Introduction
Corruption in business practices, such as bribery and unethical dealings, remains a persistent issue globally, often highlighted in cases like the TeliaSonera scandal. In this instance, the telecommunications company TeliaSonera (now Telia Company) was implicated in paying substantial bribes to officials in Uzbekistan between 2007 and 2010 to secure market access, leading to fines exceeding $965 million in 2017 (U.S. Department of Justice, 2017). This essay explores why corrupt practices are tolerated in some countries but not others, drawing on cultural, economic, and institutional factors. Furthermore, it examines the potential role of engineers in mitigating corruption, from an engineering ethics perspective. Supported by research, the discussion aims to provide a balanced analysis, arguing that while tolerance varies due to systemic differences, engineers can contribute through ethical frameworks and proactive measures.
Reasons for Tolerance of Corruption in Some Countries
Corruption tolerance often stems from a complex interplay of cultural norms, economic pressures, and weak institutional frameworks. In many developing countries, cultural factors play a significant role; for instance, in societies where gift-giving is a entrenched social norm, bribery may be perceived as an extension of relationship-building rather than misconduct (Husted, 1999). This is evident in the TeliaSonera case, where payments to Uzbek officials were arguably framed within local customs, contrasting sharply with stricter norms in Nordic countries like Sweden, where TeliaSonera is based.
Economically, corruption is more tolerated in nations with high poverty levels or resource dependence, as it can appear as a shortcut to development. Research indicates that countries with lower GDP per capita, such as those in sub-Saharan Africa or parts of Asia, exhibit higher corruption perceptions due to limited alternatives for economic advancement (Treisman, 2000). The Corruption Perceptions Index highlights this disparity: in 2022, Denmark scored 90 out of 100 for low corruption, while Uzbekistan scored just 31, reflecting how economic instability fosters tolerance (Transparency International, 2023). However, this is not universal; some wealthier nations, like certain Middle Eastern states, tolerate corruption due to concentrated power structures.
Institutionally, weak governance and inadequate legal enforcement exacerbate tolerance. In countries with ineffective anti-corruption bodies or political interference, such as in the Uzbek regime during the TeliaSonera dealings, corrupt practices persist without repercussions (Treisman, 2000). Conversely, robust institutions in places like the UK or Scandinavia, backed by laws like the UK Bribery Act 2010, deter such behaviour through stringent penalties and transparency requirements. Arguably, these factors create a vicious cycle: tolerance breeds more corruption, undermining trust and development, though exceptions exist where cultural shifts have reduced it over time.
The Role of Engineers in Reducing Corruption
Engineers, particularly in fields like telecommunications and infrastructure, are uniquely positioned to combat corruption through ethical decision-making and systemic interventions. From an engineering ethics standpoint, professionals can adhere to codes such as those from the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET), which emphasise integrity and public welfare (IET, 2021). In the TeliaSonera case, engineers involved in project implementation could have flagged suspicious dealings, potentially averting ethical lapses.
One key action is promoting transparency in procurement and project management. Engineers can advocate for or implement anti-corruption tools, such as blockchain for traceable transactions, reducing opportunities for bribery (Basheka, 2011). Furthermore, education and training in ethics curricula can equip engineers to identify and resist corrupt pressures; for example, whistleblowing mechanisms, protected under laws like the UK’s Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, empower them to report irregularities without fear.
However, limitations exist: engineers often operate within corporate hierarchies where commercial interests prevail, and in corrupt environments, personal risks may deter action (Basheka, 2011). Therefore, collective efforts, such as professional bodies lobbying for stronger regulations, are essential. Indeed, by integrating ethical considerations into design and operations, engineers can foster a culture of accountability, though systemic change requires broader societal support.
Conclusion
In summary, corrupt business practices are tolerated in some countries due to cultural norms, economic necessities, and institutional weaknesses, as illustrated by contrasts in the TeliaSonera case and global indices. Engineers can play a vital role in reduction by upholding ethical standards, promoting transparency, and advocating for reforms, thereby enhancing professional integrity. The implications are clear: addressing corruption demands multi-level interventions, with engineers contributing to ethical engineering practices that benefit society. Ultimately, while challenges persist, proactive engineering ethics offers a pathway to mitigate these issues, fostering sustainable development.
References
- Basheka, B.C. (2011) Economic and political determinants of public procurement corruption in developing countries: An empirical study from Uganda. Journal of Public Procurement, 11(1), pp.33-60.
- Husted, B.W. (1999) Wealth, culture, and corruption. Journal of International Business Studies, 30(2), pp.339-359.
- Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET). (2021) Rules of conduct. IET.
- Transparency International. (2023) Corruption Perceptions Index 2022. Transparency International.
- Treisman, D. (2000) The causes of corruption: A cross-national study. Journal of Public Economics, 76(3), pp.399-457.
- U.S. Department of Justice. (2017) Telia Company AB and its Uzbek subsidiary enter into a global foreign bribery resolution of more than $965 million. U.S. Department of Justice.
(Word count: 812)
