Posts filed under ‘Uncategorized’
Is a little corruption acceptable in developing countries?
It is a no-brainer that Corruption In India is at its rampant best. There is not one section of the society that is spared from it. Corruption in the form of bribery takes the cake and given that it begins at the grass root level makes it even more difficult to monitor and control. The striking though well known findings points out that close to half the bribes are requested by the Government Officials both at the state and national level. The same government personnel who are entrusted with the development of the nation are filling their own pockets. No wonder then the nation’s politicians are the most corrupt lot.
However, it it was only for the petty money minded officials filling their own pockets, the enormity of the bribery might be restricted to a certain level. What if corruption takes the shape of a billion dollar behemoth? According to Management Guru C.K.Prahalad, the cost of corruption to the country might as well exceed Rs. 250,000 crores.
Public corruption is generally viewed as an obstacle to the development of a country. Many governments, international organisations and aid agencies, as well as donor-states have special agendas to fight the problem. Yet in the countries with high levels of corruption, arguments have been made that because corruption is pervasive it has to have some benefit. While definitely not something to be proud of, public corruption is seen as an unavoidable side effect of development.
Arguments in favour:
- Corruption reduces bureaucracy and speeds the implementation of administrative practices governing economic forces of the market. Corrupt public officials acquire incentives to create a development-friendly system for the economy. As a result, corruption starts a chain of benefits for all the economic actors, making over regulated obstructive bureaucracies much more efficient.
- Corruption is a Western concept and is not applicable to traditional societies, where corruption does not have such a negative meaning. Many traditional societies with a “gift culture” have a different understanding of civil responsibilities and etiquette. The social structure and political traditions of many countries are based on the beneficial exchange of rewards for services rendered, and cannot survive in its absence.
- Corruption is a condition of developing states, and should be seen as a childhood disease. Western countries themselves were once the most corrupted societies of the world. Not only is corruption endemic in under-developed nations, it is also an evolutionary level that precedes development and industrialisation. Corruption is a side effect of emerging capitalism and a free market. Underdeveloped countries cannot combat corruption without having achieved the level of economic development necessary to fight it
- In many countries corruption can be seen as a natural response to shortages. Often in developing countries the demand for a service such as access to the courts, education, healthcare, or the attention of civil servants and politicians far outstrips the ability of public officials to cope. To prevent the system from grinding to a complete halt, a way of rationing has to be found and corruption provides such a system. In effect it places a price upon a service and enables officials to prioritise and go at least some way towards dealing with all the demands upon their time and resources.
- Corruption is not a problem in its own right, but rather a symptom of wider problems of governance in some states. Misguided socialist principles have left many developing countries (and some developed ones) with complex and burdensome tangles of rules and regulations administered by huge state machines. Often there is a lack of property rights, meaning the poor are not safe in the possession of the land they farm, and cannot borrow money against it in order to invest for the future. The poor pay of public officials is also common. These problems make ordinary people highly dependent upon the actions of individual officials and give the officials every incentive to exploit their power. Crackdowns on corruption will achieve nothing until these underlying problems are addressed first.
Arguments against:
- Countries with lower levels of corruption still have efficient bureaucracies and enjoy better economic well being. Corruption in the public sector is the biggest obstacle to investment, causing misallocation of valuable resources and subversion of public policies. It is also an invisible tax on the poor. GDP levels for deeply corrupted states could be much higher without corruption.
- The very idea of corruption is unethical, regardless of one’s tradition. Cultural relativism is just an attempt to legitimise corruption by the corrupted. Not enough evidence has been presented to support the suggestion that corruption is required by certain socio-cultural practices. Moreover, regarding corruption as an innate quality of human culture undermines the hope for any improvement and is inherently fatalistic, serving as an excuse for creating cultures of corruption and fear.
- Corruption is universal, and the fact that a nation is economically developed does not mean that it has less corruption. Some First World countries have high rates of public corruption. Having a low level of corruption, however, gives a unique advantage to any developing nation. Appropriate policies can substitute for any positive effects of corruption.
- Corruption may be a response to supply and demand, but it is still not beneficial. By rationing goods, which should be freely available to the whole population, such as healthcare, justice and fair treatment from those in authority, corruption ensures that these public goods are available only to the rich. Where corruption is widespread, the poor always lose out and society becomes ever more divided. It is also bad for society as a whole when corruption provides incentives for bright young people to get jobs as unproductive public officials, because of the financial rewards available for “rent-seekers”. The private sector, already struggling from the added costs of corruption, suffers even more by its inability to recruit the brightest and most ambitious young people, and levels of entrepreneurship and economic growth suffer as a result.
- Corruption is very bad for democracy as it can lead to the capture of the state by special interests. In corrupt societies even free and fair election results count for little. Once in power politicians of all parties are likely to concentrate on enriching themselves, taking money from individuals and companies in order to promote their own interests rather than those of their voters or the country as a whole. Sometimes politicians can be bought outright, as when they are persuaded to change political party for financial reward. To avoid accountability to the electorate, such corrupt politicians then have an incentive to corrupt elections, by bribing the electorate with their own money and/or plotting to make the electoral process unfair. Not only is this unjust, it also creates contempt for democracy and makes military coups and other forms of dictatorship more attractive to many people. Finally, it is economically disastrous as it gives those in power the incentive and ability to continually create new laws and regulations, which they can then exploit in order to extract bribes.
Are WikiLeaks release of US diplomatic cables good for democracy and transparency?
WikiLeaks obtained in November of 2010 a trove of over 250,000 US diplomatic documents leaked by US Army Pfc. Bradley Manning. The stated intention of the leaks was to reveal contradictions between public and private US international policies. But, the leaks have set-off an international debate on the value of transparency to democracy, whether such transparency jeopardizes diplomacy and even lives, whether the leaks expose illegal behaviour on the part of the United States, and whether Wikileak’s actions were legal. The White House came out strongly against the leak, as it did against the Afghanistan and Iraq War Log leaks earlier in the year, declaring: “Such disclosures put at risk diplomats, intelligence professionals, and people around the world who come to the US for assistance in promoting democracy and open government. By releasing stolen and classified documents, WikiLeaks has put at risk not only the cause of human rights but also the lives and work of these individuals.” But others have come out in defence of the leaks, including the New York Times, which wrote: “the documents serve an important public interest, illuminating the goals, successes, compromises and frustrations of American diplomacy in a way that other accounts cannot match.” These and other arguments and quotations are outlined below.
Arguments in favour of the releases:
- WikiLeaks aided transparency and accountability. Wikileaks has helped in revealing grand pretences about projecting freedom worldwide by US and on the other hand has kept most of the details of its actions away from the prying eyes of the public. WikiLeaks and its efforts have helped provide the information necessary so Americans can govern themselves in this supposedly self-governing society. WikiLeaks has helped demystify the inner workings of US government, sparking a much-needed debate over various U.S. policies across the world and reminded Americans that free societies depend on an informed citizenry.
- WikiLeaks served public by revealing actual US policy. The documents serve an important public interest, illuminating the goals, successes, compromises and frustrations of American diplomacy in a way that other accounts cannot match.
- WikiLeaks helped expose wasteful/equivocal top secret world. The top-secret world the government created in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive, that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work. The result of this classification mania is the division of the public into two distinct groups: those who are privy to the actual conduct of American policy, but are forbidden to write or talk about it, and the uninformed public, which becomes easy prey for the official lies exposed in the Wikileaks documents. Like the failure of American counterinsurgency programs in Afghanistan.
- WikiLeaks helps journalists do job and check government. It is a fact of the current media landscape that the chilling effect of threatened legal action routinely stops reporters and editors from pursuing stories that might serve the public interest – and anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant or lying. Wikileaks is a powerful new way for reporters and human rights advocates to leverage global information technology systems to break the heavy veil of government and corporate secrecy that is slowly suffocating the American press.
- WikiLeaks release won’t have terrible diplomatic effects. The long-term damage will be much more minimal than is presently ascribed by maybe the White House spokesperson. Leaks are not the problem; the lies they expose are.
- Cables reveal contradiction between US public and private statements. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said in a November 2010 statement: “reveals the contradictions between the U.S.’s public persona and what it says behind closed doors.
