Andrey Ivanov, UNDP Human Development Advisor
Tolerance to corruption is proxied by the share of people who believe that unofficial payments or gifts are acceptable in at least one case listed. The threshold for low tolerance is less than 10 percent; for high acceptance of corruption, it is more than one third.
It’s intuitive that values such as tolerance for diversity are related to social exclusion. One can imagine that people with disabilities are left out of in intolerant society. But corruption?
UNDP’s upcoming regional Human Development Report on social inclusion links exclusion with tolerance to corruption. Our survey sample was divided into two parts – people living in communities where less than 10 percent of respondents find unofficial payments (bribes) to access to services acceptable (a low acceptance of corruption) and those living in communities where more than one third of the population finds unofficial payments acceptable (a high acceptance of corruption).
And guess what?
The social exclusion in communities with low level of acceptance of corruption is almost eight times lower than in communities with a high level of tolerance to corruption (the social exclusion index is respectively 2.6 and 20.5).
The difference is even more pronounced when local specifics are factored in. The social exclusion index reached 27 in villages tolerant to corruption compared to only 3 in villages intolerant to corruption. The difference is lower in small towns (2 versus 14) and lowest in capitals (3 versus 8).
Why? Because the higher tolerance for corruption in villages may indicate that local authorities are more susceptible to corruption than central administrations – or simply that the market of services there is so small that people don’t have an alternative other than to succumb to corrupt patterns.
What does it all mean?
First, that there is a strong link between corruption and social exclusion. The link doesn’t necessarily imply causality, but most probably the underlying factors that lead people tolerate corruption also boost social exclusion. Second, availability of choices (or in other words, not being left to the mercy of local monopolists) is good for social inclusion. At the end of the day, having the freedom to choose is an integral part of social inclusion.
Tags: bribes, choice, communities, corruption, disabilities, diversity, human development, social exclusion, social inclusion
Pingback: Who’s leading the charge against corruption? « Serpents and Doves: A development policy blog