The history of the emergence and development of corruption. World history of corruption

Most often, corruption is understood as receiving bribes, illegal money income, by government bureaucrats who extort them from citizens for personal gain. However, in a more general sense of the word, participants in corruption relations can be not only government officials, but also, for example, managers of firms; bribes can be given not in money, but in another form; the initiators of corruption relations are often not state officials, but entrepreneurs. Since the forms of abuse of power are very diverse, different types of corruption are distinguished according to different criteria (Table 1).

Corruption is the flip side of the activities of any centralized state, which claims to be widely accounted for and controlled.

In primitive and early class societies, the payment of a priest, chieftain, or military leader for a personal appeal to their help was seen as a universal norm. The situation began to change with the complication and professionalization of the state apparatus. The rulers of the highest rank demanded that lower-ranking "employees" be content with only a fixed "salary". In contrast, lower-ranking officials preferred to secretly receive (or demand from them) additional payments from applicants for the performance of their official duties.

In the early stages of the history of ancient societies (ancient Greek city-states, republican Rome), when there were still no professional government officials, corruption was almost absent. This phenomenon began to flourish only in the era of the decline of antiquity, when such government officials appeared, about whom they said: "He came poor to a rich province, and left rich from a poor province." At this time, a special term "corrumpire" appeared in Roman law, which was synonymous with the words "spoil", "bribe" and served to denote any official abuse.

Where central government power was weak (for example, in Europe during the early Middle Ages), the use of official position for personal extortion from the population often became the accepted norm. Thus, in medieval Russia, “feeding” the voivods and their appropriation of payment for resolving conflicts was considered the usual income of service people, along with salaries from the treasury or receiving estates.

The more centralized the state was, the more severely it limited the independence of citizens, provoking lower and higher officials to secretly violate the law in favor of subjects who wanted to get rid of strict supervision. Demonstrative punishments of corrupt officials usually did not give almost any result, because new extortionists for bribes appeared in the place of those eliminated (demoted or executed). Since the central government usually did not have the strength to control the activities of officials, it usually contented itself with maintaining some "tolerable norm" of corruption, suppressing only too dangerous manifestations of it.

This moderate tolerance for corruption is most pronounced in societies. Asian production... In the countries of the pre-colonial East, on the one hand, the rulers claimed universal "accounting and control", but, on the other hand, they constantly complained about the greed of officials who confuse their own pocket with the state treasury. It is in Eastern societies that the first studies of corruption appear. So, the author Arthasastras He allocated 40 means of embezzlement of state property by greedy officials and stated with sadness that "just as one cannot but perceive honey if it is on the tongue, so the king's property, albeit in a small amount, cannot be appropriated by those in charge of this property."

A radical change in the attitude of society towards the personal income of government officials took place only in Western Europe in the era of modern times. The ideology of the social contract proclaimed that subjects pay taxes to the state in exchange for the fact that it intelligently develops laws and strictly monitors their strict implementation. Personal relationships began to give way to purely official ones, and therefore the receipt by an official of personal income, in addition to his salary, began to be interpreted as a flagrant violation of public morality and the norms of the law. In addition, the ideology of economic freedom substantiated by representatives of neoclassical economic theory demanded that the state "let people do their own thing and let things go on their own." If officials had fewer opportunities for regulatory intervention, so did their power to extort bribes. Ultimately, in the centralized states of the new era, the corruption of officials, although it has not disappeared, has sharply decreased.

A new stage in the evolution of corruption in developed countries was the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. On the one hand, a new rise in government regulation and, accordingly, the power of officials began. On the other hand, big business was born, which, in a competitive struggle, began to resort to "buying up the state" - no longer to episodic bribery of individual small civil servants, but to direct subordination of the activities of politicians and high-ranking officials to the protection of the interests of capital. As the importance of political parties grew in developed countries (especially in Western Europe after World War II), party corruption developed, when large firms paid not personally to politicians for lobbying their interests, but to the party treasury. Big politicians increasingly began to view their position as a source of personal income. For example, in Japan and today, politicians who help private corporations to obtain lucrative contracts expect to receive a percentage of the transaction. At the same time, the independence of intra-company employees began to grow, who also have the opportunity to abuse their position.

In the second half of the 20th century, after the emergence of a large number of politically independent Third World countries, their state apparatus, as a rule, initially turned out to be highly susceptible to systemic corruption. The fact is that the "Eastern" traditions of personal relations between the boss and the petitioners here are superimposed on huge uncontrolled opportunities associated with state regulation of many spheres of life. For example, Indonesian President Suharto was known as "Mr. 10 percent" because all foreign corporations operating in the country were encouraged to pay a clearly marked bribe to the president and members of his family clan. Corruption was typical “from the bottom up”, when the boss could blame the subordinates, but there was also corruption “from the top down”, when the corrupt officials of the highest ranks did not hesitate to openly take bribes and even share them with their subordinates (such a system of corruption existed, for example , in South Korea). Kleptocratic regimes appeared in the “third world” (in the Philippines, in Paraguay, in Haiti, in most African countries), where corruption totally pervaded all types of socio-economic relations, and nothing was done without a bribe.

The growth of world economic relations also stimulated the development of corruption. When concluding contracts with foreign buyers, large transnational corporations even began to legally include in the costs of negotiations the cost of "gifts". In the 1970s, a scandal broke out all over the world with the American company Lockheed, which for the sale of its not very good planes gave large bribes to high-ranking politicians and officials of Germany, Japan and other countries. From about that time, corruption began to be recognized as one of the global problems of our time, hindering the development of all countries of the world.

The problem became even more urgent in the 1990s, when post-socialist countries demonstrated a scale of corruption comparable to the situation in developing countries. A paradoxical situation often arose when the same person simultaneously occupied important positions in both the public and commercial sectors of the economy; as a result, many officials abused their position, not even accepting bribes, but directly defending their personal commercial interests.

Thus, the general trends in the evolution of corruption relations in the 20th century. - this is a gradual multiplication of their forms, the transition from episodic and grassroots corruption to systematic top and international.

The causes of corruption.

The theoretical foundations of the economics of corruption were laid in the 1970s in the works of neoinstitutional American economists. Their main idea was that corruption appears and grows if there is rent associated with state regulation of various spheres of economic life (the introduction of export-import restrictions, the provision of subsidies and tax benefits to enterprises or industries, the presence of price controls, the policy of multiple exchange rates etc.). At the same time, those officials who receive low salaries are more targeted at corruption. Later, empirical studies have confirmed that the scale of corruption decreases if there are few foreign trade restrictions in the country, if industrial policy is based on the principles of equal opportunities for all enterprises and industries, and if the salaries of officials are higher than those of private sector workers of the same qualifications.

In modern economic science, it is customary to note the plurality of causes of corruption, highlighting economic, institutional and socio-cultural factors.

Economic the causes of corruption are, first of all, low salaries of civil servants, as well as their high powers to influence the activities of firms and citizens. Corruption flourishes wherever officials have broad powers to dispose of any scarce goods. This is especially noticeable in developing and transitional countries, but also manifests itself in developed countries. For example, in the United States, there are many manifestations of corruption in the implementation of the program of subsidized housing for needy families.

Institutional The reasons for corruption are considered to be a high level of secrecy in the work of government departments, a cumbersome reporting system, a lack of transparency in the lawmaking system, a weak personnel policy of the state, which allows the spread of sinecures and the possibility of promotion regardless of the actual performance of employees.

Socio-cultural the causes of corruption are the demoralization of society, lack of awareness and organization of citizens, public passivity in relation to the willfulness of the “powers that be”.

In those countries where all three groups of factors operate (these are, first of all, developing and post-socialist countries), corruption is the highest. On the contrary, in the countries of Western European civilization, these factors are much less pronounced, therefore, corruption there is more moderate.

To explain the reasons and essence of corruption relations, economists usually use the model "guarantor (principal) - executor (agent) - ward (client)" (see Fig. 1).

In this model, the central government acts as a principal (P): it sets rules and assigns specific tasks to agents (A), middle and lower-level officials. Officials act as intermediaries between the central government and clients (C), individuals or firms. In exchange for paying taxes, the agent, on behalf of the principal, provides clients with various services (licenses the activities of firms, issues social benefits to citizens, hires employees for public service, etc.). For example, within the framework of the tax service, the state acts as the principal in the person of the head of the tax service, agents are tax collectors, and all taxpayers act as clients. In exchange for paying taxes, taxpayers are able to function legally, otherwise they will face fines and other penalties.

The quality of the regulatory system depends on whether conflicts of interest arise in this system between the principal and the agent. The government, in principle, has neither the time nor the ability to personally serve each client, so it delegates the authority to serve them to officials, prescribing certain rules to them. Officials-agents, knowing their clients better than the government-principal, can work more effectively with clients. But it is difficult for the principal to control how numerous intermediary agents perform the prescribed work, especially since officials can deliberately hide information about the true results of their activities. Since the honesty of an agent-official cannot be completely controlled, the agent himself decides whether to be "honest". The decision of the official depends on the expected rewards for good work and the expected penalties for abuse. For example, in the Russian tax system, the remuneration of a tax employee is almost independent of the amount of funds contributed to the budget at the expense of hidden taxes revealed by him. This leads to the fact that the tax collector is often more interested in receiving bribes than in honest service.

Illegal remuneration of an agent-official from his clients can be given for various reasons. A citizen or a company can give a bribe so that an official gives them the required services more quickly, “out of turn” (accelerating bribe). More often, however, officials are bribed to provide their clients with more services offered by the state, and to take less taxes than is required by law (inhibiting bribe). It also happens that an official has ample opportunities for nagging on far-fetched pretexts; then bribes are given so that the official does not use his opportunities to show tyranny (bribe "for a good attitude").

