“The prevention and sanctioning methods apply not only to the public sector but also to the private”
There has been much buzz in the political and business spheres lately about Korea’s ranking in the 2017 Corruption Perception Index (CPI). In Korean society, private actors have been known to be too intimately involved in governmental activities, which has worsened corruption. Recently we caught up with TI’s Asia Pacific Regional Director for his thoughts and recommendations on what Korea can do to rectify this issue and improve its standings on the CPI.
Interview with Alejandro Salas,
Transparency International (TI), Asia Pacific Regional Director
TI-Korea: What do you think are the main reasons for Korea’s lower score in the CPI?
Alejandro Salas: While Korea’s score is far from being perfect, 54 points in a scale where 100 means that a country is perceived as very clean, and 0 being a country with systemic corruption problems, scoring in the middle of the table of 180 countries it is not necessarily bad news. The latest CPI 2017 found that more than two-thirds of countries score below 50, with an average score of 43.
Having said this, and while Korea is not in the lower part of the table and does better than the global average, the expectation for the country is that it should be doing much better. Korea is a large economy, a member of the G-20 grouping, an open market and a well-established democracy, and as such is lagging behind other countries with similar characteristics.
Korea’s relatively low score can be understood because corruption is a complex phenomenon that has many different angles. While Korea seems to be doing well in areas such as petty corruption, or day to day bribes involving citizens and lower level bureaucracies, scandals from the political and economic elite still show that there are many weaknesses in the system that need to be addressed.
TI-Korea: What do you think are the differences between Korea and other countries which get higher scores in the CPI?
Alejandro Salas: Those countries or territories that get better corruption perception scores, like the Scandinavian nations, Western European democracies, North America and some in the Asia Pacific region, among others, have in common strong institutions and a culture that does not reward or allow corruption.
This is not to say that there is no corruption in New Zealand or in Denmark (the top countries in the ranking). There are cases of corruption everywhere, but the institutional set-up of the country makes it more difficult for individuals to abuse power, thus the frequency is lower and the reaction and punishment from the system is faster.
Look at the US for example. There is corruption, but usually, people do not have to go out to the streets to demand institutions to do their job, they do not have to manifest in the public space to demand for a high-level politician to resign or to be taken to court. Strong independent prosecutors, police, judges, and others do their job and punish corrupt individuals in the executive branch, the parliament, the corporate sector or the local governments. In Korea, while some institutions do a very good job, others are not empowered enough with autonomy from political powers and sufficient resources, for example, so people, citizens, need to take to the streets to help or push them to do their job. That is a difference.
The other important issue has to do with the role of some actors in the private sector, especially some large corporations, which in Korea can be too close to political power and government, thus having a disproportionate influence in public life. By definition, private actors have private interests and not the interest of the country as their primary goal. They have the influence to get benefits that many times do not help the population as a whole and corruption is one of the mechanisms that they many times use to exercise their power.
TI-Korea: Which factors do you think are the main sources of such differences between Korea and highly ranked countries in Asia Pacific region?
Alejandro Salas: I believe there are two important things. While Korea has shown lately that hard punishment even for high-level politicians that incur in corruption is possible, and is something to recognize and feel proud about, it would be even better that there are laws and institutions in place that prevent corruption from happening in the first place. Countries and territories like Singapore, New Zealand, Australia, Hong Kong and Taiwan, for example, make it much more difficult for individuals to participate in corruption. They have effective punishment methods, but they have better controls in place to prevent it.
The prevention and sanctioning mechanisms apply not only to the public sector but also to the private. Korea needs to do much more with prevention in general and mainly with the private sector to advance in its perception ranking.
TI-Korea: Would you recommend certain actions to be taken in Korea by the government and civil society?
Alejandro Salas: The 2017 CPI results show slow and imperfect progress across the Asia Pacific region and this is the case in Korea. While corruption continues to be a rampant problem across the region, improvements will only be made if there is strong political will for change and if a comprehensive strategy is adopted, not one based on isolated actions like punishing former presidents or other individuals. An effective strategy should include:
- Putting in place laws and institutions that will prevent corruption from happening in the first place. Legal frameworks and access to information are essential components of a healthy political system where citizens can play a role in demanding accountability and preventing corruption. Whistleblower protection mechanisms and autonomous, well-resourced anti-corruption agencies are also necessary.
- Reducing impunity for the corrupt. Professional and independent justice systems are necessary where police and prosecutors can respond to technical criteria and not political power plays.
- Improving space for civil society to speak out. Governments should ensure that activists can speak freely without fear of retaliation. Korea is strong in this respect, but the right of citizens and journalists should continue to be guaranteed and further strengthened.
- Improving integrity and values. Schools and universities should educate the youth about ethics and values. Corporations should promote business integrity in the private sector and make these ideals more mainstream.
However, my last piece of advice is that rather than focusing solely on scores, rankings and methods, countries in the Asia Pacific region should decide where to make substantial changes that will bring about real improvements in their countries. A comprehensive approach is necessary, otherwise, in the coming year, governments will continue to make only marginal improvements at best, or deteriorations at worst.
An Interview by Sanghak Lee, Board Member, TI-Korea
————————————————————————————————————-
(Asia-Pacific Senior Expert)
is a Mexican political scientist, with extensive experience in governance, development and civil society worldwide. Alejandro joined TI as Programme Officer in 2002.
Currently, he is TI’s Asia Pacific Regional Director and is leading the efforts to develop a TI Pacific strategy, including China.
He has been a member of the senior management team and is a leading spokesperson of TI.