Hacker News Reader

Comment by yummyfajitas | Hacker News Reader

Very true. But it's not just about government banditry, it's also about cultural acceptance of corruption.

In a conversation with my Iranian ex girlfriend and her mom, it was revealed that her cousin is relatively wealthy due to being a dirty cop. They just talked about it like it was no big deal, completely expected. Several Africans I've known have similarly remarked "I got my drivers license without a bribe!"

In my American family, there are no dirty cops by definition; doing crap like that will get you disowned.

Changing the government won't change the cultural attitudes, unfortunately.

View on HN

You are making a very bad assumption here. You are assuming that non-acceptance of dirty cops is something inherent to American culture. Actually, if America were plunged into a huge depression, and most Americans were suddenly thrust into poverty, banks folded and so on, this 'culture' would change in less than a year.

Are you going to disown the guy who is doing dirty work but keeping you alive?

Corruption is not a culture, the potential for corruption is everywhere, it's in all humans. When it appears to be socially wrong, or when there is strict enforcement, then people will not be corrupt, but as soon as this changes, it comes back.

It seems almost as if corruption is the default behavior, and it has to be actively forced away, and not the other way around.

I disagree. While its true that poverty and desperation drives people to contemplate things they may not have otherwise, I don't believe it as simple as saying that poverty automatically means more people will turn to corruption. There's a basic cultural element to it as well.

Living in an African country, there's a far more casual and accepting approach to corruption than there is in Europe and the US. Most people here, including cops, earn enough to get by as it's far from a poor country but corruption is still endemic. Dirty cops are seldom fired when caught and are not ostracised from their families and social groups. As a result, much of the police force is corrupt, to the point where when you're pulled over for a traffic violation you expect to be asked to pay a bribe. And most people, however wealthy, are more than happy to pay one in order to avoid the admin hassle of an official fine.

Oddly enough, there seems to be an attitude that corruption is your right if you've managed to get employed in certain jobs. There is no big outcry when politicians are found to have been hugely corrupt, instead the attitude amongst most of my fellow Africans who I've spoken on such occasions is that the guy was 'just taking care of himself', an action considered to be perfectly ok. The real anger usually only happens when people perceive that not enough of the public coffers is being directed their way.

So there is a cultural aspect to this, and I've come to believe that the culture of many African countries, with a tolerance for corruption, bad governance and the like, is largely responsible for the continent's poor economic condition. Humans the world over may be the same, but cultures are not. Africa will not develop until its people truly decide they want development and make the necessary cultural shifts and changes to achieve it.

What's with this trend of people blaming things on 'culture'. It's just a way of pushing a problem to an abstract hole. Culture is very fluid and changes very quickly. Is it African to wear jeans? To visit nightclubs? It was not, but now in many parts of the continent, it is.

The guy a few comments away on this thread was complaining about the corruption in India. Is that the culture too? When I was in China, the people would complain about the corruption in the government. Is that the culture too? Is it only the richest countries in the world that have the culture to avoid corruption?

What you're saying is this:

- Richest countries in the world like in Europe and the U.S accept corruption less

- Poorest countries in the world accept corruption more

And from that, you are drawing a causal relationship, when a correlation relationship seems to be a lot more likely.

There is no inherent African tendency towards corruption. Since you live in Africa, go to a village, or some other non-urban and traditional area, and see how much corruption there is there. You'll find that there will be almost none.

I think you're defining culture too narrowly. It's not just about wearing jeans or visiting nightclubs, it's about a shared perspective around religion, community interaction, concepts like freedom and responsibility and traditions. That kind of culture runs deep, very deep, which is part of the reason (for example) Pakistani immigrants are finding it so difficult to assimilate into the UK. They wear jeans, go to nightclubs and all the rest, but find it very difficult to break those cultural ties and perceptions.

And yes, I'd argue that the same cultural flaws that make corruption acceptable in Africa are visible in Asian societies like India and China, though they are far less severe. Perhaps one could argue that they have a far more recent history of prolonged totalitarianism than the US or Western Europe; that with all the years of kings and Rajs, followed by colonialism (Mao's Communist Party in the case of China) and then socialist dictators there just has not yet been time to shift cultures enough.

And I'm frequently in rural villages and settlements, yet the same cultural bias in favour of poor governance and corruption are just as visible there. Village chiefs and the heads of important families are allowed the most outrageous excesses simply by virtue of their rank and there is little anger when money gets skimmed off the top of funds coming from the outside, even when earmarked for development. I can't quite understand it.

