Corruption in the modern world. Corruption is a global problem of society. Corruption in modern society

Corruption is most often understood as the direct use by an official, and not only, of the rights associated with his position, for the purpose of enrichment, venality, bribery of an official, politician. Unfortunately, this phenomenon, like corruption, is becoming the norm in our state. In real life, we too often encounter it in almost all spheres of human life, in particular in law enforcement agencies, which, in essence, must fight it.

Corruption has existed since ancient times. For example, it was widespread in ancient Greece and the Roman Empire in the field of tax collection. In ancient China, supporters of legalism argued that the death of the state begins with the depravity of officials.

The facts of corruption in Russia are mentioned in the annals of the XIII century. For the first time in Russia, Ivan III tried to introduce legislative restrictions on corruption, and Ivan the Terrible introduced the death penalty as a punishment for corruption.

In modern society, corruption exists in various forms of government, including highly developed democratic societies, and can manifest itself in all branches of government as well as in all areas of private activity. As M. Levin and G. Satarov correctly noted, “corruption manifests itself where there is power, i.e. the right to make decisions and manage resources. These can be budgetary funds, government orders or benefits, or, conversely, fines, prohibitions, certain punishments. Power resources include the right to permit or prohibit, the right to make a decision or evade it. It should not be assumed that we are talking only about state power. An official in a firm or public organization also has the power and ability to manage resources. So there is corruption here too.” Corruption has no specific ethical, racial or religious roots. The authoritarian form of government, characterized by protectionism, lobbying and redistribution of state resources for selfish purposes, itself leads to corruption and is based on it. Corruption is the main problem in those areas of public life where there is interaction between the private and public sectors, business and government. Its essence lies in the fact that an official in the private or public sector abuses his official authority for personal gain. Corruption crime is a traditional and fairly common type of crime in most countries of the world.

The problem with corruption is that it:

• is an illegal activity that reinforces criminal manifestations in society. Corruption is interested in the existence of organized crime, it gives rise to terrorism, drug trafficking, slave trade, fraud;
• undermines and destroys social institutions. Based on the principle of clan-countryman selection of personnel, corruption reduces professionalism in the system of state power, which is one of the reasons for the low level of state decisions on economic and political reform;
• undermines positive economic development by generating and stimulating the shadow economy. In addition, corruption is interested in the shortage of goods and services. The most common conclusion about the economic consequences of corruption is that it reduces incentives to invest and thus hinders economic growth;
• in the field of public relations, it opposes such administrative values ​​as equality, efficiency, transparency and honesty, which leads the population to disbelief in the possibility of achieving democracy and justice. "A state with chronic corruption can be especially cruel to the poor, who lack the resources to resist, those who intend to pay bribes".

Corruption, as a socially dangerous phenomenon, undermines the principle of the rule of law, promotes the penetration of organized crime into the activities of state institutions, and generates distrust of the population in government.

Depending on the size of the privileges purchased through bribes, there are major and petty corruption. Major corruption is usually associated with international business transactions and includes not only representatives of the bureaucracy, but also politicians, while the bribe can take place both in the country and abroad. Despite the fact that corruption is considered a crime in most jurisdictions, its spread in global business has long remained unchecked. In 1997 alone, 34 states signed the Agreement on the need to overcome the corruption of foreign officials and the recognition of illegal payments made to them.

In the public sector, petty corruption is rampant when individuals are forced to obtain favors or permits of various kinds from government agencies. In these cases, bribes may be withheld through individual payments or pooled share agreements. The total cost of small payments, including the payments themselves, can be greater than large bribes.

Depending on the frequency of the actual manifestation, episodic and systematic corruption are distinguished. In societies where non-corrupt behavior is the norm, public institutions, both in the private and public sectors, uphold decency. Corruption becomes systemic in cases where both large and small bribes are ubiquitous in the relationship of private individuals with the public sector. Systematic corruption can be widespread both throughout the public sector, and in individual government structures, or at certain levels in the hierarchy of the civil service.

Depending on the scope of distribution, corruption is distinguished in the public (administrative) and private sectors. A number of authors refer to corruption in the public sector as business corruption, and corruption in the private sector as domestic corruption. The basis of corruption in the public sector is:

• access of officials to classified economic information,
• monopolistic rights of the executive and legislative authorities to make decisions on the use and distribution of state resources, including state budget expenditures. Related to this is the rent-seeking behavior of civil servants and politicians, that is, rent-seeking behavior. Therefore, the possibility of corruption in the public sector is directly related to the rents that are under the control of civil servants, as well as the powers that officials have in their distribution. Monopolistic rents can be significant in highly regulated economies, with corruption increasing the demand for more regulation;
• the practice of appointing officials and politicians to positions at enterprises, and, as a result, directing state funds and government orders to these enterprises.

In the administrative (public) sector, it is customary to distinguish between administrative (bureaucratic) and political corruption. Administrative corruption is corruption in relations between state bodies and business. It takes place in the public service, where officials are endowed with considerable power and decision-making power relating to business. Political corruption (otherwise known as state capture) is characterized by the ability of businesses to influence political decisions. It is generated by the ability of the legislature to create rents. The adopted laws establish the procedure for the distribution and redistribution of resources, and the ability to influence the legislative process can lead to manipulation and abuse aimed at realizing the personal goals of politicians to the detriment of public interests. It is believed that in a democratic society, politicians are usually deprived of the opportunity to directly use the legislature for personal gain. However, they can influence political processes. The most obvious ways to apply pressure are:

• direct participation in the discussion of the draft law and the presentation of issues that are decisive for the adoption of the law,
• the practice of lobbying, that is, exerting pressure on state bodies in order to persuade them to make political decisions or allocate resources in accordance with the interests of certain groups. Lobbying will be legitimate until corruption appears, the content of which lies in the fact that a politician, receiving a bribe, “sells” his influence to interested groups.

Political corruption can be the way in which power is exercised. For leadership, the political goal may be to create and allocate the economic rents needed to pay supporters, bribe the opposition, provide support groups, manage ethnic diversity, accumulate resources to win elections. To obtain these resources, leaders may enter into alliances with the business community or create and distribute rents through the bureaucracy. In this case, the model of corruption will change only when the structure of power changes due to public protest against corruption. The causes of administrative and political corruption are always specific, and its roots lie in the country's politics, bureaucratic traditions, political development, and social history. Equally important is the weakness of public institutions, inadequate funding of the public service, and the lack of ethical values. The weakness of public institutions is manifested in the divergence between the formal and informal rules that govern behavior in the public sector. However, in conditions of systematic corruption, formal rules are supplanted by informal behavior. Therefore, a strong legal structure for controlling corruption requires not only the existence of formal rules of conduct, but also mechanisms for their implementation. As a rule, such mechanisms are strict accountability, the presence of adequate ethical values, the regulatory function of public morality, the presence of an external audit and objective media, the creation of special anti-corruption organizations.

According to World Bank experts, a wave of corruption sweeps society when both government officials and private entities get the opportunity to enrich themselves without much risk. This is always the case when traditional forms of control loosen before new legal restrictions come into play.

In modern society, corruption has a complex nature and numerous forms of manifestation. The main form of corrupt behavior is an active or passive bribe. An active bribe (active bribery) takes place when a person promises or gives a bribe, thereby showing the initiative, and the recipient of the bribe is only a passive “victim”. Passive bribery ((passive bribery), as a crime, is committed at the initiative of the person receiving the bribe, and with his greater activity, as a rule, expressed in exerting pressure or in forcing the bribe giver to give a bribe. Bribes are often used to buy "services" that are provided by central or local authorities (e.g., bribes may be used to secure government contracts and determine their terms; to receive government subsidies or privatization assistance; to be used to influence the outcome of a court case or other legal process…).

A common form of corruption is the theft of tangible assets by officials. To an extreme degree, it can manifest itself in the course of large-scale "spontaneous" privatization by enterprise managers and other officials.

Theft of financial resources is another form of corruption. It occurs when financial control systems are either engulfed by managers or completely destroyed. At the same time, corrupt officials steal cash, advance payments in their favor, or make fictitious payments to “dead souls”.

In the private sector, corruption most often manifests itself in the form of commercial bribery. These may be cases of such abuses as insider transactions - these are any securities transactions carried out by a person who has access to confidential information and, as a result, receives income from the possession of this information. It is corrupt to sell such information by this employee to a third party who is in a position to use it more profitably and less conspicuously by buying and selling securities.

The possibility of corruption in the private sector also arises in the valuation of goods, services or assets (for example, when a football club buys a player, the manager of the buying club may accept a bribe from the selling club in order to inflate the player's value). Corruption in the private sector most often takes place in monopolistic and poorly informed markets.

The most vulnerable areas of legal regulation are the following: rule-making; service in the state apparatus and local self-government; judicial and law enforcement activities; licensing examination and certification of products and services; entrepreneurship; privatization and denationalization; banking; budget process and lending; issue of securities; government orders and purchases; receiving and rendering humanitarian aid.