To prevent corruption, they try to set very high salaries for the most responsible employees and, at the same time, tighten penalties for violation of their official duties. However, many researchers note that in many cases government salaries cannot compete with the financial capabilities of potential bribe-givers (if they are large legal businessmen or mafia bosses). A decent salary for an agent is a necessary but not sufficient condition for preventing corruption. Therefore, the state-principal complements (or even replaces) high rewards with "appeals to honest behavior." This means that the government is trying to create psychological barriers against the self-interest of agents, for example, by raising the moral level of citizens through the mechanism of education and ideological propaganda. In addition, the government-principal encourages direct communication with clients (receiving complaints from the public), which serve as an additional and very important tool for controlling the actions of officials-agents.

Thus, the agent-client relationship depends on the agents' salaries and the breadth of their powers, and the “principal-agent” relationship depends on the degree of control of the principal over the agents and the influence of clients on the principal. Moral norms in this system affect all types of relations, determining the degree of permissibility of deviations from the requirements of the law.

Some foreign economists express an extremely laconic definition of the main causes of corruption by the following formula:

corruption = monopoly + arbitrariness - responsibility.

This means that the possibilities of corruption directly depend on the state's monopoly on the performance of certain types of activities (for example, to purchase weapons) and on the lack of control over the activities of officials, but inversely depend on the likelihood and severity of punishments for abuse.

Measuring corruption.

The extent of corruption is difficult to assess. This is primarily due to the fact that it (like other types of shadow economic activity) is, in principle, hidden from official statistics. Since government officials have more opportunities to conceal their crimes than ordinary citizens, corruption is reflected in criminal statistics weaker than many other types of crimes. In addition, many types of corruption are not even directly related to the payment of monetary rewards, and therefore cannot be valued.

To obtain comparative data on the degree of development of corruption in different countries, sociological surveys and expert assessments are most often used.

Currently, the most prestigious is corruption perception index(Corruption Perceptions Index - CPI), which is calculated by the international organization Transparency International (literally translated as "International transparency"). This non-profit, non-governmental organization for the study of corruption and combating it integrates data from scientific research conducted in different countries by individual economists and organizations in the 3 years preceding the calculation of the composite index. These studies compare the subjective assessments of the degree of corruption in different countries given by businessmen and analysts. In the process of summarizing data from individual studies, each country is assessed on a 10-point scale, where 10 points mean no corruption (the highest "transparency" of the economy), and 0 points - the highest degree of corruption (minimum "transparency").

Corruption perception indices have been calculated since 1995. The base of data used by Transparency International is constantly growing: if in 1995 the CPI was calculated for 41 countries of the world, then in 2003 - already for 133. Corruption perception index 2003 summarized the results of 17 public opinion surveys conducted by 13 independent organizations , and the final list included only those countries that were covered by at least three studies.

Studies by Transparency International show a strong differentiation of the countries of the world in terms of the level of corruption development (Table 2).

It is quite natural that poverty and corruption go “hand in hand”: the most highly corrupted countries are, first of all, developing countries with a low standard of living. Post-socialist countries have somewhat better ratings, but corruption is quite high here too. However, wealth alone does not guarantee freedom from corruption. Germany and the US have roughly the same score as much poorer Ireland; France turned out to be worse than Chile, Italy - worse than Botswana.

Differentiation within groups of countries with approximately the same standard of living strongly depends on the national economic culture and on government policy. So, for countries with Confucian culture (China, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan), where since ancient times an honest and wise official was considered a cult figure, the corruption indices are noticeably lower than, for example, in the countries of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh), in which there is no tradition of respect for managerial work.

In general, it is possible, therefore, to note two universal laws:

corruption is usually higher in poor countries but lower in rich ones;

corruption is generally lower in countries of Western European civilization and higher in peripheral countries.

Comparison of the corruption perception indices for different years shows that many countries in a relatively short period of time seriously change the degree of corruption. For example, in countries such as Italy and Spain the situation has deteriorated markedly, while in Argentina and Ireland it has improved. However, one should be very careful when making intertemporal comparisons of CPI indices, since changes in the scores of a country may be the result not only of a changed perception of corruption, but also of changed samples and survey methodology.

If the CPI shows the propensity of officials from different countries take bribes, then to assess the propensity of entrepreneurs from different countries to give bribes Transparency International uses a different index - bribe-giver index(Bribe Payers Index - BPI). Similar to the CPI index, the propensity of companies in exporting countries to bribe was assessed on a 10-point scale, where the lower the score, the higher the willingness to bribe. The collected data show (Table 3) that many peripheral countries famous for their corruption (for example, Russia, China) are willing not only to take, but also to give bribes abroad. As for firms from developed countries, their propensity to resort to bribery was quite moderate. Characteristically, Sweden was among the “cleanest” both in CPI and BPI.

In addition to the CPI and BPI indices, other indicators are also used to compare the development of corruption in different countries, for example, global corruption barometer(Global Corruption Barometer), economic freedom index(Index of Economic Freedom), opacity index(Opacity Index), etc.

The impact of corruption on social development.

Corruption strongly and, as a rule, negatively affects the economic and social development of any country.

Economic harm corruption is primarily due to the fact that corruption is an obstacle to the implementation of the state's macroeconomic policy. As a result of corruption in the lower and middle levels of the management system, the central government ceases to receive reliable information about the real state of affairs in the country's economy and cannot achieve its goals.

Corruption seriously distorts the very motives of government decisions. Corrupt politicians and bureaucrats are more inclined to channel state resources into areas of activity where strict control is impossible and where the possibility of extorting bribes is greater. They tend to finance the production of, for example, warplanes and other large investment projects, rather than publishing school textbooks and raising teachers' salaries. There is a well-known anecdotal example, when in 1975 in Nigeria a generously bribed government placed orders abroad for such a gigantic amount of cement, which surpassed the capacity of its production in all Western European countries and in the USSR combined. Comparative cross-country studies confirm that corruption severely distorts the structure of public spending: corrupt governments spend much less on education and health than uncorrupted ones.

The main negative manifestation of the economic impact of corruption is the increase in costs for entrepreneurs (especially for small firms that are more vulnerable to ransomware). Thus, the difficulties of business development in post-socialist countries are largely due to the fact that officials force entrepreneurs to often give bribes, which turn into a kind of additional taxation (Table 4). Even if an entrepreneur is honest and does not give bribes, he suffers damage from corruption, since he is forced to spend a lot of time communicating with deliberately picky government officials.

Finally, corruption and bureaucratic red tape in the execution of business documents slow down investment. (especially foreign) and ultimately the economic growth. For example, the model developed in the 1990s by the American economist Paolo Mauro allowed him to conclude that an increase in the calculated "efficiency of bureaucracy" (an index close to the Corruption Perception Index calculated by Transparency International) by 2.4 points reduces the country's economic growth rate by about 0 ,5%. According to the calculations of another American economist, Shang-Ching Wai, an increase in the corruption index by one point (on a ten-point scale) is accompanied by a 0.9% fall in foreign direct investment. However, when reviewing the corruption indices, it was already mentioned that there is still no clear negative correlation between the level of corruption and the level of economic development, this relationship is noticeable only as a general pattern, from which there are many exceptions.

As for the negative social consequences of corruption, it is generally recognized that it leads to injustice - to unfair competition between firms and to an unjustified redistribution of citizens' incomes. The fact is that it is not the most efficient legal firm, or even a criminal organization, that can give a larger bribe. As a result, the incomes of bribe-givers and bribe-takers grow, while the income of law-abiding citizens decreases. Most dangerous is corruption in the tax collection system, allowing the rich to evade taxes and shifting the tax burden onto the shoulders of poorer citizens.

Corrupt regimes never enjoy the "love" of citizens, and therefore they are politically unstable. The ease of overthrowing the Soviet regime in 1991 was largely due to the fact that the Soviet nomenklatura had a reputation for being a thoroughly corrupt community enjoying deserved contempt from ordinary citizens of the USSR. Since, however, in post-Soviet Russia the Soviet level of corruption was many times surpassed, this led to the low prestige of the Yeltsin regime in the eyes of most Russians.

However, the participants in the discussions on corruption put forward the opinion that corruption has not only negative, but also positive consequences. Thus, in the first years after the collapse of the USSR, it was believed that if officials were allowed to take bribes, they would work more intensively, and corruption helped entrepreneurs bypass bureaucratic slingshots.

The beneficial concept of corruption does not account, however, for the very high degree of lack of control that politicians and bureaucratic officials acquire in corrupt societies. They can create and interpret instructions at their discretion. In this case, instead of an incentive for more efficient activity, corruption becomes, on the contrary, an incentive to create an excessive number of instructions. In other words, bribe-takers deliberately create more and more barriers in order to then “help” to overcome them for an additional fee.

Corruption apologists also argue that bribery can reduce the time it takes to collect and process bureaucratic documents. But bribes don't necessarily speed up the speed of paperwork. It is known, for example, that high-ranking civil servants in India take bribes in the following way: they do not promise the bribe-giver faster processing of his documents, but offer to slow down the paperwork process for competing companies.

The argument that corruption is an incentive for economic development is especially dangerous in that it destroys the rule of law and the rule of law. Some Russian criminologists argue that in the early 1990s, in post-Soviet Russia, "out of the best intentions", punishments for official abuse were actually temporarily canceled, and this led to an increase in bureaucratic extortion, exacerbating the economic crisis.

Fight against corruption.

Since state corruption has become one of the obstacles to the development of not only individual countries, but also the world economy as a whole, it began to be viewed starting from about the 1980s as one of the main concerns of international politics.

Anti-corruption objectives can be chosen in different ways: an immediate increase in efficiency in the private sector, long-term dynamic efficiency of the economy, its growth, social justice, political stability. According to the chosen goal, the most appropriate anti-corruption measures are used.

