Stats
-
-
Apr
15
Gensek Putin
April 15, 2008 |
Delegates at United Russia’s 9th Congress voted unanimously to make Putin its party chairman. Putin accepted. Surprise, surprise. This possibility has been buzzing around the Russian media for a few weeks now. And in one fail swoop, what was thought to merely be a shell of a political party, has gained importance. Clearly Putin’s “election” to Party leader shows that United Russia is nothing without him.
That of course raises the issue of whether a nothing party like United Russia will actually give Putin something. As Konstantin Sonin noted in the Moscow Times, leading United Russia wouldn’t necessarily give Putin any guarantee over controlling the government. “The party has nothing to offer Putin in his struggle for power,” says Sonin. Indeed, political parties mean little real political power in Russia, even well connected behemoths like United Russia. Sonin continues:
In reality, United Russia’s 300-plus State Duma deputies are ready to give their allegiances not to the party leadership or to Putin personally, but to whomever they believe will be the country’s next leader. If they are convinced that Dmitry Medvedev has ultimately taken hold of central authority, then he will be the one who is able to control the Duma.
The chairman position gives Putin virtually unlimited power within UR. Putin will have the power to appoint party leaders and suspend their powers, and override any party decision expect for those adopted at congresses. His removal is only possible with a 2/3 congressional vote.
If Putin can be taken at his word, he has plans for United Russia. In his address to the Congress he stated that the party of Power needed to “reform itself become more open for discussion and for taking into account the opinion of the electorate, it must be de-bureaucratized completely, cleared of casual people pursuing exclusively their own material gains.” Look out, there’s a new sheriff in town.
Plans have already been set in motion for the recognition of internal factions. Three “clubs” have been created within United Russia to represent its right, center, and left. There is the Center of Social Conservative Policy, headed by Andrei Isaev, the liberal-conservative “November 4th” club led by Vladimir Pligin, and the State-patriotic club led by Irina Yarovaya. Whether these clubs will actually mean anything in terms of inter-party dialog remains to be seen.
Putin’s chief task, if he chooses to take it, will be to rid the party of what he calls “corrupt people.” A task easier said than done. Historically, attempts to clean up party corruption have horribly failed. Often the anti-bureaucratic campaigns, purges, and even arrests within the Communist Party created more corruption. And like the Communist Party of the past, United Russia seems allergic to any real cracking down on its corrupt members. Last week, the United Russia dominated Duma rejected a bill which would require deputies to declare the incomes and property of their relatives up to three years after leaving office. Hiding wealth and property in the names of family members is a common, albeit crude way, of hiding corruption.
Basically, if Putin actually decides to lead United Russia, he’s going to have his hands full. Just because he is the almighty Putin doesn’t mean he will be successful.
One should note that Medvedev was invited to join UR, but he declined. “Certainly United Russia is a party of my like-minded fellows, but I believe my membership in the party premature,” Medvedev stated. “I believe that after my election to the presidential post it would be more correct to remain a non-partisan.” Yeah, non-partisan in form, but not in content.
Popularity: 4% [?]
Comments
106 Comments so far
The corruption issue reminded me of Kasyanov. Misha Two-percent. Frankly, I don’t know much about him, and his name doesn’t invoke any strong pro or contra reactions in me. So here is my question: was he really that corrupt? Unhappily, I take it for granted that public officials in Russia somehow end up richer in ways that are not transparently explained. Having said that, how does Kasyanov compare to other post-Soviet officials who held (or still hold) high positions?
Putin is a Soviet in disguise. This guy and all of his buddies running the Russian government are ex-KGB.
Have you gotten your pills today, Jack?
“Putin is a Soviet in disguise. This guy and all of his buddies running the Russian government are ex-KGB.”
There is nothing disguised about Putin. He tells it how he sees it, to the considerable distress of many Western leaders. He is a Russian nationalist and non the worse for that. The ex KGB is prominent in Russian government because they were the only institution left standing after the collapse of the Soviet Union that could usually be relied upon not to sell their country to the CIA et al. Putin had to have people he knew he could trust. Other than that being ex KGB has as little or as much to do with it as CIA links have in US government circles.
The corruption issue is interesting to watch. Once again, Russia is no different from any other place in the world. Putin or Medvedev can say whatever they want about getting rid of corruption but their (Putin’s at least) policies to date went in a completely different direction. The only way to reduce government corruption is to reduce how much does it control and affects daily lives and livelihoods of citizenry, i.e the smaller the government the less opportunity for corruption and visa versa.
This goes together with unanimity. The more people are dependent on the state the more they will vote their interest - to preserve the status quo. I am in agreement with what I think Sean is saying: without Putin this party and this government and even Russia as it exists today will likely change. For better or worse is a different question. Most certainly for worse for people at the top of the party. In this Putin and the party express unanimous solidarity: for both of them it is a matter of survival.
Cyrill, you wrote:
“The only way to reduce government corruption is to reduce how much does it control and affects daily lives and livelihoods of citizenry, i.e the smaller the government the less opportunity for corruption and visa versa.”
In general that’s probably true, but how would you explain that the Nordic countries are consistently considered as one of the least corrupt and most transparent in the world? Compared to most countries in the world, the US is not too corrupt, but the Nordic countries and Canada (among others) have even less of a corruption problem.
To add a bit to my previous comment: it makes sense that where corruption is an intractable problem a way of reducing it is to is to reduce the number of opportunities for government bureaucrats to take a nibble. On the otherhand, considering that some of the cleanest countries are those with relative large governments, it’s obvious that government size is not the whole story.
Here is the list of the ten least corrupt nations (according to Transparency International). I’m sure that here and there we can quibble with some of those rankings, but overall they give a fairly good picture.
Denmark
Finland
New Zealand
Singapore
Sweden
Iceland
Netherlands
Switzerland
Canada
Norway
Going back to Russia. Let me repeat my question in case someone here knows more about it: In terms of corruption, was Misha Two-percent Kasyanov really worse than the others? Better?
“Compared to most countries in the world, the US is not too corrupt, but the Nordic countries and Canada (among others) have even less of a corruption problem.”