This research topic is especially relevant due to the fact that in the Russian Federation there are practically no areas of social life of society that have not been affected by corruption. According to the data provided by VCIOM, the most corrupt areas of Russians include: traffic police - 32%, medicine - 21%, police - 21%, the judiciary - 20%, housing and communal services - 19%. Citizens encounter a corruption-prone environment in the above areas in the course of their direct interaction in everyday life, and the data presented are evidence that citizens quite often have to deal with “everyday” manifestations of corruption.

Considering the dynamics of the most common types of corruption-related crimes (bribery and bribery), we can conclude that since 2011, in the dynamics of the number of detected facts of bribery, there has been a steady trend of a uniform slight decrease. Since the second half of 2015, this trend has reversed - a uniform slight increase. In 2015, 5.2% or 454 facts were revealed in the country, more than in 2014 (6399 facts against 5945).

In the dynamics of the number of revealed facts of giving a bribe, since 2013, there has been a steady upward trend in this indicator, and in 2015 the number of registered facts of giving a bribe (6771) exceeded the number of registered facts of receiving a bribe (6399).

Based on the analysis of the dynamics of the monthly number of revealed facts of bribery in the Russian Federation in 2008-2015. it can be seen that often the maximum values ​​of the number of detected facts of bribery are observed at the end of the quarters - March, June, September.

An analysis of statistical data indicates the established practice of law enforcement agencies to ensure, first of all, “good” performance indicators in the reporting period. Prosecutors regularly encounter situations where detected corruption crimes are not registered in a timely manner if the necessary indicators are available in the reporting period, but are transferred to the next quarter (year).

Partly as a consequence of this approach, there has been a sharp increase in bribe-givers brought to criminal responsibility.

So, the scale of corruption crime makes the issue of improving measures to counteract it especially relevant. The following can be suggested as measures to combat corruption:

• ensuring the transparency of the activities of state and municipal employees by creating the Register of Income, available for public review;
• development of principles of ethical behavior of state and municipal employees and the creation of a system of control over their observance;
• tougher criminal penalties for committing corruption crimes;
• combating money laundering through offshore companies;
• encouragement of persons reporting the fact of a corruption crime and assisting in the fight against crime; it is necessary to consider the possibility of material incentives for complainants of corruption in the amount of a fixed percentage of the amount of the bribe actually recognized by the court;
• protection of persons reporting the fact of a corruption crime; there should be rules on the confidentiality of reports of corruption and the personal data of whistleblowers.

However, at present, the requirements of the UN universal Convention on ensuring the protection of persons reporting information about corruption offenses are not fully taken into account in the legislation of the Russian Federation. The main problems in this matter are as follows:

• limiting the circle of persons to whom protection is granted. Protection is provided only to state and municipal employees.
• limiting the circle of persons obliged to report the fact of a corruption crime.

One of the measures that have been in place since 2008 is the anti-corruption expertise of regulatory legal acts and their drafts. It is intended to become one of the main measures to prevent corruption. The legal and organizational foundations for anti-corruption expertise of regulatory legal acts and draft regulatory legal acts in order to identify corruption factors in them and their subsequent elimination are established by Federal Law No. 172-FZ of July 17, 2009 “On Anti-Corruption Expertise of regulatory legal acts and draft regulatory legal acts” . This law establishes the procedure for conducting anti-corruption expertise.

Anti-corruption expertise is a type of legal expertise that is carried out with a narrow special task of identifying and describing corruption factors related to existing legal acts and their drafts; development of recommendations aimed at eliminating or limiting the effect of such factors. Based on its results, an independent expert opinion is drawn up for the presence of corruption factors.

An analysis of the Russian experience reveals the following pattern: "the fight against corruption is successfully carried out where the government is transparent, where there is political competition and an independent press" .

Translated from Latin corruption ("corruptio") means bribery, bribery and corruption of public and political figures, government officials and officials for the purpose of personal enrichment. Even in Roman law, the term "sogshtrege" was interpreted as "damage, break, destroy, bribe" and meant illegal actions in judicial practice. This term comes from a combination of the Latin words "correi" - several participants in one of the parties of a binding relationship about a single object, and "rumpere" - to break, damage, cancel. As a result of this combination, an independent term was formed, which in Roman law assumed the participation in the activities of several (at least two) persons, the purpose of which was to damage or damage the normal course of the judicial process or the process of managing the affairs of society.

Society's views on corruption in general represent a huge range of opinions. They can vary significantly depending on many factors. There are also different opinions about the meaning, causes and influence of this phenomenon on the socio-economic, cultural, national and other processes in the life of society. The literature on this subject is vast and varied, especially foreign. We emphasize that the study of corruption should be clearly interdisciplinary in nature.

Virtually all studies on corruption and revealing the relationship between it and economic growth result in a disappointing conclusion: the lower the level of corruption, the higher the growth rate of gross domestic product. In addition, economists note the negative impact of corruption on the distribution of income, which ultimately leads to the oppression of the poor in education and health, small and medium-sized businesses, especially in developing countries. But, worst of all, corruption establishes public cynicism as a public fodder for behavior, corrupts the political system, and leads to the political instability of the state.

Political scientists, on the other hand, speak of corruption as different ways of using power and political influence exerted by interested persons, groups, parties, movements on the political processes in the country. For them, the main causes of corruption lie primarily in political structures, where there is a lack of democracy. Recognizing that corruption exists in democratically developed states, they note that here, unlike non-democratic regimes, a system of checks and balances comes into force, which are clearly developed in democratic states. 2

Lawyers view corruption as a deviation from a binding legal norm, arbitrariness in the exercise of powers, and illegal use of public resources. Corruption is most often defined by them as "the act of an official or proxy who unlawfully or improperly uses his position or act to gain profit for himself or another person, acting against the interests and rights of others." Lawyers attribute corruption to the scope of economic, administrative and criminal law and note that corruption has a devastating effect on the rule of law, which, as a result of its action, is replaced by rules dictated by those who, firstly, have influence; secondly, it is able to influence; third, willing to pay.

2 Murdal G. Corruption - Its causes and Effects, in Asian Drama; An Equiry into the Poverty of Nations. - 1968. - Vol.II. - P.951,952; Friedrich C. The Pathology of Politics; Violence, Betrayal, Corruption, Secrecy and Propaganda. - 1972. - p. 127.128. Lawyers divide corruption into petty (grassroots, everyday) and large (elitist). They note that between them there are often relationships of mutual dependence, conditionality and commonality of a centralized, paternalistic, other organizational or socio-psychological nature. Petty corruption daily sucks out the material well-being of people, large-scale corruption swallows up huge pieces of the state and private economy. And both together they mercilessly destroy the legal foundations of society and state power.

Sociologists see in corruption, first of all, a "social attitude", which is expressed in violation of the norms of obligatory behavior and social well-being accepted in society. Corruption is defined by them as "the enslavement of social relations, where two or more persons commit a substitution of relations by successfully transforming money or power, bypassing legal procedures and replacing them with personal relations" 3 , or as a "client-master" relationship. Some researchers define corruption as a form of "patrimonialism", which is clearly manifested in those societies where communities are small and interactive ties are deeply personalized, while the need for the accumulation of "social capital" is great. 4 Many sociologists view corruption in the context of historical, social and cultural factors stemming from conflicts between different groups and different values ​​in society. They state the fact that corruption thrives on conflicting values. five

Public administration specialists define corruption as the misuse of public resources and the use of public structures to achieve private profits contrary to existing norms. 6 Attributing the causes of corruption to insufficient wages for public officials, a monopoly on the provision of public services, great freedom of action, a weak system of financial control, excessive regulation and excess procedures, a lack of internal culture and ethical rules of the civil service, they note, that corruption does not allow rational formation and implementation of public policy. 7

3 Defleur M.Corruption, Law and Justice//Journal of Criminal Justice. - 1995. No. 23.-R. 243.

4 Tanzi V.Corruption, Governmental Activities and Markets. - International Monetary Fund, 1994.

5 Easterly W. & Levine R. Africa's Growth Tragedy: Policies and Ethic Divisions 2. - World Bank Draft Paper, 1996.

6 Gaiden G. & Gaiden N. Administrative Corruption//Public Administration Review. - 1997. -№37.-R. 301, 302.

7 Schaffer B. Access: A theoty of Corruption and Bureaucracy//Administration and Development. - 1986. - No. 6. - P.357.

Entrepreneurs are primarily concerned about the volume and price of transactions, as well as the uncertainty that corruption brings to business relations when concluding transactions, the unpredictability of the results of competition in the context of widespread corruption. In the Rules of Conduct 1977 and 1996. The International Chamber of Commerce, an international non-governmental organization of more than 7,000 companies and business associations in more than 130 countries, has condemned corrupt practices related to international commercial transactions for their negative impact on international trade and competition. In 1995, in accordance with the decisions of the World Economic Forum in Davos (Switzerland), the "Davos Group" was created to work to accelerate the adoption of international standards of business ethics and regulation. Thus, corruption is defined as an indicator of a diseased (dysfunctional) society. In fact, everyone who speaks publicly about corruption condemns this phenomenon, although such a widespread occurrence would not have been possible without the participation of many of them. In the least developed countries, the majority of the population looks at corruption as part of life, the rules of the game, which, due to lack of choice, must accept. Most people view corruption as an additional cost for allowing what can be done and done faster, thus contributing to the development of corruption. Some understand corruption more broadly: as a violation of human rights and, in the most extreme sense, as a "crime against humanity" 8 .

Everyone agrees that corruption can increase the wealth of those engaged in these relationships and almost certainly reduces the income of the state and the welfare of society as a whole.

I. Shikhata uses the word "corruption" in a broad sense, affecting various forms of behavior. This behavior, he notes, usually results from two situations. The first has to do with the distribution of benefits, or even just the granting of permission to distribute, when the temptation to gain personal profit prevails over the obligation to serve other interests, usually the public interest. The second situation is when the application of the rules reveals the possibility of granting special benefits to the detriment of the rules of public importance (public rules), excluding discrimination.

In situations where the rules can be circumvented, or applied without predetermined differentiation, or there is simply no such differentiation, the corrupt agent usually favors special interests over the interests he is required by law to serve. The resources at his disposal or at the disposal of the department he leads are used for other purposes, in a way different from that which was prescribed to him by his principal. Principals change depending on the situation. These can be controllers (supervisors) of the agent, institutions within which the agent works, the owners of the institution or society as a whole. nine

8 Corruption in government. - United Nations 1990. - No. 24.

9 Shikhata I. Legal reform. Theory and Practice: Textbook / Perev. from English. ed. Doctor of Law Doronina N.G. - M.: White Alvy, 1998. - S. 234.

Some economic researchers define corruption as a situation where, in a relationship between two persons (an agent - a corrupt person and a principal), the benefit received by the agent significantly exceeds the actual value (price), or as a situation where public goods, services or a system Services are or are being provided in the public domain for the benefit of a private individual. 10

Others describe corruption in economic terms as a rent that results from the monopoly position of some public officials.

In any case, corruption "provides a market price where the market is not allowed to do so.")

Economists believe that the causes of corruption lie in the economic and administrative structures of the country. They pay attention to its prevalence where state intervention is most strong and where discretionary rights in the distribution of public goods and services, or subsidies, are large, the risk of punishment is low, and payment for deal is attractive enough.

The broader view also takes into account public policy (eg civil service wage levels or import tariffs) and even the honesty and integrity of public officials and private individuals. However, if these factors are considered constant, then it is possible to determine the likelihood and extent of corruption by comparing the levels of income received, the riskiness of corrupt transactions and consumer demand (bargaining power) in the relationship between the source and the beneficiary. Economists also talk about the impact of corruption on the development of the economy. They regard a bribe, when it is freely offered and accepted, as serving the direct interest of the parties. In the public interest, some authors see corruption as an important source of capital formation that can maintain market flexibility and efficiency and promote entrepreneurship. Others, based on the results of questionnaires and interviews with businessmen, believe that political mistrust (lack of faith in the stability of the government's course) is much more harmful than corruption, which they see "more as a variable cost than as an Uncertainty Factor" that divide corruption into different forms and suggest that some forms, while widespread, may not hurt the entire economy too much.

In this sense, corruption is not limited to the public sector, but within this sector - to the administrative bureaucracy. It is not limited to giving and receiving bribes. Corruption takes many forms and exists in all forms of government, including well-developed democracies. It can be found in the legislative, judicial and executive branches of government, as in all forms of private sector activity. It is not only related to ethnic, racial or religious affiliation. However, the level, scope and impact of it vary greatly between countries and may change, at least temporarily, within a country. Corruption in one form or another can exist in any community, the level and scope of its application is greatly influenced by the management system. Systems can corrupt people just as much, if not more, than people can corrupt systems.

10 Klitgard R. Controlling Corruption. 1988. - P.22; Schlieffer A.R., Vishny R.W. Corruption//Quartely Journal of Economics. - 1993. - No. 108. - R. 599.

Some cultures seem more tolerant than others when it comes to certain forms of corruption, especially favoritism and petty bribes. In some communities, favoritism is so ingrained in the human mind that those who, in the performance of their public duties, refuse protection from their friends and relatives are condemned as unresponsive or unkind people. In many countries, petty bribes are seen as a charity, an incentive or expression of gratitude, or as an acceptable substitute for the low pay of public officials, rather than extortion, as in other countries. Such cultural peculiarities, although they exist, should not be taken as an excuse for what in principle are called corrupt practices.

Once corruption finds its way into one place or sector, it spreads like a virus to other areas and sectors. It is not stopped by political boundaries and develops much faster in an environment that is over- or under-regulated. Corrupt and corrupt individuals have a legitimate interest in spreading the notion that corruption is dominant and pervasive. Thanks to them, corruption becomes a natural phenomenon. Entrepreneurial activity of foreigners, especially in developing countries, often contributes to the spread of corruption, assuming that payments and connections are the inevitable companions of trade (this often turns against the businessmen themselves). If left unchecked, corruption will eventually lead to a distortion of the values ​​of society, except for those few who can protect themselves with strong moral principles, often based on strict religious and ethical concepts. Corruption affects society and individuals as destructively as it is allowed to go. Any short-term benefits it may bring (easing the regulation of an over-regulated economy, or "greasing the wheels" in business transactions) will most likely be offset by the overall damage done by corruption in pumping funds into its own pocket. Even at the transaction level, corruption often increases the inefficiency of government projects and can drive up the cost of both public and private supplies. Quite often, large illegal payments, instead of being invested in the country, are transferred abroad or invested in other illegal businesses. Corruption can also increase a country's public debt as a result of increased spending on externally financed contracts won in bidding as a result of corrupt or fraudulent activities.

Thus, in modern scientific economic and legal literature there are many different definitions of corruption. If we try to generalize a little the definition of corruption, which is used by foreign and domestic sources, then corruption can be reduced to the following definitions:

- "criminal activity in the sphere of politics or public administration, which consists in the use by officials of the rights and power opportunities entrusted to them for personal enrichment. Corruption is not an independent crime, but a collective concept that covers a number of official crimes ( such as bribery, abuse of office)"; eleven

- "bribery, venality of public and political figures, employees of government bodies.

11 Big Law Dictionary / Ed. AND I. Sukharev, V.D. Zorkina, V.E. Krutskikh. - M.: INFRA-M, 1997. - S. 320.

Corruption means abuse of official position, direct use by an official of rights and powers for the purpose of personal enrichment" 12 ;

- "corruption includes the abuse of power (powers) or position of power (a position endowed with powers) for the sake of pursuing one's personal goals" 13 .

In the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated July 2, 1998 "On the fight against corruption", corruption is understood as "acceptance, personally or through intermediaries, of property benefits and advantages by persons performing state functions, as well as persons equated to them, using their official powers and related opportunities, as well as bribery of these persons by illegally providing them with the specified benefits and advantages by individuals and legal entities. 14 At the same time, Kazakh experts note that Kazakhstan's legislation interprets the concept of "corruption" somewhat differently than the international one. The subjects and objects of corruption crimes in the international sense are considered much more broadly, they say.

The United Nations reference document on the international fight against corruption defines corruption as "the abuse of public power for personal gain". The working definition of the interdisciplinary group on corruption of the Council of Europe is much broader. Corruption is bribery and any other behavior of persons who are entrusted with the performance of certain duties in the public or private sector, and which leads to a violation of the duties assigned to them by the status of a public official, private employee, independent agent, or other kind of relationship and is intended to obtain any illegal benefits for themselves and others.

The report prepared by the Council for Foreign and Defense Policy and the Regional Public Fund "Indem" (Russia) states that "corruption (in the narrow sense of the word) is understood as a situation where an official makes an illegal decision (sometimes a decision is morally wrong). - acceptable to public opinion), from which some other party benefits (for example, a company that secures a state order against the established procedure thanks to this decision), and the official himself receives illegal remuneration from this party. : a decision is made that violates the law or unwritten social norms, both parties act by mutual agreement; both parties receive illegal benefits and advantages, both parties try to hide their actions.

Russia, unlike other CIS countries, is only now, but very carefully and slowly developing a bill "On Combating Corruption", which provides for a number of tough measures aimed at effectively combating corruption in state and other structures. The main concepts used in the draft law include generally recognized international characteristics. When developing it, such well-known conventions of the Council of Europe as "On criminal liability", "On civil liability for corruption", "On the organization of economic cooperation and development", "On bribery of foreign officials" were used. when concluding commercial transactions.

12 Pavlenok P.D. Brief Dictionary of Sociology. - M.: INFRA-M, 2000. - S. 81.

13 J.S. Nye. Corruption and Political Development; A Cost-Benefit Analysis//American Political Science Review. - 61. - P.P. 417, 419.

14 Regulations. Decree of the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On measures to improve the system of combating crime and corruption". Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On the fight against corruption". - Almaty: LLP "Ayan Edet", 2000. - P.19.

The most important thing in the bill is the definition of "corruption". In this case, corruption is not identified only with giving and receiving bribes (unlike the previous definitions or the definition of corruption in Kazakhstan's Anti-Corruption Law). In the new Russian project, corruption is also understood as "the search, establishment and maintenance of corrupt relations between legal entities and individuals in order to achieve personal or collective goals." 15

It seems to us that such a broad concept of "corruption" is a very important and valuable addition, since it implies a wider use of the anti-corruption legislative framework. In addition, according to the logic of things, if corruption is understood only as giving and receiving a bribe, then the fight comes down to only one-time actions. If we understand corruption as a system of actions: searching for, establishing and maintaining corrupt relations, then we are talking about the fight against the corruption system itself, which itself reproduces corruption.

For the first time in Russian legislative practice, individuals and organizations, regardless of their form of ownership, are given the opportunity to claim compensation for losses caused by corrupt practices. Thus, the problem is transferred from a purely criminal and administrative field to an economic one.

As you can see, there is a significant variety of points of view on the definition of corruption, which indicates the complexity of this phenomenon. Therefore, we refer to the definition of corruption adopted in the documents of the UN and the Council of Europe: corruption is "the abuse of state power for personal gain, for the benefit of third parties or groups" 16 . At the same time, corruption cannot be reduced only to giving and receiving a bribe, although US experts estimate the volume of international bribery in 1998 at 30 billion dollars (and this is only for 60 major international transactions that they analyzed).

Corruption can take various veiled forms of misappropriation of public funds for private use, such as lobbying, favoritism, protectionism, nepotism, political contributions, traditions of political leaders and government officials being promoted to honorary presidents of corporations and private firms. , investment of commercial structures at the expense of the state budget, transfer of state property to joint-stock companies, use of connections of criminal gangs, etc.

Thus, corruption, in our opinion, as a socio-economic category expresses the search, establishment and maintenance of corrupt relations that develop between officials and individuals and legal entities regarding the use of the possibilities of their position in order to obtain personal benefit to the detriment of a third party (society, state, company).

15 Gordievsky A. One law is not enough here! /assandi-times. - 2002. - No. 8 dated 06.12

16 Luneev V.V. Corruption: political, economic, organizational and legal problems // State and law. - 2000. - No. 4. - S. 101.

Balandyuk Vadim

This paper raises the problem of corruption in modern society.

Download:

Preview:

10 A class MBOU secondary school No. 1, Mineralnye Vody

Scientific adviser: teacher of history and social studies, Kobzareva E.A.

CORRUPTION AS A GLOBAL PROBLEM OF THE MODERN WORLD AND OUR STATE IN PARTICULAR.

(On the topic: "Corruption - an economic problem or moral

degradation?")

I . Corruption as a social phenomenon. factors influencing it.

Corruption and bribery are among the most acute problems of modern society. Bribes are a widespread phenomenon. Corruption has a very big impact on the life of society. Moreover, it can be found not in any particular region or even state. Corruption and bribes accompany human society everywhere. By their actions, corrupt officials put spokes into the wheels of the economy of almost any state or a single region. They undermine the economy, do not allow it to develop properly, launching with one of their actions (or, perhaps, inaction) many chain reactions that cover the entire social life in all its manifestations. Often this is not immediately noticeable, but, in the end, the results of such illegal actions, sometimes expressed in trifles of little importance for the state or world economy, make themselves felt. Currently, bribes, as one of the manifestations of corruption, are becoming more and more commonplace, despite the fact that the fight against them is getting tougher. This makes us think about whether it is possible to defeat corruption at all, or whether it will continue to develop and evolve, ignoring all attempts to stop it, and with its harmful influence, in the end, will destroy all those material and spiritual and moral ideals that human society strives for. ?

Actually, it is worth thinking about what corruption is in general and how it is fought, for example, in our state.

Corruption is a term that usually denotes the use by an official of his powers and rights entrusted to him, as well as the authority, opportunities, connections associated with this official status for personal gain, contrary to law and moral principles. Corruption is also called bribery of officials, their venality. Simply put, corruption is a situation where some authorized person uses the official rights given to him for illegal purposes. A bribe is a special case of corruption. And almost the most common.

To understand how the fight against corruption takes place, let's turn to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In general, bribery refers to crimes against state power, the interests of public service and service in local governments (Chapter 30 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Under article 291 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, giving a bribe to an official is punishable by a fine, forced labor or imprisonment. Moreover, a separate paragraph highlights the giving of a bribe for the commission of illegal actions (inaction). The size of the bribe also plays an important role, which determines the size of the fine or the term of imprisonment. Taking a bribe by an official is also punishable by law. Punishment is determined by Article 290 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. This, as in the case of giving a bribe, can be a fine, forced labor or imprisonment. However, the punishment for taking a bribe is also accompanied by deprivation of the right to hold certain positions for a certain period. If the process of giving/receiving a bribe goes through an intermediary, then this intermediary is also subject to punishment under Article 291.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The types of punishment are the same as those of the bribe taker: deprivation of the right to hold certain positions, a fine, forced labor or imprisonment.

I believe that in order to better understand the essence of corruption and develop ways to successfully combat it, it is necessary, first of all, to consider its causes, the impact of this social phenomenon on the development of society and the economy. And, first of all, we need to realize that corruption is a global phenomenon, not just because it manifests itself in many countries and regions, but also because it manifests itself throughout the history of mankind, at its different stages.

It seems to me that a variety of factors have influenced the emergence of corruption and bribery. It is impossible to establish exactly when corruption appeared. But I believe that corruption is a phenomenon that originated along with the stratification of society, dividing it into different classes and strata, based precisely on different material conditions and different status in society. After all, corruption is based, first of all, on the desire and ability of people to use dishonest ways to achieve their goals. In particular, through the illegal use of their official powers, social status or bribes. After all, a bribe can be given not only directly with money, but also with any material values, real estate, securities, etc.

If you think about it, then at that stage in the development of mankind, at which there were no commodity-money relations and even exchange in kind, when there was no personal property, and everything belonged to the community, when everyone was equal to each other, corruption simply could not exist. Everyone had equal opportunities, rights and obligations. Everyone got an equal amount of food and clothing, everyone had housing, that is, everyone was in an equal position. Therefore, no one could take advantage of anything that everyone else could not take advantage of, and no one had greater opportunities than others.

However, the situation begins to change when trade relations and the resulting stratification of society gradually emerge. No less important role is played by the then religious views of people. These factors lead to the fact that a certain “top” of people stands out in the community: tribal leaders, priests, wealthy farmers and cattle breeders. And all this “top” already has more material wealth, rights and opportunities to use their position, has more influence and more power. And if someone gets something that others do not have, then what will he start looking for next? That's right, profit. And the benefit is not for society, but for personal gain. A person will look for ways and means of using the advantages received for his own benefit and personal material respect, and also, possibly, to further raise his social status. This is the moral side of the emergence of corruption. That a person acts against society for his own good. The same people, whose position was lower, by no means had less needs. And so they looked for ways to satisfy them. And they had to satisfy their needs with the help of those who hadthere were more opportunities. Of course, the “top” helped ordinary people not just like that, but for some kind of “reward”. Gradually, this system took root more and more. According to a similar scheme, it worked both in the era of the Ancient World and in the era of the Middle Ages (when the church, which had enormous wealth and influence, could be the most corrupt body). If we consider our state, references to bribes (promises) can already be found in the Novgorod Judicial Charter and in the Sudebnik of 1497. Of course, this system could develop for a very, very long time, many factors could influence its formation. But still, I believe that the main root of corruption lies in the division of society, the predominance of some people over others (both material and legal) and the use of this predominance.

The longer corruption developed and took root, the more space it occupied in public life. It captured not only any particular sphere of society. Corruption is most common in the economic and political spheres, but it has not bypassed the spiritual sphere, and, of course, has a huge impact on the social one. And at the same time, corruption can be observed in various areas of human activity, in various professions (Fig. 1,2).

But, it is worth noting that corruption has received the greatest distribution at state enterprises, in state bodies and services. That is, where the source of income of employees is the state budget. In private enterprises, employees have much less reason to take bribes. If the owners of private enterprises want to make more profit, they can simply raise the prices of their services. In state-owned enterprises, the wages of employees are set by the state. Only the state can raise the level of income of civil servants. Yet their needs remain unsatisfied. Therefore, in order to increase their income, these employees resort to the simplest and most accessible way for them: they use their powers and the right to make various decisions to increase their material well-being. Again, the human factor affects: people are looking for ways to meet their needs bypassing accepted social and moral norms, and, most importantly, legal norms. To get a clearer idea of ​​how these mechanisms work, let's look at two enterprises: a public hospital and a private one. As you know, in private hospitals, the vast majority of services are paid, while in state hospitals they are free of charge under paragraph 1 of Article 41 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Therefore, there is no problem for a private hospital to increase its income. In such a hospital, you can increase the cost of services or improve the quality of service to attract more visitors. Thus, the earnings of both the owner and employees increase. In a public hospital, workers cannot increase their income in this way. Therefore, if they want to get more profit at the same workplace, then the easiest way to achieve this goal will be bribes and requisitions. A striking example is the criminal case brought against a Permian doctor who was accused of illegally issuing certificates to conscripts and bribery. On the face of the fact of corruption. And this doesn't just happen in hospitals. Educational institutions, and bodies serving municipal and state property, and many other services working in the public arena are no exception.

