Reducing Corruption in Public Governance: Rhetoric to

Reality1
K Rajasekharan

Kerala Institute of Local Administration

Mulagunnathukavu, Thrissur 680 581

Email rajankila@hotmail.com Ph: 0487 2200244

Abstract
The article argues that the democratic governance in India is now at the crossroads with many
positive elements of good governance on one hand and the most shameful aberrations of bad
governance including mounting corruption, on the other, which demands a close look at its
nuances.. Corruption is here defined as abuse of public office for personal gains or actions
causing transfer of public money to private hands, normally in violation of rules or without it.
The article points out that the corruption exists where monopoly power plus discretion minus
accountability exists without transparency. India had a strong framework of law to deal with
corruption, right from the beginning and some of them are described. Even though laws play a
key role in preventing corruptions, the provisions are not well-suited to deal with such a
difficult task. Uprooting corruption has turned out to be a formidable task. Every attempt to
deal with it tends to degenerate, lapse or disappoints the actors in the long run. Hon Kong’s
initiative in 1985 to root out corruption in the police department has been explained as an
excellent learning exercise. The experience of the least corrupt county Finland is also
explained. The article states that a system that provides fewer incentives or opportunities for
corruption is the right prescription for reducing corruption and the corruption can be dealt with
by some well formulated strategic steps. Citizen’s inability to demand accountability from the
Government leads to unabated corruption. The article concludes that all those who refuse to
take part in governance and make it good will have to suffer under bad men whom we elect.

Introduction

Public Governance refers to the process of decision making in the

management of social and economic resources of a country or its units and
the mechanisms by which decisions are implemented for its development.
Democracy, as a system of governance, signifies a government of, by and for
the people and entails features of good governance such as timely elections,
rule of law, accountability, transparency, predictability, non-corrupt practices
etc. Corruption, a menace that plagues effective functioning of governments,
exists both in democratic and authoritarian forms of governance even though
democracy is considered to be the best form of governance so far invented.
1
This paper has been selected for inclusion in a book titled Governance and
Corruption edited by Prof S B Dahya & Prof Kavita Chakravarty to be released as
part of a seminar in March 2011 at Maharshi Dayanand University, Rohtak
Corruption is an insidious disease of public governance that damages welfare
measures, weakens economic growth and distorts the focus of governance.
What is Corruption?

There is no single universally accepted definition for corruption. Attempts to

develop such a definition did not result in success. But there were many
attempts that identified the core features of corruption in an identical
manner.

Corruption2 is abuse of public office for personal gain or actions causing

transfer of public money to private hands, in violation of rules. It entails acts
of omission, commission or illegality. Some kinds of corruption go on even
within the framework of laws appearing as lawful acts. Procedural correctness
in administration does not preclude the possibility of corruption. Similarly the
deficiencies in procedures or lapses in formalities alone cannot be inferred as
actions falling within the ambit of corruption. Corruption occurs even as part
of policy formulation aimed at benefitting some interest groups without
violating any statue, rule or regulation.

Corruption can be classified into two – coercive and collusive. In coercive

corruption, bribe giver is forced to give bribe whereas in collusive corruption
the bribe giver is an equal partner. Corruption can again be classified as
petty or grand, passive or active and so on.

Corruption or bribery leads to undue actions and bestowing of undue benefits

to in eligible persons by establishing the vices of governance like favouritism,
nepotism and clientelism. Corruption normally involves payment of money to
politicians or government officials to obtain license/permit, by-pass
regulation, avoid delays, jump queues etc even though many forms of rent
seeking are possible within it. Corruption reflects patronage, nepotism, red-
tape, ineffective revenue generation, bribery in procurement, failure in
service delivery etc which may or may not involve direct financial
consideration.

