Author: Umy Marshita Binti Mohamed Azhar
Email: umymarshita@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
There exists a global concern over corruption in the status quo. To measure the perception of corruption in each country, the organisation Transparency International has come up with the Corruption Perceptions Index to score and rank countries as a method of determining which countries are the most and least corrupt globally. It is worth noting that many Muslim countries have ranked poorly on the index. Many studies have been done to ascertain the impacts of corruption on these Muslim countries. However, there is a lack of research that substantially discusses the factors of corruption in those countries. This paper will delve into the nuances of the factors of corruption in Muslim nations and determine whether or not religion plays a role in contributing to corruption. Furthermore, the paper will explore the stance of Islam on the issue of corruption based on the Quranic injunctions, Hadith and history of the Islamic empire. Additionally, the paper will draw an extensive comparison of the perception of corruption in Western countries and determine the reason why Western countries are perceived to be less corrupt globally. Lastly, this paper will examine the recommendations by Transparency International to deal with corruption, especially in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Keywords: factors of corruption in Muslim countries; corruption perceptions index; religion and corruption; western countries; politics; corrupt practices
INTRODUCTION: RELIGION, ISLAM’S POLITICAL POWER AND CORRUPTION
In the current state of affairs, religion plays an important role in influencing individual attitudes and behaviors in the political sphere. Religions such as Islam have a unique political advantage in comparison to their secular counterparts. It has been observed by political analysts that political parties that subscribe and promote Islamic ideologies have been perceived as more persuasive and legitimate by the average voters . A survey conducted by the Pew Research centre had shown that citizens of Muslim majority countries favoured the implementation of Islamic law, with the percentage of not less than 64%, with some reaching 80%.
Additionally, Islam gains its appeal by providing social services and public goods to society. Consequently, this results in populations rewarding Islamic political candidates via electoral support. Nevertheless, the pressing issue now that needs to be addressed is the rise of corruption in Muslim countries. Corruption is the abuse of entrusted power for private gain and usually exists in the form of bribery . Corruption also encompasses nepotism and favouritism of certain public officials. The consequence of corruption is that it hampers democracy, economic prosperity and perpetuates inequality and poverty.
It is important to acknowledge that despite the existence of Islamic teachings that prohibit corruption, corruption is particularly widespread in Muslim countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen. That is why laws have been enacted to prevent corruption in Muslim countries such as the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and the Anti-Corruption Establishment Act in Pakistan. On the other hand, countries such as Yemen and Afghanistan do not even have specific or detailed legislation to combat the issue of corruption in their respective countries.
In this paper, we will aim to examine what are the factors of corruption in Muslim countries. Additionally, we will compare the level of corruption that exists between Muslim and non-Muslim countries and the factors that contribute to lower levels of corruption in Western countries.
THE CORRUPTION PERCEPTION INDEX
The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) scores and ranks countries depending on how corrupt a country’s public sector is perceived to be by experts and business executives. The index incorporates 13 surveys and assessments of corruption which have been acquired by many reputable institutions. The CPI is the most widely used indicator of corruption globally .
There are 198 countries listed in the corruption perception index. In the 2020 Corruption perceptions index report, Muslim majority countries such as Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Yemen, were ranked at the bottom 20 of the index. Although these countries to a certain extent enact Islamic law, they are still considered extremely corrupt.
On the other hand, there is still hope that Muslim majority countries are doing well in the fight against corruption. In the same year, Malaysia, a majority Muslim country that practices a dual legal system, that is Civil law and Shariah law, ranked 57, which indicates that Malaysia is among the least corrupt Muslim countries. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the perception of corruption in Malaysia has increased, seeing as Malaysia was previously ranked at 51 on the CPI. There has been a significant drop in rankings in Indonesia on the CPI. Previously, Indonesia was ranked 81 based on the CPI Report in 2019. However, in 2020, the country’s ranking has dropped to 102.
Among the factors taken into consideration in determining the score of the Corruption Perceptions Index is freedom of expression, transparency in all political processes and strong democratic institutions . It was further added that a poorer score on the index would indicate a need to strengthen and protect the space for civil society.