I know nothing about Nordic countries. Going back a bit Canadian local government was regarded as notoriously corrupt. The US may be not too corrupt in the strictly criminal sense but on the other hand the whole political system is a mass of more or less legal bribery. In addition at least in the eighties it was regarded as a waste of time for a foreign company to sue for money owed in court in the southern states of the US because the good old local boys always won. I cannot imagine things have got that much better since.
I have always wondered whether we do not make too much fuss about corruption. At the time of Britain’s fastest economic growth it was endemic.
Robert, I have dealt with bureaucracies in several countries–especially in Venezuela, the US and Russia. In all honesty I can tell that the difference is HUGE. And it’s an important difference.
When asked by Russian or Venezuelan friends why I like it living in the US one of the things I always tell them is that it is EASY to be honest in the US. This is not to deny that there is corruption in the US, Canada and so on. But no, in my view, we do not make too much fuss about corruption.
It really depends on what type of corruption and at what level it occurs. I happen to believe that corruption in the US among the political and economic elites is rather high. Most of the time it comes in the form of legalized bribery. And since it doesn’t touch most Americans directly, its mostly assumed to be part and parcel of the system and overlooked.
But corruption among bureaucrats that most Americans come into contact with is rather low. For example, Students don’t have to bribe their teachers for certain grades or even to pass. In fact I would be greatly offended if a student attempted such a thing.
The main problem with corruption in Russia is that it occurs on the microlevel in everyday situations. Every time I got to an archive, I know to bring a present (chocolate, tea) for the archivist, knowing that it will make my life easier. For a good insight into the everyday forms and culture of Russian corruption, I recommend Alena Lededneva’s How Russia Really Works Now granted, a lot of what Ledeneva talks about isn’t viewed as corruption by Russians but merely the way things are and the what one has to do to get things done. So a lot of what we (i.e. Americans) view as corruption by the Russians is merely based on cultural difference. That said, I think a lot of what Russians do, namely blat is practiced all the time in the States, it is just not recognized as such. That is always the case. We see things in the Other without recognizing them in ourselves.
kOLYA “On the otherhand, considering that some of the cleanest countries are those with relative large governments, it’s obvious that government size is not the whole story”
If you look at Mancur Olson’s classic “The Rise and Decine of Nations” as I recall he says essentially that the amount ripped off will be a function of how long the people concerned think they will be around. So to take an extreme example, a boat load of Vikings who arrived in a town would take what they could and go home, indiffeent to the destruction they caused. A government that intends to be around a long time will take as little as possible to make sure that the entity off which it feeds keeps going and producing. There are an infinity of shades between the two extremes.
You are of course right about the privilege of living in an honest environment but we should not overlook institutionalised corruption.
Have you seen Putin’s alleged new 24 year old wife?
Robert: “If you look at Mancur Olson’s classic “The Rise and Decine of Nations” as I recall he says essentially that the amount ripped off will be a function of how long the people concerned think they will be around.”
Yes, makes sense. In Venezuela, before Chavez, there were fiercely contested presidential elections between the two main parties. Sometimes one party won, sometimes the other. Although Chavez made the executive much stronger, even before him it was quite strong. The elections, though, were every five years and a sitting president had two wait at least two terms (ten years) to run again. In practice this meant that loyal members of the party that won the presidency saw themselves as having a five year period in which to enrich themselves.
Sean and Robert, I’m a little fish, so yes, I’m very happy that here in the US people in my position do not have to deal with petty corruption. At my low level I cannot really say much about legal bribery or institutionalized corruption. I certainly don’t like the fact that the deeper are your pockets the more likely you’ll get your way in court. Something is messed up with that. But is it bribery or corruption if it’s legal? Definitely inmoral, but is it really bribery? And are problems of what you call “legal bribery” or “institutional corruption” worse in the US than in, say, Russia, China, India?
Putin’s new wife: an Internet joke?
Sean’s right, it’s corruption on a low level that is endemic in Russia and not in the states. If you get stopped by the road police, you will pay a bribe, period. Buying grades is very common. Moreover, foreigners in Russia are usually protected from having to pay bribes, but for Russians it’s a daily affair.
Whoa, is Putin really marrying Alina Kabaeva???
http://www.nr2.ru/policy/173701.html
For those not in the Russian pop culture loop, Kabaeva is a very famous rhythmic gymnast. She\’s a new member of Parliament, and there was a popular rap song about her.
The divorce and re-marriage story popped up in a minor Moscow paper and is now starting to make the rounds of web sites. Not RIA Novosti or ITAR TASS thus far, I note. I’m told (by a journo who’s been trying to confirm the report) that the Kabaeva angle is nonsense. But the divorce seems actually to have happened.
This is quite funny. The paper that ran this story originally was Московский корреспондент. It ran on Saturday. Now the owner, Alexander Lebedev, has a big article denying everything.
http://www.moscor.ru/politika/chto_napisano_perom_ne_vyrubish_toporom/
He says it’s all fabricated.
Lebedev, also a major shareholder in Novaya Gazetta, says he was away on a fishing trip and out of phone contact when the story was published. No doubt he had a few earnest messages waiting for him on voicemail on his return.
Sean, thank you for recommending Alena Lededneva’s book. Looks very interesting.
This reminds that back in 1992 I had a short conversation with Vladimir Lukin (is he still around?). That was during a conference in St. Petersburg, even though at the time Lukin was Russia’s Ambassador to the United States. Among other things I reminded him that in Moscow the year before, during the August 91 coup attempt, he met my wife, a Russian-speaking American. He asked about her. I said that she just started graduate work in Russian history. “What does she plan to research?” he asked. “Something to do with corruption in Russia.” Lukin gave out a merry laugh and remarked that in order not to be overwhelmed her challenge will be how to drastically narrow her scope.
Well, life sent us a curveball and she had to quit her studies. But her previous plans as well as my own fascination by how various societies differ with respect to petty (and not so petty) corruption is one of the reasons I often ask about these issues. (My wife, by the way, doesn’t have any Russian in her ancestry.)
I hadn’t heard of the Putin rumor. What a stud if its true. No wonder he likes Sarkozy!
The German paper Die Welt says that they whole thing was a April Fools joke devised by Medvedev’s wife Svetlana. Here’s an article on the whole scandal.