Indian Scenario

India, the largest democracy in the world is now at a crossroads with many
positive elements of good governance on one hand and shameful aberrations
2
A historical perspective of corruption is detailed in Jain(2001) PP 11-32
of bad governance including growing corruption, on the other. Corruption and
concern about it is not new in India. Political history indicates that India has
never been free from corruption in ancient times, the colonial period or even
the Nehru’s period after independence. Many higher level civil servants are
believed to be corrupt or accomplices of corrupt ministers. Lower
bureaucracy involves in speed money or bribes. Legislature, judiciary, media
and independent professionals are not devoid of corruption. Allegations on
corruption to harass political opponents leveled by political parties when they
remain in opposition and not doing anything on it when they are in power
later, politicized the allegations on corruption as a tool to gain power.
Legislative attempts could not make any marked difference in dealing with
corruption. Investigative journalism could expose innumerable instances of
corruption, but without much sustainability or stable remedial action. So a
close look at its nuances is imminent, if we want to deal with it effectively.

Consequences of Corruption

Corruption in public offices has grown worse over the years and has become
a threat to the stability of governance and democracy in India and the world
over. It may destroy peoples trust in state institutions. Every office is a
position of trust. The cancer of corruption has seeped into the blood stream
of every sphere of our polity and public governance. It touches every sort of
activity in every sector and that leads to inefficiency3, injustice and inequity.
The very existence of governance systems seems to be at stake. Corruption
renders governance into a state of near non-governance or misdirected
governance. Corruption that has been with us from time immemorial spoils
the moral foundation of the society.

The cost of corruption is enormous. Many of our development problems

would have been solved, if there were no corruption. The poorest in the
society are the greatest victims of corruption. A society with high level of
corruption has low level of rule of law. Corruption at the top distorts
fundamental policies on developmental priorities. Unless we address the

3
The concept of speed money has become one of the most serious reasons for delay,
inefficiency and maladministration.
issue of corruption, we cannot ensure equity, equanimity and prosperity
through the system of governance. Corruption aggravates inequality and can
end up in the emergence of an unequal society. Corruption reduces public
revenue, distorts resource allocation, retards economic growth and weakens
rule of law. Corruption threatens the hopes of the poor by draining the money
that reaches them for education, health, employment support etc. Poor will
be denied basic justice in economic, political and social spheres. No country
can afford to have high degree of corruption which leads to loss of confidence
in public institutions and retards its all round development.

Why corruption occurs?

The corruption thrives where monopoly power plus discretion minus

accountability exists without transparency. Meager salaries of staff, no
incentive for performance and mild penalties can help flourish corruption.

Many instances of corruption are collusive and in collusive corruption, the

mutual interest of the bribe giver and the recipient make it difficult to
unearth corruption. In coercive corruption, the unwilling victims are
intimidated. Such cases can be unearthed. Corruption is generally an
outcome and a symptom of poor governance. Corruption and poor
governance go hand in hand. Poor governance can lead to corruption and
corruption can weaken governance going in a cyclic manner. Corruption
enhances the exercise of undue political or administrative discretion and
creates consequential rent seeking opportunities at a larger scale. The
‘political will’ of the government with focus on improving governance is
paramount in any attempt to reduce corruption. Costly elections create a
requirement for more unaccounted money and that political environment
develops a fertile land for political corruption touching every aspect of
corruption.

Corruption has now become something to be scared to those who engage in

it. It has turned out to be a low-risk high reward activity. Corruption occurs
when rents are high, discretion is extensive and monitoring is nominal or soft.
Absence of separation of powers, checks and balances, transparency, system
of justice and clearly defined roles in governance mechanism inevitably lead
to corruption.

The factors that promote corruption are

• Failure to ensure accountability through oversight bodies, active

opposition parties, independent media, fair and less costly elections

• Weak law enforcement structures, poor surveillance of violations etc

• Missing regulatory frameworks – legislation, codes of conduct and audit

requirements

• Low levels of individual values, societal values and transparency in

governance.

