The direct and indirect costs are of policy failures, unproductive investments, slower development, higher inequity, environmental destruction and a lower rate of growth of the economy than would have been possible. India could have been growing faster, by about 5 per cent, since the 1970s if it did not have the black economy. Consequently, India could have been a $8-trillion economy, the second largest in the world. Per capita income could have been seven times larger; India would then have been a middle-income country and not one of the poorest. That has been a huge cost.
... For instance, any public servant who privatises public property at throwaway prices, even when he or she receives no direct gratification for it, is invariably hailed for this act by the corporate media, by the Bretton Woods institutions and by the global financial community as being a “visionary”, a bold promoter of “entrepreneurship” and a “liberal” thinker in tune with the modern times. This brings in its train a host of possible rewards: sundry “best Minister in Asia” (or similar) awards, lecture tours, World Bank assignments, offers of cushy corporate placements, various remunerative advisory roles, and post-retirement sinecures. None of this, however, will be considered “corruption”. “Corruption”, in short, is confined exclusively to gratification received directly as quid pro quo; it does not cover the far more pervasive case of gratification received from the system as a whole. The current crusade against corruption, therefore, by not looking at the system as a whole, misses the wood for the trees. Of course, one should not ignore the “trees”; and hence legislation against “corruption” even in this limited sense is important. But missing the wood is unpardonable; and the wood is what Marx called “primitive accumulation of capital”.
Primitive accumulation refers to the appropriation of the property of petty producers, peasants and the people at large (through, for instance, encroaching on common property or cornering budgetary resources or buying up state property at throwaway prices) by the capitalists or proto-capitalists. It is called primitive accumulation, as distinct from the normal process of accumulation under capitalism, because it entails not the reinvestment of the economic surplus produced under capitalism but a process of filching the property of other non-capitalist segments: the peasants, the petty producers, the state and the community (“commons”). Now, corruption too entails a process of filching others' property; corruption itself may constitute a form of primitive accumulation of capital, for example, when a “public servant” demands a bribe from the common man. But big ticket “corruption”, of the sort that has surfaced of late, is not itself primitive accumulation; it constitutes rather a levy on an ongoing process of primitive accumulation.
The escalation of “corruption” in the recent period is indicative of the fact that the proceeds of the primitive accumulation that has been unleashed by neoliberalism are being shared pervasively by the political class (and the bureaucracy). It is not only the monopolists, the financial oligarchy, the land sharks and the multinational corporations that are raking in the proceeds of primitive accumulation but also the government echelons at the highest level, which are recruited from the political class. But things are even worse. Significant segments of even those elements of the political class which are not “corrupt”, in the sense that they do not receive any direct gratification for conniving with the primitive accumulation of capital, are nonetheless actively complicit in the process: they belong very much to the system that promotes primitive accumulation and benefit from the indirect systemic gratification mentioned earlier. We are in short institutionalising a regime of primitive accumulation, with the bulk of the political class (barring a few honourable exceptions, notably the Left) being incorporated into this regime.
Secondly, those people you talk about DO NOT willingly give the bribe; they are forced to do that; otherwise, their work won't be done.
He catches you for some offence and takes out his challan book to write a challan and you start pleading that please don't write me a challan(as it may cost say 1200 rs), lets settle for 100 rs without getting a challan. People force the innocent and honest traffic cops to take bribe.
I beg to differ on this for the cases involving traffic policemen. He catches you for some offence and takes out his challan book to write a challan and you start pleading that please don't write me a challan(as it may cost say 1200 rs), lets settle for 100 rs without getting a challan. People force the innocent and honest traffic cops to take bribe...
All I hear is rants on this thread to the extent that it is hard to read past first two sentences. Its easy to overlook the positives and whine and complain about anything. It is advisable not to waste time creating threads with irrational terms such as "failed state" and contributing absolutely nothing constructive/meaningful/interesting. First it is hard to read what you're writing but it seems to me whatever problems you are stating prevail in most nations to some extent.
and finally reading an article about India's corruption in a british newspaper feels like Germany accusing why Poland is still not that great after world war II...exploit a country for n number of years, leave it dismantled and then complain why this country malfunctions....anyways...yes corruption in India is definitely a very serious problem but instead whinning about it we can spend that same amt of time & energy in doing something to erradicate it.
Talk about ingratitude. The British set up the railroads, set up the court system, set up the civil service. India was probably better governed under the Brits than it is today, with less bribery, corruption, and incompetence. Asking "what did the Brits ever do for us?" is like asking "what did the Romans ever do for us?" :
This comment is so ridiculous yet offensive that it gives a clear picture of kind of person you are. Sorry.