How effective is law enforcement in stopping corruption?
Not that much, if a new study is anything to go by, according to a report in the Financial Times.
The researchers looked at parking violations by UN diplomats in New York. This was prior to 2002 when moves were put in place to allow New York City to recoup unpaid parking tickets from offending representatives of overseas countries.
The significance of this is that it allowed the researchers to examine the motivations of offenders who were not worried about law enforcement. It also allowed the academics to examine how different cultures operate under new cultural norms.
The researchers found that diplomats from countries with high levels of corruption and sleaze, like Nigeria, were breaking the rules all the time. But diplomats from places with low levels of corruption, like the Scandinavians, behaved well, even when they knew they could get away with a violation or three.
The researchers suggest that when it comes to dealing with corruption, law enforcement has its limits.
The say: "Culture, norms, and emotions – in other words, factors other than legal enforcement – play a key role in government officials' corruption decisions… understanding these factors should be taken seriously in debates about the causes of corruption and the policy measures to combat it."
But strictly speaking, is that right? Are westerners really entitled to the moral high ground?
Well, the behavior of US embassy staff in London might suggest otherwise.
That's the suggestion in the coverage of the same story in The Economist.
As The Economist says: "Last year, (American) embassy staff stopped paying the congestion charge – now £8, over $15 – for bringing cars into central London. The growing pile of unpaid charges now stands at $716,000."
Hmm, maybe some diplomats just do it because they know they can, regardless of where they are from.
no comment untill now