So yes, I do regard culture in some parts of the world as being a causal factor towards their countries' poor economic performance. I think economic success in this world requires a certain outlook on self interest, the shared good and work and that without that a country helps cause its own poverty. But I have no idea how to change it.

You're wrong, but I don't want to argue anymore. If you think that Africans have a genetic or cultural disposition towards corruption, then that is your opinion, and I'm not going to try to change it. I disagree completely, but trying to prove someone on the internet wrong is something I'd rather not spend my time on.

It's not a genetic disposition to corruption but a tolerance developed through overexposure. When most cops are corrupt there is less outrage over one corrupt cop because that is normal. People learn to accept what is all around them. Part of culture is what is tolerated and what isn't. It's a Catch-22.

The same thing can happen in the United States. Louisiana has a history of corruption mostly dating back to Huey Long but present before his term as governor (I grew up in Louisiana). Most voters accept it. It is assumed in every election that all the candidates are crooks. William Jefferson, who was caught with $90,000 dollars in bribes in his freezer, will continue to be reelected partly because voters don't expect better from other politicians. Alaska is different. It is a younger state with a less entrenched culture of corruption. Ted Stevens who was far more popular than William Jefferson lost a close race due to his convictions on corruption charges.

There's is also a feedback effect when it becomes so entrenched that everyone has participated in it. It's one thing to pay a bribe to a cop to avoid trouble. It's another to seek out someone to put a stamp on something so that you do ABC. When corruption is the system, most people reach that point. A large number of (basically decent) people also reach the point where they are actually accepting black money. That would definitely accelorate tolerance.

Not genetic, but cultural. The latter is fluid, though not as quick to change as you believe. Nevertheless, I think that African ideas, attitudes and cultures are changing for the better and I do have some optimism for the continent's future.

Still, I agree that there's not much point in continuing this. We're both arguing from the perspectives obtained from personal observation, so chances are this wouldn't have gone anywhere useful in any case. But thanks for the discussion.

> If you think that Africans have a genetic or cultural disposition towards corruption, then that is your opinion, and I'm not going to try to change it. I disagree completely

What else do you call it when a large proportion of a society broadly engage in and accept a practice?

I think it's fine if you don't like calling it a "cultural disposition", but you have to call it something. For some reason this practice is entrenched there (or do you disagree with even that?) and it's a major obstacle to progress in eliminating poverty. If we can't even refer to it using some terms to describe it, how can we deal with it?

I think we are hitting semantics here. Seems obvious to me that 'a genetic or cultural disposition' that is being opposed in the comment you quote is referring to an 'a priori' disposition: a deeply engrained cultural element that isn't going to be changed by a few generations of poverty, prosperity or political instability.

I think the reason it is being so vehemently opposed (by what seems like a large minority here) should be obvious. It's fairly obvious that cultural elements are involved. The fact that people take & give bribes is a display of culture. But people from places where corruption is less rampant & the conditions for culture are less then ideal, are dismissing this as a genetic disposition or cultural equivalent of 'genetic disposition'. That's a smug sort of a conclusion to come to.

Sure there are cultures that would be more resistant to corruption. But that is probably dwarfed relatively to other factors. Certain colonial practices for example, layed foundations for corruption - especially in certain parts of Africa. There is no reason to assume that Americans would be more resistant to corruption simply because it is now a functioning country.

Actually, the fact that we have a layered government (local, state, and federal) makes its more resistant to corruption. During the vietnam war, a federal investigation of New York's Drug Enforcement Squad eventually landed 2/3rds of the force in front of a grand jury.

Corruption at the local level? Make it a state case. Corruption at the state level? Make it a federal case. Corruption at the federal level?

this is where it gets tricky. Ideally another "branch" of government is supposed to serve as a check or balance against the others, this is not always the case.

trying to prove someone on the internet wrong is something I'd rather not spend my time on.

obligatory link...

http://xkcd.com/386/

The main reason for the difficulties of Pakistanis to integrate into english society is that it is obvious for others that they are frpm Pakistan(or India) even if they have changed culturally. A person from the countryside of northern Sweden may be as culturally different as the Pakistani on arrival but after he has adjusted his culture and accent it's impossible to tell that he is not british.

I don't think there's an African tendency towards corruption or a European tendency towards a lack thereof. Neither of those continents has a homogenous cultural (nor socio-economic) landscape.