CORRUPTION IN ISLAM: THE PROHIBITION OF CORRUPTION AND HISTORICAL EXAMPLES OF CORRUPTION
Before we can assess what are the factors that lead to corruption in Muslim countries, we first have to establish what is the stance of Islam on corruption. In Islam, the Quran strictly prohibits any form of corruption. The term fasad or corruption and other words that have similar meanings to the word fasad, have been mentioned in the Quran nearly 50 times. For example, in Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 11, it was mentioned “And when it is said to them, "Do not cause corruption on the earth," they say, "We are but reformers." Additionally, according to Al-Ashfani, the word salah which has the opposite meaning of fasad is also mentioned in the Quran nearly 150 times. What this indicates to the Muslim scholars is that the Quran promotes the values of transparency, integrity and prohibits all types of corruption and mischief. Fighting bribery (rashwah) and corruption (fasad) is an integral part of the teachings of the Quran and hadith. The Quran prohibits “devouring/misappropriation of the property of others” in Surah An-Nisa, verse 49 and Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 188 which is a broad concept that subsumes such other offences as fraud, hoarding, theft, and gambling. The Quranic injunctions also condemn those who are in positions of power who spread corruption among people through nepotistic practices and oppressing others as in Surah Al-Qasas, verse 4 and Surah Al-Fajr, verse 10-12 .
Moreover, the Muslim scholar, Al-Bukhari dedicates an entire chapter to corruption, entitled “What is allowed as regards backbiting wicked (corrupt) and suspicious people.” which shows that the prohibition of corruption has been extensively discussed amongst the Muslim scholars. The Quran clearly indicates that an act of corruption breeds corruption, and has negative implications on society. Corruption in Islam is far-ranging. It encompasses not just bribery or rashwah, which refers to private gain from public office or seeking recompense for rendering duties ordinarily considered as non-compensatory, but also includes dishonesty, betrayal of trust, abuse of power, deceit in both private and public dealings, favouritism and nepotism .
The rise of corruption in Islam began during the decline of the Ottoman empire after the 16th century. Some examples of corruption arose in the 18th century. During this time, the post of the ulama had lost its importance. Instead of this post being occupied by qualified individuals, this post had been dominated by people who offered bribes to public officials . Additionally, in the 18th century, many high decreed public officers lived lavishly and even resembled the Sultan’s way of living. These public officers would occupy big residences and would hire hundreds of servants to perform domestic duties. Moreover, in order to consolidate their power, they would hire young and talented individuals and persuade them to marry with someone from their family. If the young person succeeded in grasping the attention of the high decreed officers, he would be assigned to an important position in the public office. Such was the practice of the corrupt officials in the past that led to the demise of the Ottoman empire .
Moreover, another form of corruption that exists is in the form of favoritism. An example of this can be seen when the son of an ulama would be given the same salary as his father. This is because he would be considered an intellectual person just like his father, even though he was just a mere boy and not an accomplished ulama. This occurred with a man named Sir Saadettin . He was the teacher of Murat III, the Sultan of the Ottoman empire, and later on became the Sultan’s son’s teacher. Due to the close relationship he had developed with the Sultan, he became the Muslim judge of Mecca. A few years later, he was assigned as the Muslim judge of Istanbul which caused a rumor. This had raised suspicions by the public and a poet had even written a poem about this corruption. Corruption continued to plague the empire as incompetent people were put in positions of power. During the reign of Sultan Murat III, the Sultan had immediately assigned his ignorant brother as a military judge and assigned another ignorant young as a Muslim judge to Salonika.
FACTORS OF CORRUPTION IN MUSLIM COUNTRIES
Taking into consideration the fact that many citizens in Muslim majority countries are in favour of Shariah law, and many Muslim majority countries have implemented Shariah law, the question that needs to be posed then is why are Muslim countries so corrupt?
These factors can be split into a few categories, that is political, cultural and legal factors. Under the political factor that contributes to corruption is the type of system of governance. It has been widely acknowledged that some Muslim countries do not practice democracy. Countries such as Saudi Arabia and Brunei have adopted the monarchy system of governance. This factor contributes to corruption in Muslim countries as royal prerogative gives extensive, unaccountable power to the executive. Studies have shown that democracy gradually helps to lower the level of corruption . However, this is not to say that all forms of democracy are inherently good to combat corruption. This depends on the type of democracy as well. For example, democratic systems that have more powerful presidents, such as in the United States, that do not have a clear separation of powers are more likely to become corrupt than the parliamentary system. This is because there is no clear check and balance towards the President.
