Transparency International (TI), the leading international non-governmental organisation dedicated to fighting corruption throughout the world, has just published its Corruption Perceptions Index 2009.
The index, illustrated by the map above, measures the perceived level of public-sector corruption in 180 countries and territories around the world. The CPI is a "survey of surveys", based on 13 different expert and business surveys.
Ireland ranks as the 14th least corrupt public sector worldwide, an improvement of 3 places. The UK ranks 17th – and drops a place. In fact the UK has been slipping for a while – 11th in 2006, 12th in 2007, 16th in 2008, 17th in 2009 – while Ireland has been climbing up the ladder.
So yet again it appears that unionists have backed a losing horse. The difference between 13th and 17th place is not enormous, of course – Ireland scored 8.0 out of 10, while the UK scored 7.7. But this is an index of perceptions, and perceptions matter in areas like public confidence, investor confidence and international relations. A low and falling score can only mean a reduced confidence in the state to treat its citizens and its businesses fairly. When countries are competing for Foreign Direct Investment – or skilled immigrants – such things matter, and if investors are looking at the longer term, the year-on-year trends are also important.
So the UK is slipping down the scale, and coming perilously close to becoming an 'also-ran' in the corruption perception stakes. It is a far cry from the mythical British belief in 'fair play'.
Business people in the north – unionist or nationalist – should be conscious of the danger, and should carefully consider the consequences. Those who continue to describe themselves as unionists should not fool themselves that it is an economically rational choice, because it isn't.
Ireland ranks as the 14th least corrupt public sector worldwide, an improvement of 3 places. The UK ranks 17th – and drops a place. In fact the UK has been slipping for a while – 11th in 2006, 12th in 2007, 16th in 2008, 17th in 2009 – while Ireland has been climbing up the ladder.
So yet again it appears that unionists have backed a losing horse. The difference between 13th and 17th place is not enormous, of course – Ireland scored 8.0 out of 10, while the UK scored 7.7. But this is an index of perceptions, and perceptions matter in areas like public confidence, investor confidence and international relations. A low and falling score can only mean a reduced confidence in the state to treat its citizens and its businesses fairly. When countries are competing for Foreign Direct Investment – or skilled immigrants – such things matter, and if investors are looking at the longer term, the year-on-year trends are also important.
So the UK is slipping down the scale, and coming perilously close to becoming an 'also-ran' in the corruption perception stakes. It is a far cry from the mythical British belief in 'fair play'.
Business people in the north – unionist or nationalist – should be conscious of the danger, and should carefully consider the consequences. Those who continue to describe themselves as unionists should not fool themselves that it is an economically rational choice, because it isn't.
16 comments:
Horseman,
It would be interesting to have a kind of dashboard that would permit making comparisons at a glance across an array of metrics -- consolidating the data you've presented on a variety of topics.
Besides the obvious utility, it may serve to point to areas where the ROI can improve. Surely there are some creditable things done better in N.I.? (let's not count the discreditable)
I'm just wondering to what extent the U.K. figures are skewered by race and ethnicity? The Republic of Ireland is much more homogeneous then the U.K. is.
Anonymous (18 November 2009 23:41),
That's an interesting idea. It would be only for illustrative purposes, of course, because nobody would agree on what to include, or the weightings to give. Some of the rankings are themselves already composites (the UN HDI for instance).
I agree that such rankings are important not just as petty point-scoring exercises, but also to show up areas where we can improve things. I would like Ireland (pre- and post-reunification) to have the specific goal of being in the top 10 world-wide in a lot of these measures. Even if we don't make it, at least we'd be able to see why not, and how to get there.
NI is difficult to include at present, as few of the measures give regional results, and comparable data is often lacking. If any reader can point to sources of data for NI that can be compared with the south or Britain I'd be interested to hear of them.
Horseman says :
"I would like Ireland (pre- and post-reunification) to have the specific goal of being in the top 10 world-wide in a lot of these measures. Even if we don't make it, at least we'd be able to see why not, and how to get there. "
One way to do this is to copy the Nordic model. It works and is an excellent template for Ireland as the way forward.
If anyone has a compelling case AGAINST the Nordic model, I'd be interested to hear it - otherwise, that's the way to go.
This process should already begin pre-unification.
- Munsterman
You could put a different spin on all of this: If the Republic of Ireland is doing so well why risk screwing it up by absorbing the north? Why take in all those hostile and resentful unionists and why become the new sugar-daddy to Ulster? Why not just leave well enough alone?