But I do think there are cultures which tolerate more corruption than others. For instance, Italy, despite being a wealthy European country, tolerates much more than, say, Belgium. My Sicilian friends have indicated that this is because the government in Sicily, for instance, was long seen as not having a public mandate and constantly shifting allegiances while the mafia was a constant, much more predictable entity: "cosa nostra".

I would venture that corruption as such is as much a function of the view of the government as legitimate over a period of multiple generations as economic conditions. And Africa's modern history of imperial and home grown despots hasn't done well to legitimize the rule of law.

> Culture is very fluid and changes very quickly

Says who? You can read 200 year old travel diaries and the cultural observations are usually still right on. Culture runs deep.

I am a European living in the Philippines and to me this sounds just like the system here. Corruption is not considered very bad, it is a part of the system.

>> It seems almost as if corruption is the default behavior, and it has to be actively forced away, and not the other way around.

Great point. It is also true, as you noted, it is hard to do this in harder times, where people do become more self-centric and would not have time to bother about broader implications or society at large. That is the vicious cycle that has got set up in many poor economies.

edit: A short commercial http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=FAe_bZGqU1g To get this mobilization going is very hard.

> Actually, if America were plunged into a huge depression, and most Americans were suddenly thrust into poverty, banks folded and so on, this 'culture' would change in less than a year.

America has been in a depression before. It has also had recessions, and it wasn't even rich until the twentieth century.

And yet, we still hate corruption.

At the risk of posting something not very Hacker-News friendly, I think the natural thing to credit is widespread Christianity in America. Whether or not you like the whole package, the impact of a huge proportion of the population believing that even if you can entirely get away with it in Earthly terms that there are still consequences for corruption probably can't be understated.

In fact, I suspect that your are more right now about how the culture would change under duress than you would have been fifty years ago, and you will continue to be more right over time. Even if you don't like Christianity, it's hard to deny that there are worse dominant religions or worldviews to live under... it takes some pretty damned enlightened rationalism to resist the temptation to corruption.

70% or more of Sub-Saharan Africa is devoutly christian. Does not seem to have helped very much.

There is a long running concept of honor and chivalry in Anglo-American culture which intertwines with and mutually reinforces Christianity but the two are not one and the same.

It traces back to at least the Normans; the word "chivalry" itself comes to English from Norman French and means, "the combination of qualities expected of an ideal knight, esp. courage, honor, courtesy, justice, and a readiness to help the weak."

The culture of America is borne in significant part of the culture of England. And the culture of England is borne in significant part of the culture of the Normans. And while all of those cultures are hugely different there is still this thread of courage, justice and honor that runs through them all.

I don't know if this cultural legacy explains the lower rate of corruption found in America relative to other countries (a low rate even when America was a poor country).

It could be interesting to identify other cultures that have deep concepts of honor/chivalry and see how the governments derived by those cultures fare corruption-wise today.

It's not the specific religion, but whether people follow what that religion teaches. I have a feeling that most Americans were more devout and morally upright in the 1930's than Americans, South Americans, or Africans today. All religions and humanists teach against corruption, but that counts for nothing if the population ignores relevant moral teachings.

I'm a christian so I'm inclined to believe that Christianity is the "best religion", but I have no doubt that a devout Muslim or principled atheist nation will resist corruption far better than a halfassed Christian nation.

So the crux of it is not really religion, so much as it is principles. People gain their moral compass from somewhere - whether it is through religion, culture, or any other source, is irrelevant.

What matters is if people are willing to stand up for these morals and principles, and how much force it takes to break them. A group of people with strong moral fiber will obviously resist corruption better than a group of people without.

As a Chinese-Canadian immigrant, I've witnessed this first-hand. Where I grew up as a kid population density was extreme (all the people of Canada on a single little island), opportunities were consequently much harder to come by. It was entirely culturally accepted to sneak a little here and there to get an edge on your competition - such were the things you had to resort to if you wanted a crack at getting out of poverty and making a good life for yourself. If you cheated on a test and got caught, your friends would lament you getting caught instead of you cheating in the first place.

Compare with Canada, where cheaters are absolutely not tolerated. In my first semester at college, a group member I worked with slacked off, and even decided to copy some other members' work verbatim. We turned on her immediately and came together to get her kicked out of school. This would never have happened where I came from in Asia.

And going the opposite direction: The #1 most atheist country in the world - Sweden - is the 4th least corrupt.

Nope, I don't think its religion...