Separately, it is worth mentioning the bureaucracy, representatives of state power and local self-government. Indeed, in our state the administrative power of officials is very great. Despite the dominance of a market economy, the predominance of private property and the personal initiative of citizens in any undertakings not prohibited by law, the state still plays an important regulatory role in the economic life of society. Perhaps even too important. So, to start any business, to create any, even a small enterprise, to conclude any transactions, it is necessary to obtain various assurances, permissions and signatures from various state authorities. On the one hand, this contributes to the improvement of state control over economic processes, eliminates violations of various norms, helps to monitor the legality of the actions of various individuals and legal entities, thereby reducing the number of violations and the level of crime. But such ubiquitous state control has detrimental consequences, leading directly to a steady rise in corruption. Namely, the emergence of a large number of various state institutions, the swelling of the bureaucracy, excessive bureaucratization. It is the unjustified bureaucracy that I consider the foundation of corruption in the bureaucracy. For the development of personal initiative, it is necessary to have state permission, which consists of many different papers and signatures. However, not all enterprising citizens have the desire and opportunity to collect them, especially when some corrupt officials consciously and purposefully prevent this. And here again, the moral side of corruption is manifested, which does not leave it for a minute. Sergey Zhavoronkov, a senior expert at the Institute for the Economy in Transition, noted this: “In the 1990s, entrepreneurs paid officials to get privileges. And now they pay to not be touched. Pay - or we will imprison you or create unbearable conditions for doing business. It turns out that often, especially in economic activity, one may encounter the fact that some unscrupulous officials not only extort bribes, but literally force them to resort to these bribes by violent means. And sometimes it is difficult to bring some high-ranking officials to justice. For example, in 2001, in connection with the criminal case against Nikolai Aksenenko, the former Minister of Railways, Anatoly Chubais said that the government must treat members of the government much more carefully.. What kind of universal equality before the law can we talk about then? The imperfections of the legislative system in the field of corruption and the use of official position are clearly visible. And here it is on the face of moral degradation. Some people put their personal selfish interests above the rights, freedoms and interests of other people. And at the same time they don’t think about anything, they don’t take into account anything other than their own goals. Such people corrupt society, acting on the principle: “Everyone must help himself. If you don't help yourself, who will? And the personal goals set before oneself justify any means, even those used to the detriment of other people and the whole society.

Here it is worth thinking about why exactly people resort to bribes. After all, it is obvious to everyone that corruption destroys society, hinders the economic development of the state, undermines the foundations of democracy, destroys the foundation of a legal and social state. And, despite such obvious catastrophic consequences of the development of corruption, its level is constantly growing (Fig. 3).

Why is corruption on the rise? Yes, at the expense of the same people who so zealously protest against it. The situation turns out to be extremely paradoxical, but nevertheless remains real. Indeed, people constantly complain about the arbitrariness of various officials, complain that a step cannot be taken without giving a bribe to some regular corrupt element. Moreover, people complain until they themselves find themselves in a situation where a bribe becomes the shortest way to achieve their goal. And then the former fighters for justice themselves resort to bribes, they themselves give impetus to corruption and arbitrariness, which so prevented them from living. At first glance, it is not clear how a person can so easily take and leave the rules and principles that he previously adhered to and go over, so to speak, to the dark side. In fact, everything is very simple. What is the fastest way to get the required signature or permission? Bribe. How to get the required place in an educational institution? Bribe. How to get the best medical care or quickly get the necessary certificate at the hospital? Again, by bribery. It is very sad that many people instead of legal ways to achieve their goals choose a shorter, faster and easier way of corruption. At the same time, people are generally unaware of the consequences of their actions. But the consequences are terrible. Each, even the smallest, act of corruption directly contributes not only to the practical strengthening of the corruption system, but also to its rooting in the minds of people. Bribes are presented to people not just as a more accessible means of solving problems, but as the main, the only possible one.

However, cases are not uncommon, of course, when unscrupulous officials, doctors, law enforcement officers, directors of various institutions themselves extort bribes from people. And then these people have two ways: either give up their desires and goals, or follow the lead of corrupt officials. It turns out that corrupt officials who want to illegally enrich themselves at the expense of their official position and their capabilities simply confuse people. Of course, there are special instances to which you can complain about unscrupulous officials, special bodies that directly fight against corruption. But sometimes such instances themselves are under the power of corruption. This is another paradoxical situation that crushes the position of society in the fight against corruption. Of course, such isolated cases affect the general opinion of people about certain public services. People feel unprotected and often do not even try to resist the corrupt arbitrariness of officials. To find out the position of people on the issue of extorting bribes, I conducted a sociological study in the form of a survey: “If you were extorted a bribe, would you pay to achieve your goals?” The results are presented in the table:

Thus, we see that only half of the respondents are ready to take up the fight against corruption. And at the same time, only a third of them are ready to resort to the help of state institutions and services. Approximately a quarter of respondents are ready to take, so to speak, a passive position in the fight against corruption and simply do not give bribes without resorting to complaints. The other half is ready to follow the lead of corrupt officials. A third of the respondents can accept a bribe only when they have exhausted all other available ways to achieve their goals or they are forced to do so. The remaining fifth is ready to take a bribe without unnecessary hesitation, apparently without thinking about the consequences of their actions.

According to statistics, our state is one of the most corrupt in the world (Figure 4: from dark blue to black there is an increase in the corruption perception index).

Therefore, in our state there is an ongoing active fight against corruption, sanctions for bribery are constantly tightened. However, the fight against corruption is not limited to the adoption of relevant laws. These laws are strictly enforced. Regular anti-corruption raids and purges are carried out, in 2008 the Council under the President of the Russian Federation for Combating Corruption was established. In total, by the beginning of 2013, about 800 high-ranking officials and heads of regions were dismissed for corruption. But does it really work as effectively as it should? Does this not lead to a temporary lull before a new, perhaps even more powerful wave of corrupt practices?

II . My views on ways to overcome corruption.

As already mentioned, corruption is one of the most acute problems of the whole world and our state in particular. Statistics show that for the period from 1996 to 2011, the corruption perception index in our country was constantly at a fairly high level, despite the fact that it periodically decreased for some time, and then rose again (Fig. 5).

Therefore, one cannot only hope that the problem will be gradually resolved if only those methods of combating it that are already being used now are used, that is, relying on anti-corruption laws and periodically checking various institutions for corruption. In 2007, the chairman of the Russian National Anti-Corruption Committee, Kirill Kabanov, stated that there was no fight against corruption in Russia at all: the arrests of mid-level officials did not violate the bribery system, and no anti-corruption policy had been developed. It is impossible that only the state and its separate bodies are engaged in the fight against corruption. Corruption is a very insidious phenomenon. And you can't fight it only directly, you can't go, so to speak, to the ram. Such methods cannot defeat such a powerful, rooted system. And in order to have at least some chances, it is necessary not only to stop each specific fact of corruption. You can’t just take and catch all the bribe-takers, for example. New ones will take their place. Corruption must be rooted out. It is necessary to completely remove from the minds of people the possibility of achieving their goals through, for example, bribes or connections. But is it possible to do this? It seems to me that no. Because, as has been noted more than once, corruption is not only a material and economic phenomenon, but also a moral one. And, perhaps, the moral side prevails. Because corruption is, first of all, the desire and decision of a person to get what he wants, to give or receive a bribe, to misuse the available official powers.

And what do we end up with? Corruption stems primarily from the unmet needs of people. And, therefore, in order to eliminate it, it is necessary to ensure that all the needs of each person are satisfied, or that each person has the opportunity to satisfy all his needs, using exclusively legal methods. Then people will not have a desire to look for other ways to achieve their goals. There will be no more bribes, because all people will be financially secure. They simply will not need to take these bribes. You can dream about it for a long time. But these ideas are utopian. They cannot be carried out even if only because the needs of people are unlimited, endless. The more needs a person satisfies, the more new ones he has. And, as a rule, the costs of meeting these needs also grow. Therefore, the decisive role in the rooting of corruption is played by the human factor, human greed, selfishness, boundlessness of needs, the constant desire to take more and more, without thinking about the consequences.

