To ask a people burdened with systemic bribery to accept bribe-giving as legal is to demand they accept corruption and the existing structures of power and inequity it flows from.
Let's get this right. The Chief Economic Adviser to the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, wants a certain class of bribes legalised? And says so in a paper titled “Why, for a Class of Bribes, the Act of Giving a Bribe Should be Treated as Legal.” The paper is up on the Finance Ministry's website: http://finmin.nic.in/WorkingPaper/Act_Giving_Bribe_Legal.pdf
And the author, Kaushik Basu, modestly describes his contribution as “a small but novel idea.” And again, as “a small but fairly radical idea.”
The timing is radical. Something like a plan to make sailing less risky issued by the Chief Officer of the Titanic between the first and the second icebergs. (The Skipper being too busy trying to stay afloat in all that gushing floodwater from CWG, CVC, CAG, 2G, DB, Radia, cash-for-votes, WikiLeaks, illicit funds overseas, Supreme Court censures and more.) And with the country sick of corruption — a giant issue in the polls in States like Tamil Nadu.
There are “harassment bribes” and there are “non-harassment bribes,” says Dr. Basu. He is mainly concerned with the former. Consider an exporter who has fulfilled all formalities but “is asked to make an illegal payment before getting a customs clearance.” Or the bribe someone gives an income tax officer to get one's tax refund cleared. All these are “harassment bribes.”
Dr. Basu's solution? “The central message of this paper is that we should declare the act of giving a bribe in all such cases as legitimate activity. In other words, the giver of a harassment bribe should have full immunity from any punitive action by the state.” He does clarify that the “act of bribery is still being considered illegal.” But he is suggesting a change in law. He argues that the “entire punishment should be heaped on the bribe taker and the bribe giver should not be penalised at all, at least not for the act of offering or giving the bribe.”
The Chief Economic Adviser even says where bribery is proved in court, the bribe should be returned to the giver. At present, the bribe giver and taker share a “collusive bond” since both have violated the law. Giving the former immunity, he says, will break that nexus. In his view, the changed law would incentivise the bribe giver to rat on the bribe taker, since he himself faces no punishment. Presto! A ‘dramatic drop in the incidence of bribery.' As Dr. Basu proudly says: “The reasoning is simple.” It is, actually, simple-minded.
The Chief Economic Adviser dresses up these arguments for middle classes forced to make payoffs. For instance when a person allotted subsidised government land “goes to get her paperwork done ... she is asked to pay a hefty bribe.” Yet, his law will in no way curb bribery where scarcity exists. For instance putting a child into school where seats are hard to get. Or even getting that flat or the land he speaks of, allotted. Raising the stakes Dr. Basu's way could mean the victims face heavier demands. After all, the bribe taker needs to be compensated for the higher risk he now runs. And there is no focus at all on government failures that lead to scarcity. Nor on priorities that gift the corporate sector over $103 billion in write-offs in just this budget. Nor on spending policies that cut food subsidies and punish the poor.
The idea of legitimising this culture is an obscene one. Bribery is systemic. To ask a people burdened with it to accept bribe-giving as legal is to demand they accept both corruption and the existing structures of power and inequity it flows from. This is a perverse idea. And it is nowhere as “novel” as he makes it out to be. As early as the 1960s, Gunnar Myrdal trashed such claptrap for seeking to create “resignation and fatalism” amongst the poor and less privileged. And for projecting such “asocial behaviour” as normal. Decades ago, debates on this idea ended up acknowledging how morally corroding such practices were. But I guess with a government as embroiled in corruption as the one he advises, there's a need to exhume the corpse of that argument and dress it up as “novel.” Dr. Basu dolls up corruption — for that is what bribery is — at precisely the time the Indian people are showing their revulsion to it.
Dr. Basu's “small but fairly radical idea” suits those who can pay. And devastates those who cannot. Those who can and do make payoffs are unlikely to upset a system that works for them. Where bribery is systemic, the “collusive bond” of giver and taker will strengthen if this dishonest idea becomes a law.
Take this assumption: “Under the new law, when a person gives a bribe, she will try to keep evidence of the act of bribery — a secret photo or jotting of the numbers on the currency notes handed over and so on — so that immediately after the bribery she can turn informer and get the bribe taker caught.” Poor people taking secret photos with hidden cameras (available at the nearest malls) and subtle pens which mark notes so the bribe taker won't know? How dumb an idea is that? The assumption that bribe givers will ring the bell after the bribe ignores the realities of power equations in our society and assumes access to legal recourse. Where the giver is poor, Dr. Basu's law will favour the taker. Where the giver is rich, it will favour the system of bribery.
Consider these situations:
The perpetrators of the cash-for-votes scam that corruptly kept this government in power would walk scot free in Dr. Basu's law. (Maybe that's the intention?) Can you see them saying, ‘hey, these are the MPs who took our cash?'
What if a 2G scamster says he felt legitimately entitled to spectrum and paid “harassment bribes?”
It would be fine for candidates to buy off voters during elections. After all, it is the takers who are to be punished, even if they turn out to be a few million.
Will a person offering a bribe to a judge be punished if the latter reports it? If the judge accepts the payoff, will the giver report it?
A bribe giver exploits the drug-abuse habit of an official. The drug peddler has full immunity from any punitive action by the state?
An Indian agent of a foreign intelligence outfit successfully bribes Defence Ministry officials. Would that agency then say ‘Aha! They accepted kickbacks?' Great! We lynch the officials and congratulate the espionage ring — which is also entitled to its money back.
These situations would be brushed off by Dr. Basu as “non-harassment bribes.” He asks: “Should the bribe giver be given full immunity in such cases? The simple answer to this is a — no.” Dr. Basu says, “A full answer to how the law should treat such cases will have to await further analysis.” However, he is “inclined to believe that even in such [non-harassment] bribery cases ... the punishment meted out to the bribe taker should be substantially greater than on the giver.”
Is he wanting a certain “class of bribes” to be legalised or is he really asking for the bribes of a certain class to be okayed? It seems the latter. The companies behind the 2G kickbacks will do fine in Dr. Basu's law. Their conduct will have to “await further analysis.” Dr. Basu half admits his scheme could leave public servants “vulnerable to blackmail and false charges of bribe-taking.”
Interestingly, about half the references listed at the end of the paper hark back either to other papers by the author himself; to papers co-authored by Dr. Basu with others, to those by still others in books he has edited: or to papers by yet others citing him in the title. Modesty would surely be a small but novel idea here.
Other, clever ideas from Dr. Basu:
This year's Economic Survey of India (referred to by cloying TV commentators as ‘Kaushik's Survey') links inflationary pressures to financial inclusion of the poor. “This must not deter us from pursuing financial inclusion ...” but we “need to be aware of all its fallouts.”