• Unprofessional civil service, poor practice of ethical codes

Bad systems, bad ethics and bad incentives induce people to engage in
corruption. Lack of transparency, inadequate oversight and weak
enforcement can cause corruption. The institutional design largely influences
the occurrence and opportunities for corruption.

The Legal Framework in India

India had a very good framework of law to deal with corruption, right from the
beginning4 even though we failed to translate the legislative intent into
practice.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) enacted in 1860 was the main tool to prosecute
corrupt in the pre-independence India. The sections 161 to 165 were
sufficiently good enough to deal with offences by public servants. The large
scale corruption in Second World War forced the law makers to formulate an
exclusive law Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) in 1947 to reduce bribery
and corruption which was amended in 1964 to incorporate the
recommendations of the Santhanam Committee. It gives immunity to bribe
giver. The Criminal Law Amendment Act was subsequently passed in 1952
which provided for attachment of wealth obtained by a “public servant”

4
See Committee on Prevention of Corruption (Santhanam Committee), Report of the
Committee on Prevention of Corruption. New Delhi, Ministry of Home Affairs, 1964
through corrupt means. The IPC sections for the purpose were deleted
thereafter.

Later, the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 was enacted by consolidating

the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, the Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act 1952 and some provisions of IPC. The objective of the act
was to “make the existing anti corruption laws more effective by widening
their coverage and strengthening the provisions”. The act defines public
servant as “any person who holds an office by virtue of which he is
authorized or required to perform any public duty”. This expansive definition
does not allow anyone who does public functioning escape the ambit of the
act. The act makes it an offence to habitually accept or agree to accept “any
gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward” A public
servant can be prosecuted under the law if loss was caused to government
and no public interest was served in the transaction by the public servant
that led to the loss. It is not necessary to establish that he benefited from it.
The public servant who possesses assets disproportionate to his sources of
income can also be hauled up for corruption as per the act. The history of the
act shows that it could not be used effectively to punish any political leader
so far in the last twenty to years of its existence in spite of having many
effective provisions in it.

In 1967, Government of India, set up a committee to curtail the growing

menace of corruption existed then in India. There existed another law titled,
The Benami transactions (Prohibition) Act 1988 that provides for confiscation
of properties illegally acquired by corrupt means, but allied rules were not
formulated and the law remains unimplemented so far.

The parliamentary privileges, not enlisted into a code or law, provide undue
protection to the members and they need revisiting. The Members of
Parliament or legislative bodies should not have privileges to cover corrupt
acts, in the name of impunity on their parliamentary duties.

The legal codes in our country evolved from colonial rulers are not deeply
rooted in our culture or tradition and that make the laws ineffective.
Need for Reforming Laws

Laws play a key role in preventing corruption. But the legal provisions on
corruption now existing in India are not well-suited to deal with such a
difficult task on the whole.

In India, taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an

official act is considered tantamount to corruption. It includes accepting or
agreeing to accept, or obtaining or attempting to obtain, any illegal
gratification as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official
functions, favour or disfavor to any person or for or attempting to render any
service or disservice to any person.

The Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988 does not define corruption, but lists
offences of bribery, other related offences and penalties. But experience
shows that such an indirect definition of corruption cannot cover a whole
range of corrupt practices detrimental to public interest. So it is better that
the laws on corruption should be drafted with more general provisions. For
example corruption can be defined as “abuse of public office for private gain”
which by definition encompasses a whole lot of malafide acts rather than
including a few imaginable activities within the definition and leaving aside
so many outside its fold.

Prosecution of public servants under the prevention of corruption act requires

prior sanction of the competent authority. This provision is designed to
protect the bonafide official actions of the executives from malicious or
vexatious prosecution with cooked up evidences. But the precaution is being
misused in many cases to guard the powerful corrupt executives.

Enacting and enforcing unenforceable laws on social maladies normally

create an environment for corruption. Unpreventable social problems need to
be addressed not legally, but by other means such as awareness building,
attitude development and social engineering. The amendments to anti-
corruption law at times with stringent penal previsions seem to be a ploy to
create an illusion that action is being taken against corruption while little is
really done in practice. If any law is unenforceable or kept not being
enforced generally, it will remain redundant, meaningless or remain as a
mere mockery that encourages corruption. In practice, many legal provisions
relating to corruption are not being enforced or enforceable practically
making them a mere mockery. Lack of ‘political will’ and absence of
administrative reluctance in many situations drain the enforcement agencies
relating to anti-corruption to remain without obtaining enough resources from
the government and remain functionless or inactive. In some cases, the
obstructive procedures make some provisions of laws unenforceable.
Legislations, by their poor drafting or weak constructions, create
circumstances that lend themselves to corruption. Carefully thought-out and
skillfully drafted legislations can create an environment in which corruption is
less likely to occur.

Ambiguous and complex laws governing administrative practices such as

service delivery or regulatory exercises of power, which allows the public
servants to have differential interpretations, set a stage for corruption. So the
laws that lack careful thinking and skillful drafting develop an environment
for corruption and the laws drafted in clear language and unambiguous can
minimize areas of discretion to officers in governance. Skillfully worded laws
with divine clarity can create an environment in which corrupt activities are
less likely to occur. Anti-corruption laws and the administrative machineries
created thereby also should not lend themselves to corruption just because
of weak drafting or poor designing.

The National Law Commission in December 2001 as per its 179th report
wanted to formulate a law to protect the whistle blowers who have a critical
role in reducing corruption. Nothing much has happened in that direction but
a bill as passed by Rajya Sapha is introduced recently in Lok Sapha. As well,
there is under-utilization and neglect of existing anti-corruption laws. It is
better to make corruption, a criminal offence. As well, seizure or forfeiture of
proceeds of corruption should remain as a corruption mitigation mechanism
in the laws.

Difficulties in fighting against Corruption

Uprooting corruption is a formidable task. Every attempt to deal with it tends
to degenerate, lapse or disappoints the actors in the long run. The public
outrage which every scandal brings out at the outset tends to subside sooner
or later. It is always difficult to sustain and hard to institutionalize the public
interest against corruption. So corruption always re-emerges in a cyclic
manner with different players.

In many instances of corrupt practices, government servants cannot be

proved guilty for misappropriation, but they can be removed from service for
causing monetary loss to the State. Imposition of penalties on the guilty and
corrupt in public service is a difficult task due to complexities in procedural
formalities. But it is possible.

A major difficulty in fighting against corruption is due to the inherent paradox

that the cost of corruption is invisible and spread over a large number of
people whereas the visible benefits are limited to a few corrupt people in
power positions. Getting even a lobby to fight against corruption is thereby a
difficult proposition. There is widespread public cynicism about anti-
corruption intervention. Political indifference, bureaucratic inertia and
citizen’s apathy make anti-corruption effort much difficult. In spite of this,
sincere and strategic endeavors in some parts of the world show spectacular
success in bringing down flagrant institutionalized corruption.

The fight against corruption should not be an end in itself; rather it should be
a skilful strategy to reform the governance or to vitalize service delivery.
Preventing corruption can raise revenue, improve service delivery and
stimulate people’s participation. Government should look into more important
reform areas like public service effectiveness, working with private sector,
empowering citizen and making vibrant economic development for launching
innovative initiatives. If the approach towards fight against corruption is
oriented towards the path of administrative reforms, the result would be
more positive, productive and motivating. It can then both prevent the
plundering of public money and help in improving the services. Let us look at
two of those examples.

Two Prominent Anti-corruption Case Studies

Hong Kong’s Anti Corruption Strategy

Hon Kong’s initiative in 1985 to root out corruption in the police department
remains as an excellent learning exercise 5. Police corruption created a
climate of distrust in the entire government and lead to a loss of international
investment. The usual solution such as stronger laws, more powers to anti-
corruption offices and detailed investigation failed to address the growth of
corruption.