Just a word or two on corruption -those countries that Kolya listed have all got small enough populations, with the exception of Canada, and even then they arent too populous. It would be easier to say that size matters, but I’m not sure…in Ireland in the 80s local government corrution was widespread, even taking on comical proportions (eg one legend is that building permission of a house extension in Dublin was granted for sexual favours from a housewife:-)). But using Ireland as an example, where the state, anywhere, are in a position to dish out things that private business can then make money from, then there will be corruption, unless the law is very clear and there is strict and entirely accountable supervision right the way through the system. In Russia’s case I think this is especially true -taking university entrance as an example - who is accountable to who for admissions? What strict criteria are necessary for entrance? Who externally validates the exam process? Who is the extern accountable to? Perhaps these systems are actually in place, and can all by bypassed by one big bribe. What compounds the situation in Russia though I think is that people are too accepting of it. If everyone just said ‘no’ when the time comes to ”grease the mickey”, what would happen I wonder? Would things change, or would Russia grind to a halt?:-)
Someone calls it corruption.
Someone calls it “to show respect”.
Others just have friends
As an expert in one Nordic place I would rank Iceland as number one in everyday life and below Russia in big business/politics. It’s simply too small place for petty bribes. And again - too small to avoid all your friends/relatives.
What compounds the situation in Russia though I think is that people are too accepting of it. If
I think it is much more then that. I suspect that if corruption is gone, there will be a lot of people in Russia very upset they can not get what they want. People are not just accepting it. People want their public servants accessible and corrupted. It cuts both ways.
Incidentally, I have a post up detailing the twists of the Putin-Kabaeva story.
Other than that being ex KGB has as little or as much to do with it as CIA links have in US government circles.
I disagree. The CIA did not change much or its members benefit much as a result of Bush Snr becoming president. The same cannot be said of the KGB once Putin assumed the presidency.
I have always wondered whether we do not make too much fuss about corruption. At the time of Britain’s fastest economic growth it was endemic.
I’d hesitate to call it endemic, but in any case the sums of money involved were paltry (e.g. Hamilton accepting £10k in return for throwing his career away), and the corruption generally didn’t interfere with everyday life and was for the most part well hidden.
Tim “I’d hesitate to call it endemic, but in any case the sums of money involved were paltry (e.g. Hamilton accepting £10k in return for throwing his career away), and the corruption generally didn’t interfere with everyday life and was for the most part well hidden.”
Sorry I didnt make myself clear. During the 18th century when Britain became a great power economically.
I think that the US political class do pretty well for themselves and above all their friends. Look at the contracting and mercenary gravey train.
Kolya
There is a good quote from Franklin Roosevelt about high and low level corruption: -
“A man who has never gone to school may steal from a freight car, but if he has a university education he may steal the whole railroad.” To which I would add he would probably make sure it was legal.
Kolya - I don’t think it’s possible (for us anyway) to say Kasyanov was corrupt, much less whether he was more so or less so than someone else. All we have to go on is a nickname — which I’m sure he now wishes he’d sued over back when it was first coined — and various indications of affluence apparently gained in office. The claim against him concerning the dacha seemed like very small potatoes compared with allegations raised against others still in office. At the time, my instinct was that if that was all they could find, he was probably pretty clean. But who knows?
More generally, I’m not sure how to judge the reach of corruption. The Anglo Saxon countries sniff mightily about various non-Anglo Saxon populations around the world, but we have almost daily examples of price-fixing, cartel-like behaviour and huge sole-source defence contracts on our own front pages. Britain’s biggest aerospace company pays commissions to a Saudi prince, and the government blocks an investigation on grounds that, well, the French would do it. Ahem.
At the other end of the scale, again we ex-pats tend to get all moralistic about petty corruption in Russia, about all the credentialed Russian lawyers who never attended classes or jobs secured on a private fee. A scientist friend last week told me he turned down an offer of research funds because it was expected he would pay 20% to an intermediary. He said he didn’t want to have to account for the cash by faking payment orders.
But I would say this: My scientist friend felt he could choose not to pay. That’s an improvement. In 1989 when I first arrived in Moscow, it was simply not possible to live life without blat or gifts. Today, I have friends who are very proud to say they never pay bribes. It’s sometimes a little convenient. But it is feasible now to make that choice.
Oops. “It’s sometimes a little convenient.” INconvenient, of course.
Robert - I’ve just tripped across another relevant quote for you:
From Jonathan Swift: “Laws are like cobwebs, which may catch small flies but let wasps and hornets break through.”
As quoted, conveniently, by Nick Cohen just now in a very relevant post on his blog about the Saudi deal.
http://www.nickcohen.net/?p=316
Some of you won’t like what he says about Russia (ie, Litvinenko, New Cold War, etc.), but the rest is quite readable. For those who don’t know Nick, he’s part of a loose network of ex-lefties, left-revisionists, neo-libs and whatnot which includes Christopher Hitchens, Oliver Kamm and others.
Thanks for the info on Kasyanov, FH. And it’s great to hear that it’s becoming easier not to bribe in Russia.
Robert: “During the 18th century when Britain became a great power economically.”
Isn’t that like saying, “the Catholics are making too much of a fuss about torture, look at what they did during the Inquisition”?
In any event, where petty corruption is common, petty theft is usually common. And these two things are good indicators of places (neighborhood, cities, countries) that do not trust strangers. And lack of trust is a huge ballast to the smooth working of any society. From personal experience, I can say that after living in societies where the sense of trust is not highly developed, it’s truly liberating to be in a place where you don’t only trust family members and friends but also people you don’t know. Besides peace of mind, in places where there is a fairly high level of such trust it’s much easier to form cooperative enterprises and enter into agreements without worrying about being cheated or spending too much time checking whether you are being ripped off.
In a book I read much too quickly and whose title eludes me, the author (Beinhocker) writes that for highly developed economies to run smoothly “social technologies” (efficient organizational structures and so on) are just as important as “physical technologies”. It is much easier, however, to transplant physical technologies to a different country, than to transplant social technologies. Why? Because one of the requirements of the smooth operation of these social technologies is a fairly high level of trust in people you don’t know.
Uh, yeah. Second blockquote is actually my text.
I think the argument wasn’t that Brits has no moral standing to criticize corruption, but that corruption and bribery aren’t necessarily signs of failing/failed societies.