Because it's their religion. Common sense is irrelevant.
Anonymous (19 November 2009 12:24),
The south is doing well because it's a modern liberal democracy with a strong commitment to free markets and incentives for enterprise. Re-uniting with the north doesn't necessarily 'screw that up', as long as the new 32 county state retains those values.
I think you misunderstand the dynamics of reunification - no-one is 'taking in' anyone else. Its about creating a new Ireland in place of two partial Irelands. Unionists may be hostile and resentful, but if the reunification is agreed (50%+1, don't forget) they have no democratic or moral reason to resist it. And it will be in their interests to participate fully.
The south will not be a 'sugar-daddy' for the north (one third of 'Ulster' is already in the south, so I think your terminology is faulty). Instead both parts will build a new and prosperous country, in which everyone feels comfortable.
As for 'leaving well alone' - do you really think the current arrangements are 'well'? Many would not agree. And we have the right to seek a different (and better, in our opinion) solution. You, of course, can chose to differ, but ultimately it will be decided through the ballot box. And the thesis of this blog is that that ballot box is getting greener over time.
Máith an fear.
MPG .....
The Nordic model?
In what respect Charlie?
(that's a Palin joke)
Joking aside, tell us a bit more.
"The south is doing well because it's a modern liberal democracy with a strong commitment to free markets and incentives for enterprise. Re-uniting with the north doesn't necessarily 'screw that up', as long as the new 32 county state retains those values."
YOU CAN'T AFFORD IT TODAY AND YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO AFFORD IT TOMORROW!
"I think you misunderstand the dynamics of reunification - no-one is 'taking in' anyone else. Its about creating a new Ireland in place of two partial Irelands. Unionists may be hostile and resentful, but if the reunification is agreed (50%+1, don't forget) they have no democratic or moral reason to resist it."
Hilarious! I don't recall Irish Nationalists accepting 50%+1, very much the opposite. In fact some of them are still out murdering in defiance of 'democracy' as we speak.
"And it will be in their interests to participate fully."
They won't participate at all. In the worst case they'll draw another line on the map and practice self determination inside it.
"And the thesis of this blog is that that ballot box is getting greener over time"
More Catholic (nominally or otherwise) you mean.
Watcher,
Don't shout. We can all hear you just fine.
Nobody is talking about 'affording' anything. You've got to get over the idea that NI is incapable of paying its own way. It is not destined to be an expensive plaything of richer countries for ever more. Governed well, and with self-confident people it could be a success like the south. At the moment that seems impossible, but do you not remember the south in the 1980s? (if not, ask someone older)
As for respect for 50%+1, do you really take your lead from the IRA? Have you already ceded the moral high ground?
I disagree about unionist (dis)engagement post reunification. I think the intelligent will see the basic sense in being part of the governance of the country - the foolish will not, but then they never do, do they? That's why they're poor and disadvantaged - the rich will screw the poor and get straight into bed with the power elite of the new Ireland.
You think repartition is a runner? Honestly? It has no chance of working, or being supported by GB, the US, UN, EU or any other player. Who will Albaniulster's friends be? North Korea? Do you really think south Belfast, north Down and Strangford want to be part of a basket-case loyalist sectarian statelet, friendless, poor, without resources or trading partners, and spiraling downwards into some sort of mad max existence? Really?
We'll all (and N.I. especially) have a pretty interesting situation on our hands if the UK leaves the EU. I wouldn't be surprised. The level of hostility in the tabloid press has gone well beyond toxic. It is xenophic in the extreme, on a par with the republican right in the US now.
As an aside, here's a delightful recent video of the teabag variety of bigot getting punked
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rry_SlPW7oU
Horseman said:
"Nobody is talking about 'affording' anything. You've got to get over the idea that NI is incapable of paying its own way. It is not destined to be an expensive plaything of richer countries for ever more. Governed well, and with self-confident people it could be a success like the south."
And what exactly makes you think The Republic will be able to govern NI better than The UK? After all The UK only had a truculent minority of half a million to deal with and vast resources to utilise, as The Republic will have a truculent minority of a million to deal with and is itself a tiny militarily impotent entity.
"At the moment that seems impossible, but do you not remember the south in the 1980s? (if not, ask someone older)"
You really think that Ireland is on a permanent upwards trajectory don't you? Well, take it from someone who lives in a country that has been around for more than a few decades - all economies are cyclical and the past is not a guide to the future.
