Corruption and public administration

Governments exist to deliver value to their communities and to preside over, as Easton (1965) put it, the “authoritative allocation of values”. Delivering value is highly contested politically, but whatever ideologies prevail or the courses of action taken, they are underpinned by public administration. Governments may choose to deliver goods and services, or they may choose to regulate their delivery, or may leave them completely alone. They can choose to regulate lightly or heavily, they may regulate the economy, health care, transport, communications, teacher performance, water quality and on and on. If these things are delivered or regulated according to ethical principles and underpinned by good public administration, then the community receives value. If they are tainted by corruption then the community is cheated. All societies organize themselves to reflect legal, economic, political and social values. Formal mechanisms of administration have been studied throughout history and there is a continual search to find more responsive, more efficient and more effective forms of delivery. Whether the stakes are high or low, there are opportunities for those in administration to pursue their own interests at the expense of those of the community. Research in public policy explores better ways of developing and implementing desirable goals and objectives. This research has no currency when corruption is present. Where there is a lack of integrity or corruption then public administration is deficient and public value suffers. Globally corruption costs governments and businesses trillions of dollars per year, it adds substantially to costs of goods and services, but most importantly it damages policy objectives and diminishes trust. The catalogue of harms caused by corruption is long. Among other things, corruption hampers economic performance and growth; discourages investment; distorts natural resource development; damages the environment; reduces tax revenue; diminishes quality of life; retards human development; distorts services; weakens judicial integrity and the rule of law; and, of relevance in this book, leads to inefficient public administration. Defining corruption is not always a fruitful exercise, as there are many nuances and interpretations. In essence it involves trading in entrusted authority, and using one’s position to distort outcomes in return for personal gain. It might involve doing wrong things in a public office such as failing to do something that one should do, or doing something permissible, but purposely doing it in an improper manner. Clear definitions are necessary for legal matters relating to corruption and for prosecutions, but not absolutely necessary for improvements in public administration. Definitions and discussion about definitions of corruption abound in the literature (see, for example, de Speville 2010, Dobel 2002, Graycar and Prenzler 2013, Heidenheimer and Johnston 2008, Heywood 2017, Johnston 2005, Klitgaard 1988, Kurer 2015, Mulgan 2012, Philp 2015, Rose-Ackerman and Palifka 2016, Rotberg 2018, Treisman 2000). Various estimates by the United Nations (2018), the World Economic Forum (2015) and the World Bank (2018), KPMG (2017) and PWC (2019) are that each year corruption costs about