Hong Kongs then governor Mac Lehore adopted a new strategy. He created a
new Independent Anti Corruption Agency (IACA) with talented staff, good
leadership and five oversight boards to guide and monitor the agency. The
agency emphasized prevention and citizen’s participation. For prevention, the
government functions were analyzed, reduced the monopoly, streamlined
discretion and promoted accountability. As well, service delivery was
improved. The citizens were educated about the harmful outcomes of
corruption and mobilized them to provide information.

The independent commission against corruption had three departments

• Operations Department for investigation

• Corruption prevention Department for taking remedial measures

• Community Relation Department to involve people

The results were remarkable and the systematic corruption in the police force
was broken.

Experience of the Least Corrupt Country

The experience of Finland , the least corrupt country in the world, shows that
they could reduce the corruption because of a set of conditions such as
provision of welfare services for the aged and unemployed, good status and
pay for civil servants, induction of lawyers on senior civil service posts,
refendeary system for researching and suggesting options on issues
publicized by the Government, non-political civil servant as Heads of

5
Klitgaard, Robert et al: Corrupt cities: A practical guide to cure and prevention.
Washington, World Bank Institute, 2000. P 17
Ministries, transparency and openness, the duty to provide public explanation
on decisions, collective decision making, personal independence and
responsibility in administration, a closed civil service career system etc .

In Finland, the Supreme Court is endowed with clarification and examination

of legal and administrative norms. Everyone in public service is reminded of
the limits and correct interpretation of the norms.

A Policy Framework for less corruption in Governance

A framework or system that provides fewer incentives or opportunities for

corruption is the right prescription for reducing corruption. One’s exclusive
discretionary control over any good or service without accountability provides
a good environment for corruption. So the system should have reduced
monopoly power, limited discretion and increased accountability to minimize
the possibility of corruption.

A strong political will of the government is a sine qua non for reducing
corruption. Anti corruption initiatives will become unsuccessful without strong
political will. The legislators can strengthen systems of accountability, reduce
opportunities of corruption, improve incentives for probity and promote
popular demand for integrity. The Parliament6 can join in the fight for
corruption by enacting appropriate laws and overseeing the enforcement of
these laws through its committees. But more laws create more scope for red
tape, more red tape create more scope for corruption.

Media plays a critical role in curbing corruption through investigative

reporting and exposure. Recent incidents like revelation in Radia tapes and
2G scam indicate that a section of media is part of public corruption in our
country. Existence of transparency laws, vibrant civil society, citizen’s charter
etc is the other essential requirement. Civil society in association with media
can act as critical watch dogs to reduce corruption.

6
For more details see the book Role of parliament in Curbing corruption edited by
Rick Stephen et al. Washington, The World Bank, 2006. The book describes in depth
the consequences of ignoring or tolerating corruption. The role of parliament in anti-
corruption legislation is described in chapter 5
All procedures, laws and regulations that breed corruption or come against
efficient delivery system, will have to be eliminated. Enforcement of rule of
law and deterrent punishment can reduce corruption. A policy of zero
tolerance to all types of corruption which permeate governance, legal
systems and administration can do a lot.

Distinct separation of powers, checks and balances, transparent actions and

clear do’s & don’ts are remedial mechanisms against corruption. Avoid
complex laws, rules and regulations. Simple and clear administrative systems
with little discretion will reduce the possibility of corruption. Since corruption
remains as a low-risk and high-gain activity to those who are being involved,
there is need to raise the punishment and make its risk very high. Our
criminal system should provide penalty that we give for murder for serious
crimes causing heavy public loss or widespread suffering. As well, increase
the incentives such as high salary to prevent corruption. Efficiently managed
services provide fewer opportunities for engaging in corruption as citizens
neither need to compete for nor to pay bribes to get the services or
resources.

