Ours is a world of impunity. Allegations of corruption swarmed around FIFA for decades, culminating in mass indictments of FIFA officials last week. However, FIFA president Sepp Blatter was re-elected four times, including after the indictments were filed. Yes, Blatter has finally resigned, but only after he and dozens of FIFA members once again showed their scorn for honesty and the law.
We see this kind of behavior all over the world. Consider Wall Street. In 2013 and last year, JPMorgan Chase paid more than US$20 billion in fines for financial malfeasance; however, its chief executive took home US$20 million in compensation both last year and this year. Or consider corruption scandals in Brazil, Spain, and many other countries, where governments remain in power even after high-level corruption within the ruling party has been exposed.
The ability of those who wield great public and private power to flout the law and ethical norms for personal gain is one of the more glaring manifestations of inequality. The poor get life sentences for petty crimes, while bankers who fleece the public of billions get invitations to White House state dinners. A famous ditty from medieval England shows that this is not a new phenomenon:
The law locks up the man or woman
Who steals the goose off the common
But leaves the greater villain loose
Who steals the common from the goose.
Today’s greatest thieves are those who are stealing the modern commons — raiding government budgets, defiling the natural environment, and preying on the public trust. When the indictments against the 14 FIFA officials were filed, the cast of characters included not only miscreants from the sports world, but also some familiar players: Secret Swiss bank accounts, Cayman Islands tax havens, shell corporations — all of the financial appurtenances that are literally designed to shield the rich from scrutiny and the law.
In this case, the FBI and US Department of Justice have done their jobs. However, they did so, in part, by penetrating the murky worlds of financial secrecy created and protected by the US Department of the Treasury, the US Internal Revenue Service, and US Congress — ever-protective of Caribbean tax havens.
In some societies and economic sectors, impunity is now so pervasive that it is viewed as inevitable. When unethical behavior by political and business leaders becomes widely viewed as “normal,” it then goes unpunished by public opinion and is reinforced as normal — creating an “impunity trap.” For example, with politicians in the US now so flagrantly and relentlessly on the take from wealthy donors, much of the public accepts new revelations of financial impropriety — such as the Clinton Foundation’s morally dubious financial dealings — with a cynical yawn.
The situation in the global banking sector is especially alarming. A recent study of ethical attitudes in the financial-services industry in the US and Britain showed that unethical and illegal behavior is indeed now viewed as pervasive, with 47 percent of respondents saying that it is “likely that their competitors have engaged in unethical and illegal activity,” and 23 percent believing that their fellow employees have engaged in such activities.
The younger generation has learned the lesson, with 32 percent of respondents employed in the financial industry for less than ten years saying that, “they would likely engage in insider trading to make US$10 million if there was no chance of being arrested.” The chance of being arrested for such malfeasance is, alas, probably very low.
However, not all societies or sectors are caught in an impunity trap. Some societies, most notably in Scandinavia, maintain the expectation that their public officials and business leaders should act ethically and honestly. In these nations, ministers are forced to resign for petty infractions that would seem trivial in other countries.
Convincing US, Russian, Nigerian or Chinese citizens that corruption can indeed be controlled might seem to be a futile task. However, the goal is certainly worth embracing, because the evidence is overwhelming: Impunity is not only morally noxious; it is also economically costly and deeply corrosive to wellbeing.
Recent studies have shown that when “generalized trust” in society is high, economic performance is improved and life satisfaction is higher. Among other reasons, commercial agreements are more easily reached and efficiently implemented. It is no coincidence that the Scandinavian countries rank among the world’s happiest and most prosperous year after year.
So what can be done to overcome an impunity trap? Part of the answer is of course law enforcement — such as the FIFA indictments — and protection for whistleblowers. However, law enforcement is not sufficient: Public attitudes also play a major role.
If the public express contempt and revulsion for bankers who cheat their clients, oil executives who wreck the climate, FIFA officials who countenance kickbacks, and politicians who cozy up to all of them in exchange for campaign funds and bribes, illegality for the few cannot become the norm. Public scorn might not end corruption immediately, but it can make life far less pleasant for those who are stealing the commons from the rest of us.
US presidential candidate and Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley recently launched his campaign by asking why not a single Wall Street chief executive was convicted of a financial crime in the wake of the 2008 financial meltdown. It is a good question, the kind that can help the US to overcome its impunity trap.
However, we can ask an even simpler question. Why are those same bankers still feted by US President Barack Obama, invited to glittering state dinners, and reverently interviewed by the media? The first thing any society can and should do is deny respectability to political and business leaders who willfully abuse the public trust.
Jeffrey Sachs is a professor of sustainable development, professor of health policy and management and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. He is also special adviser to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on the Millennium Development Goals.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing