruption cases its difficult to go after individuals – there are a lot of factors to consider, anything from personal relationships, the magnitude of corruption, and the ability of enforcement institutions to deal with a sheer number of cases. If you can’t apply the law to all, you end up targeting only select cases, which can only grow public skepticism – there are many such stories from around the world.
The other approach is trying to figure out what causes a corrupt transaction in the first place and try to eliminate the reasons for it. De-personalizing anti-corruption efforts in that sense – not going after individuals, rather changing the incentive structures – may prove to be an effective strategy in Afghanistan.
What gives the right to tax collectors to extort bribes? Why can road police collect unofficial taxes when you pass through? What allows government officials arbitrarily confiscate imported/exported goods for further resale?
We’ve identified some of these reasons in our conversations with the local business community. This is what we most commonly hear:
1. Complicated, vague and time-consuming taxation rules, regulations, and administrative procedures as well as customs duties, licensing, and permitting requirements contribute to corruption by incentivizing the provision of illegal payments – often in addition to the legal taxes – in order to expedite the process.
2. Excessive discretionary power of the municipalities’ officials fuels corruption.
3. The low salaries paid to government officials, particularly those paid to the security forces that are responsible for the security of the highways, city entrance points and at intersections are part of the problem.
4. There is weak supervision or complete lack of supervision on highway officials that result in the unabated continuance of extortion.
5. Leasing out of municipalities’ properties (e.g., fruit and vegetable markets, storage facilities, etc.) to influential and powerful people who, in turn, often charge extra fees to vendors who use the facilities — and do so in an arbitrary fashion (i.e., may not charge the added surcharges to friends and relatives or may charge them less).
6. Lack of merit-based employment practices by the government. The recruitment of corrupt and non-professional personnel and warlords in high ranking positions in the center and at the provincial level, particularly in the custom offices.
7. Nepotism. Government officials or warlords securing employment of their relatives and friends in customs as well as provincial security offices with the intention to let them earn a large amount of money through illegal practices. Intimidation – either by the person hiring relatives and friends or those individuals themselves – means that other officials or subordinates are reluctant to draw attention to the illegal or corrupt practices.
As it was confirmed by participants in our anti-corruption roundtables in Afghanistan, the country’s experience with bribery and extortion is not unique – business people, traders, manufacturers, and many others in countries around the world have dealt with the same problem. Some have been more successful than others – but successes do exist. And they can become a reality in Afghanistan as well.
Published Date: July 16, 2010