Legislative reforms are often chosen as the simplest tool - not only and not so much toughening penalties for corruption, but simplifying and reducing state control (reducing the frequency of inspections, lowering taxes) to reduce the very possibilities of abuse of office. In the arsenal of government measures to combat corruption, there are also fairly simple measures to elementary toughening of control. In post-Soviet Georgia, for example, a system has been introduced whereby government officials are required to declare their income when they take office, as well as when they leave office.

The international fight against corruption is seriously hampered by the differences between the legal systems of different countries in the treatment of corruption as an economic offense. For example, in some countries (for example, in Taiwan) only bribe-takers are punished, and offering a bribe is not a criminal offense. In other countries (for example, Chile) the situation is diametrically opposite: giving a bribe is a criminal offense, and taking a bribe is not considered as such, unless the official has committed other abuses. In addition to discrepancies in the signs of a criminally punishable corruption offense, there are strong differences in the penalties for it.

While these measures must be implemented by the central government, they also require support from civil society. When the will of political leaders is based on active public support, it is possible to achieve dramatic changes in a fairly short time (as was the case in Italy in the 1990s with the Clean Hands campaign). On the contrary, if citizens pin all their hopes on the "wise rulers", and themselves passively wait for the result, then a noisy campaign against corruption may end up even higher (this is what happened in our country in the early 1990s) or result in repression opponents of the ruling regime.

However, legislative actions of the state cannot fundamentally bring about a decisive turning point in the fight against corruption (if only because the fight against corruption can be “headed” by corrupt officials themselves). Decisive success is possible only by increasing the dependence of the state on its citizens. This requires such long-term institutional reforms as reducing the number and size of government bodies and their staff, the creation of special or even state-independent institutions authorized to investigate allegations of corruption (such as the institution of the ombudsman in Sweden and in some other countries), the introduction of systems of ethical standards for civil servants, etc. Finally, the fight against corruption is impossible without the help of voluntary informants. In the United States, the informant receives from 15 to 30% of the value of the material damage revealed by his denunciation and is protected from persecution by the violators exposed by him.

The possibility of implementing these measures depends not so much on the political will of the rulers as on the culture of the governed society. For example, in Eastern countries with weak traditions of self-government, it is better to rely on prestige and high pay for public service. This is the path followed by Japan and the "Asian Tigers" (especially Singapore and Hong Kong), where the high prestige of government officials made it possible to create a highly efficient economic system with a relatively small administrative apparatus and weak corruption. In Western countries, with their characteristic distrust of "statesmanship", on the contrary, they often focus on the development of the actions of non-governmental organizations, civil self-government and control.

Successfully tackling corruption, economists argue, has immediate benefits that are many times greater than the costs associated with it. According to some estimates, the expenditure of one monetary unit (dollar, pound sterling, ruble ...) on combating corruption brings on average 23 units in the fight against corruption at the level of an individual country and about 250 in the fight against it at the international level.

It is now generally accepted that neither individual countries nor international organizations can cope with corruption on their own, without help from each other. It is almost impossible to defeat corruption in a single country, since the resistance of the bureaucracy turns out to be too strong. Even if there is political will to suppress corruption, a lack of practical experience, information and financial resources reduces its effectiveness. International organizations - such as the United Nations, the European Union, the World Bank, etc. - actively stimulate the fight against corruption, but even they, with their experienced staff, awareness and large finances, cannot successfully resist corruption in any country if its government and citizens do not show the will and determination to fight. That is why this problem can only be resolved in close cooperation between individual countries and international organizations.

In the wake of the scandalous revelations in the Lockheed case, the Foreign Corruption Act was passed in 1977 in the United States, according to which American employees and officials were punished with fines or imprisonment for bribing employees of other states. Although this law was passed in the hope that other investing countries would follow the US example, it never happened then. Only in February 1999 came into force prohibiting the use of bribery in foreign transactions, the OECD Convention against Bribery, which was signed by 35 states. However, the dissemination of information about it was rather slow: when in 2002 a survey was conducted among managers of third world countries who actively work with foreign entrepreneurs, only 7% of respondents demonstrated a good knowledge of the Convention, while 42% had not even heard of its existence ...

Corruption in Russia.

Russian history, as well as the history of other countries lagging behind in development, is characterized by a high level of corruption in the state apparatus.

The rampant bribery and theft of officials were first recognized as an obstacle to the development of the country back in the time of Peter the Great. There is a well-known historical anecdote: the emperor hastily decided to issue a decree according to which any official who stole an amount equal to the price of a rope should be hanged; however, his associates unanimously declared that in this case the sovereign would be left without subjects. It is characteristic that Ober-Fiscal Nesterov, who headed the fight against embezzlement and bribery on the personal instructions of the emperor, was eventually executed for bribes. The confusion of the state treasury with the personal pocket remained typical not only in the 18th, but also in the 19th century. Plot The auditor N.V. Gogol is based precisely on the fact that in Nicholas Russia officials of almost all ranks systematically abused their position and were constantly in fear of exposure. It was only after the Great Reforms of the 1860s that the level of corruption in the Russian bureaucracy began to decline, although it still remained above the “average European” level.

In the Soviet Union, the attitude towards corruption was rather ambiguous. On the one hand, abuse of power was seen as one of the most serious violations, since it undermined the credibility of the Soviet government in the eyes of citizens. On the other hand, state administrators very quickly formed in the USSR into a kind of state-class, opposed to "ordinary people" and not subject to their control. Therefore, on the one hand, Soviet legislation provided for much more severe punishments for bribe-takers than in other countries - up to the death penalty. On the other hand, the representatives of the nomenklatura were actually not subject to jurisdiction and were not too afraid of punishment. In the 1970s, corruption began to acquire a systemic, institutional character. Positions that provide a wide scope for abuse have literally been sold here and there. In the collapse of the Soviet regime, it was the shock of the abuses at the highest level revealed in the late 1980s (the "Rashidov case", "the Churbanov case") that played an important role.

Although the radical liberals headed by Boris Yeltsin went to power under the slogan of combating abuse, they themselves, once in power, noticeably "blocked" the achievements of their predecessors. Surprised foreigners even stated that in Russia in the 1990s "most civil servants simply do not realize that personal enrichment in the service is a crime." There were many grounds for such assessments. The fact is that the incomes of government officials remained rather modest, but at the same time, it was almost impossible to do business without their favor. Especially rich opportunities for abuse arose during privatization, when its organizers could literally "appoint as millionaires" people they liked.

Researchers believe that the most negative feature of post-Soviet corruption is not so much the high intensity of extortion as its decentralized nature. If, for example, in China or Indonesia it is enough for an entrepreneur to “grease” a few high-ranking administrators, then in Russia it is necessary to pay bribes not only to them, but also to a lot of “small bosses” (such as sanitary and tax inspectors). As a result, the development of post-Soviet business has become very ugly.

A study conducted in 2000-2001 by the Informatics for Democracy Foundation showed that about $ 37 billion is spent on bribes in Russia every year (about $ 34 billion - bribes in business, 3 billion - household corruption), which is almost equal to income the state budget of the country. Although this estimate was considered overestimated by some experts and underestimated by others, it shows the scale of post-Soviet corruption.

In the early 2000s, the Russian government began to demonstrate a desire to curb corruption, however, due to the wide scope of this phenomenon, it will probably not be possible for a long time to bring the level of corruption down to average world standards.

Yuri Latov

Literature:

Raisman V.M. A hidden lie. Bribes: Crusades and Reforms... M., "Progress", 1988
Levin M.Y., Tsirik M.L. Corruption as an object of mathematical modeling... - Economics and Mathematical Methods, 1998. Vol. 3.
Timofeev L.M. Institutional corruption... M., RGGU, 2000
G.S. Satarov, S.A. Parkhomenko Diversity of Countries and Diversity of Corruption (Analysis of Comparative Research)... M., 2001
Rose-Ackerman S. Corruption and the state. Causes, effects, reforms... M., "Logos", 2003
Center for Anti-Corruption Research and Initiatives "Transparency International-R" (http://www.transparency.org.ru)

So, as we said above, corruption has been known since ancient times. Mention of this phenomenon is found in works on the art of government, religious and legal literature of Egypt, Mesopotamia, Judea, India and China - in all centers of ancient Eastern civilizations.

According to a number of researchers, the first mentions of corruption are contained in the famous Laws of the Babylonian king Hammurabi:

"§5. If the judge examined the case, made a decision and made a document with a seal, and then changed his decision, then this judge should be convicted of changing the decision that he ruled, and the amount of claim that was available in this case, he must pay twelve times the amount; moreover, in the congregation he must be removed from his judicial chair, and he must not return and sit with the judges in court.

In the "Teaching of the King of Herculeopolis to his son Merikar" (Egypt, XXII century BC) it is indicated: "Raise up your nobles so that they will act according to your laws. He who is rich in his home is impartial, he is the lord of things and does not need. "

The Old Testament repeatedly mentions cases of corruption that took place in different periods of the existence of the Israeli state: and at the dawn of its history, in the 11th century. BC, when the sons of the judge of the prophet Samuel “deviated for selfishness and took gifts, and judged perversely” (1 Samuel 8: 3), and much later, in the era of the divided kingdom. Prophet Amos in the 8th century BC. denounced the Israeli judges: “you oppress the legal, take bribes, but drive the beggar who seeks justice out of the gates” (Amos 5:12).

In the ancient Indian treatise on the art of government "Arthashastra" (IV century BC) it is emphasized that the most important task facing the king is the fight against embezzlement. The treatise lists 40 ways to steal government property and draws an uncomfortable conclusion that it is easier to guess the path of birds in the sky than the tricks of cunning officials. "Just as it is impossible to tell whether the fish swimming in it are drinking the water, it is impossible to determine whether the property is being appropriated by officials assigned to business." Surveillance is becoming the main means of combating embezzlement. The informer received a share of the property confiscated from a person convicted of a malfeasance.

In ancient Roman law, there was the term "corrumpere", which had up to fifteen meanings, among which - "upset things", "waste a fortune", "distort the meaning", "falsify results", "distort reality", "bribe someone."

In the Roman Laws of the Twelve Tables (451–450 BC), it is recorded: “Will you really consider the decree of the law punishing the death penalty of the judge or mediator who was the fact that they took a monetary bribe on [this] case? " (Table IX. 3).

In general, the term "corruption" in ancient Rome meant an illegal act committed by a judge or other official in the course of legal proceedings. Subsequently, this concept began to be applied to various abuses of officials.

The term had a similar and at the same time broader meaning in ancient Greece, where corruption was understood as “damaging the stomach with bad food”, “upsetting things”, “wasting a fortune”, “degrading morals”, “setting fire to property”, “ ruin freedom "," seduce women "," corrupt the youth "," distort the meaning "," falsify the results "," distort the reality. " This approach to the definition of corruption in ancient Greece testifies to the global significance that was attached to this phenomenon. Perhaps corruption was equated with ethical categories, on a par with good, evil, justice, etc.

During the Middle Ages, corruption was defined in a canonical context - as a seduction, the temptation of the devil. Therefore, the term "corruptibilitas" was used, meaning the frailty of a person, the susceptibility of a human person to sinful temptations.

The great thinkers of the 15th – 18th centuries paid serious attention to the study of corruption. For example, the Italian philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) compared corruption with a disease that is difficult to recognize at first, but easy to treat, and later, it is already easy to recognize, but almost impossible to cure.

The English materialist philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) defined corruption as "the root from which, at all times and with all temptations, contempt for all laws follows." The English philosopher Francis Bacon (1561-1626) wrote about corruption: “Thinking that they can buy everything for their wealth, many, first of all, sold themselves”. The French thinker and historian Francois Voltaire wrote that "great sorrows are always the fruit of unbridled greed." Thus, it was in the XV-XVIII centuries. the concept of corruption began to take on a modern meaning.

Bribery is mentioned in the Russian chronicles of the 13th century. The first legislative limitation of corruption in Russia was carried out during the reign of Ivan III. His grandson Ivan IV the Terrible introduced the death penalty for the first time as a punishment for excessive bribes.

Under Peter I, corruption and the tsar's fierce struggle with it acquired a wide scope in Russia. A typical episode is when, after a long-term investigation, the Siberian governor M.P. Gagarin. Literally three years later, they were quartered for bribery by Ober-fiscal Nesterov, the one who exposed Gagarin.

Throughout the reign of the Romanov dynasty, corruption was a significant source of income for both small government officials and dignitaries. For example, Elizabethan chancellor Bestuzhev-Ryumin received 7,000 rubles a year for serving the Russian Empire, and 12,000 rubles for services to the British crown (as an "agent of influence").

In the Russian Empire, corruption was closely intertwined with favoritism. There are numerous episodes of the corruption activity of the favorite of Peter I, Prince Alexander Menshikov, for which the latter was punished more than once by the tsar.

The term “corruption” was periodically used in the works of Russian publicists of the 19th century; however, the concept of “corruption” was introduced into Russian law by A.Ya. Estrin in his work "Bribery", which was published as part of the work of the circle of criminal law at St. Petersburg University only in 1913.

Of the last pre-revolutionary episodes, in addition to G. Rasputin, it makes sense to mention the ballerina M. Kshesinskaya and the Grand Duke Alexei Mikhailovich, who, together for huge bribes, helped the manufacturers to receive military orders during the First World War.

The change in the state structure and form of government in October 1917 did not eliminate corruption as a phenomenon and the need to combat it. Decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR "On Bribery" of May 8, 1918 provided for criminal liability for bribery (imprisonment for a term of at least 5 years, combined with forced labor for the same term). Subsequently, responsibility for bribery was established by the Criminal Code of the RSFSR in 1922, 1926, 1960. These laws regulated responsibility for receiving a bribe, giving a bribe, mediation in bribery and provoking a bribe.

The history of the Soviet regime's struggle against corruption is characterized by a number of specific features. First, corruption was not recognized both as a concept and as a phenomenon in official regulations and practice. Instead, the definitions used the terms "bribery", "abuse of office", "connivance", etc.

Secondly, the reasons for the occurrence of this phenomenon were associated with the conditions inherent in bourgeois society. For example, in a closed letter of the Central Committee of the CPSU "On strengthening the fight against bribery and theft of people's property" dated March 29, 1962, it was said that bribery is "a social phenomenon generated by the conditions of an exploiting society." The October Revolution eliminated the root causes of bribery, and "the Soviet administrative apparatus is a new type of apparatus." Deficiencies in the work of party, trade union and state bodies, primarily in the field of educating workers, were listed as reasons for corruption.

In a note from the Department of Administrative Bodies of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the CPC under the Central Committee of the CPSU on strengthening the fight against bribery in 1975-1980, dated May 21, 1981, it is indicated that in 1980 more than 6 thousand cases of bribery were detected, which is 50% more than in 1975. It tells about the emergence of organized groups (for example, more than 100 people in the USSR Ministry of Fisheries, headed by a deputy minister). They talk about the facts of condemnation of ministers and deputy ministers in the republics, about other union ministries, about bribery and merging with criminal elements of employees of control bodies, about bribery and bribery in the prosecutor's office and courts.

The main elements of crimes are enumerated: release of scarce products; allocation of equipment and materials; adjustment and reduction of planned targets; appointment to positions of responsibility; concealment of fraud. The reasons are serious omissions in personnel work, bureaucracy and red tape when considering legal requests from citizens, poor work with complaints and letters from citizens, gross violations of state, planned and financial discipline, liberalism in relation to bribe-takers (including in court sentences ), poor work with public opinion. It is reported about the punishment of the leading party workers (level - city and district committees) for conniving at bribery. It is proposed to adopt a resolution of the Central Committee.

Third, the hypocrisy of the authorities, which contributed to the acceleration of corruption, manifested itself in the fact that the highest Soviet party dignitaries were practically inviolable. Rare exceptions include the cases of Tarada and Medunov from the top regional leadership in Krasnodar, the case of Shchelokov. When the Deputy Minister of Foreign Trade Sushkov was convicted of bribes and abuse, the KGB and the General Prosecutor's Office of the Union reported to the Central Committee about the side results of the investigation: Minister Patolichev systematically received expensive items made of gold and precious metals, rare gold coins as gifts from representatives of foreign companies. The case was hushed up.

Fourth, only representatives of this apparatus fought against corruption among the state apparatus. This led to two consequences: those who fought were organically unable to change the root causes that gave rise to corruption, since they went back to the most important conditions for the existence of the system; the fight against corrupt officials often escalated into a fight against competitors in the markets for corrupt services.

Thus, corruption in the USSR undoubtedly existed, but it differed in a number of features. Historian F.I. Razzakov in his book "Corruption in the Politburo: the case of the" red Uzbek "writes that" ... in the USSR there was the first (administrative type of corruption) - that is, the provision of illegal or legal, but only for the elite, benefits and benefits in order to obtain benefits and without changes to existing laws and regulations ”.

The entire post-war period, during and after Perestroika, the growth of corruption took place against the background of a weakening of the state machine. It was accompanied by the following processes: a decrease in centralized control, then - the collapse of ideological bonds, economic stagnation, and then a drop in the level of economic development, and, finally, the collapse of the USSR and the emergence of a new country - Russia, which at first could only nominally be considered a state. Gradually, the centrally organized corruption of the state was replaced by a “federal” structure of many corrupt systems.

Thus, the current state of corruption in Russia is largely due to long-standing trends and a transitional stage, which in other countries in a similar situation was accompanied by an increase in corruption. Among the most important factors determining the growth of corruption and having historical roots, in addition to dysfunctions of the state machine and some historical and cultural traditions, it should be noted:

· Rapid transition to an economic system not supported by the necessary legal framework and legal culture;

· The absence in Soviet times of a normal legal system and corresponding cultural traditions;

· Disintegration of the party control system.

Corruption is an international problem. It is characteristic of all countries, regardless of the political structure and level of political development, and differs only in scale.

In 1994, Switzerland, which prided itself on the integrity of its civil servants, was shaken by a huge scandal involving an official from the canton of Zurich, an auditor of restaurants and bars. He was charged with bribes worth almost $ 2 million. Immediately after this, an investigation was launched against 5 bribe auditors from the Swiss government, who patronized individual firms when organizing public procurements. Then two more scandals erupted.

Numerous incidents of corruption in Italy, affecting the highest political circles, have resulted in more than 700 business and political figures being brought to trial in the 1992 Milan investigations.

In September 1996, a special anti-corruption conference was held in Berlin. According to the materials presented there, in many large cities of Germany, prosecutors are busy investigating thousands of cases of corruption: in Frankfurt am Main - more than 1000, in Munich - about 600, in Hamburg - about 400, in Berlin - about 200. In 1995, it was officially almost three thousand cases of bribery were registered. In 1994, almost 1,500 people were put on trial, and in 1995 - more than 2,000 people, and experts consider this data only the tip of the iceberg. Corruption involves agencies for the verification of foreign refugees, registration offices for new cars and many other institutions. So, for cash, you can illegally "buy" the right to open a restaurant or casino, driving licenses, licenses for towing incorrectly parked cars. The construction industry is the most heavily contaminated with corruption.

In one of its bulletins, the international public organization Transparency International (hereinafter - TI), whose goal is to resist corruption at the international and national levels and in business, stated: “It (corruption) has become a leading phenomenon in many leading industrialized states, wealth and sustainable whose political traditions allow, however, to hide the scale of the enormous damage caused by corruption to the social and humanitarian spheres. " A 1995 study by TI's national affiliates found that "public sector corruption takes the same forms and affects the same areas, whether it is in a developed or developing country."