Robert likes aphorisms. How about: “Nothing breeds corruption more than poverty, unless it’s affluence.” Just made that up.
Kolya - You’re absolutely right about the much-overlooked role of trust. And it is generally true that you can deal at arm’s length more readily with strangers in advanced economies than you would wish to in other places, including Russia.
But some of what you are calling social technologies can actually be transplanted quite easily. Credit scoring and rating has only really surfaced in Russia over the past five years or so. It relies to some degree on physical technology — banking, lending and retailing infrastructure — but the result is a social change which enhances trust (that payment will be made). Or, possibly, replaces trust, depending on how you look at it. In any event, it contributes to arm’s length transactions between strangers.
Owen, thanks for the input. What I had in mind was not the moral but the evolutionary aspect of things. In other words, the practices of the Catholic Church changed through time. If I remember correctly, Beinhocker would say that a major reason reason that Great Britain’s economy and power grew to such an extent was that its physical and social technologies coevolved together. Just like many of the physical technologies that existed in 1910 did not exist in 1710, many of the social technologies of 1910 didn’t exist in 1710.
FH, yes you have a point.
Compulsive fellow that I am, before going out to the “real world” I had to check the title of the book I mentioned. It was published in 2006 and the title is “The Origin of Wealth: Evolution, Complexity and the Radical Remaking of Economics”. The author is Eric D. Beinhocker. For a long (and sympathetic) review by Herbert Gintis, a left-of-center (but anti-Marxist) American economist and game theorist go to:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R26IO7AY7JHS8C/ref=cm_cr_rdp_perm
Perhaps because of my own interests in evolution, I found the second half of the review much more interesting. Too bad I read the book in such a hurry. So many book, so little time.
The book is not on the left/right issue, but here is a bit from Gintis’s review:
///
Throughout much of the world, the pitched ideological and political battles
between Right and Left over economic policy are a thing of the past. On the
Left, there is no serious movement for the abolition of private property or
even the nationalization of basic industries. Liberal Keynesianism is dead in
an era where conservatives are prone to run deficits and liberals to piously
admonish such policy as reckless and short-sighted. On the Right, the notion
that the state should be restricted to protecting private property is
maintained, against all evidence, only by a radical fringe. … .
Nevertheless, as Beinhocker stresses there remain deep ideological divides of
a Right-Left nature that are affected by the considerations analyzed in The
Origin of Wealth. One concerns human nature. “If one digs deeply into the
Left-Right divide…one finds two conflicting views of human nature. On the
Left is the view that human beings are inherently altruistic; that greed and
selfishness stem…from the construction of the social order; and that humans
can be made better through a more just society….On the Right is the view
that human beings are inherently self-regarding and that the pursuit of
self-interest is an inalienable right. The most effective system of
government is one that accommodates rather than attempts to change this
aspect of human nature.” Beinhocker asserts that behavioral game theoretic
findings defuse this polarity by showing that both sides are wrong, and give
us the materials for a far more nuanced and effective set of policy options
than are envisioned in the Left-Right dialogue.
The second Left-Right divide is over the proper weight to be afforded to
markets versus state intervention, the Left stressing market failure and
favoring widespread state intervention, the Right stressing state failure and
favoring strict constraints on intervention. The historical fact that strong
states and strong market economies have coevolved suggests that state
intervention is an aspect of the economy as a complex adaptive system, and
the idea of a minimal state is simply a conservative fantasy. Conversely, the
notion that the state can successfully supplant the market is incompatible with the
importance of competition in the economy’s evolutionary dynamic. However, a
proper understanding of economic dynamics and human nature hold out the
possibility of rendering state interventions, for instance in addressing
poverty and environmental problems, considerably more effective and
politically popular than hitherto possible.
///
Okay, to the real world now…
For those who don’t know Nick, he’s part of a loose network of ex-lefties, left-revisionists, neo-libs and whatnot which includes Christopher Hitchens, Oliver Kamm and others.
And Norm Geras, who is a friend of mine, or enough of a friend to have sat in his house having lunch. I love Kamm’s writings, not so much for the political content, but for his encycleopedic knowledge of politics and modern history.
I think that the US political class do pretty well for themselves and above all their friends. Look at the contracting and mercenary gravey train.
Agreed absolutely. Pork-barrel politics has been a standard feature of US politics at least since WWII, and is not getting any better. My greatest criticism of the Republicans and particularly Bush Jnr. is the manner in which he has overseen enormous government expenditure, much of which has gone on doling out favourable treatment to special interest groups. His chucking contracts to Halliburton and Blackwater in Iraq is a drop in the ocean compared to what goes on, unremarked, as a matter of course in the US.
Not that the EU is any better in this respect.
And Norm Geras, who is a friend of mine, or enough of a friend to have sat in his house having lunch.
Oh, quite right. For some reason, I tend not to think of him when I think of the others. Maybe the age difference. Maybe because he’s not quite as fierce. No that’s not right. He’s fierce enough, but thoughtful.
Another guy I like from that whole Euston Manifesto gang is Francis Wheen, who has written some very clever stuff.
fh
As quoted, conveniently, by Nick Cohen just now in a very relevant post on his blog about the Saudi deal.
http://www.nickcohen.net/?p=316
Some of you won’t like what he says about Russia (ie, Litvinenko, New Cold War, etc.), but the rest is quite readable.
It’s not a question of like/dislike. he doesn’t have a clue about what and why is going on in Russia. So why should I think that he has a clue about Saudis?
However, a proper understanding of economic dynamics and human nature hold out the possibility of rendering state interventions, for instance in addressing poverty and environmental problems, considerably more effective and politically popular than hitherto possible.
Kolya - I don’t know enough about game theory to really understand its application in this context. I can just about understand how it applies in biology and evolution, and how to some extent social and economic evolution might be comparable. I’m just not sure how to analyse it.
You’ll have read Evolution and the Theory of Games by John Maynard Smith, I suspect. I haven’t. But his name pops up quite a lot in other things I’ve been reading lately, relating to paleolinguistics. Scholars are now applying evolutionary theory to language, and, along with it, game theory.
So why should I think that he has a clue about Saudis?
Because it’s not about the Saudis. It’s about the Brits, of which he is one. I thought we all agreed not so long ago that writers stand a better chance of getting things right when writing about developments at home.
I said earlier that there are examples of home-grown corruption practically every day in the Anglo Saxon world. There was an instructive one today in the UK, with regard to bid-rigging in the construction industry. The particular practice at issue is cover-pricing, which basically involves contract bidders deliberately bidding high to make the winning bid appear low. A very common form of collusion in tendering.
What I found interesting was the industry’s attitude. A blogger dug up a survey by a construction industry organization in which 1,000 industry execs were asked about corruption. These are middle and upper middle class folks and no doubt regard themselves as good and upright citizens.
Results and commentary here: http://burningourmoney.blogspot.com/2008/04/dodgy-contractors.html.
Nearly a third said this kind of bid-rigging is “not very” corrupt and 5% considered it not corrupt at all.
People are not just accepting it. People want their public servants accessible and corrupted. It cuts both ways.
In some ways I can see why. One of the things I found I liked about the Middle East, and later about Russia, was when confronted with what appeared to be an official problem, you could begin negotiations. You could quickly locate somebody who could make a decision, or reverse a decision, rather than just hide behind some policy or other.
This may not be a particuarly healthy way to run affairs, but IMO it is infinitely better than becoming like the UK: a nation of ill-educated, pathetic, whining, jobsworths who enforce a plethora of petty rules and get a kick out of telling somebody that nothing more can be done. Faced with a problem in the UK, the person in front of you, or on the end of the phone, is almost guaranteed to have no decision making authority whatsoever, nor any knowledge about the problem. You have to spend weeks calling around to find anybody who is authorised to make any kind of decision, instead of someone who just reads some policy or other back to you. It used to drive me nuts. I’m not talking about anything serious here, I mean trying to get somebody to deliver a TV, or issue a bank card. “Sorry Sir, we can’t deliver on a Saturday, I don’t know why, it’s our policy.”
In Russia, if you have a problem, you can normally enter negotiations with the bloke in front of you on how to circumvent the problem. If that doesn’t work, it’s about 5 minutes before you’ve found somebody able to sort you out for a fee or two. If the shop’s policy prohibits delivery on a Saturday in Russia, the sales clerk will bring it round himself for a few hundred roubles.
Excesses of the rich don’t bother me a bit. That’s for B. Obama and other phony Marxists to rave about. Born and raised in the USSR, I was force-fed class envy since early childhood and just can’t take it no more. Let rich get richer. What, phony modern Socialists gonna make our lives better by using gov’t police to appropriate profiteer’s surfeit? As if.
I like my Socialists old fashioned, like John Ruskin. In ‘Modern Painters’ Ruskin wrote that the original meaning of corruption is death: decomposition and cessation of life. Therefore the opposite of corruption is vigorous vitality. Ruskin demonstrated how the greatest vitality is achieved by the highest level of cooperation and helpfulness among all the constituent parts of a physical or social body. Those old English thinkers just enjoyed drawing parallels between living organisms and human societies. Herbert Spencer liked to do it too, although he wasn’t a Socialist… anyway, the upshot is that ‘corruption’ has nothing to do with how much money changes hands without proper accounting and State supervision.
Truly Corrupt society is the one where people feel alienated, don’t care about each other, lack moral guidance and get a kick from screwing each other. Last years of Soviet Union immediately come to mind, when ‘dynamo’ and ‘kidalovo’ became everyman’s favorite sports and ‘pioneering’ came to mean petty theft (spionerit’). USSR was soulless, poor, dirty, angry and hopeless.
Contrariwise, the capitalists with all their excesses and conspicuous waste, were living better lives in a better world. So Russians finally decided to turn things around and start ‘building Capitalism’.
It is true that Russians have developed some efficient ways to help each other in life, by hook or crook, that Americans have never learned. Many Russians are exasperated by American adherence to the rules and keep telling me that American bureaucrats are the worst because they don’t take bribes. OTOH, my Russian guests were simply flabbergasted by the swift operation of emergency services in the US. Once we saw a drunk keel over on the street corner and in five minutes there was fire brigade, ambulance and police on the scene. My Russian visitors later told me how a sick man lied on the bench in their square dying; hours passed, the man was long dead and there was still no sign of any officials.
Excesses of the rich don’t bother me a bit.
I don’t either, especially if the poor are getting richer at the same time, which in most countries they are. It is the betterment of the poor which should be a government’s primary concern, not the cutting down of the rich.
Inequality isn’t anything which needs to be addressed provided the poor are generally getting richer. Of course, those who fall for the fixed quantity of wealth fallacy will think otherwise.
“That’s for B. Obama and other phony Marxists to rave about.”
Obama a “phony Marxist”? That’s silly. What are you, Candide, Rush Limbaugh?
To address inequality does not mean to eliminate incentives or to force everyone to be equal, whatever that means. To assume, though, that gross levels of material inequality is nothing to worry about as long as everyone’s basic material needs are addressed simply ignores the realities of human nature (at both ends of the spectrum–rich and poor).
One of the things that fascinates me about bureaucratic behavior is by how universal it is. There is something about the nature of the job that transforms people into “typical bureaucrats”. I’m sure that there has been some interesting behavioral science research done on the subject, but I’m not familiar with it. As long as there are no “gifts” involved, I’m always grateful when a bureaucrat, seeing the absurdity of a particular situation, applies common sense and initiative to resolve or speed up a matter.
Having said that, I prefer the “by the book” bureaucrat than by the one who makes things happen under the incentive of an “unofficial” reward. I have experience of saving myself countless hours by giving out such petty rewards (bribes). I also have the experience of walking by a long line of unhappy faces of people who have to wait for hours on end simply because they do not have the means for a sufficient gift. That’s corruption and it’s corrosive.
FH, you don’t have to know anything about game theory to read the Beinhocker book. I read several papers of Maynard Smith, but that was ages ago, when I was studying biology. I forgot most of the math and statistics that I used to know.
To assume, though, that gross levels of material inequality is nothing to worry about as long as everyone’s basic material needs are addressed simply ignores the realities of human nature (at both ends of the spectrum–rich and poor)
Can you explain that a bit? What are the realities of human nature whereby it is a problem if somebody has his basic needs cared for and is getting richer, yet another person is far more wealthy? This sounds less like human nature and more like envy politics.