In the middle of 2010, he favoured decontrolling of fuel prices — which would, he argued, help tackle the price rise, even if it “might raise inflation in the short-term.” (The Hindu, June 14, 2010). Again, this came at a time when food price inflation was pushing past the 15 per cent mark. And even as the FAO was warning against rising food prices worldwide and the immense hardship they would bring. (In December 2010, the FAO's food price index touched a record high.) And India since 2005-06 has seen possibly its worst five-year period in terms of food price increases.
Much earlier, Dr. Basu wrote a piece in The New York Times (November 29, 1994) titled “The Poor Need Child Labour.” In it he explained, among other things, why he had once continued to employ a 13-year-old at his home. (Another small but novel idea?) Dr. Basu is also an expert on ‘development' who has long argued against banning child labour.
A ‘small but fairly radical idea' for this government: can we get somebody who talks sense?
Keywords: Chief Economic Adviser, bribes, CWG, 2G spectrum scam, WikiLeaks, Finance Ministry
Dear Mr Sainath: It is likely that Basu wrote this paper "for the love of aesthetics - not for relevance" (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8434361.stm)
He was only giving vent to his 'creative urge, the urge to unearth beauty and order, be it in nature, society or the chaos of the market'. It was just an 'intellectual' excercise.
As many examples in the comments say, there really are some occasions when the bribe giver shouldn't be punished. The examples you give in the article are interesting, but there are always several sides to an issue.
Mr. Sainath is correct in pointing out that scarcity in government services is a major factor in encouraging bribery. He is also right about the fact that Mr. Basu suggestion will lead to higher bribe amounts being demanded because of the increased risk for the bribe takers. And, of course, the entire edifice rests on the assumption that the legal system will work the way it is supposed to (a very big if) by protecting the bribe giver turned whistle blower. These are all legitimate and important points but the counter examples he gives are not correct. These examples (cash for votes, for example) do not come under the 'harassment bribe' category, hard though it may be to define such a category in practice. I see the situation the following way. Mr Basu's suggestion would provide the harassed citizen/company three choices: 1. don't bribe, 2. bribe and stay silent, and 3. bribe and whistle blow. The hope is that option 3 will become more attractive compared to option 2 because of legal protection to the bribe giver. However, it is equally likely that it will make option 2 more attractive compared to option 1, because giving a bribe would get things done and would be risk less to the bribe giver since giving a bribe would be legal. Thus the incidence as well as the amounts involved in bribery (because of the higher risk to bribe takers) can both increase. The key premise behind Dr. Basu's idea is that the current law leads to 'collusion' between the bribe giver and taker by encouraging them to remain silent and that needs to be changed. As a theoretical exercise, we can take it further. To make the relationship between the bribe taker and giver fully adversarial, the bribe giver must be given legal protection only if he voluntarily reports giving the bribe. If the 'transaction' is discovered by other means both will be culpable. In other words, option 2 becomes much less attractive. And it will also reinforce the notion that bribery is both legally and morally wrong.As some commentators (Manjoe Nath, in particular) have pointed out, these measures will surely encourage people to blackmail public servants and actually use it as tool for corruption. This may also lead to a complete paralysis of decision making in some cases.
A better and more sustainable way to combat bribery and corruption would be to make processes more transparent (through acts like RTI), strengthen the legal system and make people aware of their rights (through education). Most importantly, the underlying causes, primarily the scarcity of resources, need to be tackled much more forcefully. However, I believe Dr. Basu's idea (but with the provision of legal immunity to the bribe giver conditional upon voluntary disclosure) is still worth trying, at least in a limited setting and with additional provisions to avoid abuse. Given the misery that the practice of bribery inflicts on the millions of poor. people, any measure that can potentially mitigate bribery is worth a shot.
Dr Kaushik Basu has made his masters happy by this piece of work which he rightly aims to minimize the gravity of corruption so that slowly and subsequently it is accepted as a norm, which it still does, and has been able to get supporters as is evident from the praises by people who are equally knwoledgeable about economics, game theory etc .Did anyone say Dr Basu is tipped to be a contender for RBI Governor... he is making the right moves....Anyway the present governor could never control or bring down inflation.With Basu it may never come down again as he might like it employ more children at home.
@Manoje - that is probably the reaction that will result but is it wrong? In all your 3 scenarios, you started with A Gives a Bribe that B takes. This is exactly what we are trying to avoid. Who gets to pay, who does not is secondary. The behaviour that this will drive is that in all the 3 scenarios, B will not take a Bribe and so no question of anyone getting punished.
There is a new survey out that poor families pay bribes for health services, BPL cards, and water supply. This is the kind of corruption that poor are powerless against. Action should be taken against the bribe takers. Of course, Sainath (big awards in pocket) has long ceased to relate to these people. This is what Prof Basu suggestions were all about and these were rejected with arrogance and contempt by Sainath in this article.
Kaushik Basu is so much in awe of his 'novel', and 'radical' idea to stop corrupt behaviour of public servants that one does not have the heart to administer even a small dose of pragmatic reality. Intellectuals tend to be simple minded folks locating their premises and theses in a world, which readily agrees to be quantified and categorised, where human beings behave according to the rules of game theory etc. But ordinary people know that much of human behaviour is resistant to such predictive models.
Kaushik Basu's idea is very simple. Allow the bribe taker to accept his bribe. After the criminal act has been accomplished and the objective of the bribe giver has been achieved, the state which will henceforth be in a perpetual state of conspiracy with every bribe giver of the land - 'harassment bribe' giver only - will immediately don the role of the avenger and not only prosecute the bribe taker on his testimony but it will also recover the bribe paid and restore it to the bribe giver. An all encompassing gigantic trap shall be in place for the public servants of all shades and in all situations all the year round. .'Revolution', says Bernard Shaw, 'does not end tyranny; it merely shifts the burden to other shoulders.' Henceforth the burden of harassment shall be carried by the hapless public servant instead of the honest citizen, as it would be evident presently. From illustrations given in his paper it appears that when a citizen is compelled to give bribe to the public servant who is withholding to deliver something which by rights should be delivered unto him qualifies to be called 'harassment bribe'. A relationship of trust and mutuality comes in to play out of sheer necessity because the law as it exists makes both the parties to the transaction equally culpable. The proposed legislation, says Basu, will break this relation of trust and set up a relation of sheer opportunism- an 'orthogonal' one- where the bribe giver will be at the taker's throat after his objective has been achieved. The all important distinction between harassment and non harassment bribe has been only touched upon and as of now constitutes bribe given for securing development contracts etc.
The other very important fact which has not been specified is this - does the bribe giver get to retain the fruits of his bribe giving or is that nullified, once a claim is made about the fruits of bribery? Considering the fact that Basu is so enamoured of the idea, by implication, the bribe giver gets to retain it or else why should he collaborate. We also presume that suitable amendments shall be made in respect of the offences of criminal conspiracy and abetment so that the act of 'harassment bribe' and 'bribe taking' fall into two distinct discursive worlds of responsible civic behaviour and criminal conduct respectively. Some tweaking of the provisions of chapter on “general exception” in the Indian Penal Code will also be in order and the current legal provision of punishing malicious complaints and laws relating to the seizure, forfeiture and confiscation of property will have to be suitably updated . Now let us imagine some scenarios in a real world situation where the anti corruption law as proposed by Basu has come into being.
Scenario I: A, a casual labour, complains that he paid a bribe of Rs 100 to the public servant to release his wages amounting to Rs1000.This complaint makes the authorised public servant liable to be imprisoned for bribe taking, and the bribe giver entitled for being restored the Rs 100 which he paid as bribe after confiscating it from the public servant. The enquiry reveals that A had been employed in some activity in the town but decided to take advantage of the fact that his name appears in the muster roll of his panchayat etc. He paid a bribe of Rs 100 to get 1000 for no work at all. Generally a significant percentage of illegal gratification especially in activities like MNREGA belongs to this category. It is the state which is very often at the receiving end of such commerce because nowhere there is a free lunch. Incentivised by this law A may like to get back the initial investment made by way of bribe as well. It also opens the way for overcompensation using it as a weapon of black mail.
Scenario II: A an aspirant for some appointment lodges a complaint that he has been forced to pay a harassment bribe of Rs100,000 to the concerned authority to issue his appointment letter which he had unauthorisedly held up. On enquiry it turns out that A was actually nowhere in the list and he paid a bribe to get his name fraudulently included. Taking advantage of this law now he wants his initial investment reimbursed.
In a variation on this theme, immediately on appointment he uses it as a weapon of blackmail to escape some disciplinary proceeding, enquiry, punishment etc. In another weirder scenario, a group of cadets decide to have fun with the concerned authority and collectively allege that they had paid harassment bribe to get in. The bribe giver we must remember is free from any liability and the police are duty bound to institute a cognizable case.
Scenario III: A the CEO of a telecom company decides to buy his way through spectrum bidding. He makes an irresistible offer of bribe to the competent authority thus making himself guilty of an offence under section 13 (1) d of the PC Act 1988 as it exists today. In the new regime he files a complaint pleading harassment bribe, making a fool proof case why he was compelled to do so. The chartered accountants, investment bankers etc can always make a case that such crippling financial commitments had been made in the firm belief that he will win the bid in a transparent bidding. But sensing that the decision may unfairly go against him he had been compelled to pay a heavy bribe. By merely registering the complaint he secures exoneration from any future enquiry under criminal misconduct. He gets to retain his illegally secured contract. At the same time he has made a strong claim for the recovery of initial investment that he made in the form of bribe to the concerned public servant. In the hands of a competent lawyer the most impregnable wall of distinction between harassment bribe and non harassment bribe will collapse like a house of cards. Even if he does not win the contract, he could use the complaint of harassment bribe to indemnify him for the lost opportunity and to punish the public servant for not having obliged him, because nowhere does Basu suggest that unhonoured commitments in a bribery deal shall not be treated as 'harassment bribe.' Those of us who have any experience of dealing with corruption and vigilance complaints can vouch that the greatest drain on any such organisation is by way of the unconscionably large number of bogus, mischievous and motivated complaints which have to be dealt with nevertheless. In many organisations it is now mandatory for the complainant to file an affidavit and also give an undertaking that he would produce material evidence to prove his charges once the enquiry is afoot. But in practice in majority of cases all that the complainant is interested in is the initiation of the enquiry which discomfits the public servant. Such a measure will effectively bring to a halt not only commercial decision making, but decision-making of any kind where an accusation of bribery can be credibly raised. Those in the know will tell you that after the investigation in to animal husbandry scam, the public spending in Bihar plummeted because any one who had so much as put pen to paper in concerned files raised presumptions of bribe taking in the mind of investigator. Post scam except for the barest housekeeping expenses nothing much was spent and a large number of civil servants evaded taking any financial decision. How much more difficult the situation would be in the new regime where public servants can be exposed to the charge of bribe taking involving compulsory investigation and at no cost to the accuser.
Mr Kaushik Basu is doing a good job in his area of expertise. There is still a lot of scope for more good work and his being distracted to fields of drafting new laws will be a great loss to the common weal.
I also want to be an Economic Advisor to Govt of India. I have some great radical ideas. Where do I begin? Will bribing my way through UPSC be a good place to start?
It is thought provoking article by P Sainath,who through this article has kept updated with the bitter reality of the country.Though corruption remains buzz word,no remedy has yet been developed to nip in the bud.The million dollar question is how to root it out?
The thing to take out from the Basu article is not that bribery must be made legal, but to figure out a way to cause an imbalance between the consequences faced by the bribe giver and the bribe taker. If this imbalance is attained, it can be a start to stop the bribery.
I continue to be amazed at what passes for 'thought' amongst the architects of India's 'economic miracle'. Legalizing bribes is frankly akin to throwing in the towel- saying, in effect, that we are so utterly corrupt a people that fighting corruption is not worth doing. Amidst the valorous chest-beating, we stoop so low in our estimation of our own abilities to be decent... amazing. Sainath ought to have the national stage and not be denigrated by thoughtless people.
The argument that some forms of corruption should be tolerated is controversial(rightly so),and the supporting arguments put forward are weak. Should the government factor in the bribe cost when providing subsidy to farmers,or ration-food subsidy? (and ignore the resulting inflation?) Over reliance on a purely academic, simplistic model of human behaviour, always assuming that they will act only based on self interest, promoted the policies of public services through 'market-democracy'in the 90's ,ended in disaster for the US financial sector,and UK public services which engaged in 'target setting' for departments. John Nash himself acknowledged that Game theory has overdependence on rationality,and human behaviour is not always based on self interest.
The most promising approach to confronting bribery would be to bring in an unprecedented level of transparency and monitoring,bring in third party scrutiny of public services on a highly frequent basis,bringing accountability and a powerful,independent,non-political body with powers of prosecution,which in itself ought to be subject to fair level of outside scrutiny.
There are many in those who have commented who like Dr. Basu's radical ideas, some even loved the concept of child labour. Legalising bribing or child labour is like stating that this country is not going to get any better, so live with it.
It is one of the sensible and modest analysis of CEA embargo. I think mainstrem economist turn development economist needs to introspect into thier devastsing agenda. If any macro-model in a world would have had solved the problem of social concern then we would not have relied upon academics.Hats off to P.Sainath for such a thought provoking deconstruction of Dr. Basu's thesis.
How about this radical idea..execute the corrupt on the spot as in some arabian countries and China..
Dr Basu's idea is a naive one. Game theory cannot capture all complexities of the problem. Who will decide which is harrasent bribe and which is non-harrassment bribe? Will the courts accept that giving bribe is legal in one case and not in others? Are there only two types of bribes: harassment and non-harrasment? Which category does giving money to voters belongs? Should we not call it as inducement bribe and so on.Has it been practiced anywhere else in the world? The so-called harassment bribes are only a small part of the total bribes taken and usually restricted to low level underpaid officials.
What Mr. Basu has suggested is the making of 'Mother of all scams' in which the scamsters are supported institutionally and structurally. Thank you Mr. Sainath for unearthing the making of a Scam which has far greater moral,social, economical, psychological and philosophical implications. And government should follow the 'small but radical idea' of putting somebody sensible in place.
Thank you Srinath for bringing these facts.....it is one of the best article....thanks again
This is a classic case of throwing out any idea on the basis of what it cannot do. Remember Kapil Sibal asking how Lok Pal bill will not solve the problem of providing health services for the poor. There is no idea that can solve all the problems of the country. Any idea is welcome as long as it solves at least one problem. Waiting for the all powerful solution only helps the corrupt in perpetuating the system. That is the idea of those who oppose change. Basu's idea can help the ordinary citizen who goes to RTO office or municipal office. He wont care if it does not stop corruption in defence procurement. For that some one else can think of a solution. It is also not good journalism to bring in unrelated issues like other papers published by the author and other ideas floated by him to discredit this idea. Overall it sounds like a personal attack on the author rather than an honest criticism of the idea.
@ Srikanth: Game Theory is a 'theory'. You can write a paper arguing for its application. But here Kaushik Basu does not make common sense...and Sainath is only highlighting that. If Kaushik Basu favored decontrolling fuel prices in 2010 and writes op-ed with the title 'The Poor Need Child Labour', then there is something significantly wrong with him. Decontrolling fuel prices in India will cause havoc to 80% of the population which does not belong to the upper class and above. Imagine paying Rs.10 for Rs.5 bus ticket and no mechanism to reduce the price to Rs. 5 when fuel prices decrease. Multiply the above situation with every conceivable pricing structure. Fuel prices are the controlling mechanism preventing chaotic fluctuations.
And it is stupid to believe 'free markets will fix everything'. No one expects their children to work. The poor are no different. Right now they have no choice. And to legitimize child labour -even with an oped- is crass and inhuman. Sainath's language will be emotional. But that's what the world is about...people and their emotions.
Dear Mr. Sainath, your title of the article was very catchy, as corruption had taken the main-stage in Indian Politics. But, they way you condemned the novel idea of Mr. Kaushik, and further you demonized him by criticizing in all the possible negative language needs a rethink on your part. At first, you should read the Forward of his paper where he says that this is just an IDEA, and is open for discussion. In science we propose something and then debate it, and then draw some conclusion. But the debate should be constructive. You cannot disregard anything saying that the proponent is a fool. Mr. Kaushik had shown maturity and a pragmatic way to deal with the issue. I very much agree with his idea. May be you are not, and in a democratic country it is OK. But, what I would like to request you, is at least at such a prestigious news paper's OPINION COLUMN, you should think at least before writing that how it will hurt others. Now, after reading this article, if any other Government person will have any idea, he may think twice before even putting it to even other person.
We must give freedom to ideas, and that is what Mr. Kaushik had done. I sincerely request you to write a letter to Mr. Kaushik in this news paper to apologies for your poor-handling of his idea. If you cannot do anything constructive, then at least don't become a destructor. Otherwise, how we will differentiate between THE HINDU Journalists and the TORMENTOR POLITICIANS of ANNA HAZARE Cause.
Can anybody who is supporting Mr. Basu answer this: If a person can't register a case for attempt to bribe now, what use is the law if the same person is unable to register a case after the act of bribing.
The basic assumption with Dr. Basu's proposition and from Mr. Mahapatra's comment is that the judicial process is quick to punish the bribe taker. Considering the fuzziness that would accompany each evidence and the time duration of the jury to converge to a judgment (esp. for the case of a *common man*), the case will seldom reach a conclusion in a reasonable time-frame to see if Dr. Basu's proposition would work.
Under no circumstances must corruption be made legal for certain parties. What Mr. Basu is proposing is that I can go around offering bribes with impunity. What the hell is a harassment vs non-harassment bribe? If no one was being harassed to get something done, you wouldn't need a bribe in the first place.
Dr. Basu... 'Harassment Bribe', 'Legitimate' .. cracks me up ! What if it gets even simpler...only the bribe giver is punished in all cases and by punished I mean heavily punished..whistle blowers should expose bribe givers and not takers.. it would also be easier to protect normal junta from normal junta. Don't you think the problem will be curbed at source ? People should be more resilient..taking your example - don't get that house registered if you need to bribe someone to get it done.Note to people: either sacrifice while you clean up your own mess.. or don't complain and legalize bribing...legitimate or otherwise. Too radical huh ?
Mr.Sainath: There is lot bluster and empty moralizing as usual but two things stand out in your article that offer a teachable moment. One is the objection you raise about Prof. Basu citing his own work. It is typical for researchers to expand on the original work of their group (Prof. Basu used to run a fairly large one at Cornell). Roughly a third of the references in all my publications are citations of my group's work. This simply means we are expanding on an original idea that has been peer reviewed and published. Your silly objection simply shows you have never done any original research or serious problem solving.
Second is your objections to Dr. Basu's economic ideas in general. Unlike you he does not have the luxury of passing off rambling thoughts and virtuous intentions as serious theory. Every idea of his has been published in reputed journals and carry the gravitas of having been reviewed by a distinguished academics. His publishing record is impressive to say the least. Simply acting as a torch bearer of the poor does not imply you have suddenly developed an understanding of economics and serious ideas about addressing poverty. I suggest you read Dr. Paul Krugman's blog regularly to get some idea on what serious economic theory looks like. He does a wonderful job of distilling complex ideas into easy to understand graphs.
I support Basu's thought for the following reason based on my real-life experience.At 11 p.m in the night, I along with my wife were demanded Rs. 1600/- by two policeman for violating a minor traffic rule i.e crossing the red light in an absolutely deserted road, where fine is Rs. 100/- only. After brief arguments, the demand came down to Rs. 400/- which I agreed, as I had admitted that technically or for that matter legally I was wrong, though I tried to cross the red light in a deserted road!!! After paying Rs. 400/-, I rightfully demanded the receipt, which was denied by the policemen. Since I was denied the receipt, it was a FORCED BRIBE. I had to accept as I and my wife could not have snatched back the money or fought with them in the night. In Basu's words and in my opinion, it is Harassment Bribe. Isn't it? Next day, I met Dy. Commissioner of Police(Traffic), who swiftly demanded an inquiry with his sub-ordinates. The very next day, the policeman who had taken money from me profusely apologised to me and handed me a receipt of Rs. 500/-!
Mr Sainath, Should I be punished since till the time I collected the receipt, my payment to the policemen was legally a bribe? Mr Sainath, millions of people are compelled or forced to pay bribe. Though, I converted the bribe into 'penalty' with the help of DCP, the same cannot be expected of millions of poor, illiterate and ignorant people. Hence, bribe taker and bribe giver can not be equally made punishable, Mr Sainath. Most of us are not aware how to get things done without greasing palms. I have got all my works done without paying bribe but by demanding rightfully or meeting right people in the department. We also need an awareness campaign on how to get things done without paying bribe.
Hello Mr. Srikanth: Before touting your game theoretic explanations for rational behavior, you could do with some history of it's use by economists. Please watch Adam Curtis' documentaries (available on Google videos till Apr. 29) about the same, which also includes interviews with John Nash - the man himself, and how such approaches breed suspicion and greed amongst people. Game theory has failed to model human behavior towards lasting development and has left a lot of destruction in it's wake. Before you taint a journalist with 30 years of experience dealing with national issues, maybe you need to be a little circumspect. And. oh, whatever you do, please don't become an economist!
I write in response to comment #3, by Srikanth. I am appalled by the hauteur and condescension of the writer - evidently in his worldview lofty economists trump lowly journalists - and lowly journalists should just shut up!
The problem with game theory and mathematical modeling is precisely that: 'that he deals under a specific class of Game theoretic interactions' - the operant word being 'specific class.' Social and economic problems are notoriously complex. To make models mathematically tractable economists resort to simplifying assumptions (e.g. rational choice). Then along comes another smart economist and trashes the simplifying assumption. This is the game that is played in the ivory towers of the world. Clearly, the pitfalls of placing inordinate faith in mathematical modeling and quant wizardry, are lost on some of us - even in the wake of the financial debacle of 2008!
Based on his education and his training, Dr. Basu advocates for 'Homo economicus' i.e the individual who seeks to attain very specific and predetermined goals to the greatest extent with the least possible cost. Mr. Sainath, the journalist, assumes the 'Homo sociologicus' stance - that the individual must act not to pursue selfish interests, but to fulfill social roles. Being a journalist, Mr. Sainath sees economics for the 'dismal science' that it is!
Given a choice, I personally would prefer the society of 'Homo sociologicus'. Mr Srikanth of course is entitled to his choice - as he sows, so he will reap!
Mr. Sainath is a senior and seasoned journalist, yet his take on Basu's paper does not seem to be very well researched. Even if we do not agree to Basu's remedy that harassment bribes be de-criminalized, we must agree to the basic hypothesis that the 'collusive bond' between the bribe giver and taker imposed by law should be broken. Personally, I see Basu's idea very logical and practical. It can surely be added into the existing law to cover 'where a citizen bribes a public servant to get his legitimate due on public services....'. It can even begin with legitimate services mentioned by name like Electric Power Meter, Water Meter, Old Age Pension etc. So a systematic weeding out of corruption is made possible. As Basu says, humans are indeed not endlessly self-seeking, they are very much amenable to culture and values which must be promoted. Coupled with eGovernance and fulfillment initiatives, this scourge can be remedied to a great extent, if not wiped out.
So Mr. Sainath thinks this is a bad idea. We have had the current law that criminalizes both bribe giving and taking for a long time, and it has proven to be absolutely useless. What is Mr. Sainath's take on what approach will work? Just criticizing an idea w/o suggesting viable alternative is not constructive. The approach suggested by Mr. Basu will work for rich or poor where the transaction involved is a one-time event like say drivers license or birth certificate or property registration. People want to get their job done. After the one-time event, and the job done, the bribe giver has all the incentive to turn in the bribe taker. Mr. Sainath seems to be making good the enemy of perfect w/o any concrete suggestions as to how to improve the present horrible situation.
I am not sure if the author read the paper completely and clearly. Most of the facts you have presented here are from a emotional perspective. Dr Basu however is providing a logical solution. This theory is a fairly radical one and deserves to be explored. Under the current law, it is in the best interest for bribe taker and bribe giver to keep the act of bribery under wraps. But by giving immunity to bribe giver, bribe taker can be held accountable for his acts.
Some of your claims... "How dumb is the idea of jotting down the numbers of currency notes given as bribe?" It is not dumb but rather a simple and practical one. This empowers people to use the system itself to trap people who misuses them.Dr Basu's theory clearly applies to 'harrasment bribes' and 2G Scamsters cannot be included in that category. As he clearly proposes, 'non-harassment bribes'; needs to be further analyzed. In cash for votes program, people have to be held accountable for taking bribes be it poor or rich. Laying off poor just because he/she happens to be poor invalidates our justice system. 'If you break it, you own it'.Act of participation in democracy must be considered a sacred one!. Whoever misuses it, should be punished.But as Dr Basu suggested, there are many loopholes in the system, which needs to be strengthened to avoid any erroneous claims of bribery by a bribe giver. The most important of all is to educate public to wake up from our 'sub chalta hai' attitude and realize bribes corrodes our system. An effective solution for bribery is to reduce the interface between people and government officials. Government needs to be smart, thin and fast. Not obese and slow.
Basu should be congratulated for hitting the nail on the head. Sainath probably lives in an alternative universe where he never has had to pay the 'harassment bribes' Basu is alluding to. After reading some of the ridiculous examples that Sainath gives in the article, it is patently clear that he does not even understand the distinction that Basu is referring to. Even a widow's pension is not distributed nowadays without a payout. So what is the point, Mr. Sainath ? You want to call the widow a criminal for paying a small bribe to get what is legitimately hers ?
I know of several situations where coupled with technology this idea will work very well and improve the situation from where we are today. For instance - someone landing from a long flight and being asked to pay $20 to be spared the harassment of going through the red channel. In the current situation someone who came after a 24 hour flight prefers to pay the money and then keep quite about it forever. In future if that person is immune then he has the option to at least take up the issue. Isn't that better from the current situation we're in? What is your suggestion to improve the current situation? It's easy to poke holes but difficult to come up with ideas that can actually work on the ground and improve the lot of the people. You have degraded into a rant where none was needed. This article seems more motivated to criticize Mr. Basu rather than the evaluate the idea itself. It seems to be written purely on emotion and devoid of any critical analysis. I must humbly add that this is not worthy of you Mr. Sainath or the great newspaper that you write for.
The article is bad. Instead of constructively criticising the idea, Sainath launches into a boring monologue. At the end of it he has not provided an alternative too. The ideas which Kaushik has presented are good. They are worth exploring. Kaushik never wanted a class of bribery to be okayed. He did not want to punish the bribe giver when the bribe giver is not at fault. This is a sane suggestion. What is the issue about Kaushik's modesty or lack thereof? Character assasination is bad. It is not journalism.
"The assumption that bribe givers will ring the bell after the bribe ignores the realities of power equations in our society and assumes access to legal recourse". This power inequality will remain whether or not Kaushik's idea is implemented. By stating the above point, Sainath has failed to add anything constructive to the removal of bribery.
Basu's suggestion seems to me to be an act of desperation triggered by lack of other good ideas on tackling corruption. But really are there no ideas left to tackle corruption?. Hopeful among us believe that technology will eventually show us the way. Lesser manpower, lesser intermediaries and more automated ways of government will help us a long way (though that may still not be enough) than worrying about blurred lines between harassment and non-harassment bribes. That said P Sainath's attack on Basu's 'modesty' was really uncalled for when it was his ideas he should be against, and does not behove of a man of Sainath's stature.
Great! Now we are moving from a 'blame someone else' attitude to 'blame nobody' attitude! Surely, in our very tolerant society we will soon move to a place where bribes are legally blessed and even awards are given for the biggest bribes paid, even more so without even being asked! Come on India! Wake up! Giving bribes should be made a CRIME! If you did not report someone asking for a bribe, YOU are part of the problem!
@ Srikant: I don't think you have taken Sainath's argument in the perspective it deserves. While what you say about Game Theory as an elegant theoretical construct might be true (and believe me this time it is coming from a 'trained' economist), it might not necessarily follow in reality. What Sainath is trying to highlight the most, among other things, is the danger of putting an 'abstract' theory to practice, a policy that this or previous governments have blindly followed. The results are for all to see. In the name of the so-called 'trickle down' of growth, it has taken 2 decades or reforms for the growth to yet trickle down. Please come out of the make-believe world of abstract theories and Economics textbooks and reach out to the 'real' world!
I am curious to know what Mr.Basu proposes for people who don't have enough money to pay the 'bribe-taker' and hence, no serial no. to note down.
Corruption has become an integral part of life. It will not end but for political will.
sir,I read your editorial as well as Mr.Basu's paper.The points made by you as well as Mr.Basu are valid.I want to first clear your doubts one by one using Basu's theory & give my opinion at the end. Firstly, the questions raised by you clearly speaks that the 'bribe giver' is giving money to 'bribe taker' to make his work done,although he does not deserve it, comes under 'Non-harassment bribe'. Mr.Basu has suggested punishment for both brive giver as well as bribe taker and decreasing level of punishment for the former one so that he could be encouraged to cooperate in judicial proceedings.
Secondly,you have said that poor won't be benefited by this and in case of rich, counter corruption may occur blackmailing one-time bribe taker and making false corruption/bribery charges against honest officers. For this wrong use of law, Basu has suggested strong penalty if false accusation is proved.If there is a case that bribe-giver blackmails bribe taker to make his contract approved, then third party will registers a case & both will be convicted after investigation.
Thirdly, bribes are not classified as for poor or rich according to Basu.He categorised bribes according to the purpose.If bribe is given to make legal work done by the respective officer even if all criterias are met, then bribe giver is considered safe. On the other hand If bribe is given violating all norms and procedures to get a work done, then bribe giver as well as bribe taker both should be punished. If bribe taker do not take bribe and complains ,then it's obvious that bribe giver gets punishment.
My opinion-GRIVANCE REDRESSAL SYSTEMS & PROTECTION OF WHISTLE-BLOWER SHOULD BE STRENGHTENED WHICH IS INTRODUCED IN JAN LOKPAL BILL VERSION2.2....Thank you.
From where do I get money to pay Bribe ? Can I rob ? In that case will such a robbery also be termed as Legal if I have Proof? HAHAHA
Post-high watt Anna Hazare stimulus,the unmatched valour and 'modesty' of Mr.Kaushik Basu risking allegations of heresy is to be definitely 'acknowledged and appreciated'! The 'small' yet 'radical' solution -legalisation of bribery- prescribed by Mr.Basu is horrendously unnerving and is unambiguously suggestive of Stockholm syndrome gripping the upper echelons of power.As Sainath rightly points out, 'bribery is systemic',precisely reflective of a rotting endemic process with its roots deeply enmeshed in a debilitatingly unequal and exclusive power structure.With fourth estate transfiguring to bureaus of 'paid analysis' and ridiculous sycophancy,kudos to you for rapping the knuckles of perverted inversions/'inverters'!
@Gopal Vaidya - I dismiss the argument that you cannot register a property transaction without paying a bribe. The problem in India is that most, including educated people, indulge in registering their property at values lower than the cost/market price. That is the source of corruption. If you register your property in the right manner, there is no way that an official can refuse. If you still have problems, why do you wish to enter into such an transaction?
Game theory does not care about social justice. Neither it cares about future of your grandchildren. It only tends to maximize the outcome of two competing humans who are only driven by the logic of profit or 'rationality'. It does not care about 'values' per se. Economist tends to underestimate the social-cost in the model to prove that certain behaviors are good (for some). In India, they still don't consider housewives work (as mother of otherwise) valuable for economy. Only a moron or an economist will agree to this fact that mothers have not role to play in economics.
That our Government has insane people at the helm is simply incredible! And some people support them -even more incredible. Radical-my foot, totally a scrap idea!
Reading the article really gives me vibes. I just thought that we are past the era of mad men like Hitler and they exist in fiction now but the article has just jolted me back to reality by showing mad men are existing and hidden among us. Is he the reason, why the economy of India is faltering albeit being ruled by the architect of Indian Economy, Dr.Singh? Is he the reason why the government went into decontrolling the fuel prices? Who is he working for, India or some Indian adversaries as their henchmen? But the most important question of all, how any sane person could select him as a Chief Economic Adviser, either the authorities who appointed him are co-care(mental) seekers or they have made him CEA to help them cover up their mistakes or by some external pressures for whom Dr.Basu is working for.
I have to admit, this is not one of the best articles written by Sainath. There are a lot of pitfalls in the analysis.But before, let me make it clear that this I dont support this idea of legalizing bribes. As for the pitfalls, as Srikanth pointed out a mere noting down the notes and blowing the whistle might be a good idea, how effective has this idea been. The mere thought of a poor man noting it and going to the Police might scare many ppl away. At best, he/she would be bought to remain silent or at worst be threatened by the system of dire consequences.
From a philisophical point of view, there's no such thing as partly good, and such a thing as legalizing corruption will only make corrupt seek the loopholes in the system. As for the article, i definitely think the attitude could have been toned down and name calling could have been averted leading to a more civic discourse. But the thought that such ideas are coming from the chief economic advisor does raise a few panic alarms, as to whether India Inc is really serious about tackling corruption at all.
If we imagine bribing as a two-way process, then certainly this new recommendation by Dr. Basu breaks one path. When a citizen pays a bribe, it is not because he is willing to do so, it is because he is forced to. The bribe taker will have no way out but to refuse the bribe. Though, more fine-tuning is required and the 'systemic' roots of bribery be uprooted.
