2 Responses

  1. John Domyal
    John Domyal September 29, 2016 at 12:44 pm

    Thanks Tatia and Steve for this post.

    I think your subject line” the perils of quantifying corruption” would have more to offer than your pertaining post.

    Why am saying this? Most corruption through bribes and miss appropriation are done through legitimate process by people in legitimate positions, in a way legitimizing the corruption. It is not often done by people outside the system to get things done in their favor but those in the system themselves. So your post can extend to explore the challenges in quantifying this level of corruption would be a better analysis. As Mekere Mourata once said; corruption is systemic and systematic in PNG so we need to explore that.

    Another point relating to your Figure 1 bar graph, police has the worst case corruption, but in terms of value and wider impact to society (in the context of development) police corruption level would weigh less value and less serious impact to society.

    Whilst the less worst cases corruption; tendering boards and licensing authorities involves high value corruption cases (millions of kinas involves) and the impact is very serious and cause suffering to society.

    If you can analysis the value of corruption cases in each sector/level and the impact/suffering/damage it causes would be another step further to quantify corruption. However, the peril of working through to collect data and reach a better analysis of this discourse (corruption) is still higher.

    In PNG we need an analysis to quantify high levels of corruption with huge value and serious impact to society.

    1. Tatia Currie
      Tatia Currie September 30, 2016 at 9:32 am

      John,
      Thanks, you raise some interesting points. The nature of ‘high value’ corruption in PNG would provide an interesting study.

Leave a Reply