Public corruption is generally viewed as an obstacle to the development of a country. Corruption is universal, and the fact that a nation is economically developed does not mean that it has less corruption. Some First World countries have high rates of public corruption. Having a low level of corruption, however, gives a unique advantage to any developing nation. Appropriate policies can substitute for any positive effects of corruption. Many governments, international organisations and aid agencies, as well as donor-states have special agendas to fight the problem. Yet in the countries with high levels of corruption, arguments have been made that because corruption is pervasive it has to have some benefit(Blackburn Bose Emranul 2006). While definitely not something to be proud of, public corruption is seen as an unavoidable side effect of development. Corruption may be a response to supply and demand, but it is still not beneficial. By rationing goods which should be freely available to the whole population, such as healthcare, justice and fair treatment from those in authority, corruption ensures that these public goods are available only to the rich. Where corruption is widespread, the poor always lose out and society becomes ever more divided. It is also bad for society as a whole when corruption provides incentives for bright young people to get jobs as unproductive public officials, because of the financial rewards available for “rent-seekers”. The private sector, already struggling from the added costs of corruption, suffers even more by its inability to recruit the brightest and most ambitious young people, and levels of entrepreneurship and economic growth suffer as a result.
Discussion
The fact that corruption is a way of life in many Asian countries is one of the main reasons why its eradication has proven to be so difficult (Barro 1991). Corruption runs ...