On
Corruption and Accounting: No Panacea for a Modern Disease
By
Bert J. Zarb
DECEMBER
2005 - If technological advancement is the hallmark of progress
in modern society, then corruption is its bane. Along with
prosperity and progress, globalization acts as an agent
of change in international trade. This increased internationalization
of business has propagated the dark side of domestic practices
as well as raised the specter of corruption. Globalization
has turned companies into global institutions; it has challenged
daily economic life and national identity; and it has created
a persistent movement toward cultural and business homogenization.
The
tentacles of corruption have touched several sectors of
society. Accounting, on both the national and international
level, has not escaped unscathed. Although corruption is
a social malaise that engulfs development and ravishes the
fabric of society, steps can be taken to curb it. Adopting
a set of universally accepted financial accounting standards,
striving toward a high level of economic development, observing
the cultural construct of uncertainty avoidance, operating
within a country’s legal system, and mandating the
use of audit committees could be ways to fight corruption.
The recent accounting scandals show how businesses of all
sizes, in any location, are vulnerable to the malevolent
intentions of corrupt individuals who create chaos and seek
personal enrichment at great cost to others, leaving a legacy
of financial ruin.
Corruption
takes many forms, including bribery, fraud, illegal payments,
money laundering, smuggling, extortion, and nepotism. Although
fighting corruption covers an array of issues and occurs
on many fronts, there is no panacea; the struggle to stop
it entirely—or at least curb it—is one of Sisyphean
proportions.
Defining
and Justifying Corruption
Perhaps
one of the first problems of corruption is defining what
it really is. Some of the definitions found in the literature
focus on the abuse of public roles and resources for private
gain. Others suggest that distinguishing between public
and private corruption is difficult, and that the reasons
for engaging in corrupt activities have become so ingrained
in the system that nobody talks about them. While corruption’s
effect on the economic performance of a country varies with
that country’s individual conditions, its negative
effects either force governments to intervene where they
should not, or impede governments from promulgating laws
and implementing policies.
Scholars
have defined corruption based on rules and laws because
of the stability, universal application, and relative precision
that formal laws and rules offer. At times, however, laws
are broken and lose their legitimacy. Consequently, the
issue becomes whether corruption should be described in
terms of its social significance rather than its nominal
meaning. The literature is replete with studies showing
that classifying specific actions alone ignores the place
of morality and justice in a society. Corruption can also
be seen as “the abuse of public roles or resources
for private benefit” by appreciating that the terms
“abuse,” “public,” “private,”
and “benefit” are subject to considerable dispute
and interpretation.
An
interesting strand of literature purports that corruption
enhances economic efficiency. The argument goes that this
is because corruption might not affect the short-run efficiency
of an economy if all it does is transfer economic rent from
a private party to a government official. In the long run,
however, expectations of bribery clearly wreak havoc on
the number and types of contracts put up for bid, how contracts
are awarded, and the speed or efficiency with which public
officials perform their work in the absence of bribes.
Corruption
can also be seen to increase economic efficiency when enterprises
are allowed to avoid restrictive regulations or confiscatory
taxes. Some proponents of this line of reasoning claim that,
ethical considerations aside, corruption actually reduces
costs by cutting bureaucratic red tape and making public
officials more flexible. Other scholars have shown that
corruption could play an efficiency-enhancing role, the
suggestion being that the size of bribes paid by different
economic agents could reflect their different opportunity
costs and also achieve “Pareto-optimal” allocation.
This has led to the coining of the term “efficient
grease.” Other studies have suggested that if bribes
“grease the wheels of commerce,” then initiatives
by governments and other organizations to combat corruption
in international trade would be counterproductive.
Weapons
to Fight Corruption
The
impact of corruption on business in particular and society
in general is such that it diverts resources from productive
to nonproductive sectors, and enriches a few of the rich
at the expense of everyone else. Apart from increasing risk
and the cost of doing business, corruption damages investor
confidence, stifles economic growth, and deters foreign
direct investment. International financial reporting standards,
an increased economic development, the cultural construct
of uncertainty avoidance, an effective legal system, and
active audit committees are among the weapons that can be
used in the fight against corruption.
Bert
J. Zarb, DBA, CPA, is an assistant professor at the
College of Business at Embry-Riddle University in Daytona
Beach, Fla.
|