Public Corruption and Its Effect, Including the

¶ … public corruption and its effect, including the claim that public corruption in an unavoidable side effect of development. Corruption in public service can be an ongoing concern in many areas. Corruption can lead to disorder, lack of trust in police or other public entities, and to ongoing problems with morale and citizen support.

There is an argument that in countries with high levels of corruption, it has some benefit, but that is difficult to accept, as corruption only benefits those who participate in it, and it definitely does not benefit the general population. The Transparency International Web site defines corruption as "Corruption is operationally defined as the misuse of entrusted power for private gain" (Editors, 2009). They go on to state that public servants (including criminal justice professionals), have a duty to remain above corruption.

They note, "It is the duty of civil servants, managers and trustees to act visibly, predictably and understandably" (Editors, 2009). Corruption is a major problem in many developing countries, and it is certainly not a benefit to their development or stability. The TI Web site goes on to say, "It [corruption] has dire global consequences, trapping millions in poverty and misery, while breeding social, economic and political unrest. Corruption is both a cause of poverty, and a barrier to overcoming it" (Editors, 2009).

In addition, a corruption expert notes, "Corruption can be a major obstacle in the process of economic development and in modernizing a country" (Myint, 2000, p. 34). Thus, those who argue that corruption has some kind of "benefit" in societies where it is prevalent are simply ignoring the facts. Corruption keeps a country backward and inefficient, and leaves a large segment of the population without the means to gain employment or income, since they do not have the means to participate in widespread corruption practices.

They have no hope, and a country with a population without hope is on the brink of disaster. The writers do assert that corruption (or gift-giving) can be seen as a cultural tradition in some countries. TI notes, "Gift-giving is part of negotiating and relationship building in some parts of the world. But cultural relativism ends where the Swiss bank account enters the scene. It is a matter of degree: there are limits in all cultures beyond which an action becomes corrupt and unacceptable" (Editors, 2009).

As noted, gift-giving, when it results in bribery or coercion, is still a form of corruption, but there are certainly degrees where it can be acceptable, and degrees where it cannot. There is a great difference between giving a gift of a bottle of wine or a fine cigar in return for consideration and review of a project, to giving money or gifts for extreme financial reward or gain.

A culture that traditionally gives gifts for certain items is not bound to be corrupt, but there must be lines that gift-giving does not cross. Unscrupulous officials could use gift-giving traditions as a basis for their own economic gain, by giving favors and other considerations to those who give the "biggest" or "best" gifts. This takes advantage of people who can afford the best gifts, but it also takes advantage of the other people that are paying the officials' salaries and seeing nothing.