The problem of the need to fight corruption in Russia became apparent already in the early 1990s. By this time, several projects aimed at combating corruption were prepared and submitted to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. The President of the Russian Federation issued the Decree "On Fighting Corruption in the Civil Service System" No. 361 of April 4, 1992. This Decree noted the consequences generated by this negative phenomenon, and determined a number of measures aimed at combating corruption. The decree was a step in the right direction, but it did little to decide and was poorly implemented. The concept of corruption was not given in this decree.

On June 20, 1993, the RF Supreme Soviet adopted the RF Law “On the fight against corruption”. However, this Law was not signed by the President of the Russian Federation and did not come into effect. After the dissolution of the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation, the Lower House of the new parliament - the State Duma - continued to work on improving the draft Law. The new version of the federal law "On the fight against corruption" was twice adopted by the State Duma of the Russian Federation and in December 1995 was approved by the Federation Council. However, at the end of December of the same year, it was rejected by the President of the Russian Federation.

In November 1997, the State Duma adopted in the third reading the Federal Law "On Combating Corruption". However, due to a number of legal and technical shortcomings, this normative act did not go through the rest of the stages of lawmaking. And only on December 25, 2008 the Federal Law No. 273-FZ "On Combating Corruption" was adopted.

Lecture 2. Causes of corruption and ways to prevent it.

1. Historical preconditions for the emergence of corruption. The history of the development of the fight against corruption.

2. Causes of corruption. The concept and classification of the causes of corruption (economic, institutional, subjective).

3. The concept of preventing corruption. Ways to prevent corruption.

1. Historical preconditions for the emergence of corruption. The history of the development of the fight against corruption.

The historical roots of corruption are likely to be traced back to the custom of giving gifts to gain favor. In primitive and early class societies, the payment of a priest, chieftain, or military leader for a personal appeal to their help was seen as a universal norm. The situation began to change with the complexity and professionalization of the state apparatus and the strengthening of the power of the central government. Professional officials appear who, according to the rulers' plan, should have been content with only a fixed salary. In practice, officials sought to take advantage of their position to secretly increase their income.

One of the earliest references to corruption is found in the cuneiforms of ancient Babylon. As follows from the decrypted texts dating back to the middle of the 3rd millennium BC. e., even then, the Sumerian king Urukagin faced a very acute problem of suppressing the abuse of judges and officials who extorted illegal rewards. He went down in history as the first fighter against corruption who reformed public administration in order to suppress abuses by the tsarist administration, judges, temple staff, reduced and streamlined payments for ceremonies, introduced severe punishments for bribery of officials.

The rulers of Ancient Egypt faced similar problems.

The first treatise condemning corruption, Arthashastra, was published under the pseudonym Kautilya by one of the ministers of Bharata (India) in the 4th century. BC. An ancient Indian author allocated 40 funds for embezzlement of state property.

Despite indicative and often brutal punishments for corruption, the fight against it did not lead to the desired results. At best, the most dangerous crimes were prevented.

In the Roman Empire, with its ramified bureaucratic apparatus, corruption flourished. It was at this time that the term "corrumpire" appeared in Roman law, which was discussed above. Bribes are mentioned in the ancient Roman "12 tables" (5th century BC).

In late republican Rome, Gaius Julius Caesar achieved severe punishment for bribery and gifts to officials. For example, it was forbidden to receive gold wreaths from the governed cities by governors in the provinces. However, bribery of voters in ancient Rome was so widespread that Roman citizens began to view the amounts they received as legitimate salaries.

The tremendous growth of the bureaucratic apparatus in the Late Empire led to positions being seen as part of property that could be exploited.

Emperor Augustus tried to counteract this and distributed his personal funds to voters so that they would no longer demand anything from candidates for public office, but to no avail. The destructive influence of corruption was one of the reasons for the collapse of the Roman Empire.

Over the next almost a thousand years - during the Middle Ages, the concept of "corruption" acquires an exclusively ecclesiastical, canonical meaning - as a seduction, the temptation of the devil. Corruption in the theology of Catholicism has become a manifestation of sinfulness, for according to the Apostle John "sin is lawlessness."

Leading world religions, of all types of corruption, condemn bribery of judges in the first place.

Despite the condemnation of the church, in Europe during the early Middle Ages, the use of official position for personal extortion from the population often became the generally accepted norm. After all, the more centralized the state was, the more functions were concentrated in their hands by secular and church officials, who used omnipotence and lack of control for personal enrichment. The right to grant indulgences, release from punishment due to absolution, provided a considerable additional income.

In the south of France, this kind of corruption was especially rampant. There were churches, for example, in which Mass had not been celebrated for over thirty years. Many priests neglected to save the souls of their parishioners and were engaged in commercial activities or run large estates.

In Middle Ages Britain, corruption flourished in virtually all branches of government.

The process of the formation of a centralized state in Russia was accompanied by the formation of an extensive management system. Since that time, corruption in Russia has acquired a systemic character.

The formation of the state apparatus was carried out according to the principle of parochialism, based on the criteria of nobility of origin. Demonstrative punishments of corrupt officials usually did not give almost any result, because new extortionists for bribes appeared in the place of those eliminated (demoted or executed). This moderate tolerance for corruption is most pronounced in the countries of the pre-colonial East. Thus, in the Middle Ages, corruption in China was legalized and strictly regulated from above. The officials were fed from the population, under the supervision of the imperial emissaries.

The modern concept of corruption begins to take shape at the turn of the New Age with the beginning of the formation of centralized states and currently existing legal systems.

An important impetus to understanding the political aspect of corruption is provided by the works of Niccolo Machiavelli. He compared corruption to a disease, such as consumption. He noted that if it is timely to detect an emerging ailment, which is given only to wise rulers, then it is not difficult to get rid of it, but if it is neglected so that everyone can see it, then no medicine will help.

Subsequently, the emphasis in understanding corruption was shifted to its legal side. Thomas Hobbes will write a century later that corruption "is the root from which contempt for all laws flows at all times and with all temptations."

The conclusion drawn in the middle of the 17th century turned out to be relevant at the beginning of the 21st century.

The attitude of society towards the personal income of government officials is gradually beginning to change. The ideology of the social contract proclaimed that subjects pay taxes to the state in exchange for the fact that it intelligently develops laws and strictly monitors their strict implementation. Personal relationships began to give way to purely official ones, and therefore the receipt by an official of personal income, in addition to his salary, began to be interpreted as a violation of public morality and the norms of the law.

However, despite the spread of advanced ideas of education, the rule of law, civil society in real life in modern times, corruption does not disappear. Its form as favoritism retains its significance.

For example, the Prussian king Frederick II suspected that the Austrian empress Maria Theresa was bribing his ministers. Under these conditions, he considered it possible to provide the ministers of Maria Theresa with comparable "material support".

The first chancellor of the united Germany, Otto von Bismarck, is associated with "reptile funds" - "reptilienfonden", which are literally inscribed in "golden letters" in the history of German corruption.

Bismarck considered himself free from the obligation to pay money to the king and formed from them secret funds aimed at bribery.

At the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. in many countries laws against bribery are being passed (for example, the Law on Bribery in Public Organizations 1889 - Great Britain), anti-corruption legislation is becoming very ramified.

A new stage in the evolution of corruption in developed countries was the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. On the one hand, a new rise in government regulation and, accordingly, the power of officials began. On the other hand, big business was born, which, in the competitive struggle, began to resort to “buying up the state”.

As the importance of political parties grew in developed countries (especially in Western Europe after the Second World War), party corruption developed, when large firms paid not personally to politicians for lobbying their interests, but to the party treasury. Big politicians increasingly began to view their position as a source of personal income.

In the second half of the twentieth century, after the emergence of a large number of politically independent Third World countries, their state apparatus, as a rule, initially turned out to be highly susceptible to systemic corruption. The fact is that the "Eastern" traditions of personal relations between the boss and the petitioners here are superimposed on huge uncontrolled opportunities associated with state regulation of many spheres of life.

Kleptocratic regimes appeared in the “third world” (in the Philippines, in Paraguay, in Haiti, in most African countries), where corruption totally pervaded all types of socio-economic relations, and nothing was done without a bribe.

The growth of world economic relations also stimulated the development of corruption. When concluding contracts with foreign buyers, large transnational corporations even began to legally include the costs of negotiations in the costs of "gifts".

The problem became even more urgent in the 1990s, when post-socialist countries demonstrated a scale of corruption comparable to the situation in developing countries.

At the present stage, corruption has increasingly begun to become an international problem. Bribery by corporations of senior officials abroad has become widespread. Globalization has led to the fact that corruption in one country has begun to negatively affect the development of many countries.

2. Causes of corruption. The concept and classification of the causes of corruption (economic, institutional, subjective).

The very principle of public administration contains the potential for corruption. This opportunity develops into objective conditions when potential rent prevails over risks.

This problem is repeatedly reproduced in the bureaucratic apparatus, since top-level administrators appoint their subordinates, etc. Most experts agree that the main reason for corruption is the imperfection of political institutions that provide internal and external containment mechanisms.

In addition, there is reason to believe that some objective circumstances also make a significant contribution to the emergence and development of corruption:

Ambiguous laws.

Population ignorance or misunderstanding of laws, which allows officials to arbitrarily obstruct bureaucratic procedures or overstate appropriate payments.

Unstable political situation in the country.

Lack of formed mechanisms of interaction between government institutions.

Dependence of the standards and principles underlying the work of the bureaucratic apparatus on the policies of the ruling elite.

Professional incompetence of the bureaucracy.

Nepotism and political patronage, which lead to the formation of secret agreements that weaken the mechanisms for controlling corruption.

Lack of unity in the system of executive power, i.e., regulation of the same activity by different authorities.

Low level of participation of citizens in control over the state.

Other assumptions are considered regarding the circumstances that may be the causes of corruption:

low wages in the public sector compared to the private sector;

state regulation of the economy;

dependence of citizens on officials, state monopoly on certain services;

the isolation of the bureaucratic elite from the people;

economic instability, inflation;

ethnic heterogeneity of the population;

low level of economic development (GDP per capita);

religious tradition;

the culture of the country as a whole.