A merit based, professional and non-partisan civil service which is

appropriately sized and well motivated, is a pre-requisite to establish good
governance in public spheres. Meritocracy can reduce corruption to a great
extend if civil servants are paid adequately. Adequate pay may dispel the
temptation for corruption arising out of lack of means for living. Inadequate
management and remuneration of the civil servants are sure causes of
corruption in bureaucracy. Adequate wages to employees can pre-empt them
from opting to the path of corruption. Well managed, broad based and
visionary civil service reforms including wage enhancement to adequate level
can do a lot in reducing corruption.

Sound financial management system – with proper budgeting, accounting

and auditing - which allows objective setting up of targets, appropriate
allocation of resources and efficient implementation should be in place. There
should be transparent preparation, effective execution and careful monitoring
of budget. Rigorous accounting, timely financial reporting and meaningful
auditing are essential elements in establishing a good public governance
system. The procurement practices should be proper, prudent and that
disallows exercise of patronage by those who handle it.

An accountable, impartial and corrupt-free judiciary is essential to exercise

oversight function. Vigorous application and enforcement of laws and
prosecution of offenders is essential. Weak investigation, policing and
prosecution should be strengthened to ensure compliance with law.
Independent Ombudsman can be effective to contain corruption and
maladministration. In order to reduce corruption, judiciary should function in
such a way to bring corrupt executives to book. Use of purposeful disciplinary
action in administration can reduce corruption considerably. Appointment of
Ombudsman - quasi-judicial court - can do a lot in reducing corruption by
referring corruption complaints to anti-corruption agencies or prosecutors
whenever needed and dealing with instances of injustice by its own decision..

Audit institutions can play a great role in controlling corruption by ensuring

accountability, transparency and sound financial management. Audit can
detect fraud , or abuse and can foster strong financial management. So
empowerment of audit is necessary which can be done by ensuring the
qualifications of auditors, fixing standards of audit procedures and avoiding
neglect of audit recommendations.

A sample code of conduct that spells out appropriate behavior of both elected
and appointed functionaries is a preventive mechanism to fight against
corruption. Enhancement of people’s participation in public affairs will reduce
corruption. Governance should be designed to make it easy for functionaries
to do good and difficult to do evil while exercising statutory powers.
Simplification of rules and regulations is a clear pre-condition for less
corruption.

Political parties are now considered as the most corrupt institutions. The
tendency of political leadership to ignore policy making and to involve in
routine administrative actions which are in the domain of bureaucrats in
public governance is on the increase. It should be discouraged to ensure
proper checks and balances between the elected functionaries and appointed
officials. The public functionaries, in general, consider the official position as
an opportunity to plunder public money.

Decentralizing state functions with due accountability mechanisms can

reduce corruption. Decentralization brings people closer to governance and
creates forums for involving them in governance. Corruption operates best
under the veil of secrecy when no one else is there to oversee.

Increasing public access to information is a powerful mechanism for ensuring

accountability. Public complaint mechanisms, citizen’s charter and regular
assessment of service delivery can do much in reducing corruption.

Launching an Anti-Corruption move

Corruption can be dealt with by some strategic steps7.

There should be national or state level strategies footed on ‘political will’ to

promote good governance and eliminate corruption. The strategies should
engender transparency and accountability in all sectors covering all active or
passive actors in corruption. Specialised anti-corruption agencies with
autonomy are needed to push the drive and coordinate the actions.

Any anti corruption move should start with an assessment of the nature and
extend of corruption by using surveys, interviews and other appropriate
means. Determine how corruption works, who is involved, who benefits and
who is adversely affected. An assessment of institutions should also be made
to find out which institutions are affected by corruption and how they can be
placed in the anti-corruption drive. This would help in identifying the priority
in reforms needed in different kinds of institutions. Any assessment or
analysis of corruption should be done in a holistic and participatory manner.
While beginning any anti-corruption drive, it is better to start with the types
of corruption that are more visible or hated by the people so that it will get
better mass support.

