Corruption and Integrity: The Broad Context of Moral Principles

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Comparison between the most corrupt and the least corrupt countries
Significance of culture in determining business ethics
Current initiatives taken by the US to curb corruption
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Corruption, in its broadest context, refers to prejudice of integrity or moral principles which define what is acceptable in a given society. Corruption is always associated with lack of integrity (Ferrel, Fraedrich, & Ferrel, 2008). In the political context, corruption can be viewed as abuse of office for personal interests.

In some cases, it entails the abuse of power. Corruption is greatly determined by factors such as levels of personal integrity and the moral perceptions of a given society or country. Both corporate and personal integrity plays an important role in determining the global economy in the present world (Wilson, 2009).

Corruption is a major issue that most of countries are facing including both national and multinational companies. This essay attempts to draw a comparison between the most corrupt and least corrupt countries in the world.

In addition, the essay will also analyze the trends of corruption among the selected countries which are most and least corrupt. The essay will also investigate the significance of culture in determining the business ethics of the selected countries.

The paper will also provide an overview of the ethical problems within countries which are least corrupt and the actions that favor the most ethical nations. Finally the paper will report on the ways that can be applied in attempt to reduce corruption levels.

Corruption is usually measured using the Corruption perception Index, which is usually rated out of 10, with the rates of corruption decreases as one inclines the CPI scale.

The international organization in charge of helping countries combat corruption is the Transparency international. The Transparency International ratings reveal that the two top least corrupt countries are Denmark and New Zealand, each having a corruption Perception Index of 9.3.

The most corrupt countries according to recent surveys indicate that Somalia and Afghanistan each having a Corruption Perception Index of 1.1 and 1.4 respectively (Transparency International, 2009).

The Transparency International uses parameters such as drawbacks that are evident in the public procurement, the levels of bribery that are observed in public offices, misuse of public funds and the effectiveness of anti-corruption efforts that a country deploys (Transparency International, 2009).

Comparison between the most corrupt and the least corrupt countries

One of the approaches in comparing the most and least corrupt is evaluating the economic positions of the countries. Corruption typically affects the financial positions of a country, since most corruption cases are related to the misuse of funds. It is evident that the most corrupt countries perform poorly in terms of economics.

An analysis of the most and least corrupt countries revealed that most corrupt countries have a less Gross Domestic Product in terms of per capita compared to the least corrupt; with Somalia having a per capita of approximately $ 600, Afghanistan having a per capita of about $ 1000.

The least corrupt countries, in this case are New Zealand having a per capita of 31,067 and Den Mark having a per capita of $ 56,790 (Wilson, 2009). This implies that the least corrupt countries are performing well economically compared to the most corrupt countries.

In addition, differences between the most and least corrupt countries can be viewed from the perspective of economic stability. It is evident that countries which are least corrupt are politically stable compared to countries which are most corrupt.

It is arguably evident that Denmark and New Zealand are politically stable compared to Afghanistan and Somalia (Transparency International, 2009). This can be attributed to the fact that corruption occurs mostly in government agencies, which in turn plays an imperative role in determining the political stability of a nation.

Abuse of public office for personal interest impairs effective political decisions due to the violation of ethical principles. Somalia and Afghanistan are constantly being engaged in internal wars and regional conflicts, contrary to the stability demonstrated by Denmark and Switzerland.

Another significant difference between the most and least corrupt countries is in terms of the effectiveness of the execution of government processes and operations. Many of the governments in most corrupt countries are ineffective in the carrying out of government processes and operations (Ferrel et al, 2008).

This is hindered due to the fact that most of the public funds are embezzled and also due to the fact that people in public offices tend to serve their personal interests at the expense of the countrys interests. People in public offices usually do not up uphold the moral principles of governance.

Contrary to the least corrupt countries, government processes are usually streamlined due to the fact that people in government offices and the private sectors which serve the public uphold integrity and keep national interest rather than personal interests.

This implies that governance in the least corrupt countries is more effective compared to the most corrupt countries. Most of the governance systems in the most corrupt countries are ineffective, and in most cases, there is no stable government but a transitional government which has ineffective service delivery systems.

Differences between the most and least corrupt countries can be viewed from a social perspective. The social setting of most corrupt countries can viewed to be poor, due to the fact there are increased poverty levels, high crime rates and unemployment rates and lack of proper internal relationships. This is contrary to the least corrupt countries.

Additionally, a differentiation factor between the most and least corrupt countries is in terms of literacy rates; the fraction of the population that are eligible to read and write according to a specified age. Less corrupt countries have high literacy rates of approximately 99 per cent (Transparency International, 2009).

On the contrary, most corrupt countries have less literacy rates with Somalia being reported to have al literacy rate of about 3.9 percent. Studies have revealed that human capital is determined by the average years of education that a country has, and it varies inversely with the levels of corruption.

This implies that countries which support education have little levels of corruption compared to countries that have little commitment to education (Wilson, 2009).

A significant differentiation factor between the most and least corrupt countries is in terms of Failed State Index, which provides country ratings in terms of peace and stability, economic, governance and social indicators. Countries which have a high Failed State Index have high levels of instability.

Failed State index varies positively with corruption levels. This implies that most corrupt countries have high Failed State index compared to least corrupt countries. Cultural differentiation is also significant in the evaluation of differences between the most and least corrupt countries.

Cultural differences are primarily divided into two basic categories; rule based and relationship based cultures. Most corrupt countries report to have relationship based cultures while least corrupt countries are reported to have rule based cultures.

Examples of countries that have the rule based cultures are the New Zealand and Denmark, which are remarkably, the least corrupt countries in the world.

Countries, such as Burma and Somalia, have a relationship based culture which due to the fact that it is tribalism oriented and reveals high levels of individualism rather than collective strategies.

Significance of culture in determining business ethics

As depicted above, culture plays a significant role in differentiation between the most and least corrupt countries. On a similar account, culture plays an important role in determining the business ethics of a given country.

In the context of Somalia and Afghanistan, their cultures are relationship based, which implies that business decisions are made on the basis of personal trusts rather than the rules of the system (Wilson, 2009). This in turn has significant effects on the business ethics.

Cultures that are rule based adhere to the standards of the system during the execution of business operations and decision making processes. It can be inferred that various ethical norms are derived from the various perceptions of the human culture; which are classified as noted above.

In general, rule based cultures favor the existence of business ethics contrary to the relationship based culture (Wilson, 2009).

Upholding integrity by a country does not come easy; a nation has to deploy appropriate culture so as to favor the existence of ethical business ethics.

This means that a country has to adopt a rule based culture which ensures that different key players adhere to the requirements of the system during the execution of ethical business decisions.

Current initiatives taken by the US to curb corruption

The US has a number of initiatives which are directed towards keeping corruption in check. One of the anticorruption strategies employed by the US is that the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 has been significantly enforced in the recent times (Transnational Law Associates, 2006).

This Act restricts companies in the US from offering payments to foreign governments for the sole purpose of attempting to conduct business abroad. Secondly, the United States approved the UN Convention Against Corruption; which is a global anticorruption treaty deployed by the UN.

Thirdly, the US passed the Sarbarnes-Oxley Act; which serves to control organizations and provide accountability standards which can be used to keep in check legal and ethical risks (Fletcher & Plette, 2008).

Conclusion

Corruption, both at the international and domestic level is a significant threat to the security of any nation. Casual factors that differentiate the most and least countries can be generally classified into: Gross Domestic Product per capita of a country, political stability, differentiation in terms of culture and the rates of literacy.

In order for a nation to establish effective anticorruption initiatives, it must appropriately tailor its cultures and use the available power to enact laws that are aimed to eliminate corruption.

References

Ferrel, O., Fraedrich, J., & Ferrel, L. (2008). Business ethics: Ethical decision making and cases (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Fletcher, W. H., & Plette, T. N. (2008). The Sarbanes-Oxley Act: Implementation, significance, and impact. New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers.

Transparency International. (2009). Global corruption 2009: Corruption and the private sector. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Wilson, P. J. (2009). Culture of New Zealand. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!