Tim, the trigger for my note was Candide’s nonchalant “excesses of the rich don’t bother me a bit” and your agreement with his statement. The operative word is “excesses”.
As to envy, unfortunately envy is indeed part of our human nature. A negative emotion, but all too easily aroused. The same can be said about resentment and other similar emotions. More importantly, though, our highly developed sense of fairness is integral part of Homo sapiens. It’s ingrained in our social nature. Inequality will always exist. There will always be people making more money than others. I’m sure that to a certain extent it’s healthy for a dynamic and open society to have some inequality. Please remember, though, that I wrote about GROSS inequality. To address gross inequality does not mean that the goal is to eliminate inequality.
Around 1980 American CEOs made about 40 times more than the average worker (a huge difference), but this ratio is now increased to over 350 times. Isn’t there something wrong with this, even if we assume the average worker is better off? And the problems are not only at the low end of the spectrum. Humans that we are, gross financial inequality can also easily warp the perceptions, motivations and psychology of the ultra-rich. Money is power and power can easily corrupt. If not you, it may corrupt your children or grandchildren. Feelings of undeserved superiority and entitlement are not uncommon among the rich. And remember that most of the rich didn’t work their way to riches. Most of the rich are simply related (being a spouse, child, or grandchild) to the one who amassed the initial fortune.
“It is the betterment of the poor which should be a government’s primary concern, not the cutting down of the rich.”
Exactly.
Particularly in Russia, where regular folks were always getting the shaft.
“This sounds less like human nature and more like envy politics.”
There is no such thing as transhistorical, transcultural human nature, beyond the basic generalities caused by common genetic makeup. There is a reason why the human nature described in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, for instance, looks alien (and barbaric) to us, and why contemporary Western notions of human nature would appear alien (and barbaric) to him.
PS hi from Southern California. Sean, I’ll try to be in LA next week.
“The CIA and KGB were fundamentally different organizations. The vast bulk of KGB personnel and resources were focused inside the country”
The US counterpart to the KGB is the FBI, not CIA.
“Obama a “phony Marxist”? That’s silly. What are you, Candide, Rush Limbaugh?”
Well, Obama often talks like a Marxist and he is certainly a phony, so where did I go wrong?
I have my own issues with Limbaugh but he certainly has done way more for American people and culture than Obama ever will. Just this morning Limbaugh was running a radio fundraiser for the victims of some terrible disease, affecting close to 1 million people in the US. What has Obama ever done for those suffering people?
I still can’t comprehend the fixation on the proportion of CEO compensation to the averge income. Who cares? Why obsess with it? I don’t.
To tell the whole truth I am a terrible slacker and I am constantly amazed that I can pull a decent salary in the US. Rich people with their excesses provide me with a decent job and comfortable living, while all I get from the gov’t is they take away 40% of my wages and give me almost nothing in return.
Welcome to the US, Chris!
“There is no such thing as transhistorical, transcultural human nature, beyond the basic generalities caused by common genetic makeup.”
The notion that there is no human nature is absurd and contrary to science. Perhaps your idea of “human nature” is quite different from mine, perhap my understanding fits within that qualifier of yours: “beyond the basic generalities caused by common genetic makeup”. Those basic generalities are huge and are indeed transcultural and transhistorical.
Candide, I don’t know if you are being serious because you sound like a parody,
I am entirely serious.
“I am entirely serious.”
Oh, well.
FH, FWIW, I just found a Herbert Gintis online book titled, “The Bounds of Reason:
Game Theory for the the Behavioral Sciences”. Have not read any of it.
http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~gintis/
Have to run….
The US counterpart to the KGB is the FBI, not CIA.
Not so. The US counterpart to the FSB is the FBI. But the KGB was a unified service covering international and domestic matters.
Well now, that’s an oversimplification…
I read some numbers a while ago that point in the exact opposite direction, that most millionaires were self-made. This is certainly the case in Russia today
Furthermore, if the relatives who inherit the wealth aren’t competent, they’ll soon lose it.
As to envy, unfortunately envy is indeed part of our human nature. A negative emotion, but all too easily aroused.
Indeed, which is why I don’t think it is a problem which needs to be solved, especially using the blunt instrument of politics and legislation. The envy arising from wealth inequality is no more of a problem than the envy arising from those who are better looking, have prettier wives, large schlongs, etc.
Around 1980 American CEOs made about 40 times more than the average worker (a huge difference), but this ratio is now increased to over 350 times. Isn’t there something wrong with this, even if we assume the average worker is better off?
No, not at all. The CEOs are not getting rich at the expense of the workers: cutting the ratio back down to 40:1 would do nothing to improve the lives of the poor. Provided the poor are getting richer, to hell with that the rich are doing.
Humans that we are, gross financial inequality can also easily warp the perceptions, motivations and psychology of the ultra-rich. Money is power and power can easily corrupt.
Yes, so the answer is not to limit the accumulation of wealth but to ensure the government’s first and foremost task is to ensure freedom and liberty for its citizens. The best way it can do that, and avoid the corruption of power, is to severely limit the areas in which governments get involved.
Feelings of undeserved superiority and entitlement are not uncommon among the rich.
I don’t think feelings of superiority and entitlement are things which should be legislated against, and the latter is equally as common amongst the poor as the rich, especially after 50 years of welfare dependency. If the rich feel superior and entitled, good for them. Provided they don’t encroach on the liberties and freedoms of others, this isn’t a problem.
And remember that most of the rich didn’t work their way to riches. Most of the rich are simply related (being a spouse, child, or grandchild) to the one who amassed the initial fortune.
I don’t doubt that a lot of people are rich in this manner, but I am slightly skeptical that it is applicable to most rich people. But anyway, I don’t see how it is relevant. It is surely no better to legislate against underserved inherited wealth than it is to legislate against undeserved inherited looks or itelligence. Politics should not be a vehicle to alleviate feelings of envy amongst a population, unless the success of some is blatantly and without question to the detriment of others.
There is no such thing as transhistorical, transcultural human nature, beyond the basic generalities caused by common genetic makeup.
