The main conclusions of the report:
- Active Enforcement: Denmark, Germany, Italy, Norway, Switzerland, UK and US;
- Moderate Enforcement: Argentina, Belgium, Finland, France, Japan, Netherlands, South Korea, Spain and Sweden;
- Little or No Enforcement: Australia, Austria, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Mexico, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, South Africa and Turkey.
TABLE B: STATUS OF FOREIGN BRIBERY CASES
Detailed findings (relevant to Ireland):
1) Inadequacies in Legal Framework
- Jurisdictional limitations (e.g. Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Japan, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain);
- Lack of criminal liability for corporations (e.g. Argentina, Brazil, Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Poland, Turkey);
- Inadequate sanctions (e.g. Brazil, Chile, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Japan, Korea (South), the Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey).
2) Inadequacies in Enforcement System:
- Inadequate complaints system and/or whistleblower protection (e.g. Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Korea (South), Mexico, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey).
Overall, Ireland's performance is below satisfactory by category, but not below the average (by country). Ireland's performance is also significantly below all other small and significantly open to trade economies (except Austria).
This, however, should not be confused with the measures/performance in terms of our overall corruption. I would expect that TI's forthcoming report on overall corruption perceptions in Ireland will show significant deterioration on past performance due to significant 2009-2010 newsflow of revelation of some of the worst governance practices in public sector and banking.
One has to consider the extent to which the system has legally codified practices that are clearly 'corrupt' by any reasonable definition of the word. Benchmarking for example. Decided behind closed doors and no supporting evidence offered. This done under threat of industrial damage by unions. Is that 'corruption'? 'Extortion'?
Ditto the whole social partnership process. Bypassing the electorate to agree policy - again behind closed doors - with interest groups.
The recent study that Ministers overwhelmingly divert resources to their own constituencies. 'Sure hasn't (insert Minister's name here) done great wonders for the county?'....
I mean the problem in Ireland is not necessarily what's going on that's illegal. It's what's going on that's legal. The 'outrage' by FF backbenchers about Ivor's expenses is entirely synthetic. I suppose they think he makes the rest of them look good.
For most of the country Ivor is not exceptional. He's representative.
Please see www.integrityireland.ie where some 'concerned citizens' are actually taking a stand..
Post a Comment