Author: Andre Franco Montoro Filho

Source: Correio Braziliense, 29/06/09

In the 1960s, Professor Delfim Netto declared, in the classroom, that, from an economic point of view, corruption was nothing more than an income distribution mechanism. You, reader, must be shocked, as I was at the time, to the point of 40 years later I remember the phrase. But the professor was right. Focusing exclusively on economic aspects and not on ethical or moral considerations, corruption, by itself, only distributes income, although, almost certainly, not in the socially desired direction.

 

The economically perverse effects of corruption stem from changes in the behavior of producers and consumers in the face of the perception that corruption exists, especially if there is a sense of impunity together. This perception and sensation stimulate opportunistic behaviors, with a view to the movement through illegal and unethical activities and procedures. And they attract adventurers and speculators, specialists in making a lot of money through the most varied scammers. However, it discourages entrepreneurs to guide their actions in order to grow, gain market and profits through investments in machinery and equipment, technological innovations, better management practices and greater qualification of the workforce.

 

This mentality, which, in its extreme form, is expressed in the view that it is not worthwhile to work honorably and that the path of fortune is found in the practice of corruption, is radically antagonistic to economic growth. It can be advantageous in the short run for opportunists, it can result in predatory accumulation, but it is definitely not a recipe for sustained progress for a nation. The history of humanity demonstrates, in an irrefutable way, that the wealth of nations is only generated in environments where there are good rules of coexistence that are respected by all of society. The reason for this is simple. The incentives to save, invest, innovate, which are the keys to economic growth, are destroyed in societies where illegality and impunity proliferate and where ethical and moral values ​​are neglected.

 

For these reasons, what is happening in Brazil is worrying. Scandals and scandals are reported daily. At the same time news of punishment is scarce. The image transmitted is that of a country where immorality and impunity prevail, especially in the political class. As corruption has two poles, the corrupt and the corrupting, the image of dishonesty is extended to other social segments, such as the suppliers of works and services to the government.

 

It is essential that these illicit acts go public without any censorship. Advertising is the best way to avoid irregularities, correct them and punish those responsible. But is it necessary to ask if there is not a certain exaggeration, some harassment and too much emphasis on presenting bad news and facts? Are we not at risk of exaggerating the seriousness of the offenses, encouraging other Brazilians to adopt the same procedures or, worse, conditioning society to conform to bullshit?

 

This danger is real for several reasons. First, among the existing rules, some are mere bureaucratic devices and others deal with attitudes of high criminality. The seriousness of the offense varies enormously. Unfortunately, this gradation is often not made clear, inducing the population to consider crimes of different severity as equal. It is often extremely serious.

 

To this possible bias in the perception of corruption must be added the fact that complaints are often not based on robust evidence. Rarely, the possible fragility of evidence is explicitly presented. Thus, everything goes as if there was irrefutable evidence. Combining these trends, we have a high probability that the perception of corruption and impunity is greater than it actually is.

 

For some, exaggeration can be positive in fighting corruption. It would be the price to be paid for an ethical change in Brazil. However, the result can be the other way around. The rush to make the crime public, without due legal precautions, ends up providing arguments for the defendants' defenders. And, more seriously, it can promote a feeling of helplessness and acceptance of this situation as something inevitable. Since everyone does, you can't change. It would be the dampening of the Brazilian's capacity to be indignant. The search for notoriety has already claimed many victims. Let us not let Brazil be the next.

 

Andre Franco Montoro Filho, Correio Braziliense, 29/06/09

Ph.D. in economics from Yale University, professor at FEA / USP and president of the Brazilian Institute of Competitive Ethics (ETCO)