Today, there is no consensus on the causes of corruption.

3. The concept of preventing corruption. Ways to prevent corruption.

The world community pays considerable attention to the fight against corruption and its prevention.

Even Max Weber in his work "Politics as a vocation and as a profession" established the criteria for an ideal official:

Has a special education and high qualifications;

Possesses professional competence;

Possesses a highly developed class honor, guaranteeing impeccability;

Is a mediator between the interests of the state and society;

Refers to regulations and laws in its actions;

Not dependent on your boss;

His salary gives him confidence in the future.

Theoretical developments are now becoming the basis for practical decisions.

In the UK, the Committee on Standards of (Conduct) in Public (Public) Life, chaired by Lord Nolan in 1995, formulated seven principles of public work for officials - a kind of code of conduct:

Non-covetousness;

Incorruptible;

Objectivity;

Accountability;

Openness;

Honesty;

Leadership.

Under the auspices of the United Nations, the International Code of Conduct for Public Officials was adopted in 1996. Since 2004, this report has been timed to coincide with the International Day against Corruption. The document obliges the signatory states (now 140 countries) to declare bribery, embezzlement of budget funds and laundering of corruption proceeds a criminal offense. According to one of the provisions of the Convention, it is necessary to return funds to the country where they came from as a result of corruption.

There are four regional models of corruption.

The European model is characterized by a relatively low level of corruption with an almost complete absence of grassroots corruption. A low level of corruption is supported by a set of measures - institutional, organizational, legal, along with the effective action of tradition, culture and civil society institutions.

The next three models are characterized by high levels of corruption. All three models describe the transformation of corruption into a systemic phenomenon.

Asian model: corruption is a common and socially acceptable cultural and economic phenomenon associated with the functioning of the state. This model is generated by the total control of the state over all aspects of society. In many ways, corruption in the USSR fell under this variety.

African model: power is sold "on the vine" to a group of major economic clans that have agreed among themselves, and by political means ensures the reliability of their existence. The transition to this model is possible under the following conditions:

political power in the country remains unconsolidated;

financial and bureaucratic groups, under the pressure of the instinct of self-preservation, end the confrontation and negotiate;

an oligarchic consensus is being formed between consolidated financial and bureaucratic groups and part of the political elite.

For the country, this means curtailing democracy and using democratic procedures as camouflage; the economy is extremely monopolized and primitivized, satisfying only the most basic needs of the population in order to avoid social upheavals and ensuring the interests of a narrow oligarchic group.

Latin American model: the connivance of corruption allows the shadow and criminalized sectors of the economy to achieve power commensurate with the state. For decades, the authorities find themselves drawn into a tough direct confrontation with the mafia, which forms a state within a state. Constant political instability increases the chances of establishing a dictatorship in the wake of the fight against corruption, and after this, the likelihood of a transition to the African model increases.

History has known the phenomenon of corruption for a very long time. Even Aristotle said: "The most important thing in any state system is through laws and the rest of the order to arrange things so that officials could not profit." Bribes are also mentioned in the ancient Roman XII tables; in ancient Russia, Metropolitan Kirill condemned "bribery" along with sorcery and drunkenness. Under Ivan IV the Terrible, the clerk was executed for the first time, having received over the allotted roast goose with coins.

In the Russian code "On criminal and correctional punishments" 1845. (as amended in 1885, in effect in Russia until October 1917), the composition of receiving a bribe - bribery and extortion - was already different.

Also C. Montesquieu noted: "... it is already known from the experience of centuries that every person with power is inclined to abuse it, and he goes in this direction until he reaches the limit set for him." Accordingly, manifestations of corruption are found both in states with totalitarian and democratic regimes, in economically and politically underdeveloped countries and superpowers. In principle, there are no countries that could claim exceptional chastity.

For the first time, civilized mankind faced the phenomenon of corruption in the most ancient times, later we find its signs essentially everywhere.

For example, one of the oldest references to corruption is found in the cuneiforms of ancient Babylon. As follows from the decrypted texts dating back to the middle of the third millennium BC, even then the Sumerian king Urukagin faced a very acute problem of suppressing the abuse of judges and officials who extorted illegal rewards. Great Soviet Encyclopedia // M., 2004.T.27.P.94

The rulers of ancient Egypt faced similar questions. Documents found in the process of archaeological research also testify to the massive manifestations of corruption in Jerusalem in the period after the Babylonian captivity of the Jews in 597-538. before the birth of Christ.

The theme of corruption is found in biblical texts as well. Moreover, many authors bitterly talk about its presence and harm. For example, in one of the books of the Bible, the Book of the Wisdom of Jesus, the son of Sirakhov, the father instructs his son: “Do not be hypocritical in front of the lips of others and be attentive to your lips ... evil; move away from untruth and it will evade you ... Do not seek to become a judge, so as not to be powerless to crush untruth, so as not to ever fear the face of a strong person and not put a shadow on your righteousness ... ". Bible. Sirach. 1, 29, 4, 9, page 644. It is easy to see that the very nature of the instructions testifies to the fact that biblical society was sufficiently familiar with the facts of bribery of judges and dishonest justice.

The ancient era did not escape the manifestations and flourishing of corruption. Its destructive influence was one of the reasons for the collapse of the Roman Empire.

Later periods of Western European history were also accompanied by the development of corrupt relations. Moreover, their presence in the life and affairs of society was reflected not only in historical documents, but also in many works of art by such masters as Chaucer ("The Canterbury Tales"), Shakespeare ("The Merchant of Venice", "Eye for an Eye"), Dante ("Hell" and "Purgatory"). So, seven centuries ago Dante placed corrupt officials in the darkest and deepest circles of Hell. History explains his dislike of corruption by the political considerations of the author, for Dante considered bribery to be the reason for the fall of the Italian republics and the success of his political opponents.

Many well-known Western thinkers have devoted a lot of attention to the study of manifestations of corruption. It seems that Nicolo Machiavelli investigated its origins very and comprehensively in this sense. It is characteristic that many of his views on this problem are very relevant today. Suffice it to recall his figurative comparison of corruption with consumption, which at first is difficult to recognize, but easier to treat, and if it is neglected, then "although it is easy to recognize, it is difficult to cure." Machiavelli N. Works // Milan. 1994. S. 137 It would seem a simple truth, but how modern it is for assessing the current situation with the spread of corruption in Russia and the world.

Unfortunately, in the sense of the existence of corruption relations, Russia was not and is not an exception to the general rule. Their formation and development also has a long history. In particular, one of the first written mentions of promises as illegal remuneration to princely governors dates back to the end of the XIV century. The corresponding norm was enshrined in the so-called Dvina charter (Charter of Vasily I) Russian legislation of the X-XX centuries // M., 1995. P.181, and later clarified in the new edition of the Pskov Judicial Charter. It can be assumed that these sources only ascertained the existence of such acts, which clearly took place much earlier than their official normative consolidation.

The prevalence of covetousness (bribery) in Russia was so significant that according to the Decree of Peter I of August 25, 1713 and later "legalizations" of the covetous people, the death penalty was defined as a punishment. However, she did not frighten the embezzlers too much. To imagine at least the approximate scale of the corruption of Russian officials, it is enough to recall such historical characters as clerks and clerks of the tsarist orders of the pre-Petrine period and clerks of later periods, a very thieving associate of Peter I, Prince A.D. Menshikov, who was executed under Peter for the embezzlement and covetousness of the Siberian governor Gagarin, embezzlers and bribe-takers of the highest level from the inner circle of the last Russian emperor.

Quite curious in this regard is the note sent to Emperor Nicholas I of the "Supremely established Committee for the consideration of laws on extortion and the provision of preliminary detention on measures to eliminate this crime", dating back to August 1827. This document examines the reasons for the spread of corrupt relations in the state apparatus with exceptional scrupulousness, gives a classification of forms of corrupt behavior, and proposes measures to counter this phenomenon.

In particular, among the main reasons are mentioned "the rarity of truly just people", "the inclination to covetousness, constantly irritated by the very structure of life and not embarrassed by any real obstacles", the low level of salaries of officials who "... do not teach any means to decent themselves. ... they do not give the slightest opportunity to give something for the upbringing of children, for the first aid when they are assigned to the service, or even for a small reward for daughters when they are issued for marriage, to meet the daily needs of life. " This contributes to the fact that the official uses the authority entrusted to him by the Government "in favor of selfish species, violates in all possible cases those laws that are entrusted to his preservation, in a word, covetousness is encouraged."

The proposed list of forms of corrupt behavior, in particular bribery, is also interesting. They “are different: gifts, promises, promises, offers of services to their own patrons, all kinds of temptations; guess the inclinations of the Judges, look for their acquaintances and connections; if one of them does not have time to appease personally, then they try to bribe in a relative, in a friend, in a benefactor. Cognition of a person reveals to us that in those cases where private benefits flow, more or less abuse is inseparably associated with them.

With regard to measures to combat the corruption of bureaucracy, it was proposed to put in the first place "the earliest publication of a complete systematic set of laws, which for each branch of the State Board should serve as a uniform guide in the production and resolution of cases without exception"; "The abolition of the laws of those who obviously contribute to deliberate delays, harassment and forcing bribes"; "The establishment in all parts of the State Administration of such salaries, which would be in any way commensurate with the needs of existence in the rank in which one is in the field of service, and thereby would stop the employees from creeping to the unauthorized extreme satisfaction of these needs, by covetousness" ; "Establishing fair proportionality in punishments" so that "the harm or sensitivity of punishment exceeds the benefit gained from the crime", and "the sensitivity of punishment for a repeated crime exceeded the benefit not only acquired through the crime, but also all the benefit that could be gained through all repeated crimes in a person, in which vice has turned into a habit ”; "The strictest, not on one paper, but in fact, supervision over the exact execution of the Highest Decrees protecting the judiciary from the influence of the Chief Commanders in different parts of the State Administration"; "The introduction of publicity in the proceedings of the court, and in general in the administration of the clerical service, excluding those only cases that, by particular importance, will be removed from this by the Supreme Government."

