Opinion What’s in a solution?

Second,do solutions confront symptoms or do they address causes? Often,in case of anti-corruption measures,there is a great effort on what might be called ex-post-corruption fighting. Here the emphasis is on mechanisms of investigation and punishment. But an emphasis on ex-post-solutions can leave the prior structures that occasion corruption intact. Often greater gains accrue by examining the nature and structure of laws and policies that create the occasions for corruption. Good laws and policies do not,by any means,guarantee the elimination of corruption. Bad laws and policies certainly guarantee its perpetuation.

Third,effective solutions are sometimes more indirect than direct. For example,removing the conditions that make a particular good scarce can often combat corruption more effectively than imposing price controls on the good and then trying to punish those who profit from the black market. An incentive-compatible tax structure like the GST may help reduce tax evasion more than a focus on discovering offenders.

Fourth,effective solutions should not underestimate human ingenuity. Often anti-corruption measures simply shift the form and site of corruption,not eliminate it. This is often,for example,true of measures to root out corruption simply by using technology. Moreover,never presume to know how human beings will respond to signals. Even countries that have the death penalty for corruption,like China,do not eliminate the temptation simply on account of those measures. In short,solutions cannot always be engineered from the outside; they depend upon larger social and cultural transformations.

Fifth,effective solutions require a proper understanding of the full range of conditions under which they can succeed. A lot of institutions that fail in India do so not because of venality,but because the simplest preconditions for their success do not exist. Sometimes this can be something as simple as the right staff to do proper drafting in preparing a prosecution.

Sixth,the demand for a solution is often too abstract. It does not ask the question with respect to specific agents. The answer to the question,what should be done,depends on where and who you are. What a judge in the Supreme Court needs to do is different from what the prime minister needs to do,the police need to do,which in turn is different from what the media needs to do,which in turn is different from what someone in charge of the PDS needs to do and so on. The abstract demand “give us a solution” actually distracts from assigning the right responsibility to the right agents.

Seventh,the demand for solutions is often a demand for being seen to be doing something than taking effective measures. Most aspects of a “solution” set would bore most citizens to tears,which is why there is no public pressure to implement them.

Eighth,the solution must take into account the heterogeneity of the problem. In the case of corruption,the architecture that enables it varies a great deal. Since forms of corruption vary,the potential solutions will vary as well.

Ninth,solutions need to confront the way values come to be embedded in society. The blunt truth is that corruption is often the consequence of the fact that the state is seen as the route to social mobility; it is genuinely regarded as a source of social mobility. Why,for so many people,does the state and the rents it provides remain the only potential source of social mobility is a large structural question about the economy.

Tenth,solutions that ignore proper historical narratives will be blindsided. A growing economy has made the scale of corruption staggering; but it is not clear that its frequency has increased. Some institutions have improved,others have declined. A lack of historical perspective leads us to focus excessively on the bad cases,not on the successes. Just as in the legal sphere hard cases often make bad law,generalising from certain kinds of cases can lead to bad institutional design.

Eleventh,the manner in which solutions are described and defended can have unintended consequences. In the current conjuncture,part of the difficulty is the fact that the whole idea of the “public” has come to be delegitimised. A sense of professional mission,an important ingredient in cultivating the right kinds of motivations,is seriously imperiled if generalised invective about particular institutions becomes the norm.

Twelfth,the serious challenges of corruption in a democracy are not just about money. They are about the subtle and unsubtle ways in which we compromise to take advantage of particular political occasions. Integrity is not just about money. It is as much about a refusal to sacrifice intellectual honesty and openness for the sake of limelight or gain. Arguably,the credibility of even well-meaning solutions is weakened when they enact the same instrumental motivations that underlie monetary corruption.

The point of all this is not to suggest that there are no solutions for corruption. The point is simply to insist that there is no such thing as a general solution. And we often look for a solution in the wrong places. When we demand a solution what we are usually looking for is an easy solution. The constant refrain,“what is the solution”,can itself be a symptom of corruption when it becomes a means of avoiding that straight truth that is staring us in the face: we all have to do the duties appropriate to where we stand.

The writer is president,Centre for Policy Research,Delhi. express@expressindia.com