lørdag 28. mai 2011
tirsdag 10. mai 2011
Norway: Home of the corrupt
Since I'm doing mostly school work these days, i'm posting some work that I just started on Norway and corruption. Kinda frustrating sitting inside writing papers on my computer while mass battles between copts muslims are going on around Cairo.
http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/node/431159
Anyways, here's some stuff on corruption and Norway:
Rentier theory tells us that countries with oil and natural resources are prone to authoritarian features. Taking a brief look at the correlation between oil and minerals as a portion of national economies and democracy will lead us to support this notion. Ross’ study from 2001 deals with 113 countries and reaches the conclusion that there is an inverse relationship between rent and democracy; where rent constitutes a small, but significant portion of the economy, regimes will be most authoritarian, while countries with a larger rent-economies will be a little less so.
Norway then, must be the exception that confirms the rule. Pumping up about 3.400 barrels of oil from the North Sea daily, external rent constitutes nearly half of exports and over 30% of state revenue. Norway has top score on the freedom house scales for political and civil rights, as well as a +10 polity score, ranging from -10 to +10. It is also frequently considered by the UN to be the generally best place to live in the world.
In 2003 a corruption scandal shook the Norwegian national oil company, Statoil. During its operations in Iran, it had paid vast sums the son of the ex-president for dubious services. Later investigations revealed that Hydro, another Norwegian oil company, had been involved in a similar case in Libya. Both cases were brought into daylight due to critical journalism. Since then more attention has been given to the problem of corruption on Norway.
But hold on for just a minute. If the corruption in the Norwegian oil companies primarily occurs on countries that are generally considered corrupt, such as Iran and Libya, would it not be natural to assume that the corruption happens on the initiative of actors from those countries, and not the Norwegian representatives? I think it is reasonable to assume that the Norwegian oil companies are accomplices in the conduct of the crime until proven otherwise. After all, Statoil was sentenced by courts in both the United States and Norway to pay fines of 70 million NOK and 20 million NOK respectively. Further critical journalism also revealed that oil companies generally discourage Norwegian diplomats from talking about corruption. Even if this might serve short term Norwegian economical interest, a continuation of a “don’t ask don’t tell policy” would be harmful both to Norwegian attitudes against corruption in the future and the focus of the Norwegian foreign ministry.
The last decade has seen the publication of many books about national corruption, including the titles “Political corruption as a democratic problem” and “Corruption in Norway”, both finding the trail of corruption to lead partly back to the oil industry. The first mentioned alleges that there are strong ties from the top of the oil companies to political circles.
A necessary precaution to make when addressing corruption as an effect of rent is to consider the fact that the states we generally consider rentier states in the Middle East seem to be spread out along Transparency’s corruption perceptions index. This means that we cannot generally associate corruption with rentier states. However, when one looks closely enough at what is generally is considered rentier-economies the paths leading to authoritarianism and flawed governance are case-dependent. In Saudi-Arabia the national oil company has a strict anti-corruption policy, but the regime has a long history of repression and autocratic rule.
To see if oil might harm Norwegian governance, the Scandinavian context might be more useful, as they offer an opportunity for a similar-system design. The following table gives an overview over corruption perceptions in Scandinavia and the Middle East oil countries:
Corruption perceptions Index
Ranking Score
Nordic countries
Denmark 1 9,3
Finland 4 9,2
Sweden 4 9,2
Norway 10 8,6
Iceland 11 8,5
Middle East oil countries
Qatar 19 7,7
UAE 28 6,3
Bahrain 48 4,9
Saudi Arabia 50 4,7
Kuwait 54 4,5
Iran 146 2,2
Iraq 175 1,5
Control Countries
USA 22 7,1
Egypt 98 3,1
Transparancy International CPI for 2010
http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/node/431159
Anyways, here's some stuff on corruption and Norway:
Rentier theory tells us that countries with oil and natural resources are prone to authoritarian features. Taking a brief look at the correlation between oil and minerals as a portion of national economies and democracy will lead us to support this notion. Ross’ study from 2001 deals with 113 countries and reaches the conclusion that there is an inverse relationship between rent and democracy; where rent constitutes a small, but significant portion of the economy, regimes will be most authoritarian, while countries with a larger rent-economies will be a little less so.
Norway then, must be the exception that confirms the rule. Pumping up about 3.400 barrels of oil from the North Sea daily, external rent constitutes nearly half of exports and over 30% of state revenue. Norway has top score on the freedom house scales for political and civil rights, as well as a +10 polity score, ranging from -10 to +10. It is also frequently considered by the UN to be the generally best place to live in the world.
In 2003 a corruption scandal shook the Norwegian national oil company, Statoil. During its operations in Iran, it had paid vast sums the son of the ex-president for dubious services. Later investigations revealed that Hydro, another Norwegian oil company, had been involved in a similar case in Libya. Both cases were brought into daylight due to critical journalism. Since then more attention has been given to the problem of corruption on Norway.
But hold on for just a minute. If the corruption in the Norwegian oil companies primarily occurs on countries that are generally considered corrupt, such as Iran and Libya, would it not be natural to assume that the corruption happens on the initiative of actors from those countries, and not the Norwegian representatives? I think it is reasonable to assume that the Norwegian oil companies are accomplices in the conduct of the crime until proven otherwise. After all, Statoil was sentenced by courts in both the United States and Norway to pay fines of 70 million NOK and 20 million NOK respectively. Further critical journalism also revealed that oil companies generally discourage Norwegian diplomats from talking about corruption. Even if this might serve short term Norwegian economical interest, a continuation of a “don’t ask don’t tell policy” would be harmful both to Norwegian attitudes against corruption in the future and the focus of the Norwegian foreign ministry.
The last decade has seen the publication of many books about national corruption, including the titles “Political corruption as a democratic problem” and “Corruption in Norway”, both finding the trail of corruption to lead partly back to the oil industry. The first mentioned alleges that there are strong ties from the top of the oil companies to political circles.
A necessary precaution to make when addressing corruption as an effect of rent is to consider the fact that the states we generally consider rentier states in the Middle East seem to be spread out along Transparency’s corruption perceptions index. This means that we cannot generally associate corruption with rentier states. However, when one looks closely enough at what is generally is considered rentier-economies the paths leading to authoritarianism and flawed governance are case-dependent. In Saudi-Arabia the national oil company has a strict anti-corruption policy, but the regime has a long history of repression and autocratic rule.
To see if oil might harm Norwegian governance, the Scandinavian context might be more useful, as they offer an opportunity for a similar-system design. The following table gives an overview over corruption perceptions in Scandinavia and the Middle East oil countries:
Corruption perceptions Index
Ranking Score
Nordic countries
Denmark 1 9,3
Finland 4 9,2
Sweden 4 9,2
Norway 10 8,6
Iceland 11 8,5
Middle East oil countries
Qatar 19 7,7
UAE 28 6,3
Bahrain 48 4,9
Saudi Arabia 50 4,7
Kuwait 54 4,5
Iran 146 2,2
Iraq 175 1,5
Control Countries
USA 22 7,1
Egypt 98 3,1
Transparancy International CPI for 2010
Abonner på:
Innlegg (Atom)
