Chapter 3

Extent, Locations and Seriousness of Corruption

How is corruption measured? How corrupt is South Africa? How and where does it manifest itself? How serious is corruption in South Africa as a problem compared with other national priorities?

It is almost impossible to know the true nature and extent of corruption, since it is a nefarious secretive activity that in its most direct form, occurs between two consenting parties and is therefore often referred to as a ‘victimless crime’. In many ways, policy makers concerned with fighting corruption are fumbling in the dark as they devise policy in an almost near vacuum of information about the nature and extent of the problem. In the absence of other credible attempts at measuring corruption, educated guesses and perceptions of the extent of corruption are nevertheless important as demonstrated by the annual Transparency International Corruption Perception Index, which ranks countries according to perceptions of businesspeople engaging with such countries.

This chapter explores respondents’ perceptions of the levels of corruption, in general, in different spheres of government, in a variety of government departments, and in several sectors. These perceptions assume a comparative component that is located against previous regimes and hypotheses are postulated about future levels of corruption. Personal experiences of corruption by respondents, as well as how it occurred, are also documented, as are views on the seriousness of corruption as a phenomenon.

Relative regime evaluations regarding corruption

Experts were questioned about their perceptions of whether the current government, in general, was more, just as, or less corrupt than under apartheid, and whether they thought corruption had increased. They were also asked to provide justification for their answers. The question related to relative regime evaluations.

Respondents were most likely (37%) to believe that the current government was less corrupt than the apartheid government, although this was followed closely by those who considered it to be about the same (34%) (figure 3). Nearly 15% did not know and close on 14% thought there was more corruption now than under apartheid. Viewed in a different way, almost half of the respondents felt that there was about the same degree of, or more corruption than under the apartheid government.

Not surprisingly, black respondents were the most likely to think that the government was less corrupt now with almost two-thirds (60%) holding this opinion. Whites were the most likely to think corruption was about the same (45%) with only 20% believing that government was more corrupt.

Other relevant research findings

Idasa has conducted research over a number of years, asking similar questions among a representative sample of South Africans. In its 1995 survey, it was found that four out of ten South Africans (41%) felt that the new democratic government was more corrupt than its predecessor. In addition, a quarter (25%) felt that it was no different in this respect from the past. By 1999, the position had improved only slightly if at all, with 2% less (39%) saying that the new democratic government was more corrupt, but 28% still saying they saw no real difference. Thus, in both surveys, slightly more than a third indicated that they either saw no change, or an increase in the level of corruption from apartheid to democracy.14

Perceptions of corruption in the future

Respondents were asked about their perceptions of corruption in the next few years, and whether they expected it to increase, stay the same, or decline.

The majority of respondents expected levels of corruption to decrease in the next few years (51%). Almost a third (31%) expected it to increase and 15% thought it would stay the same. A relatively insignificant percentage did not know. Expectations assumed a racial aspect as well, as more whites (36%) than blacks (26%) thought that corruption might increase in the next few years. The majority of those who thought corruption might increase were employed in the business and NGO sector, together accounting for over half (52%) of those who shared this view. More than four in ten (41%) of those expecting corruption to decrease were employed in the public sector, followed by the business sector (15%) and those in the justice/criminal sector (10%).

Those who thought corruption would increase were asked about the reasons for their answers. The following reasons were given: weak checks and balances, the apartheid legacy, greater public awareness, weak social values, more access to government, culture of entitlement, collusion among public officials, globalisation, unqualified public officials, expansion in the public service and nepotism.

Analysis

Apartheid was inherently corrupt as a system, benefiting a few South Africans at the expense of the vast majority. When asked about anticipated corruption levels, it is encouraging that most of the experts thought that corruption might decrease in future, although whites were notably more sceptical about such an improvement. Forward-looking research is always more positive. Unfortunately, the reasons for people’s perceptions on the current government being less corrupt than before were not captured by the survey instrument. Gathering from the response to a question on democracy and corruption later in the survey, a hint is given of what the reasons may be.

When the survey was conducted (August-October 2000), the respondent group may have been feeling more positive about corruption being less in future, especially with the government expressing its commitment to fight corruption through regular conferences and public statements, as well as by developing policies to address problems of corruption in an open and transparent way. It is quite possible that, with widespread allegations of corruption in the first half of 2001 and the perceived reticence of the ruling party to take action against its own members, some of these perceptions may have changed.

The fact that the expert sample was more positive than representative public perception studies, however, may indicate a real engagement and awareness among this group of the policy initiatives under way to address corruption. In this sense, a genuine stake in ensuring that corrupt practices, particularly in the public sector, are reduced, may have replaced cynicism over corruption spiralling out of control.

Where corruption occurs

Experts were asked to give their opinion on the extent to which they thought various public sector institutions and offices, ranging from the office of the president to local government, were involved in corruption and which ministries, in particular, experienced the greatest levels of corruption. They were also asked if they or someone they knew had ever experienced corruption.

In terms of measuring perceptions of corruption throughout the different spheres of government, experts were provided with a list of institutions and offices and asked to express their opinion on whether they thought these could be involved in corruption.

The predominant opinion of corruption in all spheres of government seemed to be that a few, some or almost none of the officials employed in these offices are corrupt, which is very encouraging (figure 4). Provincial government (33%), local government (31%) and public officials (31%) were most prone to be seen as being involved in corruption.

The office of the president was perceived as the least corrupt — although a large number of experts were unable to form an opinion — followed by cabinet ministers and members of parliament.

Experts were more able to form opinions of corruption in the administrative branches of government, as distinct from the political branches of government, such as members of parliament, cabinet ministers and the office of the president.

Other relevant research findings

The HSRC surveys undertaken in February and December 1998 — which gathered the views of a representative sample of 2 200 respondents — asked people to comment on the statement that "corruption can be found among many civil servants." Responses to this question showed that less than one in ten South Africans either believed that corruption did not exist in the public service, or expressed neutral attitudes towards its existence. On the other hand, as many as eight in ten people surveyed in December 1998, agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that "corruption can be found among many civil servants."15

Idasa’s Public Opinion Survey reported the results of seven separate surveys of nationally representative samples of South Africans. In terms of absolute evaluations of government corruption, using the definition of corruption as "where people in the government and civil service illegally use public money for their known benefit or take bribes," Idasa asked respondents how many officials they thought were involved in corruption.

Calculating the ‘almost all’ and ‘most’ responses together to express perceptions of high levels of public corruption, Idasa’s 1995 survey found that 46% of South Africans felt that ‘almost all’ or ‘most’ public officials were involved in corruption. The 1997 and 1998 Idasa surveys broadened the range of indicators by posing the question about officials across different branches and spheres of government. It found that perceptions of corruption were fairly widespread across these different institutions with the exception of the office of President Nelson Mandela.

During 2000, the South African Afro Democracy Barometer survey found that half (50%) of South Africans thought that most or almost all government officials were involved in corruption. Marginally less (45%) said the same about members of parliament. A similar percentage (45%) said that members of provincial government were involved in corruption. Finally, 46% had a negative perception of corruption in their local government councils.

Analysis

It is encouraging that the government in general is not perceived to be systematically corrupt. Corruption is not seen, in other words, as pervading the whole of society and as something which has become routine and accepted as a means of conducting everyday transactions. It is also clear that perceptions differ of corruption in the different spheres of government. Respondents were able to clearly where they thought corrupt individuals were the most likely to be found within the public service. It is likely that, since provincial and local government officials, along with ordinary public officials were seen to be more likely than others to be involved in corrupt practices, it is because they are at the interface of service delivery with citizens and private sector contractors. These officials often hold a monopoly over particular resources or services, such as the issuing of licences and are therefore in potential rentseeking positions.

Mattes and Africa raised the question: Why do South Africans hold such negative views of corruption?16 An argument often heard is that these perceptions are largely created by the media. Public corruption only appears to be as bad as it does because of the greater press freedom in a democracy, which shines a spotlight on the few instances of corruption that do occur. Alternatively, some might say that these perceptions are only the reflections of a news media that overlooked the sins of the apartheid government, yet sensationalise every possible transgression of the new government. Another possibility is that public cynicism is the result of public ignorance about government and public affairs in general. Idasa’s research has shown that there is little empirical support for these explanations. There is, however, evidence that perceptions of official corruption are especially rife among minority race groups.

Perceptions of institutional corruption

Experts were asked which of the ministries, departments and agencies in the national government they considered to have the greatest levels of corruption.

Safety and Security and Home Affairs stood out in the expert opinion as the most corrupt national departments (figure 5). Safety and Security or the police accounted for almost one-fifth (19%) of the responses, and Home Affairs accounted for more than a tenth (15%) of the total responses provided. A further cluster of departments, ranging between 6% and 7% of the responses, were identified by the experts as being the most corrupt. These included Housing, Public Works, Justice or the Attorney-General, Welfare and Population Development (7%) and Correctional Services and Public Service and Administration (6%). A mere 16% of the respondents, accounting for 7% of the total responses, reported that they did not know which department, ministry or agency was the most corrupt.

Corruption in the criminal justice system is clearly of concern, with Safety and Security, Justice and Correctional Services featuring in the top five departments perceived to have the greatest levels of corruption. Together, these departments account for almost one-third (32%) of the total responses.

Analysis

It is clear from the literature that corruption potentially occurs where there is a monopoly over goods and services and a benefit can be accrued either way. This is clearly the case in the security sector. The police are tasked with protecting citizens and investigating crimes, and can be persuaded, through bribery, not to pursue certain crimes, for example, or to lose a docket. Police corruption is a universal phenomenon. The monopoly of Home Affairs over the issuing of identity documents and passports — public goods that are much in demand by people who do not necessarily qualify for them, such as illegal immigrants — creates a market and rentseeking environment that can also be exploited by corrupt individuals.

Other departments such as Public Works control massive tenders, which unscrupulous private sector companies may try to influence through corruption. It is thus not surprising that this department features prominently.

Personal experience of corruption

The perception of high levels of corruption in government circles may be correlated in some way with actual experiences of victimisation.

Experts were asked if they had personally experienced corruption during the past year, for example, with a customs, police or traffic officer asking for a bribe for his or her service.

A third of the respondents (33%) had personal experience of, or knew someone who had been exposed to a situation of bribery, while the majority of experts (67%) had not been personally exposed to nor knew of anyone who had been the victim of corruption (figure 6).

More blacks (39%) than whites (29%) responded that they had been asked, or knew of someone who had been approached to engage in a bribe. Of those who answered in the affirmative, the highest number were employed in the public sector (28%), followed by the NGO sector (24%) and the private sector (18%).

Other relevant research findings

A question relating to the experience of corruption was posed in the national crime victim survey of 1998. In response, only 2% of the respondents indicated that they had been victims of corruption during 1997.

In Idasa’s Africa Democracy Barometer, respondents were asked whether they or someone they knew had been forced to pay a bribe, give a gift or perform some favour in order to get various forms of government welfare in the past year. Only 2% of the respondents said that they had to "pay money to government officials, give them a gift, or do them a favour" in order to get assistance in finding employment. A similar proportion (2%) had encountered corruption while trying to get a government maintenance payment, pension payment, or loan. Only 7% said that they had to pay a bribe, or do a favour in order to get electricity or water. In terms of housing or land, 4% of respondents had personally encountered government corruption.

Analysis

That one in three of the experts had either experienced or knew of someone who had been involved in a corrupt practice is cause for concern. This figure is much higher than that reported in the national victim survey. This result may have been linked to the fact that the latter survey was a national representative household survey, as well as the fact that the question related to a personal experience of victimisation. It may be that the expert group are in positions of influence and able to access power and decision makers who are not readily available to the general public. Furthermore, the nature of corrupt practices may be more varied than being asked to pay a bribe by a police, traffic or customs officials, as specified in the national victim survey.

The Idasa results clearly indicated that perceptions of corruption were only tenuously linked with actual personal experience of corruption, since perceptions of corruption in the different spheres of government were much higher than the actual personal experience of corruption. To what, then, can these widely negative perceptions be attributed? They can stem from respondents having heard about friends’ or neighbours’ experience with corruption and bribery, or from their exposure to media reports of a smaller number of high-profile incidents of corruption. Or they could simply be the results of excessive cynicism about official behaviour.17

Corruption in other sectors of society

While corruption is often most closely associated with government structures, it may also occur throughout society. Experts were asked if they considered corruption a serious problem in any other areas of South African society.

There was almost unanimous agreement that corruption existed in other areas of South African society besides government (figure 7). Respondents were asked in which sectors corruption was thought to occur.

Respondents generally listed more than one sector. Apart from the government, the business sector stood out as another sector in which corruption occurred, accounting for almost half of the total responses. This was followed by the NGO sector at slightly more than a tenth of the responses (figure 8). Specific areas such as sport, education, church and labour were individually recorded, although they could have been collapsed into a more general civil society sector. With regard to sport, it is likely that the Hansie Cronje cricket probe, ongoing at the time of the survey, was uppermost in people’s minds.

Experts were asked if they thought corruption and fraud were more prominent in the public or the private sector or if it was about the same in both. Half of the respondents believed fraud and corruption were about the same in both sectors (figure 9). Almost a third believed there was more corruption in the public sector, and more than a tenth suggested that corruption was more prevalent in the private sector.

Both blacks and whites were equally likely to think that fraud and corruption are about the same in both sectors, although whites were significantly more inclined to think that fraud and corruption are more prominent in the public sector (41%) compared with (21%) of blacks.

Other relevant research findings

Huberts’ survey which sampled the opinions of ‘experts’ from developed and developing countries who had attended international anti-corruption conferences, asked a similar question: "Are corruption and fraud more prominent in the public or government sector than in the business or market sector?"18 Results from the World Panel revealed that 41% thought that fraud and corruption were equally prominent in both sectors, followed by 35% who thought there was more in the private sector and 24% who thought there was more in the public sector. A large proportion of respondents (42%) from the lower income countries, were convinced of the prominence of corruption in the public sector. Only 9% believed that the scale of fraud and corruption in the private sector exceeded corruption and fraud in the public sector. Of the respondents who lived in higher income countries, 18% believed corruption and fraud to be the most prominent in the public sector, while 45% view corruption as most pronounced in the business sector.

Analysis

The experts recognised that corruption was not the sole purview of the public sector, although it is true that most local and international attention is focused on its manifestation in a public context. Outside of the public sector, corruption is believed to occur mostly in the business sector, although a third of respondents still felt that the public sector is more corrupt. The fact that the NGO sector was identified as an arena of corrupt activity is interesting, as bodies identifying with this label are often critical of government and eager to assert the moral high ground in terms of corruption issues.

The launch of the National Anti-Corruption Forum in Langa, Cape Town, in June 2001 (see appendix 2 for the Memorandum of Understanding) is recognition that corruption affects the whole of society and that responsibility and leadership across sectors (government, business, civil society and labour) are required to fight this phenomenon effectively.

Corruption in political society

Corruption may be associated, in the minds of people, more with some political parties than with others. This may be either negative, based on their perceived participation in corruption, or more positive, based on their perceived role in fighting corruption. Derived from a question included in an international anti-corruption survey, which was thought to be of potential interest to South Africans, experts were asked which, if any, political party came to mind when considering the fight against corruption, and which, if any, came to mind when considering involvement in corruption.

The ANC stood out as the party most associated with fighting corruption (76), as well as the party of which members were most likely to be involved in corruption (86) (table 4). The Democratic Alliance was regarded as the next most active party in the fight against corruption, but featured at the same level as the IFP, as a party of which the members were involved in corruption (9). Almost a tenth (15) of the respondents believed no political party was interested in fighting corruption, while 26 did not know which party’s members were involved in corruption.

Analysis

Clearly, the experts did not regard all politicians as corrupt, which is encouraging. It is also supported by the majority perception that there were only a few, if any, members of parliament involved in corrupt practices. As the ruling party the ANC is potentially more likely to have members who are in positions where they would be able to abuse public resources. It is therefore not surprising that they were cited as the party most likely to be involved in corruption. Similarly, as the government of the day, the ANC has a political responsibility to tackle corruption by demonstrating the political willingness to devise policies and provide resources to anti-corruption efforts.

The Democratic Alliance has made the fight against corruption a feature of its party’s manifesto, becoming the watchdog of the ruling party, which is reflected by the high percentage of experts who identified the DA as playing this role. The DA and the IFP were equally thought to be involved in corruption, although the ANC, as the ruling party, led the way with perceptions of its involvement in corruption. This unfortunately overshadows its commitment to fight corruption.

Corruption as a national priority

Responses to corruption are premised on the seriousness with which corruption is regarded as a problem by decision makers with the power to exercise political will. This commitment would be manifested in resource allocation, but would also be determined by citizens who essentially decide what levels of corruption they would tolerate in society.

As the first question of the survey, experts were asked what the most important problems were that the South African government should address. They were also asked to rank corruption in terms of its seriousness as a problem that should be addressed.

In this open-ended question, coded into several categories for purposes of analysis, it appeared that experts regarded crime and security (23%) as the main problem confronting South Africans, followed by job creation (21%), corruption (17%), and poverty and inequality (14%) (table 5). Other problems considered as important by more than one in ten of the experts were education (7%), Aids/HIV (6%), general economy (6%) and inefficiency in the public sector (6%).

A cross-tabulation by occupation of the top three concerns revealed that public sector respondents were the most concerned with crime and security (43%) followed by job creation and corruption (both accounting for over a third of responses at 35%). Private sector respondents were also most concerned by crime and security (over half of the responses at 58%), followed by corruption (39%) and job creation (27%). The civil society sector is the most concerned with job creation (57%), followed by crime and security (41%) and poverty and inequality (39%). Corruption ranked only fourth, accounting for less than one-fifth of the responses for this sector (20%).

Whites tended to be the most concerned about crime and security (51%), followed by job creation (37%), and equal percentages of responses for poverty and inequality, as well as corruption (28%). Job creation and corruption (44%) equally concerned blacks as the most important challenges facing government, followed by crime and security (39%).

Other relevant research findings

Idasa’s public opinion surveys tracked public perceptions of corruption by asking people the same question: "What are the most important problems facing this country that government ought to address?" Similar to the expert panel survey, people gave their spontaneous answers and were prompted to supply up to three answers. During 1999, the three most important problems cited in the Idasa survey were job creation (79%), crime and security (65%) and housing (32%). What is significant is that, in seven separate national surveys conducted between the 1994 and 1999 election, corruption or related issues were mentioned only once by more than one in ten South Africans, in April 1999. This may have been due to public awareness around the national anti-corruption conferences, or it may have been a reflection of election campaign rhetoric prior to the June 1999 poll.

Analysis

Crime and security, as well as job creation stood out as the two main challenges that the government should address, although respondents employed in various sectors and members of different race groups placed different degrees of emphasis on what was the most pressing. These two priorities are mutually interactive. It is not surprising that corruption features in the top three problems cited by the expert panel, since this was introduced to respondents as a survey dealing explicitly with corruption. It is clear, however, that corruption is only one of a number of challenges facing South Africa, but not necessarily the most significant one. This is confirmed by the answers elicited by the question discussed below.

Seriousness of corruption

Respondents were asked for their perceptions of the seriousness of corruption in South Africa.

In terms of the seriousness of the problem as interpreted by the experts, the majority opinion (64%) was that South Africa experienced a significant degree of corruption, but that the country was confronted by other more serious problems (table 6).

Almost a quarter (22%) of whites thought that South Africa experienced much corruption and that it was one of the most serious problems, compared with less than one-tenth (7%) of blacks. While almost one-fifth (17%) of the total sample believed that South Africa did not experience much corruption, even though it was still one of the most serious problems confronting the country, blacks (20%) were more likely than whites (13%) to hold this opinion. Only an insignificant proportion of respondents felt that South Africa did not suffer from much corruption and that it was not among the more serious problems facing the country.

Other relevant research findings

Huberts’ global survey of expert views on public corruption asked the view of experts on the seriousness of the problem in their own country, compared to other political and social problems, and compared to other forms of political misconduct. A minority of the panel members (42%) viewed corruption and fraud among the most serious problems in their country, with the majority thinking that their country was confronted by other more serious problems.

Respondents of lower income countries indicated that there was a high incidence of corruption and fraud in their country, but the majority declared that there were more serious social and political problems. Most panel members from higher income countries indicated that their country was not confronted with high degrees of fraud and corruption, but a substantial proportion nevertheless stated that corruption and fraud were among the most serious problems.

Analysis

There was broad consensus among the expert respondents that, while South Africa experienced a significant number of incidents of corruption, there were other more pressing problems that the government had to address, such as crime and security, and job creation. Acknowledging corruption as one of many serious problems has implications for the type of effort and resources directed to address it. Any national budgetary process has to take into account inevitable competition for limited resources in a context of other pressing needs.

Corruption is increasingly featuring on the national policy agenda as a phenomenon that affects the delivery of other key functions of government. With regional, continental and international pressures to show demonstrable commitment to the fight against corruption, while not the most pressing problem facing South Africa, corruption unquestionably requires dedicated attention as a serious policy issue.