Екінші дүниежүзілік соғыс аяқталғаннан бері экономикалық даму саласында экономикалық модельдер дамудың экономикалық емес түсіндірмелерін маргиналдырды
The power of money and the value shift
жүктеу/скачать 0,54 Mb.
|
СЖ
- Бұл бет үшін навигация:
- Moral chaos: The high level of the tolerance for corruption in Kazakhstan
The power of money and the value shiftGodkin appreciated the power of money in human society as much as 146 years ago. He wrote his article to attract attention of public administrators to the changes in the value system driven by the proliferation of market values. “Are not all the great communities of the Western World growing more corrupt as they grow in wealth? In other words, Is [Sic] not the power of money over human conduct increasing with alarming rapidity? If it is, what are the chances of change, or reformation?... These are questions which many thoughtful men are asking themselves, in England, America, and France, but much more earnestly and constantly in England and America than in France, because the commercial spirit in the former countries is much stronger, and the power of money much greater, than it is in the latter” – Godkin (1868, p. 248). However, money per se has no intrinsic value; we use it as a fiat symbol that can cause no more trouble than pebbles or cowry shells that have been used for exchange purposes for thousands of years ago (Mankiw, 2007). It is people’s attitude toward the money that makes it a dangerous value under certain conditions: in modern times money allows people to self-aggrandize and grants the wealthy owners the power over the lives and labor of other people. In modern times, Godkin’s statement has found empirical support in modern Kazakhstan and many other developing and developed countries. The IMF and the World Bank economists – the ardent advocates of the free market – persuaded Kazakhstani government that only money drives economic prosperity. However, privatization and other market reforms in oil-rich Kazakhstan have benefitted only few well-positioned individuals, while leaving the majority of population in poverty. Moral chaos: The high level of the tolerance for corruption in KazakhstanMcMullan (1961) argues that money as an institution has value only in capitalist societies or money economies [sic], where an individual can openly dispose of his or her wealth. While in socialist societies, where basic goods are provided for free and luxury goods are intentionally underprovided, corruption loses its attraction as an instrument for wealth accumulation as there is little on which to spend the proceeds, and “where the acquisition of wealth in itself is looked upon with disfavor” (McMullan, 1961, p 186). This argument suggests that money is attractive only under conditions of the freedom of disposal. Capitalist economies emphasize the value of money and offer economic freedom. In Kazakhstan, privatization and other market reforms opened the sluicegate for unbridled money acquisition and spending by few, while divesting many of jobs, savings, and homes. Government discontinued expensive social welfare programs. Desperate people were left with few options – earn, steal, or starve. Under the extraordinary conditions of a rapid transition, some people started earning money quickly through illegal means such as corruption, underground business, and racketeering (Darimbetov & Spanov, 2001). Market reforms changed popular attitude toward money: what was considered morally repulsive under socialism became accepted in modern Kazakhstan. I provide a couple of citations from a qualitative anthropological study by Rigi (2004), who researched corruption and the associated decline of morals in Kazakhstan four years after the reforms began. Rigi interviewed people from cities and villages to understand the meaning and the scale of corruption in post-Soviet Kazakhstan. One of the local interviewee stated: “…even our teachers must go through the humiliation of taking bribes. They have no choice; they have to provide for their families.” Another interviewee testified “… many people take bribes in order to provide for their families but they have lost their pride. When you take a bribe you cannot look proudly into the eyes of your wife and children…” (Rigi, 2004, p.111). Most interviewees expressed negative attitude toward corruption, but seemed to accept its necessity. Oka (2013), who also studied corruption qualitatively, conducted in depth interviews with 60 people, most of whom expressed their belief that systemic corruption was a product of market reforms. The transition elevated the value of money. People adapted their behavior to the market reality and started looking for the opportunities to get money. The opportunities opened for businesses and for government officials in control of market entry. Satpayev - a prominent Kazakhstani researcher of corruption – stated: “…under conditions of traditional values crisis and emerging moral vacuum, began the criminalization of consciousness and the formation of corrupt behavior among those in power, business and society at large” (2013, p. 4). The next part of the paper provides qualitative and quantitative empirical evidence of the popular attitudes toward corruption in Kazakhstan. жүктеу/скачать 0,54 Mb. Достарыңызбен бөлісу:
|