Sources:

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781359.html

But even if lately people have been quitting church, the culture of Sweden is very much affected by Christianity. I mean work ethics, being honest, and other such values.

Never attribute to Christianity that which can be adequately explained by common sense.

You don't think religions have greatly affected the culture, and hence the "common sense", in Sweden?

Common sense as in "don't kill other people at random, even if they are dorks". I think Christianity really pushed things like that through during say 12th to 17th century.

The whole South America is Christian. Maybe you are talking about the protestant (puritan) beliefs. But Christianity in itself has nothing to do with development.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Sp...

I think the natural thing to credit is widespread Christianity in America.

Exactly the same is true of the British and Dutch colonial/trading empires.

Russians are Christian and there's a lot of corruption there. Same in South America.

Russians don't see the world as black/white right/wrong like Americans. There's an 80% grey area in Russia which allows things like 'corruption' to be somewhat accepted.

As an American, I believe our politicians and major businesses are corrupt, but in order to function I turn a blind eye and give them the benefit of the doubt and hope that someone is watching over them. If I was Russian, I'd get some cash and go buy me some favors. Which one is right? I can't say.

Not sure Russia is the best example. Until very recently they were the classic Godless Communists.

South America and Sub Saharan Africa (mentioned by another poster), seem to serve as viable counter-examples, though.

And the nordic countries, while christian, are very secularized and have the lowest corruption in the world.

You get a halo effect where people just sort of pick up the dominant culture. Nobody nowhere has ever had a 100% culture, but you don't need it. Residual Christianity seems to work OK. (At least for a while.)

The critical point may be above what sub-Saharan Africa has, or it may be poorly distributed. The people in power have to reject corruption too; 90% of the country may be anti-corruption (for whatever reason), but if the entire ruling class is in the other 10%, you'll still have corruption.

Not sure you know what you are talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Orthodox_Church

By "they were" you are implying the people of Russia. While some in government heavily persecuted the Church, a lot of people obviously still wanted to keep going or else after the first such purge it would have been over. People went despite the best efforts of the Communists to dissuade them.

Russia was corrupt before godless communism was invented.

The homicide rate of modern Washington D.C. is 40X that of London during the great depression. Let me repeat, that's a 4,000% difference. Do you think modern Washington D.C. is 40 times poorer than depression-era London? Source: http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111....

>non-acceptance of dirty cops is something inherent to American culture.

That is exactly the case. America would not have succeeded economically without certain traits, relative immunity to corruption being one of them.

In game theory a player may have two strategies - to 'cooperate' or to 'defect' (law-abiding behaviour vs corruption). It has been demonstrated that in absence of punishment the defection (corruption) may be the best strategy for an individual, even though it may be harmful for the society as a whole.

Americans have developed a virtuous cycle where certainty of punishment (the society and the legal system there as a whole are relatively not corrupt) stimulates intolerance towards corruption among individuals. Remaining non-corrupt and rooting out corruption is profitable in the USA. But in an already corrupt society it may impossible for the individual to remain honest.

I would argue the default behaviour isn't corruption, it's self-preservation. Corruption is only the symptom of a deeper instinctual imperative. When the benefit of individual self-interest outweighs the benefit of communal self-interest, the individual will more often than not act selfishly.

I might not disown the guy before finding another job, but I'd certainly be ashamed of it. It's not something I'd ever drop in casual conversation.

Incidentally, her family was middle class by US standards. She got her first computer 2 years after I did.

The point I'm making is that I don't think you can just change the government, you really need to make corruption a source of shame.

> if America were plunged into a huge depression, and most Americans were suddenly thrust into poverty, banks folded and so on, this 'culture' would change in less than a year.

I don't think evidence supports this claim. The 30s saw some of the lowest crime rates in America ever. In 1800 median living standards were pretty close to the same all over the world but criminality varied a lot.

Criminality and corruption are driven by culture, and possible genetics.

Can you provide evidence in support of that claim?

A test for culture/genetics might be found in immigrants. Particularly those that do not immigrate to big expat communities. Even those might be interesting to look at. I think you'll find that people bend quite a distance to what their environment is. I dare say American expats participate in corrupt practices.

My own take on this is that corruption can hit a point where it is the system of government. It's not that dirty cops are cops that started taking bribes & then got used to it. They take the job in the first place in order to accept bribes. If you take away corruption, you take away the police.

Same goes for many other elements.