Eh? Sure, there are differences in the human nature of individuals and between different peoples of different times, but it is nonsense to suggest there is no common trait of human nature which has afflicted humans at all times across all peoples. It is human nature to procreate and to eat, for example.
If you can point to any race of people from any period in history where envy has not been a trait of both individuals and groups, then I might be more convinced.
Politics should not be a vehicle to alleviate feelings of envy amongst a population, unless the success of some is blatantly and without question to the detriment of others.
You’ve summed up the counter-argument very nicely here, Tim. Can anyone really doubt that politics has been a vehicle to skew tax, industrial, trade and labour policies in favor of the affluent and to the detriment of everyone else? You can’t possibly think the compensation gap Kolya has cited derives from some kind of natural force. It has been created, very deliberately, very politically.
Talking about beneficial uses of the super-rich, I heard that Abramovich really raised the standard of living for people in Chukotka, something that Soviet gov’t never quite managed to do somehow.
You can’t possibly think the compensation gap Kolya has cited derives from some kind of natural force. It has been created, very deliberately, very politically.
I quite agree, which is why yet more politics, in the form of a political “solution”, is precisely the opposite course of action that is needed. It is a reduction in politics and the interference of government that is needed. Expecting a political solution to a political problem created by the same people is adding fuel to an already merry blaze.
That’s why I cannot for the life of me understand why those who complain about being ruled by a political elite who favour the rich are the same ones calling for more governmental regulations, laws, and redistribution.
I always thought the function of government was not to create rich or poor people, or indeed favour either in decision making, but rather to create conditions whereby everyone who wants to can make themselves rich, or in some way better themselves, or at the very least have a decent existence in proportion to their own personal effort. But to say that in all cases government favours the rich is I think untrue. In Ireland, taxation is graduated according to income, both proportionally and literally higher paid workers and the wealthy pay more tax, and, by definition, are less reliant on public money e.g. free medical care, the dole etc. I think this system is not unique to Ireland in the developed world. I have no doubt that the super wealthy have more access to politicians’ ears, but that is due to political funding, rather than a set-in-stone legal system that says poor people shouldnt be heard. If there is one area the wealthy have an advantage, and an unfair one, it is education of their children. Poor people tend to be in shitty schools with shitty grades; rich kids tend to be in good schools as well as having extra tuition that the poor cant afford. This is the one area I would change, as I do think it is difficult for the poor to get out of that. But in the West there are few misfortunate situations of poverty that cannot be dealt with by hard work, determination and a willingness to change. You’ll find a lot of poor people in the developed work lack one or all of these things.
ps hope you’re enjoying your holidays Chris:-)
So rolling back all the policies which led to the current state of affairs — all that would be, what, non-political?
”One of the things that fascinates me about bureaucratic behavior is by how universal it is. There is something about the nature of the job that transforms people into “typical bureaucrats”.”
Kolya, you wouldnt believe it. I worked for the Irish state myself, and the office staff are as lazy, dumb and obtrusive as anything Russia can boast, and worse cant be by-passed by a few thousand roubles. The city and county councils are the most difficult - stupid people with a useful signature, the worst combination possible.
“Eh? Sure, there are differences in the human nature of individuals and between different peoples of different times, but it is nonsense to suggest there is no common trait of human nature which has afflicted humans at all times across all peoples. It is human nature to procreate and to eat, for example.”
The eating and procreating bit is part of the common genetic heritage. Actually the desire to procreate come to think of it is not a human universal — far from it. Lots of people don’t want to procreate. The desire to have sexual intercourse is a lot more universal.
My point is that the understanding of what human nature is changes every 50 years or so, and oddly enough always corresponds with what in that particular era is considered normal. All you have to do to see an example of this is look at human sexuality as it was understood by Victorian Europe and how it is in modern Europe. And that’s only been a little over 100 years, in the same geographical era.
“Talking about beneficial uses of the super-rich, I heard that Abramovich really raised the standard of living for people in Chukotka,”
Yes he did. Although I think that saying the Soviet government never raised the living standards of the Chukchi is an exaggeration, since it brought them, like, medicine.
Thanks Ger, yeah it’s great, though Lord though I love my dad he can get annoying.
So rolling back all the policies which led to the current state of affairs — all that would be, what, non-political?
It would be political in the strictest sense, but akin to turkeys voting for Christmas.
My point is that the understanding of what human nature is changes every 50 years or so, and oddly enough always corresponds with what in that particular era is considered normal.
I agree that the understanding of human nature changes, but I am of the belief that human nature itself doesn’t. Regardless of what the Victorians professed to understand about human sexuality, the streets of London were still rife with prostitutes defying those very beliefs. The Vitctorians were as promiscuous and sex-crazed as anyone else, only they - like Eliot Spitzer - chose to be hypocritical about it.
The question of earnings ratios is very interesting at the moment. The idea that the vast growth in the difference between the top and the bottom in the US (or the UK) is ok because the bottom are getting richer is perhaps inappropriate because taking account of inflation that has not happened. It seems that trickle down, that I for one believed in, did not happen. The average worker in the States is worse off than he was before but the top 1% have gone berserk. I don’t know if that is right or wrong or good or bad but I do know that it is ominously reminiscent of conditions that existed at the time of the 1929+ crash and recession. There is a fascinating graph prepared recently, by chance, by a young French economic professor - Emmanuel Saez working in the US. At the same time George Bush sounds awfully like Herbert Hoover.
See Striking it richer http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2006prel.pdf
Yes about a mile back I meant that corruption does not necessarily exclude economic sucess as we are so often told.
What Adam Smith left out as essential for his invisible hand to operate to everyone’s benefit is that there must be a reasonably trustworthy commercial court that is independant of political pressure or other interference, otherwise long term contracts on which economic growth depends are impossible. Olson thinks that Smith never mentioned it because he took it for granted. According to Olson that is the vital difference between societies that prosper and those that dont, not democracy which is just desirable.
I posit that dog nature is different from cat nature. If that is accepted, then it follows that every breed and genes must have a distinct nature. If so, there must be a distinct human nature, too.
The devil is we can travel up and down the scale with that, from macrocosm to microcosm. We can talk about the nature of inanimate objects as clearly different to the animate ones. Or we can talk about apparent differences between Chrisius M. nature and Tim N. nature. It’s all in the classifications.
