Pros And Cons Of Corruption In Society

1019 Words3 Pages

I disagree with Corruption is a Western concept and that some tradition societies are not applicable the ‘gift culture’. They can function without because there is no positive meaning. The onset to corruption, one being the giver and the other being the receiver are involved for personal reward. The rewards are obtained as a result of stealing the trust of society. An example would be that a Police officer only eats at one restaurant because the owner gives him free food. Then it’s known that the police officer only performs special services for that one restaurant while on duty. This action of corruption by far will only benefit the officer performing the act as well the restaurant owner (International Debate Education, 2011, p. 63 ). The …show more content…

Society after fostering the inappropriate acts is limited to a certain few in the society that stand to gain while most are at a loss. Corruption will never be accepted and thought of in a negative way as well as those who practice corruption. Most in society do not apply Corruption as a cultural tradition this act is normally within select members of the society that hold a public position. This act is to their benefit while society becoming the victim of their personal gains. Corruption within society is broken down into three category classification it may be rare, widespread and lastly systemic (International Debate Education, 2011, p. 63 ). Communities that experience rare corruption show remarkably few acts of corruption. These acts of corruption within society are rarely known to be usually and difficult to identify. Widespread corruption means that it is occurring in large numbers within our society. The situations of corruption create scandals in society. Scandals of corruption are quick to identify the parties’ involved as well the acts of the corruption. Society will foster the systemic approach that for certain members to benefit services they have to bribe the officials in charge of the services (International Debate Education, 2011, p. 63

Open Document