After all that has been said, one can take a sensible look at the situation and conclude that completely defeating corruption, uprooting it, as they say, from the root is the same utopian idea as, for example, the absolute equality of all people among themselves. But not everything is as sad as it might seem. Although it is impossible to defeat corruption completely, but it is possible to reduce its level, try to minimize it. There are many ways to achieve this goal. And I would like to consider several directions, following which, it is possible to achieve a reduction in the level of corruption. They do not have clear demarcations, therefore they can and even should be intertwined and mutually complement each other.

I consider the first and main direction in the fight against corruption to be the improvement of interaction between society and the state. In our state, the real picture is that the civil society is rather poorly developed. Therefore, the fight against corruption is carried out only in the direction "from above", that is, in fact, only the state is fighting against it. Therefore, it is simply necessary to have a developed civil society in the country. People should have a real opportunity to protect their interests, while relying on the law. And the state should contribute to this in every possible way. I think that the interaction of society and the state is the fundamental principle in the fight against corruption. It is not for nothing that corruption itself hinders the formation of a developed civil society, the creation of public associations, permitted by Article 30 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The existing bureaucratic system also plays a significant role, significantly complicating the creation of unions of citizens to protect common interests. However, in general, people themselves are afraid to resist this system because of the huge scale of its influence. The human factor is involved. That is, in this case, you need to try to morally influence people in order to encourage them to take action, to raise them to protect their own interests.

From this follow the second direction of the fight against corruption - moral. After all, as has been noted more than once, corruption is as much a moral phenomenon as it is an economic one. Therefore, for a successful fight against corruption, it is necessary to influence both components. First, it is necessary that people trust the state. It is necessary that society and the state be open to each other. People should not think that all instances and state bodies have already been bought and should not be afraid to defend their rights by all legal methods: various complaints, petitions, strikes, and so on. Secondly, all people should be aware of the catastrophic consequences of corrupt practices, which are already beginning to manifest themselves in our time. It is necessary to show people, using accessible examples and real events, what can become of the state and what life can become in the near future if the destructive tornado of corruption is not calmed down. Thirdly, people not only have to report corrupt practices to the state. They themselves should not generate them. That is, to put it simply, if every person is obliged to understand that giving or taking bribes is bad and even dangerous, and that one cannot sacrifice public interests for the sake of one's own in one's activities. And when everyone realizes that sooner or later the consequences of his criminal actions will definitely affect him, then the corruption system will weaken very, very much and become quite vulnerable. But in order to achieve results of this magnitude, appropriate conditions are also necessary.

I think it would be a good idea to make sure that state-owned enterprises operate on a competitive basis, just like private ones. Then the wages of workers would directly depend on the quality of their work. However, this requires the creation of several instances to which people could apply at will to receive any service. This would serve as a catalyst for additional expansion of the same bureaucratic apparatus and strengthening of bureaucratization, which, in turn, only contributes to the rooting of corruption (Fig. 6: growth in the number of officials in the period from 1994 to 2010). Actually, I have already mentioned the pernicious influence of the bureaucracy and the growing number of officials. The state also does not ignore this. So, on October 13, 2013, Dmitry Medvedev instructed several departments to develop a plan to reduce the number of federal employees in the regions for 2014-2015. After all, it is obvious that the growing number of officials performing essentially the same functions, and the ubiquitous bureaucracy greatly hinder the development of any activity and greatly reduce the initiative of public figures. That is, they, in general, suppress the growing resistance in society to corruption and the arbitrariness of officials and hinder the development of a developed civil society in our state.

Thus, it becomes clear that corruption is a very complex phenomenon, generated by the confluence of many factors. However, I consider the main base, the foundation of this phenomenon, to be the confluence of the shortcomings of the existing economic system and human vices, such as greed, selfishness, unwillingness to make efforts in order to achieve something. That is, in fact, corruption is the result of a clash between the dark sides of the state economy and human morality. In practice, it is a powerful brake on the progressive development of society and all its components, accompanying mankind throughout the history of its development. Therefore, it is necessary to fight it. But, as already mentioned, corruption is a human vice, and as long as human society exists, it will continue to exist in the same way. But, despite the fact that it is almost impossible to completely eradicate corruption, it is possible and even necessary to try to reduce its level to a minimum, which is what modern society and modern states are doing. Therefore, corruption is one of the most acute global problems of the modern world, the solution of which has yet to be found.

Literature:

1 – Internet Encyclopedia Wikipedia );

2 – Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Criminal Code of the Russian Federation);

3 – The Constitution of the Russian Federation;

4 – Website of Doctor of Economic Sciences Mikhail Delyagin; (http://delyagin.ru/citation/19837.html)

5 – RIA-Novosti Agency

(5.1 -http://ria.ru/incidents/20131007/968344858.html;

5.2 -http://ria.ru/society/20131013/969615905.html);

6 – Vesti Nedeli Agency (http://www.vesti7.ru/news?id=196#)

strong motivation of officials, active anti-corruption policy of the center. It can be extremely useful to borrow legal mechanisms and institutions worked out abroad that make the work of state bodies open and controlled by society, preventing bureaucratic arbitrariness, violation of civil rights and freedoms.

If there is no such real fight against corruption, then bribery will finally break the back of the Russian economy, even without another collapse in oil prices. It is this dilemma that faces both the authorities and society today.

“Is it possible to use foreign experience in the fight against corruption in Russia”, St. Petersburg, 2010, p. 7-20.

Svetlana Glinkina,

Doctor of Economics (IE RAS) CORRUPTION IN THE MODERN WORLD

By the beginning of the third millennium, mankind has entered that phase of development when the world becomes one not only from a philosophical point of view, but also in reality. The new situation is the result, first of all, of actively developing economic globalization, leading to the formation of an interdependent world market. Economic globalization, in turn, determines political integration processes. The role of political, military and cultural interaction between countries is growing, as is the importance of international organizations called upon to become, within certain limits, supranational governing bodies in the modern world. An important prerequisite for the process of globalization is the existence of global problems (environmental crisis, poverty, inter-confessional and inter-ethnic conflicts, terrorism, etc.), which cannot be overcome solely within national borders. The existence of large-scale corruption within and outside of nation-states can rightly be attributed to the number of such problems.

Corruption as an international phenomenon

Since nation-states do not exist in a vacuum, but are included in the global world system of economic and socio-political relations, we can say that any kind of corruption, including the so-called "internal" or "national", has an international character, after all, any harm to an element of the system leads to a weakening of the entire system. Analyzing the impact of corruption on the global financial crisis (we are talking about the Asian financial crisis of 1998), former US Vice President A. Gore noted, "no country is able to isolate itself from the impact of corruption that takes place outside its borders." The processes of globalization, the development of external relations, the formation of international political and economic institutions gave birth to new varieties of corruption - its transnational and international forms.

As a rule, transnational corruption is associated with the economic activities of economic entities in a foreign state. It "manifests itself in the form of bribing foreign officials in order to obtain an economic entity the opportunity to conduct or continue economic activity in any country, or to obtain an inappropriate advantage." Of particular danger is corruption in the activities of transnational corporations (TNCs), which are the dominant economic force in the modern world. According to the UN, there are approximately 80,000 transnational corporations that control over 800,000 foreign affiliates.

The power of many TNCs is comparable to medium-sized states. For example, the revenue of Exxon Mobile Corp. in 2006 exceeded the GDP of such countries as Sweden, Ukraine, Austria, Finland or the United Arab Emirates. This situation significantly limits the ability of national states to control the activities of TNCs both within the country and, to an even greater extent, outside it. The dominant position of TNCs multiplies their corruption potential many times over, and as a result, unfair competition often dominates the world markets, and the efficiency of projects and investments decreases.

The development of the international system, the growth in importance and the expansion of the range of tasks facing it have necessitated

creation of a large-scale system of international bodies and organizations. Their functions are actively developing, their activities cover ever wider spheres of life of the world community: maintaining peace and security, protecting human rights, regulating the production and distribution of material goods, healthcare, protecting the environment, combating organized crime, etc. etc. The regulatory role of international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank is especially great. The reverse side of the strengthening of the role of international organizations is the phenomenon of international corruption, which, as a rule, comes down to bribing officials of international organizations or to abuse by these persons of their powers for personal or group interests.

A number of researchers single out such a variety of international corruption as bribery by some states of others (international political corruption). So, according to O.N. Vedernikova, “a manifestation of international corruption is the fact of bribery by NATO countries of the government of Yugoslavia, committed in the form of a promise of multimillion-dollar financial support, subject to the extradition of the President of the FRY S. Milosevic. It is obvious that international corruption gives rise to corruption wars, corruption of governments, unjust judicial decisions. In the context of the impoverishment of the "Third World" countries, the low efficiency of governance institutions in countries with economies in transition, the industrialized countries of the "First World" get the opportunity to overthrow objectionable governments with the help of corruption, establish loyal regimes, and feed opposition to the current authorities.

Foreign researchers note that the negative consequences of political corruption are not limited to damage to domestic interests, but can be of serious international significance. For example, it is argued that the US administration's decision to start military operations against Iraq was dictated by the personal financial interests of US President George W. Bush, as well as the interests of influential representatives of the oil business with whom he has been associated for many years. The American political commentator T. Wright, in an article entitled "The Pornography of Power", argues that the war declared on Iraq is "corruption" because its true motive is to obtain

access to Iraqi oil, and the slogan of the Bush family for generations has been "Oil is always thicker than blood", which justifies any abuse for profit.