- Cables expose and counter US spying, missteps, and corruption. The cables show the U.S. spying on its allies and the U.N.; turning a blind eye to corruption and human rights abuse in ‘client states’; backroom deals with supposedly neutral countries and lobbying for U.S. corporations.”
Arguments against the releases:
- WikiLeaks leaks lack democratic principles of consent. One can hardly compare a society that is open by consent and by voluntary disclosure of the governed and the governing to vandals who forcibly pry open what is rightly closed. Like all the open source thugs, Wikileaks violates the principle of opt-in; and indeed there is not even an opt-out. Yes, most of all, what’s wrong with Wikileaks is that it is achieved by force, without consent and without knowledge. It’s Bolshevist, in that a group of people arrogantly usurp to themselves power, without democratic legitimacy, in the name of revolutionary expediency.
- WikiLeaks can be exploited by regimes unfriendly to democracy. The United States of America is surely a democratic country, respecting the freedom of reporting. However, the acts of WikiLeaks are not appropriate because it is revealing the national secrets to the world. This can cause serious problems around the globe because enemy countries, such as North Korea, can use the information from the WikiLeaks for their own benefits.
- WikiLeaks release is an assault on global democracy. It puts people’s lives in danger, threatens national security, and undermines efforts to work with other countries to solve shared problems. In every country and in every region of the world, governments are working with partners to pursue these aims. So this disclosure is not just an attack on America’s foreign policy interests, it is an attack on the international community – the alliances and partnerships, the conversations and negotiations, that safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity.
- Transparency is important, but not in case of diplomacy. Transparency is fundamental in our society and its usually essential — but there are a few areas, including diplomacy, where it isn’t essential.
- WikiLeaks decreases diplomatic frankness, undermines public debate. If everything a government official says and writes is liable to become public the next moment, you will only have self-censorship, political correctness and worse, a greater tendency to avoid putting debates and decisions on record.
- WikiLeaks is not about transparency, but damaging US. There’s only the taunting slogan ‘We open governments.’ Except they don’t. They only open one government, pretty much, the U.S. The others only become displayed to the extent the U.S. engages with them, and much of the time, it’s unflattering and damaging to the U.S., not anyone else.
- WikiLeaks release is rooted in anarchist objectives. Like small children playing with fires, fascinated with their own power to destroy, Assange and company are setting the world aflame merely to watch it burn. They are not crusaders for a better society. They are nihilists. They are anarchists. And they are enemies of the United States.
- WikiLeaks has none of the transparency it espouses. People involved are mainly anonymous. They ask for donations by banking accounts – but one don’t know how much they raise or how much they spent, or on what. They don’t say what their aspirational goals are, or whether they have any creed or ideology — there’s only the taunting slogan “We open governments.”
- WikiLeaks undermines international trust and diplomacy. The key ingredient to all relationships is trust. With the release of the cables one could say that the trust that’s essential to diplomacy has been broken.
- WikiLeaks decreases frank intra-government dialogue. WikiLeaks release will shift specialized diplomats. Wikileaks release puts diplomats and officials at risk. Such disclosures put at risk diplomats, intelligence professionals, and people around the world who come to the United States for assistance in promoting democracy and open government.
- Leaks undermine counter-terrorism intelligence sharing. Brakes will be applied in the trend towards sharing of information within government and across departmental silos. A process that began as a result of the US intelligence community’s failure to piece together data that could have led to the uncovering of the 9/11 plot—and was adopted by governments across the world, including in India—might come to an end with abuse of technological power by Wikileaks. ‘Information fusion’ within governments is likely to be the first casualty of Mr Assange’s war on responsibility.”
- Private cables are not US policy as WikiLeaks claims. People of good faith recognize that diplomats’ internal reports do not represent a government’s official foreign policy. They are one element out of many that shape policies, which are ultimately set by the Head of the state. And those policies are a matter of public record, the subject of thousands of pages of speeches, statements, white papers, and other documents that the US State Department makes freely available online and elsewhere.