Nevertheless, all these good recommendations, in principle, remained unfulfilled, and the bureaucratic apparatus more and more plunged into the abyss of corruption. It is no coincidence that the customs that reigned in the bureaucratic environment, including acts of corruption and their participants, were vividly reflected not only in historical documents, but also in the works of the great Russian writers N.V. Gogol, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, I.I. Lazhechnikova, A.V. Sukhovo-Kobylina, A.P. Chekhov and many others.

Since ancient times, there have been three forms of corruption in Russia: honors, payment for services and promises Gaukhman L. Corruption and corruption crime. // Legality. 2006. No. 6.;. Honor offerings expressed respect for the one who was honored. The respectful meaning of "honor" is also manifested in the Russian custom of presenting a respected person, and especially high authorities, with bread and salt. But already in the 17th century. "Honor" more and more acquired the meaning of a permitted bribe. And, of course, bribery in Russia flourished on the basis of the widespread practice of offering "honors" to officials. Sedov P.V. On promise as on a chair. From the history of Russian officials in the 7th century // Star. 2001. No. 4. P.208.

Another form of donations to officials is associated with the expense of the very conduct and registration of affairs. The income of officials in the form of payment for the management and execution of cases was taken into account when determining their salary: if there were many cases in the order from which it was possible to “feed”, then they were paid less salary. That is, the practice of "feeding from business" was part of the state system of maintaining the bureaucracy in the 17th century.

The third form of corruption is promises, that is, payment for a favorable solution of affairs, for the commission of illegal acts. Most often, "promises" were expressed in overpayments for services, for the administration and execution of cases, and therefore the line between the two forms of corruption was blurred and barely distinguishable. Sedov P.V. Decree. Op. P. 210.

Suffice it to recall the vivid images of reborn Soviet employees created by V. Mayakovsky, I. Ilf and E. Petrov, M. Zoshchenko and other authors. And this despite the fact that Lenin considered bribery to be one of the most dangerous survivals and demanded the most severe, sometimes "barbaric", in his words, measures of struggle to fight it. In a letter to a member of the Collegium of the People's Commissariat of Justice, Kurskiy, he demanded: “It is necessary immediately, with demonstrative speed, to introduce a bill that punishments for a bribe (covetousness, bribery, a bribe report, etc., etc.) should be at least ten years in prison and, moreover, , ten years of forced labor. " The severity of measures in the fight against bribery was explained by the fact that the Bolsheviks viewed it not only as a shameful and disgusting relic of the old society, but also as an attempt by the exploiting classes to undermine the foundations of the new system. One of the directives of the RCP (b) directly noted that the enormous spread of bribery, closely associated with the general lack of culture of the bulk of the population and the economic backwardness of the country, threatens the corruption and destruction of the apparatus of the workers' state A.G. Karatuev. Soviet bureaucracy: The system of political and economic domination. - Belgorod, 2003 .;.

Nevertheless, despite the severity of legal measures against bribe-takers, it was not possible to eradicate this phenomenon, and the main reasons for it were not eliminated, many of which were indicated in the above-mentioned note to the Russian Emperor Nicholas I. Even during the totalitarian rule of I. Stalin's virus of corruption was not eradicated, although, of course, it should be admitted that the model of Stalin's quasi-socialism seemed to be the least corrupt on the surface. However, one should not forget that totalitarianism, based on political and economic terror, and in other countries also externally manifested itself as little corrupt (a classic example of Hitler's Germany), which in fact did not correspond to reality.

At present, not only the elderly, but also middle-aged Russians remember the massive facts of extortion and bribery for obtaining public housing, for allocating scarce industrial and food products to trade enterprises and selling to buyers "by pulling", for admission to prestigious universities, for business trips abroad. and the like, which at one time was widely reported by human rumor and even the press. And this despite the fact that, nominally, bribery was punished very severely - up to the capital punishment under the criminal law: the death penalty.

The conclusion that corruption was widespread at the end of the era of socialism is allowed not only by the materials of the trials and the press of the 1970s-1980s, but also by one of them in 1990 studying this problem in a number of regions of Russia and some union republics of the then still existing USSR. ... Its results indicate that various types of corrupt behavior, including those in criminally punishable and therefore the most dangerous forms, were already inherent in almost all union, republican, regional and regional state and party bodies, not to mention local ones. The most affected in this regard were the structures that provided financial and material and technical support to economic entities, foreign economic relations, organizing and controlling the spheres of commodity distribution and social support of the population. At the same time, if it was no longer possible to keep silent about these phenomena, then they were presented as some costs of the functioning of government bodies or separate facts that did not follow from the existing system.

All this created a very fertile ground for the further introduction of corruption into public relations with the liberalization of economic and socio-political conditions in the country at the turn of the 1990s. And, ultimately, it led to the fact that in recent years, even with the continuing criminal responsibility, bribes began to be taken, in essence, openly. The results of a study carried out already in 1999-2000 show, in particular, that with a relatively stable total number of persons exposed of bribery over the past 12-15 years, today only one out of two or two and a half thousand can be brought to justice for this act. persons who committed this crime (i.e., more than twenty times less than in the late 1980s and early 1990s). This essentially, if not formally, then practically decriminalized bribery as a type of crime. It is interesting that up to half of those convicted of bribery today are representatives of law enforcement agencies, which indicates a high degree of corruption of those who, in theory, the authorities and the population should count on as the main support in countering offenders.

Today Russia has acquired a stable image of a kleptocratic and deeply corrupt state, not only within the country, but also abroad. There is a kind of rating of government corruption, in which Russia occupies a very unenviable position among the ten most disadvantaged countries in the world in a company with Venezuela, Cameroon, India, Indonesia, Syria, Kenya and some other countries with which respectable politicians and business partners are recommended not to have Affairs.

At the same time, one of the most negative features of the modern development of corruption in Russia is that today it has become less perceived and condemned by society, which was largely facilitated by gaps in the legal education of the population, as well as the efforts of some politicians and high-ranking officials to legitimize the corresponding relationship as an integral element of public service. Unfortunately, the press and television cannot reverse this trend either. The acuity of perception of materials about corruption in society is losing more and more, and the influencing force in terms of creating an atmosphere of intolerance towards corruption as a social phenomenon is weakening day by day. A kind of addiction syndrome arose, which became so significant that a huge part of society is not too annoyed not only by the venality of individual government officials, but even by the fact that, on suspicion of involvement in corrupt relations, the reputation of the first President of Russia and his closest surroundings. A significant part of citizens generally perceive messages and exposure of corruption as attempts by some Russian politicians to denigrate their opponents and earn extra points in promotion to certain positions.

It is no secret that today corrupt relations act as a link between government agencies and criminal groups, including organized ones. It is quite characteristic that even at the turn of the 1990s, this trend was already quite clearly visible, and the corrupt ties of criminal circles with government officials at various levels during this period largely predetermined the subsequent active formation and development of organized crime in Russia. According to experts, from one third to half of the income received as a result of criminal activity, today in Russia is spent on creating and strengthening the position of organizers and active participants in criminal communities in the legislative and executive authorities, the judicial and law enforcement systems.

Summarizing the above, we can conclude that corruption has its roots very far, the problem has always existed, but now it has begun to manifest itself in more frightening forms, without delay it is necessary to focus efforts on limiting the scope of its manifestations, reducing the degree of its influence, and minimizing harmful consequences. in order to ultimately reduce it to an acceptable socially tolerant level.

Topic 2. Genesis of corruption and bribery.

LECTURE 2

2.1. History of the emergence and development of corruption.

2.2. Characteristics of corruption relations in Russia.

2.3. The current state of corruption and bribery in Russia.

History has known the phenomenon of corruption for a very long time. Even Aristotle said: "The most important thing in any state system is through laws and the rest of the order to arrange things so that officials could not profit." Bribes are also mentioned in 12 ancient Roman tables; in ancient Russia, Metropolitan Kirill condemned "bribery" along with sorcery and drunkenness. Under Ivan IV the Terrible, the clerk was executed for the first time, having received over the allotted roast goose with coins.

In the Russian Code of Criminal and Correctional Punishments of 1845 (as amended in 1885, in effect in Russia until October 1917), the composition of bribe-taking - bribery and extortion - was already different.

Also C. Montesquieu noted: "... it is already known from the experience of centuries that every person with power is inclined to abuse it, and he goes in this direction until he reaches the limit set for him." Accordingly, manifestations of corruption are found both in states with totalitarian and democratic regimes, in economically and politically underdeveloped countries and superpowers. In principle, there are no countries that could claim exceptional chastity.

For the first time, civilized mankind faced the phenomenon of corruption in the most ancient times, later we find its signs essentially everywhere.

For example, one of the oldest references to corruption is found in the cuneiforms of ancient Babylon. As follows from the decrypted texts dating back to the middle of the third millennium BC, even then the Sumerian king Urukagin faced a very acute problem of suppressing the abuse of judges and officials who extorted illegal rewards.

The rulers of ancient Egypt faced similar questions. Documents found in the process of archaeological research also testify to the massive manifestations of corruption in Jerusalem in the period after the Babylonian captivity of the Jews in 597-538. before the birth of Christ.

The theme of corruption is found in biblical texts as well. Moreover, many authors bitterly talk about its presence and harm. For example, in one of the books of the Bible, the Book of the Wisdom of Jesus, the son of Sirakhov, the father instructs his son: “Do not be hypocritical in front of the lips of others and be attentive to your lips ... evil; move away from untruth and it will evade you ... Do not seek to become a judge, so as not to be powerless to crush untruth, so as not to ever fear the face of a strong person and not put a shadow on your righteousness ... ". It is easy to see that the very nature of the instructions testifies to the fact that biblical society was sufficiently familiar with the facts of bribery of judges and dishonest justice.