The scale of international corruption

International corruption is characterized by the highest latency. Zealously concerned with their reputation, international organizations strive by all available means to prevent facts of corruption, and in the event of such, they do everything possible to prevent the leakage of information compromising them. In most cases, the case is limited to internal investigations. The general public only hears about egregious corruption scandals. Among the most famous among them is the scandal that erupted around the UN oil-for-food program. The program was approved in accordance with a UN Security Council resolution and allowed Iraq under S. Hussein to sell oil on the world market in exchange for food, medicine and other goods needed by the population of Iraq. The survival of 60% of the country's 26 million people directly depended on the food received under this plan.

The first food deliveries began in March 1997. The program worked according to the following scheme: funds for oil exported from Iraq were transferred by the buyer not to the Iraqi government, but to a deposit account managed by the New York branch of BNP Paribas. These funds were partly used to pay war reparations to Kuwait, partly spent on organizing UN activities in Iraq. The rest, most of the proceeds, were used by the Iraqi government to purchase certain goods that were not subject to the international embargo. Throughout the years of the program, allegations of corruption appeared against the participating parties in the media, and facts of numerous abuses were cited. In particular, it was pointed out that most of the program's income goes to the accounts of "friendly" companies and individuals, members of the Iraqi government and UN officials. The direct involvement of senior UN officials in the scandal came to light in February 2004, after documents from the Iraqi Ministries

The name of the executive director of the program, B. Sevan, began to appear in the oil industry.

According to the report of Volker's special independent commission, B. Sevan received cash bribes in the amount of about $150,000. In 2005, at the request of the commission, he was stripped of his immunity status and removed from his post at the UN in connection with the start of an investigation into revealed facts of fraud. The continuation of this story was very unexpected. It turned out that the UN, according to the decision of the Administrative Tribunal of this organization, is obliged to pay "all reasonable costs" incurred by B. Sevan before February 3, 2005, which was confirmed by representatives of the UN press service. Thus, the UN is actually forced to fine itself for the investigation initiated by it, and the amount of the fine is much higher than the amount of the theft charged against B. Sevan. The exact amount of compensation will be determined after an independent verification of the invoices issued to B. Sevan by his lawyers. The initial claim by the plaintiffs, the program administrator himself and his law firm, is $880,300.98, plus late payment interest. Meanwhile, the American authorities are unlikely to be able to arrest and try B. Sevan. Back in August 2005, a few days before the publication of the Volcker report, he left the United States and returned to his native Cyprus. And according to Cypriot law, the government of this country does not extradite its citizens to other states for crimes committed abroad.

After the emergence of Ban Ki-moon as UN Secretary General, the organization continues to be the target of harsh attacks. The results of the internal reform of the UN are criticized, in particular, the creation of a new control unit instead of the previous one, on account of which more than 300 investigations, the identification of about 20 cases of dishonest behavior of UN employees and the imposition of a ban on engaging more than 50 commercial organizations as contractors. According to a number of observers, with the next reform of the internal structure of the UN, its “more than tepid approach to rooting out internal corruption” remains in force and, in general, the principle of “institutional hypocrisy” prevails: “If information leaks are in our interests, we are for them, and if No, we are against it.

On March 15, 1999, after a corruption scandal, for the first time in the history of the European Union, the collective resignation of the European Commission took place, headed by its leader J. Santer, a former

prime minister of Luxembourg. The resignation was preceded by numerous publications in the media, accusing individual European commissioners of favoritism, using their official position for personal gain. Back in December 1998, Paul van Buitenen from the Financial Control Department of the European Commission submitted a dossier to the European Parliament, which documented the facts of dishonest behavior of individual members of the commission. As a result, the latter's annual financial report was not approved for the first time in the organization's history. The European Parliament has formed a group of "five wise men" (three auditors and two lawyers) to investigate the situation. The three-month investigation aimed to establish to what extent the European Commission as an organization or its members are responsible for the facts of fraud, malfeasance or nepotism, which were reported during the debates in the European Parliament. The results of the investigation were presented in a lengthy report. The facts of hiring relatives and acquaintances, concluding contracts with "friendly" companies, lobbying the economic interests of certain groups turned out to be proven. J. Santer, as the head of the European Commission, was accused of dishonest performance of his official duties, the creation of a "state within a state", the transfer of a number of functions of the Commission to third parties without ensuring proper control over their activities.

The subsequent leaders of the European Commission assured the public of their desire to rectify the internal situation in the apparatus of the European Union, however, according to a number of experts, in particular member of the European Parliament Paul van Buitenen, the fight against corruption in Europe is ineffective: “The new instance is the European Anti-Fraud Office (European Anti -Fraud Office) is successful in combating external corruption in EU countries, but not within the European Commission. In an interview with the Deutsche Welle radio station, when asked what measures should be taken to overcome corruption, Paul van Buitenen noted that in some countries, in Germany or the Netherlands, there are already opportunities to exercise real control, there are independent legal organizations and strong parliaments. But “at the European level there is no democracy, only bureaucracy and the overall situation with corruption is even getting worse, although there is now a provision designed to protect whistleblowers. However, if someone does this, it

just destroy. If an employee of the Commission, as was the case in 1999, is suspected of corruption, then with the beginning of the investigation he is transferred to another department, he continues to work and receive a salary. If someone raises a fuss, they are fired. According to the magazine Der Spiegel, in 2006 there were 400 cases pending on suspicion of EU employees in corruption, of which about 70 cases involved employees of the central office in Brussels. “But only the most odious cases are eventually referred to the prosecutor’s office - and all this against the background of the fact that the vagueness of EU structures, opacity and even weaker control create an excellent breeding ground for favoritism, nepotism and corruption,” notes the author of an article from the Spiegel magazine ". Moreover, every year the control over transactions, especially by the Accounts Chamber, becomes weaker and weaker. “If the EU were a company, all the commissioners would have been in prison long ago,” says D. Hannan, MEP from the UK, one of the most daring critics of the state of affairs in the EU.

International corruption also flourishes in the corporate sector, which has long been facilitated by the tax legislation of a number of states, which provided for deductions from the tax base for funds spent on bribes to foreign officials. Direct bribery of local officials in order to obtain certain benefits was and is an important institution that has become entrenched in the practice of many countries. The data of the US Department of State, disseminated at the II World Anti-Corruption Forum (The Hague, 2001), indicate that at least $200 billion was spent on bribing officials in order to obtain about 400 international contracts in the seven years preceding the forum alone. .USA.

Extremely interesting materials are contained in the 2009 World Corruption Report “Corruption and the Private Sector”, prepared by the international non-governmental organization Transparency International. According to this document, in developing and transition countries alone, companies colluding with corrupt politicians and government officials spend up to $40 billion annually in bribes.

The study shows that half of the managers of international companies surveyed estimate that project costs have risen due to corruption in recent years.

five years by at least 10%. It is the citizens who end up paying: between 1990 and 2005, consumers around the world overpaid about $300 billion using the services of almost 300 non-state international cartels.

The vast majority of bribery firms are Western companies operating in developing countries. The media widely covered the progress of the US-German investigations against the companies "Siemens" and "Daimler", which made corrupt payments in more than 20 countries around the world. The opinion in the case of the United States of America v. Daimler AG, posted in the legal database of the PACE courts, details the accusation of corrupt ties between the German automobile company and officials from different countries. Taking advantage of the fact that the Daimler company was registered in the United States and the law enforcement agencies of this country had access to its financial documents, the Ministry of Justice conducted an audit of the company's activities. Experts found out that for 10 years - from 1998 to 2008 - Daimler participated in corruption schemes to bribe officials in order to obtain government purchases on favorable terms. In total, cases of corruption have been established in 22 countries, including Egypt, Turkmenistan, Russia, Germany, Vietnam, Hungary, Nigeria and other countries. The Justice Ministry's indictment alleges that a Daimler representative in Russia paid bribes to Russian officials between 2001 and 2005, either directly or through agents and holding companies. Among the buyers are employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Defense, the Special Purpose Garage, the administration of Ufa and Novy Urengoy, as well as Dorinvest and some anonymous officials. In total, during this period, the German company sold cars to Russian state institutions for a total of 64.6 million euros. "In connection with these vehicle sales, Daimler made illegal payments of 3 million euros to Russian government officials," the report says. In April 2010, a settlement agreement was concluded between American justice and the automaker as part of an out-of-court settlement of the charges. The concern was fined $180 million. Since the beginning of September 2010, the second wave of the corruption scandal around Siemens has been flaring up. The first was related to the suspicions of German law enforcement agencies that the company provided kickbacks to Russian officials when concluding contracts for the sale of telecommunications.

leg equipment. The company's management held a number of high-ranking managers accountable. The second wave of the scandal is a consequence of a large suspicious account identified by the Swiss prosecutor's office belonging to the concern. The Swiss bank, where the account was opened, turned to the prosecutor's office with a request to check it for money laundering. As a result, a whole network of firms was discovered that received large fees from Siemens Comm-nications (Siemens Communications) for expensive services, such as consulting or project development. The prosecutor's office finds out whether we are talking about fictitious firms and contracts. According to investigators, after the multimillion-dollar sums were withdrawn from Siemens, they were disposed of by special managers from among the former employees of the concern. However, information is considered quite reliable that the former managers of Siemens Communications and other managers acted not on their own initiative, but on the instructions of the concern.