Mostly agree with you. A corrupt government and a deaf attitude of people towards a broken system is kind of a cycle. In many of the countries including India where I live it has gone very far on the negative side that it almost seems impossible to break the loop.

>> Changing the government won't change the cultural attitudes, unfortunately.

But there got to be some way out.

I posted this today after going through a terrible experience. I told many of my friends that I give up, and I don't want to waste my life in this corrupted, broken system.

I can pledge that I am fair, loyal, committed and hard working. So is everyone in my family and most folks I move around with. We have worked ourselves up economically without compromising on values. That is our end of it, but at times there is no survival unless you bribe the system. They CAN make life hell for you.

So the system changes the culture gradually and that in turns reinforces the broken system to be more broken.

I am sitting here today with lost hopes of any change. This needs a revolution of sort, strongly opinionated citizens and a mass mobilization on the issues. I don't even know what I can initiate as an individual. I won't even be heard.

Hmmm... "I don't even know what I can initiate as an individual"...

Why don't you start a group? An NGO (Non-Government Organization a.k.a non-profit organization) with one simple goal. Then you are not facing that one simple goal as an individual but as a group, which gives you as an individual a lot of insulation.

possibly. I have seen lokparitran become passive from close quarters, they seem to be struggling with leadership. Then lokayukta which is a govt anti-corruption wing does some decent work. I tried to send a link to this post to jagore folks. I do hope India sees a revolution sooner.

"Be the Change" is not a cliche' its how societies succeed. Again, identify a problem in your locality and ask your friends, colleagues, neighbors if they are interested in forming a group (officially with bylaws etc.,) and make representations as a group, which insulates you from getting targeted as an individual.

So you are from Cameroon?

And you work with computers? Do you have a post highschool education?

No, from India. But the scene is no different. And I as an individual however hard I stand for no-corruption, total fairness would have to succumb to the majority else survival is hard. The other option move out of this system.

My latest status msg on IM was "opt brain drain than have brain in drain". That is how bad it gets here.

Jyothi, I have been reading your comments on HN for quite a while. I have noticed that you jump ahead and nag about India at the slightest opportunity.

Here's John F. Kennedy for you: In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility—I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation.

ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.

Here is the video of that speech: http://youtube.com/watch?v=VB6hLg3PRbY

Your education, your earnings, your access to resources, put you under the "privileged few" in India. What are you doing to improve the situation?

The world that we live in today was not built in a day; nor did it come without sacrifices from devoted people:

Galileo was house arrested for supporting heliocentrism. In my childhood, when I was reading stories of scientists, I read about countless number of those great people harassed/killed by church or other forces. I used to get outraged at those atrocities. It took generations to establish the concepts of freedom of expression and science.

It took a civil war to end slavery. It took Civil Rights movement and Luther King, to make progress on racial-non-discrimination. 45 years later, Obama has declared "change has to America".

No, doubt you are facing great challenges. Progress is not made by complaining about problems. Progress is made by raising upto the challenge and marching towards solutions.

Are you upto it?

:) Those were very motivating words. Thanks.

On nagging about India, I have felt it myself esp with one controversial debate that happened over Chandrayaan post. I do have good words but it has just so happened that there is more to whine about day-to-day feeling helpless (just how u explained in a comment above) than feel good or hopeful.

I chose to start a venture in India instead of moving to the US or Europe like my many friends did in the name of higher education, then job.

I do whatever good I can do for the country within my capabilities - helping people at individual levels to rise up. As you might have noted I do get highly opinionated and get into lot of trouble even government officials. So I see myself probably not smart enough with getting things across in a nice way, hence incapable of bringing a change at large.

Yes, we need a revolution. If it does happen and in a righteous way you would know I would be part of it. (Note there have been many attempts). But would I be the one who starts it probably not.

It's nice to know that you are working towards change; It's alright if your circle of influence is small right now. All the best in your efforts.

Do you write about your thoughts on the problems, possible solutions and your own experiences? (the blog mentioned in your profile seems to talk about your work-related stuff)

Then move out. After you have made it in another part of the world you can better afford to stand for change.

Agree with you. I'm considering this after similar frustrations.

To all those who are linking culture and corruption:

The reason that some societies seem to accept corruption is not because of their culture; It's because of social behavior resulting from "learned helplessness" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_helplessness).

Most of the governments in third world countries are designed to facilitate corruption, so that the elite few controlling the government can benefit.

After spending decades under corrupt regimes, people get used to it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com