The ancient era did not escape the manifestations and flourishing of corruption. Its destructive influence was one of the reasons for the collapse of the Roman Empire.

Later periods of Western European history were also accompanied by the development of corrupt relations. Moreover, their presence in the life and affairs of society was reflected not only in historical documents, but also in many works of art by such masters as Chaucer ("The Canterbury Tales"), Shakespeare ("The Merchant of Venice", "Eye for an Eye"), Dante ("Hell" and "Purgatory"). So, seven centuries ago Dante placed corrupt officials in the darkest and deepest circles of Hell. History explains his dislike of corruption by the political considerations of the author, for Dante considered bribery to be the reason for the fall of the Italian republics and the success of his political opponents.

Many well-known Western thinkers have devoted a lot of attention to the study of manifestations of corruption. It seems that Niccolo Machiavelli investigated its origins very and comprehensively in this sense. It is characteristic that many of his views on this problem are very relevant today. Suffice it to recall his figurative comparison of corruption with consumption, which at first is difficult to recognize, but easier to treat, and if it is neglected, then "although it is easy to recognize, it is difficult to cure."

1.2. Characteristics of corruption relations in Russia.

Russia in the sense of the existence of corruption relations was not and is not an exception to the general rule. Their formation and development also has a long history. In particular, one of the first written mentions of promises as illegal remuneration to princely governors dates back to the end of the XIV century. The corresponding norm was enshrined in the so-called Dvinsk charter (Charter of Vasily I), and later clarified in the new edition of the Pskov Judicial Charter. It can be assumed that these sources only ascertained the existence of such acts, which clearly took place much earlier than their official normative consolidation.

The prevalence of covetousness (bribery) in Russia was so significant that according to the Decree of Peter the Great of August 25, 1713 and later "legalizations" of the covetous people, the death penalty was defined as a punishment. However, she did not frighten the embezzlers too much. To imagine at least the approximate scale of the corruption of Russian officials, it is enough to recall such historical characters as clerks and clerks of the tsarist orders of the pre-Petrine period and clerks of later periods, a very thieving associate of Peter the First, Prince A.D. Menshikov, who was executed under Peter for embezzlement and extortion of the Siberian Governor Gagarin, embezzlers and bribe-takers of the highest level from the inner circle of the last Russian emperor.

Very curious in this regard, sent to Emperor Nicholas I "Note of the Imperially established Committee for the consideration of laws on extortion and the provision of preliminary detention on measures to exterminate this crime", relating to August 1827. This document examines the reasons for the spread of corrupt relations in the state apparatus with exceptional scrupulousness, gives a classification of forms of corrupt behavior, and proposes measures to counter this phenomenon.

In particular, among the main reasons are mentioned "the rarity of truly just people", "the inclination to covetousness, constantly irritated by the very structure of life and not embarrassed by any real obstacles", the low level of salaries of officials who "... do not teach any means to decent themselves. ... they do not give the slightest opportunity to give something for the upbringing of children, for the first aid when they are assigned to the service, or even for a small reward for daughters when they are issued for marriage, to meet the daily needs of life. " This contributes to the fact that the official uses the authority entrusted to him by the Government "in favor of selfish species, violates in all possible cases those laws that are entrusted to his preservation, in a word, covetousness is encouraged."

The proposed list of forms of corrupt behavior, in particular bribery, is also interesting. They “are different: gifts, promises, promises, offers of services to their own patrons, all kinds of temptations; guess the inclinations of the Judges, look for their acquaintances and connections; if one of them does not have time to appease personally, then they try to bribe in a relative, in a friend, in a benefactor. Cognition of a person reveals to us that in those cases where private benefits flow, more or less abuse is inseparably associated with them.

With regard to measures to combat the corruption of bureaucracy, it was proposed to put in the first place "the earliest publication of a complete systematic set of laws, which for each branch of the State Board should serve as a uniform guide in the production and resolution of cases without exception"; "The abolition of the laws of those who obviously contribute to deliberate delays, harassment and forcing bribes"; "The establishment in all parts of the State Administration of such salaries, which would be in any way commensurate with the needs of existence in the rank in which one is in the field of service, and thereby would stop the employees from creeping to the unauthorized extreme satisfaction of these needs, by covetousness" ; "Establishing fair proportionality in punishments" so that "the harm or sensitivity of punishment exceeds the benefit gained from the crime", and "the sensitivity of punishment for a repeated crime exceeded the benefit not only acquired through the crime, but also all the benefit that could be gained through all repeated crimes in a person, in which vice has turned into a habit ”; "The strictest, not on one paper, but in fact, supervision over the exact execution of the Highest Decrees protecting the judiciary from the influence of the Chief Commanders in different parts of the State Administration"; "The introduction of publicity in the proceedings of the court, and in general in the administration of the clerical service, excluding those only cases that, by particular importance, will be removed from this by the Supreme Government."

Nevertheless, all these good recommendations, in principle, remained unfulfilled, and the bureaucratic apparatus more and more plunged into the abyss of corruption. It is no coincidence that the customs that reigned in the bureaucratic environment, including acts of corruption and their participants, were vividly reflected not only in historical documents, but also in the works of the great Russian writers N.V. Gogol, M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, I.I. Lazhechnikov, A. V. Sukhovo-Kobylin, A. P. Chekhov and many others.

Since ancient times, there have been three forms of corruption in Russia: honors, payment for services, and promises. Honor offerings expressed respect for the one who was honored. The respectful meaning of "honor" is also manifested in the Russian custom of presenting a respected person, and especially high authorities, with bread and salt. But already in the 17th century. "Honor" more and more acquired the meaning of a permitted bribe. And, of course, bribery in Russia flourished on the basis of the widespread practice of offering "honors" to officials.

Another form of donations to officials is associated with the expense of the very conduct and registration of affairs. The income of officials in the form of payment for the management and execution of cases was taken into account when determining their salary: if there were many cases in the order from which it was possible to “feed”, then they were paid less salary. That is, the practice of "feeding from

The third form of corruption is promises, that is, payment for a favorable solution of affairs, for the commission of illegal acts. Most often, "promises" were expressed in overpayments for services, for the administration and execution of cases, and therefore the line between the two forms of corruption was blurred and barely distinguishable.

Suffice it to recall the vivid images of reborn Soviet employees created by V. Mayakovsky, I. Ilf and E. Petrov, M. Zoshchenko and other authors. And this despite the fact that Lenin considered bribery to be one of the most dangerous survivals and demanded the most severe, sometimes "barbaric", in his words, measures of struggle to fight it. In a letter to a member of the Collegium of the People's Commissariat of Justice, Kurskiy, he demanded: “It is necessary immediately, with demonstrative speed, to introduce a bill that punishments for a bribe (covetousness, bribery, a bribe report, etc., etc.) should be at least ten years in prison and, moreover, , ten years of forced labor. " The severity of measures in the fight against bribery was explained by the fact that the Bolsheviks viewed it not only as a shameful and disgusting relic of the old society, but also as an attempt by the exploiting classes to undermine the foundations of the new system. One of the directives of the RCP (b) directly noted that the enormous spread of bribery, closely associated with the general lack of culture of the bulk of the population and the country's economic backwardness, threatens to corrupt and destroy the apparatus of the workers' state.

Nevertheless, despite the severity of legal measures against bribe-takers, it was not possible to eradicate this phenomenon, and the main reasons for it were not eliminated, many of which were indicated in the above-mentioned note to the Russian Emperor Nicholas I. Even during the totalitarian rule of I. Stalin's virus of corruption was not eradicated, although, of course, it should be admitted that the model of Stalin's quasi-socialism seemed to be the least corrupt on the surface. However, one should not forget that totalitarianism, based on political and economic terror, and in other countries also externally manifested itself as little corrupt (a classic example of Hitler's Germany), which in fact did not correspond to reality.

Even today, not only the elderly, but also middle-aged Russians remember the massive facts of extortions and bribery for obtaining public housing, for allocating scarce industrial and food products to merchants and selling them to buyers "by pulling", for admission to prestigious universities, for business trips abroad and the like, which at one time was reported a lot by human rumor, I even the press. And this despite the fact that, nominally, bribery was punished very severely - up to the capital punishment under the criminal law: the death penalty.

The conclusion that corruption was widespread at the end of the era of socialism is allowed not only by the materials of the trials and the press of the 1970s-1980s, but also by one of them in 1990 studying this problem in a number of regions of Russia and some union republics of the then still existing USSR. ... Its results indicate that various types of corrupt behavior, including those in criminally punishable and therefore the most dangerous forms, were already inherent in almost all union, republican, regional and regional state and party bodies, not to mention local ones. The most affected in this regard were the structures that provided financial and material and technical support to economic entities, foreign economic relations, organizing and controlling the spheres of commodity distribution and social support of the population. At the same time, if it was no longer possible to keep silent about these phenomena, then they were presented as some costs of the functioning of government bodies or separate facts that did not follow from the existing system.

All this created a very fertile ground for the further introduction of corruption into public relations with the liberalization of economic and socio-political conditions in the country at the turn of the 1990s. And, ultimately, it led to the fact that in recent years, even with the continuing criminal responsibility, bribes began to be taken, in essence, openly. The results of a study carried out already in 1999-2000 show, in particular, that with a relatively stable total number of persons exposed of bribery over the past 12-15 years, today only one out of two or two and a half thousand can be brought to justice for this act. persons who committed this crime (i.e., more than twenty times less than in the late 1980s and early 1990s). This essentially, if not formally, then practically decriminalized bribery as a type of crime. It is interesting that up to half of those convicted of bribery today are representatives of law enforcement agencies, which indicates a high degree of corruption of those who, in theory, the authorities and the population should count on as the main support in countering offenders.