Combatting corruption

Perceived causes of corruption: greed rather than need

The main causes of corruption are considered to include weak accountability systems (63%), low civil servant salaries (57%) and the large sums of money in circulation (49%). Compared with the situation revealed by the 2007 Integrity Watch Corruption Survey, there has been a shift in the tolerance levels of respondents toward various kinds of corruption. In the previous survey, respondents deemed the main causes of corruption to be the economic needs of civil servants, which were partially understood and accepted. However, respondents are now less willing to tolerate the lavish lifestyles among public officials facilitated through corruption and are asking for increased accountability. Low civil servants salaries are, however, still considered, to some extent, a cause of corruption. Yet, this is no longer accepted as an excuse for corruption to thrive.

Accepting corruption: the dilemma between survival and civic attitude

Corruption in general is not tolerated by Afghans and only becomes permissible in certain specific circumstances. 90% of the respondents stated that they felt guilty paying a bribe, indicating that corruption is not a cultural norm in Afghanistan.

The only forms of corruption toward which there was a slightly higher tolerance among respondents were favoritism, at 16% (unacceptable to 73%), and bribery, at 15% (unacceptable to 79%). Fewer than 10% of respondents said that fraud and embezzlement were acceptable. Tolerance, however, varied depending on the situation. Respondents were more tolerant toward civil servants who asked for monetary bribes if they had low salaries (15% in favor; 67% against) and for small gifts in return for small services (16% in favor; 70% against). The survey finds that the acceptance of all forms of corruption was twice as high among the urban population relative to the rural population. The extortion of monetary bribes from the poor was the least accepted. While corruption is condemned, 20% of respondents indicated they would take advantage of nepotism to secure employment, and 25% of respondents stated that they would pay bribes if this protected their interests. This type of behavior was mostly prominent among single and economically active young Afghans, indicating that this is a potential target group for anti-corruption campaigns, together with those who bribe to protect their own sources of income.

Trust in institutions in combating corruption

Despite the high perception that the public sector is corrupt and the massive perception that the state has failed to fight corruption, respondents consider that the most capable institutions to reduce corruption are, in theory, the President, 84%, the Attorney General, 70%, and the Ministry of Interior, 70%. This shows, first, that, despite significant skepticism about the integrity of these institutions, the public still has confidence in the state’s theoretical capability in fighting corruption. Second, respondents intuitively tend to single out the actors who are capable of adopting a sanction-based approach in fighting corruption. Still, the confidence in non-state actors who may be associated in a preventive approach to fighting corruption is also high. Civil society, at 51%, and religious leaders, at 55%, score as much as the Afghan government, at 55%, while the least capable are estimated to be the Taliban, at 14%.

Complaint

Finally, 12% of respondents stated that they had filed a formal complaint related to corruption during the previous 12 months, indicating that people still have some confidence in formal state institutions in fighting corruption. Among these, the institutions receiving the most complaints were district or provincial governors. Those more prone to file a complaint were individuals who had sought government services and paid higher bribes.