Tadeo, Fernando IV F.

ESSAY NO. 02 Current Issues in National Development

PA 307

Question: All over the world, and particularly in developing societies, the issue
of corruption has become a major problem for development
administration to attain real development, because of its corrosive
impact on good governance and the socioeconomic well-being of the
people. How does corruption (public subtract) in some government
offices (just to enjoy a ‘masaganang buhay’) affect your resiliency
effort (i.e. resist the temptation) towards attaining a ‘panatag na
buhay’ (public add)?

COMBATTING CORRUPTION AND COLLUSION

Prevailing definitions of corruption are mostly constructed within an economic
dimension that is anchored on the “principal-agent theory”: An economic tenet
that views incentivization as the principal motivator to induce agents to act
optimally in certain ways for those directing them—their principals (Philp, 2015).
For this context, the agent is the public official or the civil servant, and the
principals are the people to whom all power, as per the 1987 Philippine
Constitution, emanates from. Corruption in this regard can, therefore, be defined
“in terms of the divergence between the principal’s or the public’s interest and
those of the agent or civil servant: corruption occurs when an agent betrays the
principal’s interests in pursuit of her own” (Klitgaard, 1988, as cited in Philp,
2015). In such case, corruption occurs when the agent (public servant) “betrays”
the principal (the people) satiate his/her own interests. Such conditions typically
necessitate a monopoly of particular goods, discretion in their allocation, and a
lack of liability (Philp, 2015).

Nevertheless, if we suppose that persons act in the interest of oneself and perceive
politics as a venue in which those personal interests usually deviate from public
interest, then this provides us an explanation of corrupt behavior relative to the
circumstances under which self-interest can be maximized by public officials with
such latitude and impunity. If that is the case, then probity can be understood as
the “absence of monopoly and discretion and the existence of high levels of
accountability.” In other words, we achieve probity when the principal-agent
dilemma is nil. Then again, can all derogations that include the pursuit of self-
interest be held as a corrupt act since some—such as treason, or more positively,
the informal bargaining to raise wages—is obviously motivated by self-interest,
and yet distinguishable from the common definitional construction of corruption?
There is then a propensity to embrace “a one-line description of corruption
typically following the model of bribery” (Philp, 2015).

1
As a term of appraisal, anything that is connected to corruption, therefore, receives
negative connotations. If public servants are corrupt, then the public ascribes
government as corrupt. If a government department head is corrupt, the public
would then perceive all subordinates working within that department as corrupt.
Still, when one looks at it at a wider angle, the academic and technical use of the
term “corrupt” or “corruption” anchored on economic determinism is often at odds
with how ordinary people see it (“every act that serves the interest of those with
the monopoly of political resources is corrupt”), with how politicians and public
servants perceive it (“this is not a corrupt act as in the end, the people will benefit
from it”), and with how the media and legal practitioners look at it (“this is
corruption as it violates the laws”). Each sector has differing viewpoints
considering their different concerns and interests with certain types of acts and
their extent that could be categorized or accepted as corrupt. By now, it is clear
that the definition fueled by the economic determinist principal-agent theory
becomes less convincing, “since a huge amount depends on the structure of norms
and expectations that frame the agent’s relationship to her principal, and frame
the range of legitimate expectations the principal may have.” Indeed, the impetus
of most literature anchored on the economic paradigm, which is wholly based on
rent-seeking and principal-agent behaviors, do suggest that politics—and,
therefore, the political institutions that operate within that sphere—is essentially
“a force for corruption” (Philp, 2015).

Considering varying perceptions, the definitional dilemma of corruption then is

attached to the unattractive possibilities of either relativism—in which definitions
are contextualized in the local culture, and therefore any attempt to make a
universal definition could not be suitable in all societies; meaning, a definition in
this community is almost untranslatable to other contexts—or stipulations—
insisting on a universal, technical description; simply put, universalism.
Academics, who usually take a more dominant positivist approach, tend to
subscribe to stipulations. While the academic discussion and expert-concocted
definition of corruption is often precise to the dot, the people alternatively create
their perception on the basis of their inherent political power as being undermined
by sectional forces. While people express this prescriptive viewpoint, popular
conceptions are often vague and emotive and may assign corruption to a variety of
shortcomings in the political or economic system that are not in any obvious sense
corrupt (Philp, 2015). Apparently, there is no solution to reconcile the clash
between the technical and the popular definition-making.

Resisting Corruption
Having said the foregoing, the question comes to mind of how corruption “affect(s)
my resiliency effort (i.e. resist the temptation) towards attaining a ‘panatag na
buhay’ (public add)?”

As former Secretary to the Mayor cum Municipal Administrator, my viewpoint of

the term “corruption” is within the parameters of a government worker and the
legal sphere. As such, my viewpoint could be aptly summarized as follows:

2
 Corruption occurs when a public officeholder or duty-bearer
(A) oversteps the rules and/or norms of office to the
disadvantage of public interest/s or any of sector of society
(B) who is the rightful beneficiary of that office as rights-
holders, to benefit themselves (A) and a third party (C), who
rewards or otherwise incentivizes A to access goods or
services that B could not otherwise acquire (UN Sustainable
Development Group, 2022).

