【英语社会】什么比腐败更邪恶？

Did you know that a global poll of business executives found two in five have been asked to pay a bribe when dealing with business institutions? Half of these estimated that corruption raised project costs by at least 10 per cent. One in five of the executives claimed to have lost business because of bribes by a competitor. More than a third felt that corruption was getting worse.

Moreover, politicians and officials in emerging economies are estimated to receive bribes of between $20bn and $40bn annually – equivalent to some 20-40 per cent of official aid.

No doubt reactions to these estimates will range from “Were you born yesterday?” to “There's capitalism for you”. But although one can, as always, argue about the methodology, these estimates are unlikely to be an overstatement. They come from the latest global corruption report of Transparency International – a non-govermental organisation that, far from being a leftwing agitprop group, is supported by many high-ranking business people and sponsored by the accountancy firm Ernst & Young. Although there is much to query in some of its attitudes, it cannot be at the level of primitive disbelief.

But before getting into the higher theology, most readers will want to see how their own countries perform in the corruption or anti-corruption stakes. There is a corruption (or rather anti-corruption) perceptions index in which 180 countries are ranked “in terms of the degree to which business people and country analysts perceive corruption to exist among public officials and politicians”. The highest-scoring countries are those believed to be least corrupt. Not surprisingly, Denmark, New Zealand and Sweden tie for first place, scoring 9.3, closely followed by the authoritarian Singapore. Further down the list Austria, scoring 8.1, is slightly ahead of Germany on 7.9. The UK and Ireland tie for 16th place, both scoring 7.7. The US is 18th with 7.3 and France, in 23rd place, ties with Chile and Uruguay. Few will be surprised to find Somalia, Burma, Iraq, Afghanistan and Congo among the bottom 10. There is a rough correlation between low income and corruption, but with notable exceptions. Bhutan, Botswana and Jordan are low-income countries perceived to be relatively uncorrupt.

Some might find more interesting the “Bribe Payers Index”, which ranks 22 of the “most economically influential countries” according to the perceived likelihood of their companies to bribe abroad. The index is sadly and predictably headed by Russia, with China, Mexico and India following a little way behind. The main 11 industrial countries selected by TI nearly tie with each other at the bottom, with Belgium – believe it or not – perceived as slightly less likely than the others to bribe abroad.

One puzzle is why the US does not receive a higher rating. A colleague who follows these matters describes US anti-corruption legislation as the “gold standard”; and, by and large, the TI analysis supports this verdict. The 1977 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act was “the first comprehensive prohibition by any country against bribing foreign governments for business purposes”. Enforcement has been much toughened in recent years. Some 46 high-ranking individuals have been charged criminally in the last decade, mostly within the last three years. Most of those convicted received “substantial prison sentences”.

It may be that in as large and complex an economy as the US, some bribes escape even the tightest of legal nets. It also takes time for the most recent increase in stringency to be reflected in international perceptions. Moreover, corruption indices have inevitably to be based on public perceptions; and a view of US business as “rough and tough” and even a dislike of the recent Bush administration may affect the rankings.

Unhappily, there are no such puzzles in relation to the UK. The TI report confirms the popular impression of a high level of corruption in the construction industry. Since the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Anti-Bribery Convention came into force in 1999, the US has brought 103 cases, Germany more than 40, France 19 and the UK just one, up to the end of 2008. Inevitably, the suspension of the Serious Fraud Office's investigation into suspected bribery by BAE Systems to secure a Saudi arms deal – after a personal intervention by Tony Blair – dominates the UK section. The subsequent appointment by BAE of an external committee, chaired by the former chief justice Lord Wolf, on ethical policies and processes is a good deal better than nothing. The same can be said of the establishment by 30 European defence industry associations of a set of anti-bribery standards.

Yet I have a last reservation. Governmental sponsoring of arms sales to dubious regimes would be undesirable even if no bribes were involved. There is a danger that too much emphasis on their corrupt aspects may detract attention from the greater evil of the arm sales themselves.

你知道吗，一项对全球企业高管进行的调查发现，五分之二的企业高管在与商业机构的生意往来中曾被索贿。他们中有一半人估计，腐败令项目成本起码提高了10%。五分之一的高管声称，曾因竞争对手行贿而做不成生意。超过三分之一的高管认为，腐败正变得越来越严重。

此外，据估计，新兴经济体的政治家和官员每年受贿介于200亿至400亿美元，相当于官方援助金额的约20%至40%。

这些估计数字无疑会引起种种不同的反应，诸如“你是初生婴儿吗？”、“去找适合你的资本主义吧！”等等。但是，尽管人们可以一如既往地争论调查方法是否正确，这些估计数字却不太可能夸大事实。它们出自非政府组织透明国际(Transparency International)的最新《全球腐败报告》。透明国际绝非左翼宣传鼓动组织，而且得到许多商界名流的支持、以及会计事务所安永(Ernst & Young)的赞助。尽管其某些观点有不少值得质疑之处，但绝不能一棍子打死。

不过，在上升到意识形态领域之前，多数读者关心的应该是本国在腐败或清廉方面的表现。其中有项“腐败感知指数”（更确切地说，是清廉感知指数），“按照商业人士和国家分析师所感知的、公共官员和政治家的腐败程度”，对180个国家进行了排名。得分最高的，是人们心目中最不腐败的国家。不出意料，丹麦、新西兰和瑞典以9.3分并列第一，紧随其后的是威权国家新加坡。接下来是奥地利（8.1分）和德国（7.9分）。英国与爱尔兰并列第16位（7.7分）。美国排在第18位（7.3分），法国与智利和乌拉圭并列并列第23位。索马里、缅甸、伊拉克、阿富汗和刚果均排在后十名，对此没有多少人会感到惊讶。低收入与腐败大致上存在关联，不过也有明显的例外。不丹、博茨瓦纳和约旦均为低收入国家，但被感知的腐败程度却相对较轻。

有些人可能对“行贿指数”更感兴趣。该指数根据人们感知的、相关国家企业在海外行贿的可能性，对22个“经济影响力最大的国家”进行排名。既可悲也是意料之中的是，俄罗斯排在了首位，中国、墨西哥和印度则紧随其后。透明国际所选的11个主要工业国家占据了榜单的下半部分，且彼此差距不大，其中比利时——信不信由你——被感知在海外行贿的可能性要略低于其它10国。

令人费解的是，美国的得分并不高。一位关注这类问题的同事，形容美国的反腐败法规是“黄金法则”。透明国际的分析大体上支持这一论断。1977年的《反海外腐败法》(Foreign Corrupt Practices Act)是“世界各国中首部针对出于商业目的贿赂外国政府行为的全面禁令”。近年来的执法情况更是严厉了许多。在过去10年内，约有46名高级别人士受到了刑事指控，其中多数是在近3年受到指控的。被认定有罪的人中，多数被判处了“多年徒刑”。

在美国这么庞大而复杂的经济体中，即使是最严密的法网，也难免有一些贿赂案件漏过。美国近年来愈发严厉的执法，也需要一定时间才能被国际社会感知。此外，腐败指数不可避免的要以公众感知为依据，而公众对美国企业“粗鲁而强横”的看法、乃至对上届布什政府的厌恶情绪，都可能影响美国的排名。

遗憾的是，英国的情况却没有这类令人费解之处。透明国际的报告佐证了公众对英国建筑业腐败严重的普遍印象。自《经合组织反贿赂公约》(OECD Anti-Bribery Convention)于1999年生效以来，截至2008年底，美国共提起103宗诉讼，德国也在40宗以上，法国有19宗，而英国仅有1宗。英国严重欺诈办公室(Serious Fraud Office)在托尼•布莱尔(Tony Blair)亲自插手之下，停止对英国航空航天系统公司(BAE Systems)涉嫌通过行贿获得沙特一项军售协议之事的调查，无可避免地成为该报告英国部分的重点内容。后来BAE成立道德政策和流程外部委员会（由前大法官沃尔夫勋爵(Lord Wolf)担任主席）的做法，不过是聊胜于无。而欧洲30家国防行业团体制定一套反贿赂准则的做法，也大可这么说。

不过，我还有最后一点保留意见。政府对向可疑政权出售军火的资助，即使不涉及贿赂，也是不可取的。过分强调这类事件的腐败方面，就有可能分散人们对军售本身的注意力，而军售才是更大的祸害。

译者/岱嵩