Bribery & Corruption
Bribery and Corruption:
Is Signing the OECD Convention Enough?
Darina Tomayeva
500127919
LAW724
Professor Lan
Word Count: 1645
Bribery and Corruption: Is Signing the OECD Convention Enough?
Before the 1990’s, the conventional belief was that corruption in developing countries was practically inevitable and in some cases even desirable. However, a more in-depth investigation into this issue suggests that bribery and corruption can cause significant problems for all parties involved. For example, for suppliers of bribes such as corporations, it can cause many uncertainties since the quality and the price of their products are not the only factors considered in the transaction (Hamra, 2000). Therefore, corporations are not usually in favor of undertaking such business transactions because ultimately, they lead to higher expenses. The host county that receives the bribe can also suffer due to reduced growth, price distortion, low domestic and foreign investment, higher levels of poverty, unsafe products, damaging environmental practices, many human rights violations, and domestic conflicts. Considering all the above mentioned reasons, stakeholders including governments, corporations, nongovernmental organizations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, condemn corruption and bribery (Andrew, 2011). However, this paper will argue that even though such practices are condemned and counties may attempt to combat it by signing Anti-Bribery conventions, this will not be adequate until they begin to actively enforce it domestically.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Convention on bribery of foreign public officials in international business is composed of mainly developed nations, which account for almost 72% of the world’s gross national income and close to 61% of world trade. In 2010, Chile, Israel, Slovenia, and Estonia joined the OECD, while Russia and Columbia signed up in 2011. However, still a number of major
Is Signing the OECD Convention Enough?
Darina Tomayeva
500127919
LAW724
Professor Lan
Word Count: 1645
Bribery and Corruption: Is Signing the OECD Convention Enough?
Before the 1990’s, the conventional belief was that corruption in developing countries was practically inevitable and in some cases even desirable. However, a more in-depth investigation into this issue suggests that bribery and corruption can cause significant problems for all parties involved. For example, for suppliers of bribes such as corporations, it can cause many uncertainties since the quality and the price of their products are not the only factors considered in the transaction (Hamra, 2000). Therefore, corporations are not usually in favor of undertaking such business transactions because ultimately, they lead to higher expenses. The host county that receives the bribe can also suffer due to reduced growth, price distortion, low domestic and foreign investment, higher levels of poverty, unsafe products, damaging environmental practices, many human rights violations, and domestic conflicts. Considering all the above mentioned reasons, stakeholders including governments, corporations, nongovernmental organizations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund, condemn corruption and bribery (Andrew, 2011). However, this paper will argue that even though such practices are condemned and counties may attempt to combat it by signing Anti-Bribery conventions, this will not be adequate until they begin to actively enforce it domestically.
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Convention on bribery of foreign public officials in international business is composed of mainly developed nations, which account for almost 72% of the world’s gross national income and close to 61% of world trade. In 2010, Chile, Israel, Slovenia, and Estonia joined the OECD, while Russia and Columbia signed up in 2011. However, still a number of major
References: 1. Andrew, T. (2011). Enforcing enforcement: Is the OECD anti-bribery convention’s peer review effective? Retrieved November 2, 2012 from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/docview/922467501 2 3. Deloitte. Canadian companies face new risks in the fight against bribery and corruption. Retrieved November 5, 2012 from http://www.deloitte.com/view/en_CA/ca/services/financialadvisory/237d38fbf3023310VgnVCM1000001a56f00aRCRD.htm 4 5. Evans, D. (2001). The bribery problem isn’t solved. Retrieved November 2, 2012 from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/docview/319400803 6 7. Hannon, P. (2012). DJ OECD: Only 14 of 38 signatories have punished bribery since 1999. Retrieved October 30, 2012 from http://bi.galegroup.com.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/essentials/article/GALE%7CA295016334/b114e338bd40f5eb341416545336fad4?u=rpu_main 8 9. Spalding, A.B. (2011). Four unchartered corners of anti-corruption law: In search of remedies to the sanctioning effect. Retrieved November 5, 2012 from http://www.law.northwestern.edu/colloquium/international/documents/SpaldingUnchartered.pdf 10 [ 1 ]. Hamra, W. (2000). Bribery in international business transactions and the OECD convention: Benefits and limitations. Retrieved November 2, 2012 from http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.lib.ryerson.ca/docview/199805608 [ 2 ] [ 5 ]. Bloomberg Businessweek Magazine. (2009). Why IKEA is fed up with Russia. Retrieved October 28, 2012 from http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_28/b4139033326721.htm [ 6 ] [ 7 ]. Department of Justice Canada. (1999). The corruption of foreign public officials act guide. Retrieved November 2, 2012 from http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/pub/cfpoa-lcape/index.html [ 8 ]