Why is it that some countries in the Middle East have
spent significantly more money on their educational systems in last two decades
but have not seen significant improvement in student performance?[1] David Chapman, in an article titled
“Education Quality in the Middle East,” claims that a lack of economic
resources is often cited by political scientists as the major reason why developing
countries struggle to improve their schools.
David Waldner, in his book State Building and Late Development,
would claim that structural problems within the state are the reason why there
is a lack of tax revenue to spend on institutions associated with human
development like education or health care.[2] However, the lack of resources alone can’t
fully explain the problem in this case since increased spending did not lead to
improved governance. Political
scientists like David Chapman, Stephen Heyneman, Kathryn H. Anderson, Nazym
Nuraliyeva, and others believe that corruption needs to be taken seriously as
an independent variable to explain the disappointing lack of development in
educational systems throughout the Middle East.[3] Corruption negatively affects the
performance of administrators, teachers, and students. Although very few in the field would disagree
with this sentiment, there are major debates over how to define, measure, and
reduce corruption with the goal of improving governance in the developing
world. Without a consensus on these
questions, it will be very difficult to assess the impact of corruption on
educational systems.
The
first problem is defining corruption.
Almost all political scientists seem to agree that corruption is the
misuse of public office for personal gain.[4] However, there are some disagreements over
what constitutes the misuse of political power.
One type of corruption, grand corruption, involves political elites
manipulating the writing and enforcement of laws for a client in exchange for a
bribe or a favor. However, it is often
difficult to define in certain instances when a politician is engaging in this
behavior. If a politician urges the
public and his fellow politicians to go to war because it is necessary for the
country’s security, but at the same time he is receiving legal campaign finance
contributions from an arms company, is he engaging in grand corruption? Maybe the war is necessary and the campaign
financing has nothing to do with the decision making. The opposite could also be true. We also have problems defining petty
corruption, which is when bureaucrats accept small bribes or some other form of
compensation in the exchange for special favors. A teacher that accepts a bribe from a student
for a better grade or an administrator that misuses public funds meant for the
school for personal profit is engaged in petty corruption. In certain cases, petty corruption might not
be a misuse of power. If there are
irrational laws and regulations on the books that make it impossible for a
businessman to operate legally, bribes might be necessary to cut through red
tape. Also, many bureaucrats depend on
small tips because of very low salaries.
All political scientists seem to agree that the growth of petty
corruption will cause long term problems in governance, but bureaucrats and
private citizens that often engage in this behavior are not doing so for personal
benefit but because it is the only way to get something done.[5] Furthermore, although many political
scientists that specialize in studying corruption like Arvind Jain claim that
petty corruption never increases economic growth in the short term, others like
Bertram Spector believes that it can in certain cases.[6]
There is no clear consensus.
Measuring corruption is an even more
contentious issue. There are multiple
methods that are currently in use to measure the problem by institutions like
Transparency International, the World Bank, Business International Corporation,
Political Risk Services, World Competitiveness Report, and Political and
Economic Risks Consultancy.[7] They all have slightly different methods for
defining and quantifying it, but there does seem to be some common trends. They all tend to rely on multiple surveys
conducted in each country that are given to politicians, businessmen,
non-governmental organizations, and average citizens asking them about their
perceptions of corruption. Surveys given
to specific experts will also ask questions about a country’s laws, regulatory
institutions, level of government transparency, degree of judiciary
independence, efficacy of law enforcement, and many other institutional factors
that can affect the level of corruption.
Furthermore, average citizens are asked about their perceptions of
corruption, how often they pay bribes, and whether or not they feel their
country has problems dealing with this issue.
There are several complications with these surveys. For one, they all ask slightly different
questions, they are distributed in a different manner, and certain factors are
weighted heavier than others when the data is aggregated. This will produce slightly different results
that will change the rankings. It is a credit to these surveys that despite
their diversity, the great majority of countries only have a slightly different
ranking depending on the method used.
However, we need to keep in mind that these institutions are only
measuring perceptions of corruption and evaluating the institutions that are
associated with the problem; they are not directly studying actual incidences of
corruption. Furthermore, most of these
surveys don’t deal with corruption in educational institutions. Understandably, the greatest focus in placed
on regulatory institutions, the police, the judiciary, and legislatures because
without the rule of law, corruption will become prevalent in all institutions,
educational or otherwise. There are a
few political scientists who have tried to study the issue of corruption in
education, but the data available is comparatively small.[8]
Lastly, the debate on how to reduce
corruption has evolved throughout the last three decades. According to Bertram Spector, there have been
three different phases since 1993 in terms of the popular methods used to deal
with corruption.[9] In phase number one between 1993 and 1999,
the main goal of international organizations that sought reform was to improve
the methods used to measure it; evaluate the financial costs within each
country; and to present the data in conferences to the political elites of each
country with the hope that they would take action. This light form of intervention produced almost
no results in terms of encouraging countries to make reforms or reducing the
level of corruption. Without any
incentives or programs for how to deal with it, politicians ignored the
rhetoric. In phase two throughout the
2000’s, international organizations shifted their strategy, opting to use a
mixture of financial incentives and public relations campaigns to push
governments to make reforms and change the culture of countries throughout the
globe. This strategy had better results
than the first phase, but the level of improvement was still
disappointing. In phase three, which
began only a few years ago, international organizations are now beginning to
see corruption in a more holistic manner.