This critique is so one sided. Every single example, Sainath have cited falls under the 'non-harrassment' category which he admits and still goes on and on! The purportded law doesn't even cover that. There could be very many instances of 'harrassment bribes' and it wont be impossible to write a code that can be used to clearly demarcate the situation as 'harrassment' or 'non-harrassment'. If I am on an emergency call driving to hospital to attend to my kin in trauma and am stopped by the traffic cop for non-seat belt offence and demands 100 bucks to go scot free, should I be penalized for paying up? If a transporter of perishable goods is stopped at a State border checkpost and delayed in spite of having all his papers in order for want of a little something, what should he do? Pay up or wait and watch his consignment perish and lose his stock and credibility in the market. Of course your advice would be to take legal recourse! Bah!
A bribe is a bribe, corruption is corruption just like theft is theft and murder is murder. The meaning, implication as well as moral and legal standing of each of these words cannot change by saying so on paper and 'making it legal'. This 'radical idea' of making some class of bribes legal is preposterous. As P. Sainath has rightly put it, the idea of legitimising the culture of bribes and corruption is obscene. This suggestion from Dr Basu under the guise of 'economic advice' must be thrown out for what it is - a whole lot of rubbish.
Bribery has been made legal in Thailand I think , but still there is not much progress Cause the greed of the bribe taker never gets satisfied. The bribe given in such cases becomes the part of regular income after some time and then comes a new bribe altogether. So, the custom of bribe and corruption has to analyzed in terms of 'NEED VS GREED'.
Corruption would exist until the man does. Because Greed will exist until the man does. The question is 'how to minimise the level of corruption which is pervasive all around the country at almost all the levels .Its a pandemic. Dr Basu's suggestion needs a suggestion itself .
Aghast at the idea of giving and taking bribes being legal! Has bribery become an addiction? Is it our opium or cocaine? The idea of living clean and making the workings of the government transparent such a difficult thing to do? Bribing is like cavity and cavity should be removed not let it stay in the system and make everything rot.
This is an idea that needs to be ignored, it does not even merit the time and arguments of people like Mr. Sainath, but I suppose till the time the Government of this nation keeps appointing such people as its advisors (which seems to be an eternity to me), people like Mr. Sainath will be forced to waste their time on highlighting how rotten these ideas are.
It is essential that a bribe giver is immune under the law in certain scenarios where he is forced to give the bribe to get access to services that will allow him access to his fundamental right to survive as an individual or the survival of his near and dear. For any other material benefits that is more than a individuals quota as allotted by a distribution system of both goods and services , or to gain favor over another who is more legally entitled then the person should be considered to be in collusion with the taker. I don't agree with Mr.Basu's statements, the focus should be on developing the system as one that has little room for bribery,Nor the author is entirely correct,I believe that the legal system can make a distinction on a case by case basis and not as the author suggested where the same yardstick is held for the many scenarios that he mentions.
The idea to giving immunity to the 'bribe giver' is not so good as it might put honest officials in trouble.As it might be used as a instrument of harassment.May be Mr.Basu 'small but fairly radical idea' wont be much of use in democratic and civilized society.
The very idea of making bribery legal is noble one.To this extent I do agree Mr.Kausik Basu.It is simply based on the philosphy of Cost Benefit Analysis.Where the benefit to be derived seems to be more than the cost involved in seeking such benefit (in proper time)one is ready to offer the amount we call BRIBE.And this practice will not stop,come any law,any rule of whatsoever nature. Indian Railways have almost done this bribary as legal in the form of Tatkal Tickets.The rule is simple...Those who want urgent reservation,and are ready to pay that extra amount will be allotted the seat,and those who cant pay the extra amount, for them the quota gets already full.What happens when this Tatkal system is not there?At that time we were paying that extra to counter clerks to get our seats reserved.At least now this extra revenue in form of tatkal fees is going in the hands of govt. which earlier fills the ever rising needs of the counter staff.
Dear Sainath,Thank you for the critical analysis of Kaushik Basu's 'brilliant' ideas, which are similar to other ideas produced by people of his class, 'experts' who get into positions of power by virtue of their caste capital and colonial pedigree and treat the Indian people as guinea pigs for testing their ideas on. This Kaushik Basu, whom I have been following off and on, is a particularly wondrous case of the inverse relation between ability and high position that is common among the Indian technocracy.
But I would ask you to reconsider your views on child labour. I do not employ child labour nor am I defending Basu's right to do so. I am more interested in the fact of families employing their own children to execute work orders. It is one thing for a society that has progressed towards substantial equality and is providing an economic safety net to all its citizens to ban child labour but it is an entirely different matter when a government and a state that is run by irresponsible and self-serving people, whether politicians or technocrats or others, to impose an abstract rule that is totally detached from any social basis. Child labour is bad for the child, but most people seem to think that it is just bad for India's image.
Great work of journalism. I am glad 'The Hindu' provides wonderful journalistic space. I did not find one in mine and left it some years ago for an Ad agency. But, I miss the beauty and truth of journalism. Your story along with the other 'wikileaks' stories online today simply fills me (a) with hope for the future and (b) with remorse that I am not in journalism.
Would be so funny if it wasn't so sad.
Just simply incredible. Is the man sane?
I am not surprised with the concept of Basu, the so called The Chief Economic Adviser to the Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India has employed. He is trying to create suitable environment to legalise all the wrongs being done during this Govt.'s regime. Or i should say he is trying to justify the practices this Govt. has been actively allowing or promoting. Shame on this Govt and such advisor. This is the worst form of governance expected anywhere and such ideas are unparalleled in history. Govt. should be forced to get rid off such advisors and bring on board some sensible people who can think positively and bring about much required changes in functioning of govt.
This is not a new idea. In fact, the notion that some forms of corruption speed up development and should be tolerated or even legitimized has been around for a while. However, as argued in the op-ed, this is shortsighted. I had argued this position as follows: "The spectrum of corruption is very wide and there are indeed some types of corruption that can be said to grease the wheels of development and benefit the rich and poor alike. Appropriately, this kind of corruption is known as grease or speed-money. It is common in underdeveloped economies where legitimate transactions take a long time to process because of bureaucratic inefficiencies.
Take the case of a businessman who has imported goods that are being held up at the port. Every day of delay causes a huge loss to the businessman. In such a situation, a little grease can speed up the transaction. It can be said that everyone, the businessman, the corrupt official, and the national economy are better off because of the corruption.
However, this is a superficial analysis. This kind of corruption causes cynicism and a decay of the moral order of society. The officials learn that they benefit from being inefficient. Thus they have an incentive to make the system even more inefficient. Virtually nothing gets done without corrupt dealings. In such an environment, the honest businessman or official cannot compete with those who are dishonest. Society becomes so sick that the honest person is thought of as a fool. So, while it is true that in the short run everyone seems to gain, in the long run everyone loses because of the decline of morality and the loss of values in society."
