(Written 9-1-07)
Having mentioned 'suppliers of corruption services' in my blog 'Pause for thought: Santiago' I guess I should be explicit as to what I mean.
Current definitions of corruption, largely promoted by Transparency International and heavily used by the World Bank as it suits Paul Wolfowitz's style to focus on a definition of corruption that highlights only those who use such services, are demand focused. In other words they look at those, particularly in the public sector, who abuse the trust placed in them by the public.
The supply side of the corruption debate focuses on those who let this happen. These include:
1. Those governments who supply the secrecy spaces in which corruption can take place, which include (but by no means exclusively) the recognised tax havens;
2. Those who supply the services that allows such corruption to happen including the bankers, lawyers, accountants and trust companies who set up and operate such arrangements;
3. Those who undertake illicit transactions related to capital flight and tax abuse;
4. Those who ignore such transactions in the course of their duties.
I do not for one minute condone the petty (and no so petty) demand side corruption which dominates the current world view of corruption. But an abuse of public trust need not take place only in the public sector. It can extend to the private sector, where the public are as much a stakeholder a they are in the public domain, and pay a higher price as a result of that corruption, just as they do when tax revenues are stolen. In addition, all tax evasion and (I think) all tax avoidance is corrupt, the latter precisely because it seeks to avoid the obligations of the law.
Part of my reason for being in Chile is to deliver this message. When we redefine corruption we'll change its geography and will recognise that within our own communities as well as that which takes place elsewhere. Corruption is a cancer eating the credibility not just of governments, but the credibility of the market system as well. If you believe in either, or as I do in both, then to accept a definition of corruption that extends to the supply side as well as the demand side is essential.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Richard has chosen the right word in Cancer to discribe corruption and ist links to tax havens.
Cancer, the medical kind, and its treatments leaves the body totally wrecked, temporarily or permentally, as I know from my own experience.
Cancer, caused by corruption, greed, globalisation, and its links to tax havens will destroy many countries. Not just developing countries, but the tax havens that participate in tax avoidance, evasion and capital flight.
I believe that the small island economies that are dominated by the “financial services industry” may well be bankrupt economically, socially and politically, as Cancer always destroys good to be replaced by evil.
[…] It still leaves World bank understanding a long way off target, but this last point is very welcome. Let’s just they really understand just how big the supply side is. […]
[…] I note the BBC has just decided to pull out of an environmental broadcast on the basis to might threaten its impartiality. Well so does this. Much more seriously, because spreading the supply of corruption services is unethical however you look at it. And taking cash in exchange is just about the poorest excuse that can be offered. That just makes you a partner in the destruction of society as we know it. Which is worse that simply talking about it. […]
[…] That’s why we say that anyone who is serous about tackling poverty has to be serious about tax abuse, the use of tax havens and curtailing the activities of the suppliers of corruption services. […]
[…] fair and square bangs the nail on the head. None of this could happen without the suppliers of corruption services. As Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala puts […]
[…] The evidence seems clear that he is avoiding the issue and exonerating those who are evading tax by belittling the issue as inconsequential. In that case I stand by my suggestion that Liechtenstein is a corrupt state that knowingly supports the supply of corruption services. […]
[…] do I know this? Well, it just so happens that Rev Green one of the biggest suppliers of corruption services in the world. He’s, amongst other things, chair of HSBC Private Banking Holdings (Suisse) SA. […]
[…] What he’s saying is that accountants are suppliers of corruption services. […]
[…] I can say is this: I warmly welcome this approach. It is absolutely essential that those who supply corruption services are prosecuted. They commit economic crimes, even when they work for the largest banks and […]