In a democracy, there exists competition between political candidates and political parties . This competition serves as a good to combat corruption as any act of corruption would hurt the reputation of candidates. Furthermore, if any form of corruption were to exist in a democratic system, this would reduce the legitimacy of the democratically elected government.
People are more likely to vote out corrupt politicians rather than allow them to consolidate power. This happened in Malaysia in 2018 in the historic election whereby the citizens of Malaysia had voted out the 60 year ruling reign of the Barisan Nasional government when the head of the party, former Prime Minister Najib Razak, was alleged to have been involved in the biggest money laundering scandal in the world, that is the embezzlement of $700 Million from the Malaysian state fund, 1Malaysia Development Berhad . Therefore, from the case study of Malaysia, this shows that the system of governance is a contributing factor of corruption in Muslim countries.
Furthermore, another factor that contributes to corruption in Muslim countries is the lack of legal legislation pertaining to corruption. It is well-known that public officials perform their duties in accordance with the set of laws and regulations in place . However, an absence of clear laws and procedures creates an environment for corruption to develop. It is important to note that although some Muslim countries such as Pakistan have tried their best to culminate efforts to combat corruption with formal legislation, countries such as Yemen are heavily entrenched in corruption.
In Yemen, there was little government transparency and accountability even before the outbreak of the war in 2015. This is because there existed network corruption and patronage under the Ali Abdullah Saleh regime in public institutions . Although there existed formal legislation to combat corruption such as the Law No. 30 of 2006 concerning the Financial Disclosure, these formal mechanisms were ineffective. There also existed disruption to legal commerce. This had increased the role of the black market and created further opportunities for graft. Public officials often sold food aid to black markets, which further aggravated the issue of food-security in Yemen .
Additionally, other Muslim countries such as Iran, which ranked 148 out of 190 on the Corruption Perceptions Index, refuse to comply with international efforts to combat corruption. It can be seen that Iran had been blacklisted by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) as of 2020 the failure to adopt the recommendations of FATF in their local legislation. Such refusal to adopt recommendations to combat money laundering and terrorism financing would create an environment for corruption to thrive in Muslim countries.
The next factor of corruption is related to culture. It has been found that a higher loyalty to the family has a correlation with higher levels of corruption in a country. This is because leaders prioritised their familial interests over the interests of their people. This is a form of nepotism that exists in many Muslim countries that is engrained in their culture. Strong familial values have a powerful influence in making a leader feel an intense sense of obligation to provide opportunities for their family .
Moreover, another factor that contributes to corruption in Muslim countries is that Muslim countries have yet to effectively integrate Islamic principles with the complexities of a stable governance. It can be seen that the practice of Shariah depends on the role of the form of governance; whether monarchy, democratic, or despotic rule. According to a study entitled ‘How Islamic are Islamic countries?’ by Rehman, and Askari, it was found that Islamic countries fared poorly in adopting Islamic principles in their governance. It was found in the study that Muslim countries did not adhere to law and governance, human and political rights, and international standards .
Adding onto this, on an individual level, some leaders in Muslim countries often do not act in consistent with religious practices and teachings that actively advocate against corruption. Some may involve themselves in corrupt practices for selfish gain, without thinking of the repercussions on the economy of the nation and the global perception of their country.
COMPARING CORRUPTION BETWEEN MUSLIM COUNTRIES WESTERN COUNTRIES AND THE FACTORS OF LOWER LEVELS OF CORRUPTION IN WESTERN COUNTRIES
It can be seen that many Western countries have ranked well on the Corruption Perceptions Index. As a matter-of-fact, 14 out of 20 countries in the top 25 of the Index are Western countries. These Western countries include Denmark (1), Finland (3), the United Kingdom (12) and the United States (23).