My Encounters: Rahul Kanval shares his IIM A Essay/ PI experience
Profile:
Name: Rahul Kanval
X – 89 (CBSE)
XII – 87(CBSE)
Graduation – B.Tech (Comp. Science) 73.4%
Work Ex – 4 months in own venture, 2 months with Accenture
Overall Experience: Grilling
Essay Topic: Global Warming is a fictitious devil created by scientists
Time: 10 mins
Other Details: Was asked to stop writing in 9 mins. Nobody in my panel could complete the essay.
PI Experience:
Panel consisted of 2 Professors.
Professor 1, Professor 2 (had knowledge about everything under the sun)
P2 came out and called me. I greeted them and sat down.
P2: (Looking at my picture in the form) Where is your goatee?
Me: Sir, I used to keep it in college, not now.
P1: Your email id is rahulrocks. What is this rocks? I think this is a trend with youth these days.
Me: (Happy. Rock music is my hobby) Sir, I am interested in rock and rap music So, I made an id like that. I don’t know about others but this is the reason I’ve such an id.
P1: What is this rock music?
Me: Started to explain. P2 interrupts in between.
P2: What kind of rock do you like? You have heard of the band “WINDOWS”?
Me: No sir
P2: Named a few more remote band names like these.
Me: No Sir.
P2: Pink Floyd.
Me: Yes Sir.
P2: What kind of rock do they sing? Punk rock, psychedelic rock, garage rock, indie rock, glam rock, metal rock, heavy rock?
Me: Sir, I think they sing hard rock.
P2: No, they don’t. They sing soft rock.
Me: I’ve heard of one album. Singing hard rock.
P2: What was it?
Me: <Blank>
P2: In the beginning, they came out with only 1 hard rock album.
Me: I don’t know.
I kept smiling all the time.
P1: You have participated in Rasayanika – an international chemistry quiz? What is alchemy?
Me: Told (forgot about melting of baser metals)
P2: When did renaissance happen?
Me: Told
P2: Name a few personalities of that time.
Me: Told a few
P1: (laughing) I thought alchemy was something related to eating baser metals. I don’t know how one can eat those hard metals.
Me: (smiling) Sir, the elixir they wanted to prepare was to be in a liquid form.
P1: Continued with his metal talks.
Me: Smiling and continued answering his talks related to alchemy
P2: OK. So you’re a Computer Engineer. What do u want to talk about in computers??
Me: .Net
P2: No. What in computer fundamentals?
Me: Sir, operating system.
P2: Unix or windows?
Me: Anything Sir.
P2: OK in Unix, inside the kernel, inside the shells, inside <i don’t even remember what he said), inside that, there is this thing, how will the user interact with it??
Me: I don’t know Sir.
P2: OK lets move on to windows. Let’s talk about FAT.
Me: Ok Sir.
P2: Suppose you are writing a program and you want to create a process so that it gets the highest priority. How will you code that?
Me: Sir, priorities of the processes is system defined. It depends on what system call your program is invoking.
P2: Yeah, that’s fine. But, u have to code it explicitly.
Me: I don’t know Sir.
<continued at such level>
P2: OK. We are done.
Take a toffee and leave.
Me: Thank you Sir!
<Rahul was rejected in this interview>
Statement of Purpose(SOP) : Sample-5
Q1. Scholastic Achievements.Please list scholastic awards or scholarships conferred on you:
Awarded scholar badge at school for 7 consecutive years
Awarded blue blazer in recognition of academic accomplishments
Awarded certificate of merit for National Maths Olympiad
Q2. Please describe your strengths and weaknesses that you have identified in yourself as a student
Continue Reading January 6, 2010 at 12:35 pm CL Leave a comment
Statement of Purpose(SOP): Sample-3
I have had the good fortune of studying with many great teachers who have been a source of constant inspiration. Because of this inspiration, I have excelled in both studies and Co Curricular activities, from the very beginning of my academic career. My high school teachers provided me
Continue Reading January 5, 2010 at 11:27 am CL Leave a comment
IIFT GD/PI Experience-3
Student Name: Vignesh Kumar
1) Essay writing-“The digital divide in India: Reasons & Responses”
2) GD
3) PI
GD details:
No of students in Group-11
Time duration-50min
Topic: Experience Vs Fame:” Do celebrities have to join politics”
Continue Reading January 2, 2010 at 1:34 pm CL Leave a comment
Career Launcher's PDP Blog 
Recent Comments