Peter Larmour

Interpreting corruption: culture and politics in the Pacific Islands

Corruption is a popular topic in the Pacific Islands. Politicians are accused of it and campaign against it. Fiji’s coup leaders vowed to clean it up. Several countries have “leadership codes” designed to reduce corruption, and others have created specialized anti-corruption agencies. Donors, the World Bank, and NGOs such as Transparency International have made it an international issue. Yet there is often disagreement about what constitutes corruption and how seriously it matters. What some view as corrupt may be regarded as harmless by others. Existing laws have proved difficult to enforce and seem out of step with public opinion, which is often very suspicious of corrupt behavior among island elites. As well as talk there is silence: People fear the consequences of complaining. The dangers of anti-corruption campaigns became apparent during the “cleanup” following Fiji’s 2006 coup. So what counts as corruption in the Pacific and what causes it? How much is really going on? How can we measure it? What types are present? Are gifts really bribes? Is “culture” an excuse for corruption? Is politics—in particular, democracy—intrinsically corrupt? In clear and concise language, this work attempts to answer these questions. The author takes a comparative approach, drawing on economics, law, political science, and anthropology, as well as literature and poetry from the region. He looks at Transparency International’s studies of National Integrity Systems and at newer research, including events since the Fiji coup. Interpreting Corruption is a highly accessible and approachable look at an age-old problem. Those interested in the Pacific Islands and public integrity will find it remarkably comprehensive as will students and scholars of anthropology, sociology, and political studies.

Corruption, Culture and Transferability: What Can Be Learned From Australia?

The Asian financial crisis is often blamed on ‘corruption’. International banks and aid donors now promote technical assistance and training in corruption prevention, referring to the international best practice of Independent Commissions Against Corruption in Hong Kong or Sydney. However, it is often also argued that what counts as corruption is culturally specific, and that the incidence of petty corruption is related to low salaries. So lessons drawn from corruption prevention in Australia, for example, may not be transferable to other countries with different cultures and levels of income. This paper reflects on the experience of designing and teaching a course on corruption prevention for officials from developing countries in the Asia-Pacific region. It considers what counts as ‘corruption’, identifies different approaches towards prevention, and draws some conclusions about the transferability of Australian expertise.

Westminster constitutions in the South Pacific: A “policy transfer” approach

Constitutional crises in Fiji and Solomon Islands and donor concerns about “good governance” raise older questions about the appropriateness of introduced constitutions to local conditions. This article analyses the process of transfer of “Westminster” constitutions in island states of the Pacific. It considers the factors that facilitated or constrained transfer into and within the region. It also considers cases where alternatives to Westminster were considered but rejected by the local leaders. The article concludes that Westminster has been spread by replication, almost irrespective of underlying social and political conditions.

International Action against Corruption in the Pacific Islands: Policy Transfer, Coercion and Effectiveness

Abstract There is increasing international attention to the problem of corruption. Action against corruption is required of governments seeking loans from development banks, or applying to join international organizations like the European Union. How coercive and how effective are these international interventions? The article uses ideas about ‘policy transfer’ to compare and evaluate several attempts to induce governments to act against corruption in the Pacific Islands, where small states are particularly dependent on the international community. It considers the use of loan conditions by development banks; peer review by a regional organization; blacklisting by banks; and the more recent ‘cooperative intervention’ in Solomon Islands, where Australian officials enforce local laws against corrupt police and politicians.

Leadership in the Pacific islands : tradition and the future

This book is a publication of the National Centre for Development Studies. The contribution of the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) towards the publication of this series is gratefully acknowledged.

Anti-anticorruption: Barry Hindess' recent work on corruption

The article puts the work of Barry Hindess in the context of other strands of research on corruption and anticorruption. This work can be found in a chapter of a book on Antipolitics, in a report he wrote for his Department’s “Democratic Audit” of Australia, and in an article in Third World Quarterly. It has also been part of his doctoral supervision and teaching and his encouragement of the work of younger scholars. Running through his engagement with the history of the idea of corruption, and with definitions and deployments of the idea of corruption by the anticorruption nongovernmental organization (NGO) Transparency International (TI), were arguments with modern forms of liberalism and democracy as they operate internationally and in Australia.

Scale and Governance in the South Pacific

The smallness of South Pacific states has not reduced demands for decentralization of government. Their median population is about 55 000. The smallest independent state, Tuvalu, has a population of only 9000, but its government faces strong popular pressure to transfer powers, staff and resources from the capital to the outer islands of the archipelago. Populations are typically scattered, and communications poor. At this small scale, some public services, like hospitals, are ‘lumpy’ and indivisible between local governments.