"As for respect for 50%+1, do you really take your lead from the IRA? Have you already ceded the moral high ground?"
The only moral high ground I believe in is this: the self determination of The Ulster British in the event of The Union breaking up.
"I disagree about unionist (dis)engagement post reunification. I think the intelligent will see the basic sense in being part of the governance of the country - the foolish will not, but then they never do, do they? That's why they're poor and disadvantaged - the rich will screw the poor and get straight into bed with the power elite of the new Ireland."
I see what you mean. That must be why there are so many Catholics opposed to a United Ireland and who will remain opposed in the event of any border poll. They would be 'foolish' to see it otherwise.
"You think repartition is a runner? Honestly? It has no chance of working, or being supported by GB, the US, UN, EU or any other player."
Really? I thought self-determination was all the rage now - remember Kosova? Your plans would have been more hopeful fifty years ago.
"Who will Albaniulster's friends be? North Korea? Do you really think south Belfast, north Down and Strangford want to be part of a basket-case loyalist sectarian statelet, friendless, poor, without resources or trading partners, and spiraling downwards into some sort of mad max existence? Really?"
I see what you're saying. In that case why didn't The Republic apply to rejoin The UK at some point between 1922 and the early nineties? After all, financially it would have made a lot of sense wouldn't it? You could have been receiving the same subsidies NI is getting today! LOL
Nordic model :
" Joking aside, tell us a bit more "....
If you are genuinely serious, I would equally seriously encourage you to check out how Sweden / Denmark / Finland run their shows. Finland in particular as it shares a lot of parallels with Ireland.
Some examples -
- Education : Finland is No. 1 in all of OECD
- Infrastructure : Helsinki - voted best municipal public transport system in all of Europe
- Healthcare : very cost-effective model. Drop-in Health care centres in each municipal district. Visit is around €15. Subsequent referral to Hospital if necessary is totally free to all citizens.
No VHI fiddling around.
Industry : Finland has a very successful
INDIGENOUS industrial base. This is not an accident or luck but the result of very clear State policy in investing in high-tech industry over decades in the knowledge that the wood industry would not always be the "Green Gold".
Contrary to mythology, taxation is not THAT high.
Higher than Ireland yes - but citizens can see that the very high level of services put the tax funds to very good use.
Slums do not exist in any Finnish city. Before any district is built, it MUST have ALL essential services included - schools, health centres, pools, sports fields, public transport.
Single girls will walk home on their own from the city centres at night-time - this is normal in Finland - as it should be everywhere.
(Certainly, Finland has it's own problems like just anywhere else....but that's another story and nothing to do with the Nordic model per se...).
Denmark and Sweden are similar - but as I said, Finland has more parallels with Ireland.
That's a brief overview which I hope you find of interest.
- Munsterman
I think it would have to be a case of south taking over the north. Look at the difference in size and population. To talk of an equal union is I think wrong.
I don't think a simple 50%+1 wil do it. Didn't the European union demand that Montenegro have at least a 55% majority to secede from Serbia? Here in Canada the Clarity act was passed telling Quebec separation was only possible with a clear majority.
When I said why screw it up I was referring to the south - not the north. From the perspective of the south things are going really well. Much economic and social progress has been made since the 1920's. The presence of a large and hostile unionist comunity is an unknown quantity for Dublin and N.I. (you took a rather petty offense to my term Ulster even though your own blog is called Ulster's doomed)would be very costly to the south. Eliminating all the benefits the north currently gets would only further alienate Unionists and convince them that ties with Dublin were not in their best interests. Are Dubliners really willing to make up that 7 billion annual shortfall? Look at how much trouble and economic costs West Germany had unifying with East Germany and there was no community to oppose it. And Ireland's economy is much smaller then Germany's.
The men who bankroll the Tories are:
Michael Spencer the billionaire has given the party over £200,000 of his own. And has raised millions from his rich friends.
Stanley Fink has given more than a million pounds of his own money. He has vowed to raise 40 million by the end of the year to blow Labour out of the water.
Michael Hintze has loaned the party 2.5 million and also donated almost 1 million.
Simon Wolfson head of fashion store Next has donated more than £230,000 to the Tories.
Andrew Feldman has recruited donors willing to give 50,000 pounds a year.
Lord Ashcroft has donated 10 million pounds to the Tory party.
Post a Comment