The complete argument can be found here: http://thesouthasianidea.wordpress.com/2008/09/23/is-corruption-good-or-bad/
More than 1 lakh farmers have committed suicide in the last 12-14yrs.Also we don't need to mention how vast majority of the population is suffering.These are directly or indirectly related to the policies of MMS,montek or their associates.They should have been tried in court for mass murder.but Alas we don't have a law to punish people whose policies are responsible for farmer's death.
It is difficult to understand why we have to analyze corruption in terms of 'Need Vs Greed';. There is an underlying danger in this argument for legalization of 'Micro corruption' model - what is next? Corruption Default Swap (CDS) for the bribe taker to hedge against any possible risk of getting arrested, and Corruption Debt Obligation (CDO) for the bribe giver to recover any possible losses? May be only a 'God of Small Bribes' like Dr.Basu can answer.
In his write up 'Bribes: a small but radical idea' P. Sainath has rightly described 'the idea of legitimising this culture is an obscene one'. Had this idea emerged from the mouth of satirist Jaspal Bhatti of 'Ulta Pulta' fame one would have digested it with a smile. But coming from the pen of a Chief Economic Adviser not only surprises one but puts one to shame.
The ideas are certainly worth exploring. But the larger thing for these to be implemented is to make this part of the various laws and the current issue is only to get these acts enacted and not with the idea itself.
We have a set of people who are part of the governing class and want to control every thing in India and make money and a separate set of people who are consumers and who are systematically exploited. The current Anna war is the system against people and who does not want to get reformed and form part of a civilized society. If we continue with the mess we will certainly see a rebellion and probably even a violent revolution happening in India.
Really, I hoped for something more 'radical' and more sensible from Kaushik Basu! He must have been drunk while writing such a piece of crap. No wonder, people with his mentality are the real reasons for continuing inflation. Likes of Kaushik Basu and Montek see financial inclusion as the main cause for inflation. Corporate concessions (forgone taxes) never figures in their double speak; while a single Re subsidy on fertiliser and fuel catches their attention. We need such anti-poor technocrats out of North Block asap.
Mr Sainath is completely wrong in attempting to debunk perfectly reasonable suggestions. When you go to register a property transaction, the officials involved will charge you a fee and you will be forced to pay whether you like it or not. This is probably the biggest source of corruption in India today. When a public sector company buys products, a commission is extorted from the supplier. Corruption arises whenever government officials interface with private citizens or companies. There is nothing wrong with focusing the attention of law enforcement on the bribe taker instead of the bribe giver. This is similar to punishing the drug seller instead of the drug user. Pragmatic people and countries all over the world have used these strategies to bring about a drastic reduction in corruption. Mr Sainath's wrong headed arguments would keep India wallowing in corruption.
The biggest culprits of bribe taking are the bureaucrats.They have polished and honed various methods of taking bribes, each one being a novel idea.They are so steeped into it that they take it as their birthright and do not falter one bit when in the act of bribe taking.
Having read Kaushik Basu's paper and your rant about it, the only logical conclusion that I can make is that you have absolutely no idea about the mechanics of Game Theory or you have not read the paper in detail or both. As a person who has read significantly about it, I must say Kaushik Basu's paper is a brilliant work. I find your article is written purely from an emotional standpoint. None of the analogies you made (cash for vote, 2G scam, bribing judge etc) are even remotely related to the case of bribes that he deals under a specific class of Game theoretic interactions. Just because you put all of them under a huge umbrella called corruption, doesn't mean they all work the same or have similar mechanism. To understand why you are wrong you need at least a basic knowledge of game theory. You can't just go and sledge others when you don't have an inkling of what they are talking about.
Even your ignorance of Game theory can be forgiven since its not your domain (but as a journalist you still needed to have researched it) But when you were mocking him on his idea here 'Take this assumption: Under the new law, when a person gives a bribe, she will try to keep evidence of the act of bribery - a secret photo or jotting of the numbers on the currency notes handed over and so on - so that immediately after the bribery she can turn informer and get the bribe taker caught. Poor people taking secret photos with hidden cameras (available at the nearest malls) and subtle pens which mark notes so the bribe taker won't know? How dumb an idea is that?" You don't even understand that he is asking people to note down the unique serial number of the currency that is paid as bribe (so it can be used as proof) and NOT to write on the currency with subtle pens...
Thanks Sainath for exposing this radical thoughts of Dr Basu.It is also time to think more about kind of advice he has given to GOI in his tenure. Which Lokpal/Janpal will put these great visionaries behind the bars? Not surprisingly, Dr Basu not only represents himself alone, but represents how middle class imagery of democracy and governance works, well in tune with anti-democratic ideologies. Great thing is that Basu holds a PhD degree. Is this why our middle class is demanding for professionally qualified personnels in all arenas of governance/polity including our legislatives? Like our Tharoor??
Thank you for highlighting the ABSURD ideas that neo-liberal economists suggest and our politicians willing adopt! It's so convenient for everyone.
i support Basu's ideas in this. It's for Common man..Most of the laws and policies of governments are just theoretical and none executed perfectly. There should a beginning somewhere. Small actions should be a step forward ..
I really appreciate the article,the author has done a great job in bringing out the flaws of Dr. Basu's IDEA.
The main idea is 'we need a idea to get rid of corruption'. My idea is simple, follow 'Top Down Approach'.For any individual, probability of following his superior is higher than his subordinate. So once all the higher officials start discouraging the bribes,the idea goes downward to the common people. But the problem is higher officials may also face threats to take bribes from ruffians.Here we need government help and cops to take action.
Mr. Sainath has simply not understood the basic arguments of Dr. Basu's paper. It is a shame that a newspaper as worthy as 'The Hindu' cannot engage writers with a basic understanding of economics or whose political ideology was honed anywhere other than JNU stalls. The paper focuses specifically on bribes of harrasment where the bribe-giver has to give a bribe in order to get something he/she is entitled to. Like a driving license, electricity connection, rations, etc. It does not aim to tackle the 2G scam or the cash-for-votes scam. Stretching it to these is to make a giant straw man of what Dr. Basu aims to convey.
My basic problem with Kaushik Basu's recommendation is that the getting just the amount of the bribe back from the bribe-taker may not be incentive enough for the bribe-giver to turn approver. Getting back twice or thrice the amount of the bribe will be higher incentive to bribe-giver to and a higher risk to bribe-taker.
This is a beautiful deconstruction of Mr Basu's 'economic radicalism'. I completely agree with the points you make. Thanks for the piece. I wouldn't be surprised if Mr Basu offers you bribe to stop such 'intellectual molestation' in future.
Please Email the Editor