The recent publication of Corruption Perceptions Index 2019 by Transparency International (TI) has caused a debate in Pakistan. Pakistan got 32 points in 2019 and ranked 120 on a list of 180 countries.

A discussion started when it was noticed that Pakistan had slid three ranks down the Index in 2019 compared with its position in 2018 when it had received 33 points and had been ranked 117. The cycle of accusations, denials, and counter-accusations since then seems to be unending.

The government’s stance on the report was predictable: finding fault with the previous governments for all things evil. Dr Firdous Ashiq Awan, the prime minister’s special assistant on information went as far as casting aspersions on the credibility of TI when she suggested that the ‘kings of corruption sitting abroad’ (a thinly veiled reference to the Sharif duo) had managed to influence TI to downgrade Pakistan’s standing on the TI index.

A careful look at the methodology used by TI in calculating the Index shows that TI exclusively relies on third-party ratings for developing its Index and “managing” the third parties is no laughing matter. To ensure the level of transparency in the development of the Index, TI does not include any country in its sample unless ratings from at least three credible sources are available. The TI Index point is the simple average of the points given by each source.

While calculating the score for Pakistan, TI used uniformly scaled scores (0 most corrupt and 100 most transparent) from eight sources, which was way above the minimum three sources. These sources and the scores they assigned to Pakistan (scores are given in the parentheses) are Bertelsmann Foundation Transformation Index (21), Varieties of Democracy Project (27), World Justice Project Rule of Law Index (27), PRS International Country Risk Guide (32), Global Insight Country Risk Ratings (35), World Bank CPIA (35), Economist Intelligence Unit Country Ratings (37), and World Economic Forum EOS (43).

It is sad to see political leaders throwing mud at each other over the fact that Pakistan slid three points down the corruption index because scoring a few points less may point to a real increase in corruption in Pakistan just as much as some substantial reduction in corruption in other countries or some other random effects. While the opposition is taking the political mileage from the situation, no one seems to care about the fact that Pakistan’s position in 2018 too was far from ideal.

Part of the reason why the current government feels so embarrassed is the great expectations it had generated in its election campaign about a corruption-free Pakistan. To be fair to this government, public expectations, in this case, are not totally justifiable. It is almost delusional to think that one “clean” person at the top can take care of the corruption issues in one fell swoop. It is equally unreasonable to think that the NAB can end corruption overnight.

The fact of the matter is that corruption is a complicated issue and social and political institutions of the country interact in a complex way to create conditions looking to high levels of corruption.

There is a lot of evidence to suggest that corruption is culturally determined. Many theories predict that individuals who grow up in societies in which corruption is prevalent are more likely to act in a corrupt way than individuals who grow up in societies where corruption is rare. A study found that in New York City diplomats from highly corrupt countries are significantly more likely to violate parking laws than diplomats from less corrupt countries.

While it is debatable whether people indulge in corruption because of economic costs and benefits or some intrinsic motivation, there is reason to believe that widespread corruption in a society is the most potent factor behind nudging people to indulge in corrupt practices. A related factor is that when people begin to believe that they cannot afford even the basic necessities with their lawful means, they are under increased pressure to indulge in corrupt practices.

Affordable housing, quality healthcare, and a decent education for the children are, arguably, the most important fundamental human rights. However, it is not difficult to see that securing these rights is becoming increasingly difficult for even individuals with decent income levels. An active fear that one would be deprived of the basic necessities if one does not indulge in corrupt practices may significantly increase the level of corrupt practices in a society. The following paragraphs show how the basic necessities are fast becoming inaccessible.

The “financialisation” of housing in recent times has largely replaced the traditional housing model. The construction of hyper-expensive “walled” residential societies is the new normal. Staggering sums of money are being poured into residential property development, which is now more of an investment than housing. Often the poor residents are displaced (through forced eviction in many cases).

The government has a crucial role to play in reversing the financialisation of the housing market and can take a cue from legislative measures in some other countries. Spain has introduced laws to temporarily expropriate vacant housing while several countries have imposed heavy taxes on foreign home owners to discourage speculation in luxury property. The revenues are used to subsidise affordable homes.

The perceived difficulties in receiving healthcare with one’s lawful means may be another crucial factor behind the increase in corrupt practices. With a burgeoning population and a narrow tax base, it is no surprise that public sector health facilities are overstretched and inadequate in Pakistan. Private hospitals have recently mushroomed in Pakistan. Private hospitals provide better healthcare standards, but they are very expensive, and often not affordable for a majority of the people. In a nutshell, quality healthcare is a pipe dream, even for middle-income groups.

The role of media can be helpful in promoting a culture of transparency. TV channels in Pakistan are always in a cut-throat rating competition. The story of TV ratings goes like this. Meters are installed in a sample of selected homes considered to be representative of Pakistan at the national level. Television rating points (TRPs) are calculated from the readings of these meters. The TRPs are used to calculate which programme is being viewed the most. The larger number of views of a programme translates into higher TRPs, which in turn means a larger share from the advertising pie. Businesses are likely to advertise their products on TV channels with higher TRPs.

It is no surprise that channels are forever looking for the ‘right’ kind of content to increase their rating points and their revenue. Young men and women living in palatial homes, riding luxury cars, and shopping in ostentatiously luxurious malls rarely fail to resonate with the fantasies of the viewers. This surreal world imperceptibly nudges viewers into thinking that this is the ideal lifestyle.

In reality, this line of thinking can have disastrous effects on a society. It promotes the cult of consumerism, with all its attendant consequences for the quality of the environment and the sustainability of future generations. A collective urge to achieve high living standards in the absence of a corresponding increase in economic growth may significantly increase the incidence of corrupt practices.

Social media too now provide a basis for social comparison and envy on an unprecedented scale. Passive following exacerbates envy feelings, which decreases life satisfaction. Envy leads to unethical behaviours and reduces pro-social behaviour.

Values of simplicity and contentedness need to be at the heart of national and global development agenda. These are not just moral imperatives. They also make perfect economic sense. Sweden turned out to be the fourth most transparent country, according to the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) 2019. The spectacular performance may be the result of, among other things, a unique Swedish cultural trait that disapproves of the discussion of one’s wealth status. The preference for not discussing one’s wealth status with others comes from an old Swedish tradition called Jantelagen,which promotes the idea of never thinking you are better than others.

While higher peer income typically elicits envy, which in turn leads to socially disruptive behaviour, better peer health provides positive signals for life and health satisfaction. It means a renewed focus away from ostentatious living and setting examples of simple living could ultimately increase the collective well-being of a society.

The writer is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Economics, COMSATS University Islamabad, Lahore Campus and may be reached at rafi.amiruddin@gmail.com