Tim and others, let me repeat once again that I’m not talking about getting rid of inequality, but about addressing gross (and growing) inequality. As I wrote before, I take it as a given that economic inequality will always exists in human societies. I don’t like it, but that’s the way things are. Open and dynamic societies probably require at least some inequality. On the other hand, for me it’s also a given that an ever widening gap is not only wrong but also, in the long run, detrimental to society as a whole. The fact that you and Candide are not bothered one bit about the increasing gap between the incomes of average workers and CEOs just shows that we are quite different in that respect. Yes, I’m aware that you assume that the average worker, despite the increasing gap, is better off–that is indeed an important consideration.
I love the United States. I came here by myself and made it my home by choice. I find laughable much of this reflexively knee-jerk anti-American attitude (the “blame America first” crowd). Nonetheless, there are plenty of common American attitudes and trends that I’m not happy about. For instance, it does bother me that while the Gini coefficient (a measure of inequality) was stable from the mid-1940s to 1980 (in general, not unhappy times for the US), it has been steadily rising since 1980.
Robert, thanks for the Emmanuel Saez link. I have not read it yet, but it looks interesting.
Ger, yes, there something strange about the nature of bureaucracies. To be fair, though, I think size does matter. For example, in terms of population (and population density) Vermont is smaller than Maryland (where we lived before, next to DC). As it is the case in most other places, the experience of getting a driver’s license and vehicle tags in Maryland left much to be desired. When my wife and I did it in Vermont we were done in less than thirty minutes and had smiles in our faces! A year later, when I took my daughter for her driver’s license test, the clerk administering the test cheerfully remembered me as the newcomer of the year before. This sort of experience with state bureaucracies is probably exceptional regardless of the place, but I’m sure that the size of the state had a lot to do with it.
Robert: The idea that the vast growth in the difference between the top and the bottom in the US (or the UK) is ok because the bottom are getting richer is perhaps inappropriate because taking account of inflation that has not happened.
Absolutely correct. Plus, the middle class has been kept quiet via the property boom, allowing it to fund a seemingly affluent life style from home equity — equity which is currently disappearing.
I completely agree with Kolya on this. It’s a bad situation and a palpably unfair one.
For what is worth, both Greenspan and Bernanke more than once expressed concern about the growing wealth inequality in the US. Greenspan said somewhere that such a thing is a threat to democracy.
I know that if we apply cold logic we should not be bothered about such growing inequality as long as everyone is better off (for the sake of argument, lets’ assume that this indeed the case). We are not perfectly rational machines, though. Sooner or later those at the top will use their means to abuse power and those at the bottom will grow resentful. Moreover, plenty of studies have shown that we humans have an innate sense of fairness that cuts across all cultures. And this sense of fairness often motivates people to act in ways that are not obviously self-interested. That’s why people can become genuinely indignant and mobilize against what they perceive are unfair and unjust practices, even if those practices do not affect them personally in a negative way.
How about instead of talking account of inflation we take account of better food, better clothes, better cars, better electronics, better appliances, better life overall and more better choices, choices, choices?
On the subject of inequality and gross excesses, we can observe it not only in private enterprise. How about college education? How about prestigious colleges sitting on endowment funds the size of some countries GNPs and raising tuition every year, and bombarding parents with pleas of ‘voluntary’ contributions?
Maybe Sean can tell us more about that, as he is a professor somewhere (unless I’m mistaken again). Yes, we are talking about your job now, Sean, so pay attention!
I’m not a professor, just a lowly graduate student.
I don’t know how much about endowments and universities except that they tend to be for private universities–Harvard, Stanford, etc. It’s also possible that some endowments are tied to certain types of funding and can’t be used at will.
Places like UCLA where I am are mostly reliant on state funding. The pressure for donations tend to be around particular projects that aren’t included and never will be in the general budget.
The main complaint I hear from faculty is that universities are now run on corporate model which emphasizes a product and results. So all the university administration cares about is getting more students and producing more degrees i.e. the stats. The emphasis on producing degrees and getting students in seats has been detrimental to actual education. At UCLA it has contributed, among many other factors, to gross grade inflation, a sense of entitlement among students, and frankly in some cases degrees where their only real value is that they have University of California, Los Angeles stamped on them. This is not to say that the students aren’t smart. Many of them are quite bright and there is a lot of pressure on them to have certain grades. They just know how to work the system at the same time the system works them. One qualification to all is that my experience is in the humanities and social sciences. The hard sciences might be totally different in terms of grade inflation.
The big problem in regard to faculty is that UCLA has a split mission. Professor advancement and promotion is based on research. Teaching has nothing to do with it. No books, then no tenure and no promotion. Yet the university bosses want the teaching and degree stats. The more teaching faculty does, they less research. The result is that some faculty (not all. There are notable, and important exceptions) say to hell which giving a shit about teaching and focus on doing their own work.
But one should note that this is only among institutions like UCLA which are research focused. The vast majority of universities are teaching schools, where research doesn’t matter as much, if at all.
Another thing to note about places like UCLA, Berkeley, and other top public institutions is that they pretty much have a uniform student body in terms of class. Most of my students come from professional families, are second, if not third generation college students, are expected to get higher degrees, and have a sense of entitlement to do so. I have been approached several times by students who demand their grade be changed because of “law school” and “medical school”. Many of these students see the university in terms of a commodity where grades are subject to negotiation. Places like UCLA are mostly about reproducing the elite.
This is far different from a place like UC Riverside. The class character of the students there is more first generation college students. Here you get a lot of more latinos, blacks, and working class whites. They complain less about grades, and as a result there is very little grade inflation. The atmosphere between the two schools is quite striking. And frankly I think in terms of education Riverside produces better students. Unfortunately, because of the class nature of its student body it also lacks the funding through endowments, alumni donations, and sports to provide the same facilities UCLA has.
That said, American universities like UCLA may fall a bit short in undergraduate education, they are amazing in graduate education and attracting top faculty because of the resources acquired through donations etc.
Candid wrote:
How about instead of talking account of inflation we take account of better food, better clothes, better cars, better electronics, better appliances, better life overall and more better