The most commonly accepted definition of corruption is the abuse of public trust for private benefits. The most important two words are “public” and “private”. However, the distinction between public and private varies considerably between stable and transitioning economies. In the developed West, clear boundaries between public and private properties have been defined for decades or even centuries. In a rapidly transitioning economy like China, the line is constantly shifting. What is public today could become private tomorrow. It is very difficult to define corruption and to measure it. In a stable economy even a small quantity of corruption can be very damaging, whereas in a transitioning economy the effects are much less certain.
Corruption is also multi-dimensional and takes many shapes. One example is what Johnston refers to as “influence market corruption” – particularly rampant in developed democracies. It is corruption that has been legalized (i.e. rule of law co-opted) in the forms of political contributions, special interests lobbying, and revolving doors. The United States, for example, ranks very high in TI’s Corruption Perception Index - meaning low level of corruption. But the American people seem to disagree. Seventy-seven percent of Americans say elected officials are influenced by financial contributors vs. 19% say they are influenced by the best interests of the country (Gallap); 59% of Americans say elections are for sale vs. 37% believe they are won by the best candidates (Gallap); 70% of Americans say the political system is controlled by special interests and not responsive to the country’s real needs (Newsweek Poll); and 93% of Americans say politicians do special favors for campaign contributors (ABS News & Washington Post Poll). Under normal circumstances one would say such numbers represent rather wide perception of severe corruption. Yet they are never counted in any of the ranking systems because these acts are legal.
Now let’s consider the case of China. Corruption is not new. Every dynasty suffered from it. But the root causes of Chinese corruption are rather unique. One of them is embedded in the DNA of the Confucian Mandarin class – shi da fu – the centuries old non-hereditary and meritocratic ruling bureaucracy. The shi da fu class is defined by its moral claim that Mandarins should be selflessly devoted to the people, as Fan Zhongyan stated, “first in worrying about the world’s troubles and last in enjoying its pleasures”. Over many centuries, the cultural expectations the Chinese people have for their paternalistic rulers have conformed to this moral standard. In contrast to this claim, Confucius also used the term xiaokang to describe an orderly society with comfortable means. Here private desires and personal interests including those of bureaucrats are accommodated. And, of course, the Party proclaims to be building for China exactly that – a xiaokang society. These two concepts have been in conflict in Chinese officialdom for centuries and represent the root cause of corruption.
We can recall the story of Hai Rui, the corruption-fighting minister in the Ming dynasty during which officials’ salaries were the lowest, anti-corruption campaigns were the fiercest, yet corruption level stubbornly remained the highest. Hai Rui, so strict on himself and his government salary was so meager that he could barely support his family, was said to eat meat only once a year on his mother’s birthday. His two wives both committed suicide. This disconnect between political authority based on a selfless moral claim and economic realities is at the core of persistent official corruption. A rich Chinese citizen’s dinner could cost more than the entire monthly salary of Wang Qishan – the Party’s Politburo standing committee member in charge of fighting corruption.
