In 2008, the Latin American Public Opinion Project (LAPOP) of Vanderbilt University surveyed residents of 22 countries from Canada to Argentina concerning their perception of corruption in their own country. Jamaica topped the list, meaning that more Jamaicans (85.6 per cent) perceived widespread corruption in their country than did residents elsewhere. Of course, perception of corruption is not proof of corruption; the reality may be higher or lower than the opinion figures indicate.

But how do we measure actual corruption levels? Persons are not likely to admit to benefiting from corruption, or of being corrupt themselves. Since it is difficult to measure corruption directly, researchers have to resort to surrogate measures like perception of corruption, and assume that "where there is smoke, there is fire".

The LAPOP study also showed that respondents with a higher level of education are more likely to perceive corruption than those with lower education. Jamaicans have a notoriously low level of education. Does this mean that, with more education, more than 90 per cent of Jamaicans would perceive widespread corruption in Jamaica?

In 2007, Transparency International defined corruption as "the abuse of entrusted power for private gain of one's self, one's family, friends organisation, etc.". This includes paying officials at the Motor Vehicle Examination Depot to give your motor vehicle a certificate of fitness without testing it (bribery), using political connections to obtain a job or a contract (patronage, cronyism), and using one's position on a board of directors to obtain a benefit for one's private business or the private business of a family member or friend (conflict of interest, nepotism).

'The runnin's' system

In Jamaica, this is called 'the runnin's' - the way things are, how things operate; it's not who you know, but who knows you - to do you a favour. Many people have grown up in this system, and, to them, it is completely normal, and I'm sure many don't even know why anybody would call it corruption.

The science of ethics is not necessarily a religious matter; pagan philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato had quite elaborate systems of ethics which are basically rules of fairness governing relationships between people, so that no one takes advantage of others. Ethical breaches are trampling on other people's rights, and may even be life-threatening. Using political influence to get someone a job may mean that the best qualified person is disadvantaged; "buying" your drivers' licence or car fitness certificate means that other road-users will be at risk from a substandard driver or vehicle being on the road. Jamaica suffers from a significant deficit of ethics - in high and low places.

The LAPOP study shows that Jamaicans have become significantly less tolerant of corruption in recent years. In 2006, 55.6 per cent of Jamaicans were prepared to acquiesce to bribery, compared to 38.7 per cent last year (2008); in the study, 82 per cent and 70 per cent of respondents, respectively, recognised bribery and nepotism as acts of corruption. Things are bad, but they are getting better.

Corruption is rife in Jamaica because the powers that be - in both the private and public sectors - want it so. I remember a few years ago accusing a Cabinet minister of creating a profound conflict of interest on a particular government board; his reply to me was that what I was calling a conflict of interest was really a "linkage" intended to help the board do its work. I suppose one person's conflict of interest can be another's "linkage", but we have no rules to tell the difference.

Although every report of the contractor-general over the years contains evidence of breaches and conflicts, and matters that have been referred to the DPP, not one person has even been charged with an offence. Ethical deficits exist throughout the system.

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and a Roman Catholic deacon. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.