Here’s A Good Anti-corruption Plan: Don’t Reduce Civil Servant Benefits
I’ve written twice already this week about administrative corruption. The problem is getting worse, and the government needs to find new ways to ensure that local bureaucrats are not taking bribes or embezzling funds. One of the obvious solutions is to raise benefits to a level such that bureaucrats are not tempted to supplement their incomes through improper means.
Coincidentally, the government is currently reforming civil servant heath care benefits. There are competing interests here that should be acknowledged, including fiscal constraints, equality of benefits, and (I would argue) anti-corruption.
The reforms that will go into effect this year curtail the government-provided free benefits in favor of pushing all civil servants into the health insurance program. This is fine, I suppose, assuming that the new scheme benefit level is comparable.
But some folks would like to see this reform go in a different direction entirely. Here’s one argument in favor of actually reducing benefits:
The message that the free healthcare enjoyed by civil servants will be incorporated into the general employees’ medical insurance system is the first step in reform of public welfare.
The medical costs of all 450,000 of the civil servants in the Beijing municipal government and its affiliated county and district governments have already been merged into employees’ medical insurance since Jan 1, and the change will be extended to civil servants in the central government next year.
The reason people have been calling for reform of the medical insurance system is there is a marked discrepancy between the reimbursement levels enjoyed by civil servants and those of other citizens.
However, the change does little to make the system more equitable as it means civil servants now have more hospitals to choose from than before and they can get exclusive supplementary insurance, which means that their medical service level will still remain much higher than that of other citizens.
Medical insurance is a basic public service provided by the State. Any reform in this field should be conducive to realizing public service equalization, instead of creating new inequalities.
Greater efforts are needed to lower the medical service reimbursement level for civil servants and to increase that of other employees.
OK, I’m all in favor of the idea of health care as a basic service provided to everyone by the government to all citizens (and residents!). However, we’re far from that reality in China at the present time, and there is a great deal of inequality built in to the system.
I would also acknowledge that there is a great deal of resentment out there of public officials and the special treatment they get. I’ve written about income inequality and related issues many, many times in the past couple of years and definitely see this as a huge problem that needs to be addressed immediately.
However, if the issue is inequality of benefits, we can engage in a race to the bottom, cutting benefits for some, or we can focus on raising the benefits of others. I’d much rather see the latter than the former.
Yes, civil servants enjoy certain unfair advantages. But instead of cutting their health care, let’s keep the focus on the Audis, the free trips, and the banquets. Taking away medical benefits while maintaining low salaries would just give them an additional incentive to engage in corrupt activities.
I totally agree with you. Cut out the shark’s fin soup served by the pretty “hostess” at the luxury banquet for the corrupt guys, and keep the medical care for the average government worker.
Years ago, I heard the excuse that Chinese journalists “had to” take hongbau or other bribes because their pay was so very low. This may have been true. State papers were paying people so little in HK that they could barely afford to live like poor students here — never mind support a family. And if they got transferred back to the mainland, they made even less. The idea was that journalists lived off of “hand-outs” in exchange for positive coverage the same way that an American waitress lives off of her tips.
It still doesn’t make taking bribes right. But you have to feel for guys making a fraction of what other journalists do in the world.
I still hear the excuse, but now it’s Chinese journalists demanding “gifts” from PR companies — often as blackmail. If you don’t buy me an iPad / overseas vacation / new designer outfit, etc., I won’t write good things about your company. The new wave of journalists seem — well, not rich, but reasonably comfortable. Suddenly, any sympathy I had for them is gone.
Here’s my question — since I don’t know much about the Chinese civil service. Do you think that increased salaries and benefits will actually help cut down on corruption?
Or do you think corrupt people are just corrupt to the bone — even if they are treated better, they will just expect bigger and bigger “gifts”?
Some folks are just bad guys and will always try to gain advantage from their position. For them, tough enforcement is the only solution. However, assuming that there is a level of benefits sufficient to discourage a significant percentage of officials from engaging in such behavior, then why not try to go there?
It doesn’t matter what level of benefits they get, they are corrupt because they have unchecked power, not because they are poor. What’s worse is that higher benefits and income will only raise their appetite. They will now demand a bigger stash of cash from you now because they’ve seen it all. The solution I’m in favor of is a much smaller government with much less power (and thus less tax for us), and a better court system that’s independent and transparent.
Public employees in China have been living a different life than the rest of us for a long time. It’s good that they start getting the same treatment as everybody else. It’s a good thing for them too: They are lowering their risk of being stoned on the street, should the CCP be done oneday,
Low pay & benefits + control over permits & approvals = motive & means for corruption
You’ve identified a catch 22 which blurs the discussion of tackling corruption with (arguably) the larger spectre of societal inequality.
One motivation for corruption is because government minions aren’t “paid” well enough (where “pay” includes both wages and benefits). So improving that pay to reduce the impetus for corruption makes sense.
But it’s also true that government minions are already well taken-care of compared with the average Zhou, and now there will be sweetening of the deal further while the average Zhou continues to look on. That doesn’t have the makings of something that will be hugely popular, even if the ideal end-result is less corruption afflicting the daily lives of the average Zhou.
So it actually comes down to a decision for average Zhou. Does he want to see more income disparity in exchange (hopefully) for less impact of corruption on their day-to-day lives? Or does he want to see less income disparity, and the possibility of being more screwed over by corruption? I suspect he will go for option (c), which is less income disparity, perhaps more reason for corruption, but also water-torture penalties for those who succumb to the temptation of bribes.
I have written this before and still think that raising the salaries/benefits of the civil servants in China is a good idea. Of course, the problem with China is always transparency which I see as a necessary check to keep the officials in line. In this regard I think not only China’s but the whole world’s corruption would be reduced if Swiss banks and offshore banking which offers anonymous access could be cut down a bit.
Ideology aside, I think corruption ultimately has to do with culture and the average living standard. India is more corrupt than China despite being a democracy and having more a free media. Singapore’s lack of corruption probably has more to do with the fact that its average citizens are far more well off than most of the world than that its politicians are paid more than the rest. For one to be corrupt is really a calculation between the value of goods which are gained through corruption and the risk of getting caught. The issue of corruption can be attacked from either or both sides of the equation.