Does religion matter in corruption eradication?

Sunday, April 25, 2010

I have been wondering why people who perform religious rituals can also be corrupt at the same time. Consider this passage from the renegade whistleblower police general Susno Duaji:
Saya kira solusinya kita perbaiki moral melalui agama seluruh pimpinan negara ini. Sekarang ini kan orang tidak takut lagi sama Tuhan. Mereka tetap Sholat lima waktu tetapi korupsinya jalan terus. Kalau mereka ketemu daging babi muntah muntah, tetapi aspal dan pasir masuk perut.

My translation: "I think the solution is for us to fix the morality of this nation's leader, through religion. Nowadays people are no longer afraid of God. They pray 5 times a day but remains corrupt at the same time. If they meet pork, they will throw up, but asphalt and sand goes to their stomach."

Interesting isn't it? Now my question: why do religious rituals fails in deterring people from being corrupt? In fact, I found that in several cases, some people actually use the hot money from their corruption to finance their religious activities. A Judge used the hot money to finance his umrah (small hajj) and a legislator used the fund to build a mosque.

So I run a quick literature check on Google Scholar, to see whether religion is considered as an important factor in corruption eradication. To my surprise, there is not enough literature seriously considering the role of religion in eradicating corruption. This is a sad fact provided that in some countries, their population invest a lot in religious activities.

There is however, one literature which I found very interesting. Using religion as a proxy of culture, the author weigh the role of religious diversity in a country against its corruption level. The result: countries which are more diverse in terms of its religion are less corrupt.

The author, Martin Paldam, suggested an explanation (p 26):
This is in accordance with the insight of Adam Smith: η= ∂κi /∂hi < 0, so a country with great religious diversity (low h) has less corruption (high κ) than a country with a monopoly religion. It is often argued that religious homogeneity is a great advantage for a country, as religious diversity may lead to political and social instability and even civil war, but as regards corruption diversity is probably an advantage.


This paper still has not answer my curiosity. What I really want to know is why religion fails to influence the cognition of those who engage in corruption. It is likely that the answers should come from behavioral economics.

But the paper remains interesting as it may have implication on public policy. It sends a message that regulating deviant teachings through blasphemy laws may not be efficient, as it infringe the free-market of ideas as advocated by Smith, and at the same time, facilitates corruption.








, ,

Is water a 'commodity' or a 'human right'?

Saturday, April 24, 2010

Have a look at this interesting clip:



Same old question.

Let me put it another way.
1. Is education a commodity? You'd probably say no. But hey, why do we need to pay for piano and language courses? They should be freely provided by the state, no?

2. Is health service a commodity? If no, then why do you have to pay your health insurance?

3. Is water a commodity? If no, then why do we need to pay for coca cola, starbucks and all those beverages in Tesco's shelves?

If no water can be commodified, every bartender in this earth will lose their jobs. No one can open a Cafe' because all the drinks should be for free.

Now you probably said: no, because they are "processed". Those who process them added the value of water, and is entitled for their labor. But drinking water should be free.

Now wait a minute here. Aren't drinking water "processed" too? If you ask me to get you a bucket of water from uphill, aren't you supposed to pay me for my work? Those plumbing and water treatment plants need funds too, no? The tap's going have to come from somewhere.

But I agree that in some instances water should be provided for free by the state. In times of emergencies, natural disaster or for people in prison, the state should provide them with adequate and safe water. Also for those who can't afford to pay it. Subsidy measures should be available, or payment in arrears facility, or solidarity tariffs.

But we cannot say that water entirely cannot be commodified. Humans are not commodities, that I fully agree, both morally and legally. Sex should not be a commodity too, at least, morally. But some people think it differently. As such there are differences of opinion on whether the commodification of sex should be prohibited by the state.

That human is not a commodity is universal. But whether water is a commodity or not is highly contextual. It depends on what sort of water and in which situation.

,

Corruption allegation in Makassar's water project

Friday, April 23, 2010

The Indonesian Attorney General Office has started to investigate the allegation of corruption in the water sector. The amount money involved is 1 billion IDR. The project, which is fully funded by Makassar's regional budget is supposed to improve Makassar city's water supply. Read more (in Bahasa)

,

Missing water and shadow users

Thursday, April 22, 2010

There is an interesting op-ed in today's Jakarta Post about Water Resources. The author argues:

There are three main reasons for the emergence of shadow users and the disappearance of water from the water table.

  1. First, on face value, unlike countries that face water scarcity, Indonesia has abundant and easily accessible water resources.
  2. Second, a small handful of non-state actors and activist organizations are not pluralistic by definition. These actors are politically driven, weak and sparse. Promoting a consensus based pluralistic dialogue and discourse is not their main agenda.
  3. Third, both at the national and local levels, there are gaps in linking public policy-making with regulatory frameworks.

Can't agree more with the 2nd point. The water resources discourse in Indonesia is quite monolithic: it's either you are pro public ownership or pro privatization. I don't think this will get us anywhere.

, , ,

The Controversial Blasphemy Law Verdict

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Quick blogging. The controversial blasphemy law verdict by the Indonesian Constitutional Court has been published. You can download it here.

What do you think about the verdict?

Have your say.





 

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

, ,

IWRM Course Sylabus

For those of you interested in Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM), have a look at a 2007 sylabus for the course at Florida International University here. There are some links to downloadable materials, papers and lecture notes too.

,

Water Law 101 (Free Ebook from FAO!)

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Big Hat Tip to the author of our brotherly blog who send me the link to this free ebook from the FAO. The title of the book is Law for water management: a guide to concepts and effective approaches. If you are a water law aficionado, download freely here (and save it to your hard drive, before the link is broken!)

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]