Recent studies have shown that non-institutional factors like political
stability and economic development are correlated with higher levels of
corruption. Whereas some political
scientists like Yadeeva Vineeta and Janos Kornai focus more on institutions,
Bertram and others show that levels of corruption are intertwined with other
general political, economic, and social problems.[10] To reduce corruption, other societal issues
can’t be ignored. Furthermore, this
third wave of corruption reform has emphasized different reform strategies for
different types of democratic and authoritarian regimes. A program that works in one country may not
work in another.
As this debate evolves, it is
important that we continue to refine our definitions, measurement tools, and
reform programs to deal with corruption.
We will never have a perfect measurement of corruption or total
consensus on this issue, but as we improve our understanding of this
phenomenon, governments and international organizations can craft better
programs to combat the problem. Furthermore,
we will gain a better understanding of how corruption affects educational
institutions.
Work Cited Page
1. Ahmad, Eatzaz, Muhammad Aman Ullah, and Muhammad Irfanullah
Arfeen. "Does Corruption Affect
Economic Growth," Latin American Journal of Economics, Vol. 49, No.
2, November, 2012: pg 277-305.
2. Chapman, David. “Education Quality in the Middle East,” International
Review of Education, Vol. 55, No. 4.
July, 2009.
3. Heyneman, Stephen, Kathryn H. Anderson, and Nazym Nuraliyeva. "The Cost of Corruption in Higher
Education," Comparative Education Review, Vol. 52, No. 1, February,
2008.
4. “Human Development Report,
2013: The Rise of the South, Human Progress in a Diverse World,” United
Nations Development Program: New York, 2013.
5. “Is Transparency International’s
Measure of Corruption Still Valid?,” www.theguardian.com, December 3rd,
2013.
6. Jain, Arvind. “Corruption: A
Review,” Journal of Economic Surveys, Vol. 15, No.1, 2001: pg 71-121.
7. Kornai, Janos, Laszlo Matyas, and Gerard Roland, eds. Corruption, Development, and Institutional
Design. Palgrave Macmillan: New
York, 2009.
8. Lambsdorf, Graf. The
Institutional Economics of Corruption and Reform. Cambridge University Press: Great Britain,
2008.
9. “Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development: Key
Findings, 2000-2012,” www.oecd.org,
September, 2014.
10. Spector, Bertram. Detecting
Corruption In Developing Countries: Identifying Causes/Strategies for Action. Kumarian Press: United States, 2012.
11. Stewart, William. “Is PISA
Fundamentally Flawed?,” www.tes.co.uk,
September 16th, 2014.
12. “Transparency International: Global Perceptions Index 2013,” http://www.transparency.org/cpi2013/results,
2014.
13. Waldner, David. State
Building and Late Development.
Cornell University Press: New York, 1999.
14. Yadav, Vineeta. Political
Parties, Business Groups, and Corruption in Developing Countries. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2011.
[1]
Chapman, David. “Education Quality in
the Middle East,” International Review of Education, Vol. 55, No.
4. July, 2009.
[2] Waldner, David.
State Building and Late Development. Cornell University Press: New York, 1999.
[3]
Heyneman, Stephen, Kathryn H. Anderson, and Nazym Nuraliyeva. "The Cost of Corruption in Higher
Education," Comparative Education Review, Vol. 52, No. 1, February,
2008.
[4] Jain, Arvind.
“Corruption: A Review,” Journal of Economic Surveys, Vol. 15,
No.1, 2001: pg 71-121.
[5]
Lambsdorf, Graf. The Institutional
Economics of Corruption and Reform.
Cambridge University Press: Great Britain, 2008.
[6]
Spector, Bertram. Detecting
Corruption In Developing Countries: Identifying Causes/Strategies for Action. Kumarian Press: United States, 2012.
[7]
“Transparency International: Global Perceptions Index 2013,” http://www.transparency.org/cpi2013/results,
2014, “Human Development Report, 2013: The Rise of the South, Human Progress in
a Diverse World,” United Nations Development Program: New York, 2013,
and “Is Transparency International’s Measure of Corruption Still Valid?,” www.theguardian.com,
December 3rd, 2013.
[8]
Heyneman, Stephen, Kathryn H. Anderson, and Nazym Nuraliyeva. "The Cost of Corruption in Higher
Education," Comparative Education Review, Vol. 52, No. 1, February,
2008.
[9]
Bertrom, Ibid.
[10]
Yadav, Vineeta. Political Parties,
Business Groups, and Corruption in Developing Countries. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment