There would be no corruption in a perfect world. The global economy would be a clean zone, free of crooked politicians, bribing corporations, sleazy grifters and sophisticated influence peddlers trolling through the underworld economy, skimming cash from taxpayers, citizens and shareholders.
But after more than two decades in operation, the convention has left a trail of dubious results and negligible achievement. Its major impact internationally has been to install a prosecution regime that shakes down international companies for billions of dollars in penalties, as if corporations were the cause of the corruption that engulfs most of the world’s nations.
Rather than receding, national corruption levels remain unchanged since 1997 and may even be increasing, according to Transparency International’s annual corruption index. Indeed, most of the world is beset by corruption, aside from Canada, the U.S., the United Kingdom, Australia and a few European countries.
Rather than receding, national corruption levels remain unchanged since 1997 and may even be increasing Through the 19th century, U.S. politics was rife with corruption. “Bribery was a way of life in this country,” Noonan states. A serious crackdown on bribery in the U.S. only began in the 20th century after a series of scandals, including the 1939 conviction of Martin Manton, a New York judge, for accepting US$186,000 from various corporations, including American Tobacco Co.
During the congressional hearings, which became classic anti-corporate circuses, chief executives from scores of U.S. corporations were subject to grandstanding inquisition from politicians. New companies and foreign countries were added to the headlines: United Brands Co., Ashland Oil Co., Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and Peru, among others.
A less charitable description is that the FCPA is an attempt by the U.S. to impose its laws extraterritorially and an attempt to criminally punish bribery that fails to go after the real source of the problem — a problem identified at the time by numerous government officials. Another state department official said there were many advantages to a “multi-lateral approach” based on international agreements rather than U.S. unilateralism.
Enter the OECD, backed by some key U.S. corporations such as GE, as well as World Bank chief James Wolfensohn and the anti-corporate NGO Transparency International .
Nice try. None of this happens if the graft didn't happen. The OECD's effectiveness has nothing to do with it.
Business Business Latest News, Business Business Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: globeandmail - 🏆 5. / 92 Read more »