7
A brief account of anti-corruption strategies are described in the Commonwealth
Expert Group Report titled Fighting Corruption: Promoting Good Governance. London,
Commonwealth, 2000 PP 3-21
A workshop of stakeholders should be convened to develop, implement and
evaluate anti-corruption strategies that are needed. Such workshops should
set goals, timeline and sequencing of actions.

As well, it is essential to prosecute and punish high level visible perpetrators,

as a symbolic act to build the confidence of public activists. In order to
rupture the culture of impunity, key corrupt actors should be punished visibly
as a model act to build the confidence of people. Simultaneously, there would
be attempt to educate the citizen about the varied harms that may arise out
of corruption.

The fight against corruption should focus on corrupt systems rather than on
individuals. Prosecuting the guilty is also important. But prosecution alone
does not reduce the opportunities or incentives for corruption. A change in
the system may yield better results than any change in the individuals in the
system. If we do not change the institution or the environment, the next
occupants of the position will likely to be corrupt as their predecessors
because of the mismatch between the rewards and the risks associated with
corruption. Any strategy towards enhancing the quality of governance and
reducing the degree of corruption should result in effective public services as
its outcome rather than mere reduction in corruption as an end in itself.

Existing laws should be carefully analyzed, re-defined and modified with

better practices and enhanced penalties, for avoiding chances of corruption.
It is better to have Ombudsman to attend cases of mal-administration,
neglect or inefficiency in discharging duties. Decentralization initiatives that
lead to real devolution of power down to the people will also reduce
corruption as it widens the citizen’s access to governance. In short,
diagnosing the corrupt practices, designing a strategy and implementing the
activities sincerely can contain corruption, improve efficiency and bring in
good governance.

Any anti-corruption activity should seek to find its possible allies -

institutional and individual - during its progress and such allies can boost the
drive against it. An anti-corruption drive with high voltage publicity can
change the public perception and values
Conclusion

Elimination of corruption is a moral necessity and an economic need to make

governments work well. Citizen’s inability to hold the Government
accountable and to demand accountability from the Government leads to
unabated corruption. Corruption can be reduced if we nip it at the bud rather
than handling it after the event or at a stage when the handling has become
difficult. In corruption, prevention is better than cure.

There is a saying that when the ruler himself is right, the people naturally
follow the right course. If the ruler is wrong, it would be difficult for the ruled
to remain on the right path. On the other hand, it is true that as is the ruled
so is the ruler. A corrupt government is the result of a corrupt society.
Whatever be, all those who refuse to take part in governance will have to
suffer under corrupt men whom we elect.

References

1. Guhan, S and Paul, Samuel Ed., 1997. Corruption in India: Agenda for
Action. New Delhi, Vision Books

2. Jain, Arvind K Ed, 2002. The Political Economy of Corruption. London,

Routledge.

3. Klitgaard, Robert, 1988. Controlling Corruption. Berkeley, University of

California Press.

4. Klitgaard et al, 2000. Corrupt Cities: A Practical Guide to Cure and

Prevention. Washington, World Bank Institute.

5. Law Commission of India, 2001. One Hundred and Seventy Ninth report
on the Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Informers. New
Delhi, Government of India.

6. Mishra, Ajit, Ed, 2005. The economics of Corruption. New Delhi, Oxford.

7. Neild, Robert, 2002. Public Corruption: The dark side of Social

Evolution. London, Anthem Press.
8. SPIDER, 2010. Increasing Transparency and Fighting Corruption
through ICT: empowering People and Communities. Stockholm, The
Swedish Programme on ICT in Developing Regions.

9. Stapenhurst, Rick and Kpundeh, Sahr J, 1999. Curbing Corruption:

Towards a Model for Building National Integrity. Washington, The World
Bank.

10. United Nations, 2004. UN Anti Corruption Toolkit. Vienna, The United
Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

11. UNDP, 1997. Corruption and Good Governance. Discussion Paper 3.

New York, United Nations Development Programme