The word "corruption" means the abuse of public trust for private purposes. It is a moral phenomenon, even though money is involved in the vast majority of cases. A public office is used for the benefit of one or more individuals, rather than in the national interest. Corruption may exist independently of any financial benefit; it is universal and multiform. non-governmental organizations. There are several definitions of corruption in existence but it can be said simply that corruption means the abuse of an office for personal ends. This office may be public or private but corruption is usually regarded as a public phenomenon. An individual abuses the public confidence placed in him to serve his own interests or those of the group to which he belongs. To understand the many forms of corruption, it is first necessary to consider the nature of the situations and persons concerned: civil servants, businessmen, private individuals or companies using the same processes. The external factor intervening in the decision-making process influences the unwarranted benefit to the decision maker or executive in the form of a gratuity or the promise of a gratuity.
Corruption affects all sectors of both public and private economic life. The existence of a public sphere and a private sphere is a prerequisite for corruption, but certain differences can be observed in the interests pursued. A businessman, working within the law, who slips an inducement across the table is generally pursuing an end corresponding to the interests of his company. The act - though reprehensible - thus comes within the framework of the normal operation of the enterprise. This is also the case of the politician who, in his own interest or in that of his party, tries to cover up a financial scandal but cannot do so without the help of other persons whose action or inaction he purchases. Another area very propitious to corruption is nepotism. This is a phenomenon extremely difficult to pin down but, since the criterion of competence has been replaced by that of favouritism, it creates between the decision maker and the beneficiary of the decision a link of dependency which may well influence future decisions.
The corrupted and the corrupter are not accomplices: each is the perpetrator of a distinct offence, subject to its own procedures and punishments. Moreover, corruption must be distinguished from the traffic of influence that one individual exercises over others to persuade them to refrain from carrying out one of their duties so as to give him an undue advantage. Both the corrupter and the corrupted can be civil servants, State agents, private individuals or elected officials. Corruption thus creates a dual responsibility: the corrupted (the passive subject) is just as responsible as the corrupter (the active subject). This dual responsibility gives rise to the fact that both parties are liable to punishment. Corruption can also engage the responsibility of the State if the latter is organizing it through the operation of its organs or when, by a permissive attitude, it accepts the fact that private entities or private individuals are practising it.
The internal corruption described above can have several connections in other countries: it then becomes transboundary and is carried out by private companies or individuals on a large scale and involving several States. Corruption, whatever its perpetrator and its extent, constitutes economically speaking a serious obstacle to the economic and social development of the countries affected. Thus, poisoning as it does the economy and the social fabric, corruption violates the economic, social and cultural rights as well as the right to development and to a healthy environment of the peoples and population sectors concerned.
Data on corruption is naturally difficult to obtain since concealment is in the interest of all parties. Public sector corruption could not be effectively discussed prior to the mid-1980s, notably with regard to the developing countries, because of its political implications. The level of official corruption in some countries, notably in Africa, has driven foreign investors out of the market, and made it virtually impossible to conduct business. In 1992 surveys in Latin America indicated that people at all levels of society believed that their governments were corrupt and exhibited a greater indignation against corruption than for the past decades. Failure to respond to evidence of corruption had become a principal source of instability in some of the region's democracies; politicians were recognizing that attacking corruption was a means of gaining votes. The USA complained in 1993 that, with the exception of Singapore, official graft was commonplace in much of East Asia, especially China, Indonesia, Philippines and Thailand, and had become more exorbitant. As an indication, in 1993 it was estimated that a supply contract could involve extra-contractual commissions of up to 15% compared to 5% a decade before (examples include: 5% of US$200,000 for a senior official; of US$2 million for a top official; of US$20 million for a minister and key staff; of US$200 for a head of state). A 1993 survey indicated that although the problem existed in Malaysia, South Korea and Taiwan, it was not as common or as systematic.
The economic damage resulting from massive diversion of funds, especially from developing countries, is far surpassed by the distortion to the decision-making process. Not only will decisions in selecting the most economic suppliers be perverted, but totally unnecessary or inappropriate contracts or projects may be undertaken.
In 1993 there was growing acceptance, even in Western industrialized countries, that some business contracts in certain parts of the world could only be won if suitable gifts or extra-contractual commissions were paid.