The analysis shows that not a single sector of the world economy is free from corruption, but bribes are especially high when concluding contracts for the supply of weapons, access to the development of natural resources, and the organization of construction work. For example, in November 2005 in the United States, G. A. Powell, ex-manager of the Halliburtan company, was sentenced to 15 months in prison and a fine of $91,000. He was found guilty of having lobbied the interests of an Iraqi company for a reward of $110,000, which was contracted to restore four buildings in Iraq. In documents filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, the concern admitted the facts of "improper payments" made in violation of the laws of Germany and the United States. An investigation into this matter has been conducted by the authorities of the two countries since 2004 as part of a study of the work of the UN oil-for-food program.

In October 2006, the Norwegian oil company Statoil pleaded guilty to bribing an Iranian senior official in 2003 and agreed to pay a $21 million fine. The investigation was conducted by the Department of Justice and the US Securities and Exchange Commission. An 11-year contract worth $15.2 million with the Iranian consulting company Horton Investment was recognized as a bribe, after the signing of which the Norwegians received the right to develop the Iranian South Pars oil field.

In October 2006, Christophe de Margerie, head of the intelligence and production department of France's Total, was charged with bribing Iraqi officials. On suspicion of the French police, the manager used connections in the government of Saddam Hussein to in 1996-2002. pay bribes to officials in exchange for Total's better access to Iraqi oil. It is assumed that the company made payments through the Swiss company Telliac.

Researchers record many cases when TNCs directly interfered in the policies of local authorities, initiated campaigns to form new governments that would be more receptive to their demands. The findings of the investigations presented in the 2009 Global Corruption Report show that the excessive and improper influence of certain financially powerful companies on political decision-making leads to the emergence of kleptocratic systems and stunts the growth of the economy. According to Standard & Poor's calculations, in 2008 nearly a third of the top 100 companies required internal control of political lobbying spending.

Typically, lobbying efforts are opaque and aim to avoid checks and balances.

"New and Contemporary History", M, 2011, No. 11, p. 13-21.

Roman Silantiev,

Candidate of Historical Sciences (MSLU, Moscow)

ISLAMO-CHRISTIAN

"DIALOGUE" IN RUSSIA

Interreligious dialogue in the post-Soviet period of Russian history has acquired particular importance due to the sharp aggravation of interethnic and interreligious relations in the post-Soviet space. The Soviet policy of preventing such conflicts, based on atheistic propaganda and erasing the boundaries between ethnic groups, quickly became irrelevant, and it was not possible to find an adequate replacement for it. That is why the authorities have delegated a considerable part of the powers to prevent conflicts on religious and ethnic grounds to public figures and spiritual leaders, being especially interested in

Corruption in the modern world

Igor Listov (Dortmund)

Corruption itself is a crime, but it simultaneously gives rise to many other grave crimes, reducing the moral level of society.

The corruption of officials has haunted mankind since the very time when the first states appeared on earth. Even then, officials took bribes for the performance of their official duties or for resolving a “question” in favor of one or another petitioner. From that moment began the fight against corruption. Even in ancient times, rulers and statesmen understood the danger of corruption for the existence of the state, they tried to fight this phenomenon using the methods adopted at that time. The heads of corrupt officials were cut off, their hands were confiscated by unjustly acquired property, they were imprisoned, but this “disease” of civilization, although at times receded into the background, remained incurable.

The very word corruption (corruptio), meaning sale, decay, became commonplace much later and entered almost all languages ​​of the world.

Corruption in the USSR

Many of our readers, who came to Germany from the countries of the former USSR, constantly encountered corruption there in their daily lives. Money was given to the doorman to get into the restaurant without a queue with his girlfriend; paid a district therapist and received a sick leave for three days; bribed the right people to place a child in a kindergarten. And only the lazy did not talk about corruption in the internal affairs bodies and trade. Many big and small bosses considered their positions to be their own patrimony, covering up extortions with state interests (recall the movie “Prisoner of the Caucasus”).

Most citizens were very reluctant to give bribes, realizing that it was bad, but in an era of general shortages, it could not be otherwise.

However, many requisitions were not considered as such at that time, but were called “gratitude”, which was given for the performance by officials of their official duties. The level of salaries of most workers in the USSR was very low, and "gratitude" made it possible to live a little better.

What about in Germany?

Arriving in Germany, we suddenly discovered that in this country both services, all kinds of “amts”, and simple officials function normally without “greasing”, “putting a bottle” on them, or, at worst, presenting a box of chocolates. In cases where you do not agree with the official's decision, you can challenge it with a superior or in court. By the way, the “Partner” tells from issue to issue about court decisions correcting the decisions of officials. Most importantly, such actions are considered natural and are normally perceived by society.

No state is free from corruption, but it's all about the degree of corrupt officials and the impact of corruption on the daily lives of citizens. Of course, corruption also exists in Germany, but the vast majority of German citizens practically do not encounter it, and it never occurs to them to give a bribe, for example, to a traffic policeman, an official or a school teacher for their child’s high Abitur score. The German press is happy to talk about certain revealed cases of corruption of officials of any, including the highest, level.

About the degree of corruption

Today we will talk about the perception of corruption by analysts and business people around the world and about methods for assessing it. Corruption Perceptions Index(Corruption Perceptions Index, abbreviated as CPI) has been compiled by the non-governmental organization Transparency International for over 20 years. It is calculated on the basis of independent research conducted by international financial organizations with the participation of the American non-governmental organization "Freedom House" among experts and business people. Based on these data, countries are assigned scores from 0 before 100 . The higher this score, the “cleaner” the country, the less, according to experts, it is subject to corruption .

Experts name the following reasons for the high corruption of the state:

High income from trade in raw materials

Restrictions on free competition

Unreasonably high state intervention in the economy and financial system

Lack of freedom of the press

Lack of a fair and incorruptible court.

When calculating the index, the country's openness to experts, its role in international trade, and many other factors are also important.

Corruption affects the collection of taxes, the efficiency of public spending and management system, the competitiveness of industry and agriculture. In countries with a high level of perception of corruption, law enforcement officers are quite successful in dealing with it, and the press and public organizations immediately inform the public about detected cases of corruption.

The impact of corruption on the country's economy

British scientists, studying the impact of corruption on the economy, note the following risks for a country affected by corruption:

Decrease in foreign investment in the national economy

Declining quality of social infrastructure: education, culture, healthcare

Decreased efficiency of state structures and execution of government decisions

Increased environmental pollution

Rising military and police spending

The transition of a significant part of cash flows to the "gray" and "black" zones, remaining outside of taxation and control

Increasing stratification of society into rich and poor, "erosion" of the middle class

A significant decrease in the number of citizens in the country who feel happy.

Table A. Level of corruption in some countries of the world, including the states of the former USSR (2015)

The last two places in the table with 8 points are occupied by the DPRK and Somalia. Germany in this list has risen from 12th place in 2014 to 10th place in 2015.

Corruption in the countries of the former USSR

Readers, of course, are interested in how things are in those countries from which they came to live in Germany. The Baltic countries, despite the difficult transitional processes taking place there in the economy, are kept in places of honor, characterized by a fairly low level of corruption. Estonia shares a high 23rd place with France and the United Arab Emirates; Lithuania is ahead of Spain and the Czech Republic, while Latvia is ahead of Greece and Italy. Even Georgia, which had a high level of corruption in Soviet times, has now made significant progress in this regard and, according to Table. And, bypassed a number of European countries. The rest of the former republics of the USSR, and now independent states, share very little honorable places in the perception of corruption, from 103rd to 154th.

The experts note with satisfaction that since 2012 Greece has been able to increase its Corruption Perceptions Index from 36 to 46 points (up from 80th to 58th place) and surpassed Italy (61st place with 44 points).

The level of corruption in most countries of the former USSR (except for the Baltic countries and Georgia) has remained high in recent decades and has not been reduced. Periodic changes in the corruption perception index by one or two points do not fundamentally change the level of venality in the state, since the changes are within the estimation error.

According to experts, a corruption rating in the range of 25-30 points in these countries means that the situation with corruption in them is not fundamentally different. Therefore, propaganda statements by the media of individual countries of the former USSR that the level of corruption has “improved” by 1-2 points mean absolutely nothing, because. while the country still remains in a zone of very high corruption.

(According to the materials of the German press)