According to the 2019 Transparency International Report, it was mentioned that these countries ranked higher on the Corruption Perceptions Index due to having strong democratic systems and freedom of media. For example, in the 2019 Democracy Index report compiled by the Economist intelligence, Finland and Denmark have ranked 5th and 7th respectively on the Index. In this index, countries are ranked according to the strength of the political culture, civil liberties and pluralism of each country . Malaysia ranked 43rd on the list, which is considerably well. On the other hand, countries such as Libya and Saudi Arabia ranked 156 and 159 respectively, which is extremely poor. It is important to note that the level of democracy is used to determine and assess whether a country is likely to be corrupt. A country that has weak democratic systems such as Saudi Arabia, is more likely to be perceived to be corrupt under the Corruption Perceptions Index.
Additionally, Transparency International further added that Western countries ranked higher on the Index due to stronger enforcement of campaign finance regulations. It was further added that countries where campaign finance regulations are comprehensive and systematically enforced have an average score of 70 on the CPI. On the other hand, countries where such regulations either do not exist or are poorly enforced score an average of just 34 and 35 respectively .
For example, in Germany, the country has provided public funding to political parties since 1958 . Therefore, political parties are not tainted by any private funding which might influence the way they vote, the policy that they pass or any executive decisions made.
It is important to note that Germany has enforced campaign financing laws since 1990s meanwhile many other Muslim majority countries as Yemen, Afghanistan and Malaysia have yet to adopt such laws. This shows a lack of political will on the part of these countries in the efforts to combat corruption.
From the report above, it can be seen that the factor that contributes to lower levels of corruption in Western countries is that they have more transparent and comprehensive financial regulations that many Muslim countries do not adopt or have. These regulations may be effective in proving that public officials do not commit corruption on paper, consequently not showing up on the Corruption Perceptions Index. However, if you scrutinise the acts of public officials in Western countries, you may come to a different conclusion.
It is important to look at the case study of the United States. Post- 9/11, there were at least 71 companies obtaining contracts to supply weapons for the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Of the 71 companies, the top 10 companies such as Bechtel and Haliburton, had former US officials in the Pentagon that sat as board of directors of those companies or were top executives. This was legal under the ‘Revolving Door’ Policy. In summary, the ‘Revolving Door’ policy allows many legislators and regulators to become lobbyists and consultants for the industries they previously regulated. Additionally, private industry heads or lobbyists may receive government appointments that relate to their former private posts . Many of these former public officials make triple, quadruple, sometimes even ten times the amount they would usually make in public office.
The primary recipient of the ‘Revolving Door’ policy is the former Vice President Dick Cheny’s company, Halliburton. At the time, Dick Cheney's old company Halliburton had profited from the mess in Iraq at the expense of American troops and taxpayers. Dick Cheney had continued to receive compensation from his former company while they were still engaged in massive overcharging and wasteful practices under this no-bid contract to provide food, housing, fuel and other logistical support for troops in the Middle East. That contract has so far been worth about $5 billion. The former Vice President claims that he did not have any financial interests vested in Halliburton. . Dick Cheny later on disclosed his financial statements from 2001 up until 2003 which showed that since he became the vice president-elect, he had received a total of 1,9997,525 USD from Halliburton, a deferred bonus of 1,461,398 and the rest in deferred salary. Furthermore, he held the options to buy Hallibutron stock. People who opposed Dick Cheney conceded that there is no concrete evidence that he has pulled any strings on Halliburton’s behalf. However, they criticised his refusal to provide any account of communications between him and his stuff pertaining to Halliburton’s actions or concluded contracts.
What can be inferred from this case study is that in many Western countries, the bar for corruption is much higher. There needs to be proof of communication between parties and concrete evidence that the Vice President had abused his power in office by providing contracts to his former company. A mere conflict of interest is not enough to infer that a politician has been engaged in corrupt practices. In Western countries, if a public official merely discloses his financial statements and is transparent with his transactions, it’s sufficient to render him scot free of any corruption. This is because financial regulations in Western countries such as the United States have “legalised” this form of corruption under the ‘Revolving Door’ Policy in spite of the fact that this would give rise to potential abuse of power and corrupt practices.
. However, if you contrast this with many Muslim countries, the bar for corruption is lower. This is because Muslim countries have not developed such complex regulations such as the ‘Revolving Door’ Policy. In Muslim countries such a Malaysia, if you are a public official receiving deferred salary, deferred bonus and held the options to buy a stock for your former company, you would not be allowed to enter into a contract with the company as it is a clear conflict of interest. If such a thing were to occur, public officials would be charged for their corrupt practices under Section 23 of the Malaysian Anti-Commission Act 2009. . This is because there is too close of a relationship between the company and the public official that it gives room for corruption to prosper.
To reiterate, the perception of corruption towards Muslim majority countries is higher due to the lack of campaign finance laws or the lack of legislation pertaining to political funding. To further elaborate on this issue, we interviewed Former Private Secretary to the Ministry of Youth and Sports, Amshar Aziz for his input on this matter .
“In Malaysia there does not exist a Political Funding Act. This bill pertaining to political funding has been in discussion since 2016 under the then Minister in the Prime Minister’s department, Datuk Paul Low, who was in charge of the implementation of transparency in the Malaysian government. However, up until now, there exists no legislation that deals with the issue of political funding.
Political funding is important as it helps in funding the political party and party candidates during general elections. Since political candidates require money for political funding and money for supporting their respective constituency, the amount of money that is needed to fund these two integral things is rather massive.
To illustrate the enormity of the amount of money needed, we can look at the deposit required for political candidates to run as a Member of Parliament. It can be seen that the deposit required to run as an MP is RM10,000 alone. An election campaign during a general election campaign is capped at RM200,000. However, senior politicians are also required to help younger or newer candidates with their funding as well, which means that these politicians have to have millions and millions of funding. For example, in the United States, lobby groups exist openly where politicians have Political Action Committees (Super PACs) to lobby for their political causes . On the other hand, in Malaysia, such formation does not exist.
Therefore, this means that politicians have to meet with businessmen on an individual basis to seek funding from them. This is where the gray area lies. Although there are no deals being made during the acceptance of money, the politician that is receiving the money for the purposes of political campaigning will feel indebted to the political funders. Therefore, to give back to the political funders, politicians are likely to propose policies in favour of the interests of the political funders.
Since there is no open declaration of who donates to a specific politician, it is hard to tell whether this donation falls under the banner of corruption or whether it is simply an act of political donation. This grey area exists, as there exists a lack of transparency in the transaction of money.
If you compare this scenario in the US, such donations are openly known to other political candidates. As political donations are transparent, it would not fall under the category of corruption.
In Malaysia, such a counter-balance mechanism doesn’t exist, hence it may or may not be categorised as corrupt practices. However, this lack of counter balance mechanism for the transparency of political donations gives the perception of corruption. Therefore, it plays a huge role in lowering Malaysia’s ranking specifically in regards to the Corruption Perceptions Index.”
In conclusion, from the analysis above, Western countries are perceived as less corrupt on the Corruption Perceptions Index as they have created complex laws to circumvent their corrupt practices. It can be observed that although the acts of politicians are not defined legally as corruption, such legislation has given opportunities for Western countries to be engaged in institutional corruption. This goes undetected by the Corruption Perceptions Index and has contributed to their high ranking on the reported Index.
CORRUPTION IN THE COVID-19 ERA AND SUGGESTIONS BY TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL
It is imperative to note that corruption affects everything and with the rise of COVID-19, corruption has been the barrier to achieve adequate healthcare systems during this pandemic. The rise of bribery when it comes to masks, COVID test kits and even hospital facilities and supplies have affected nations’ emergency preparedness.
This leaves doctors and healthcare workers to be unable to cope with crisis management during this pandemic. The 2020 Report by Transparency International has even shown that when countries are plagued with corruption and breaches of law, those countries are unable to recover or even manage COVID-19.
Among the recommendations of Transparency International in their recent report are to strengthen oversight institutions to ensure resources are not exploited or fall into the hands of corrupt individuals, to ensure open and transparent contracting in order to identify conflicts of interest and fair pricing, to defend democracy and promote civic space and to publish relevant data in order to ensure that the public gains access to relevant information. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, from the analysis above, Muslim countries have a lot to develop in terms of law to deal with the issue of corruption. The fact that there exists little to no political will to combat corruption in Muslim countries gives a perception which lowers the ranking of Muslim countries naturally on the Corruption Perceptions Index. Moving forward, Muslim countries should aggressively update their laws, strengthen their democratic systems of governance and put in effort in the betterment of freedom of media. Additionally, nepotism and kleptocracy should be strongly opposed by politicians in Muslim countries, as the feeling of the sense of obligation to provide opportunities for their families is unlawful and tantamount to corruption.
REFERENCES
Abdulmajeed Alshalan. Corrupt Practices in Saudi Arabia: An Analysis of the Legal Provisions
and the Influence of Social Factors. Digital Repository @ Maurer Law School.
Assoc. Dr., Süleyman Demirel University, Isparta, Turkey. Favoritism and Nepotism in The
Ottoman Empire. International Symposium on Sustainable Development, June 9-10 2009, Sarajevo
Aziz, Amshar. (Former Private Secretary to the Minister of Youth and Sports, 2018-2020) In
discussion with the Author, August 2020)
BBC News. Malaysia election: Opposition scores historic victory. Available at
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-44036178
FATF nations, Full member nations, Observer nations, Call for action nations (Blacklisted
nations), Other monitored jurisdictions (greylisted nations), FATF. Available at
https://www.fatf-gafi.org/countries/ (Accessed 24 August 2020)
In Muslim Societies in Postnormal Times: Foresights for Trends, Emerging Issues and Scenarios,
27-32. International Institute of Islamic Thought, 2019. Accessed August 12, 2020.
doi:10.2307/j.ctv10kmcpb.10.
James M. Goldgeier and Elizabeth N. Saunders. The Unconstrained Presidency: Checks and
Balances Eroded Long Before Trump. U.S. Foreign Policy Program. Available at < https://www.cfr.org/article/unconstrained-presidency-checks-and-balances-eroded-long trump>
Kolstad, Ivar., Wilge, Arne. Does Democracy Reduce Corruption? CMI Working Paper. Available
at < https://www.cmi.no/publications/file/4315-does-democracy-reduce-corruption.pdf
Mohammad Hashim Kamali. International Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies (IAIS) Malaysia.
Available at
Accessed (August 8, 2020)
Mirko Draca. Institutional Corruption? The revolving door in American and British politics.
(2014) SMF-CAGE Global Perspectives Series: Paper 1. Available at
http://www.smf.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Social-Market-FoundationInstitutional-Corruption-the-revolving-door-in-American-and-British-politics.pdf>
(Accessed, August 13, 2020)
Refworld UNHCR. Available at https://www.refworld.org/docid/5a9ea68e26.html (Accessed,
August 12, 2020)
Section 23 of the MACC Act 2009 states that an officer or public body commits the offence of
using office or position for gratification if he uses his office or position for any gratification, whether for himself, his relative or associate, commits an offence.
MACC Act 2009. Available at
http://www.agc.gov.my/agcportal/uploads/files/Publications/LOM/EN/Act%20694%20%20(15_5_2015).pdf Accessed (August 13, 2020)
Pew Research Center. Religion and Public Life. Available at
https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/
S. S. Rehman & H. Askari, ‘How Islamic are Islamic Countries?’
The Economist Intelligence Unit. The Democracy Index. Available at
https://www.eiu.com/topic/democracy-index
The Library of Congress Law. Available at
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/campaign-finance/germany.php#:~:text=Germany%20has%20provided%20public%20funding%20to%20the%20political%20parties%20since%201958.&text=Currently%2C%20the%20overall%20annual%20amount,donations%20up%20to%20%E2%82%AC3%2C300.> (Accessed, August 14, 2020)
The New York Times. Available at
(Accessed, August 13, 2020)
Transparency international. Available at https://www.transparency.org/en/what-is-corruption
Accessed (August 8, 2020)
Transparency International. Explanation of How Individual Country Scores of the Corruption
Perceptions Index Are Calculated. Available at https://www.transparency.org/en/press/explanation-of-how-individual-country-scores-of-the-corruption-perceptions (Accessed, August 13, 2020)
Transparency International 2020 Report. Available at
https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2020/index/nzl (Accessed, August 16, 2021)
U Myint. Corruption: causes, consequences, and cures. Asia-Pacific Development Journal. Vol. 7,
(Nov. 2, December 2000) Available at https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/apdj-7-2-2-Myint.pdf
Vincenzo Galasso and Tommaso Nannacini. Competing on Good Politicians. Available at
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41480828?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
0 Comments