In such capacity, admittedly I had a “monopoly of particular goods” and had the
authority to exercise “discretion in their allocation” (Philp, 2015). These “goods”
were not categorically restricted to the tangible but also to the intangible, i.e.
policies, influence, the capacity to make structural changes in the Municipal
Government’s institutional architecture. This extreme power was delegated to me
as the executor (responsible) by the local chief executive (accountable), and the
exercise of which depended on the latitude the delegator could permit (Blokdyk,
2018). With such power, the public may regard this—via a relativistic angle—as
inevitably leading to the commission of corrupt acts. But was I corrupt?

This is now the point in this essay that I would risk appearing “holier-than-thou,”
and, in fact, I find this section uncomfortable to write as my temperament is more
of an introvert that avoids disclosing the inner workings of my person.

I started my love affair with politics and governance since I was in my young
adulthood. Having seen our town left behind by adjacent, progressive
municipalities, I took it upon myself as a personal mission to put forward some of
my ideas that would contribute to the socio-economic development of our
community, and, in the process, put our Town on the map. I was and still am a
firm believer that there is nobility in politics, and that government can be
optimized as an agent of positive social and conscious change. Corruption,
therefore, was not an option. In my youth, compromise was tantamount to betrayal
of principles.

After eighteen years in public service—serving as staff of a congressional

representative, legislative researcher of the Sangguniang Bayan, and secretary to
the Mayor—I realized that stubbornness and hard-headedness would produce only
disagreement rather than harmony, deadlock rather than accomplishment. As a
civil servant whose interest was more on the policy realm, I realized that I, too,
have to accommodate the personal requests of the constituency.

In cross-checking myself against the operational definition of corruption, I was

compelled to look back at the policies I have personally set for myself when I
executed one of the most important positions in the Municipal Government:

Parameter One
Corruption occurs when a public officeholder or duty-bearer (A) oversteps the rules
and/or norms of office to the disadvantage of public interest/s or any of sector of
society (B)
3
This is where the dilemma I experienced. People expect civil servants to assist
them in their needs, more than being a policy chonk. There were times that
constituents would seek my office to ask for help, such as ambulance service
(although we have a 24/7 rescue hotline), financial aid, recommendation for
scholarship, among others.

Alas, was giving succor to particular persons in need be considered overstepping

the norms of office to the disadvantage of other sectors of the community who
hesitated to reach my office? What if the norms of office relative to the culture of
the community is expecting public servants to provide aid to individuals?

These are questions that will haunt me for the rest of my life. What guided me
was that I drew a line in which I cannot go beyond. When a client wishes to receive
exemptions in the payment of fees, i.e. traffic infraction penalty, my tendency was
to shell out and pay the fee out of my pocket. This was financially counterintuitive,
but I thought I made the point clear: Creating a situation of hiya.

Parameter Two
…To benefit themselves (A) and a third party (C), who rewards or otherwise
incentivizes A to access goods or services that B could not otherwise acquire

I have finished the race with clear conscience. I am proud that I have never
benefitted financially from the perks of power. Rather than earn extra cash from
bribery, what I incurred was thousands of pesos of debt due to my propensity to
spend on electronic consumer products. There was a time that a newspaper
publisher offered me “commission” for advertising revenues. Regardless if the
amount was large or insignificant, I considered offering money to fast track the
process or even to facilitate a contract as an insult to my person and character.

In fact, I resisted using public funds even if my personal finances went awry. I
even resisted literally holding government money even though I was a “bonded”
official.

However, other than the issue of money, did I benefit from my position of influence
and power? When our family needed police assistance due to domestic issues and
I was accommodated by uniformed personnel, would that be considered corrupt? I
could not categorically state yes or no, since, I think, any citizen can contact the
police; however, in the public’s perception of corruption, that would be considered
as such since not all have a direct access to the police in such a short span of time.
Was any sector of the society disadvantaged due to this act? I could not make a
definitive determination.

Alas, this may be the clash of various perceptions about corruption, which,
perhaps, create the definitional dilemma. Since there is a definitional dilemma in
the first place, would this create an ethical quandary among public servants. An
act may not be considered corrupt due to relative contextualization, but it may be
so in the technical categorization.
4
Works Cited
Blokdyk, G. (2018). RACI Matrix (Third ed.). Emereo Pty Limited.
Klitgaard, R. (1988). Controlling Corruption. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Philp, M. (2015). The Definition of Political Corruption. In P. M. Heywood (Ed.),
Routledge Handbook of Political Corruption (pp. 17-29). Abingdon:
Routledge.
UN Sustainable Development Group. (2022). Human Rights-Based Approach.
Retrieved from UN Sustainable Development Group:
https://unsdg.un.org/2030-agenda/universal-values/human-rights-based-
approach