waa buug ingiriis ah oo uu qoray mr xuseen muxumed cusmaan kana hadlayo xariirka ka dhaxeeyo musuqa iyo faqiirnimada oo uu ka diyaariyey hay’adaha dowliga ah iyo kuwa anan dowliga ahaynba (profit organizations and non profit organizations) ee ka dhisan magalada muqdisho “

0
373

CHAPTER ONE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This section provides the basic grounds for conducting the study including the nature, past phenomenon, and the linkages regarding corruption, poverty, it presents the Historical background of the study, problem statement, purpose of study, research Objectives, research questions,  hypothesis, Scope, significance of the study, operational definitions of key terms.

  • BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

The International Institute of Administrative Sciences has published a study of administrative corruption from an historical perspective. In the 1990s all major international organizations launched comprehensive programmers to corruption and maladministration, mostly in developing countries. Tiihonen, S.Pub. date January 2003 so However, it is apparent that corruption is much more than those, and is corrosive to the state. The issue had been ignored in the literature and in the public discourse until 1970s. It emerged as an issue of international concern in 1990‟s as the international community become cognizant.Once corruption becomes entrenched, its negative effects multiply: It induces distrust, because people begin to regard it as the norm. It undermines social values because people find it easier and more beneficial to engage in corruption than to seek legitimate employment. It erodes governmental legitimacy because it hampers the effective delivery of public goods and services. It limits economic growth because it reduces the amount of public resources, discourages private investment and saving and impedes the efficient use of government revenue and development assistance funds.

Strategies to limit corruption have to be realistic and achievable and tailored to the needs of particular countries. In order words, policies intended to address corruption have to be consistently implemented over the long term. Corruption is essentially a governance issue.

Increased governmental accountability and transparency, enhanced public participation in decision making, strengthened public sector and civil society institutions and greater adherence to the rule of law will not only improve governance but will help counter corruption. Free and open competition is ultimately the greatest weapon against corrupt practices – whether political, economic or bureaucratic.

Corruption is worse in countries where institutions, such as the legislature and the judiciary are weak, where rule of law and adherence to formal rules are not rigorously observed, where political patronage is standard practice, where the independence and professionalism of the public sector has been eroded and where civil society lacks the means to bring public pressure to bear. The most unstable countries are generally those with poor government administration and control over population, due to the economic military, or ethic turmoil this often leads to widespread political corruption in government officials who obtained their authority and offices by questionable means in the first place and who may not be representatives of the will of the people.   Nations that topped the list failed states index as of 2011 included Somalia, Zimbabwe and Sudan. Each nation has unique circumstance that lead to political corruption.

With Somalia having a very weak central government, zimbabwe facing enormous economic challenges and Sudan struggling with the ethnic strife. Corruption in Somalia is a development issue. Somalia cannot bear the costs of corruption, which delays development and minimizes the ability of governments to reduce poverty. Effectively addressing corruption in Somalia has become a development imperative.Corruption occurs in the political, economic and administrative sphere.

Poverty is about not having enough money to meet basic needs including food, clothing and shelter. The World Bank Organization describes poverty in this way:“Poverty is hunger. Poverty is lack of shelter. Poverty is being sick and not being able to see a doctor. Poverty is not having access to school and not knowing how to read. Poverty is not having a job, is fear for the future, living one day at a time. Poverty has many faces, changing from place to place and across time, and has been described in many ways.  Most often, poverty is a situation people want to escape. So poverty is adequate shelter, access to education and health, protection from violence, and a voice in what happens in their communities.”

Poverty in Africa refers to the lack of basic human needs faced by certain people in African society. African nations typically fall toward the bottom of any list measuring small size economic activity, such as income per capita or GDP per capita, despite a wealth of natural resources. In 2009, 22 of 24 nations identified as having “Low Human Development” on the United Nations’ (UN) Human Development Index were in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Poverty in Somalia can be attributed to a number of factors including absence of an active central government, climate change, frequent famine and droughts, unavailability of fertile soil as the country is situated at the coastal region of Africa and in adequate literacy. United Nations’ (UN) 1998 identified.

Corruption which is defined by World Bank as “the abuse of public office for private gain” Much of the discourse in the antiquities focused on illegal trade and the theft of public revenue.

Corruption is dishonest actions that destroys people’s trust in the person or group, like the news of corruption in how your bank is run, that makes you close your account and invest your money somewhere else by Windmeijer, F.(2000),.

Poverty is the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means of support; condition of being poor. 2013 by the Philip.

1.2    STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Corruption is a universal problem and one of the macroeconomic and political diseases that affect the economy of countries. As Defined by W. Vishny (1993).  Corruption can be distinguished between ‘true corrupt intent’ and ‘necessary corruption’. True corrupt intent implies bribery or an action to obtain an illicit benefit, whereas necessary corruption occurs to get things done (i.e., to obtain a legally entitled service); facilitation payments fall under this category of corruption. The main forms of corruption are bribery, embezzlement, fraud and extortion Corruption. While Among Somali population one of the most damaging experiences is corruption.

Poverty is general scarcity or dearth, or the state of one who lacks a certain amount of material possessions or money.[1] It is a multifaceted concept, which includes social, economic, and political elements. Poverty seems to be chronic or temporary, and most of the time it is closely related to inequality. As a dynamic concept, poverty is changing and adapting according to consumption patterns, social dynamics and technological change.[2] Absolute poverty or destitution refers to the deprivation of basic human needs, which commonly includes food, water, sanitation, clothing, shelter and health care. Relative poverty is defined contextually as economic inequality in the location or society in which people live. Poverty Both absolute and relative poverty measures are usually based on a person’s yearly income and frequently take no account of total wealth.

Therefore this study seeks to investigate how the corruption effect on poverty in some selected government institutions and nongovernmental institutions in Mogadishu Somalia the key studies are minister of internal affairs, minister of finance, Al akhyar secondary school and Salaam University.

1.3 PURPOSE OF STUDY

The purpose of the study is to investigate the effect of corruption on poverty in Mogadishu Somalia.

1.4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

  1. To examine the relationship between corruption and poverty in Somalia.
  2. To investigate the effect of corruption to increase the level of poverty.
  3. To examine the level of corruption for government institutions.

1.5 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

  1. What is the relationship between corruption and poverty?
  2. How to investigate the direction corruption to increase of poverty?
  3. How examine the relationship between corruption and poverty?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.6 HYPOTHOSIS

  1. There is a direct relationship between corruption and poverty it means if the level of corruption increases also the poverty level will increase.
  2. There is an effect of corruption on poverty because the major Strategies to reduce corruption are Transparency and accountability.

 

1.7 Scope of the study

Geographical scope

The study will carry out in Mogadishu, the capital city of Somalia.

Content scope

The research focused on the effect of corruption on poverty in some selected government institutions and non governmental institutions.

Time scope

The study was done July to August 2015

1.8 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

 

The study hopes to provide important data and information for study and father researching.

                                                                      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.9 OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS OF KEY TERMS

Economist Ian Senior defines corruption dishonest behavior by those in positions of power, such as managers or government officials. Corruption can include giving or accepting bribes or inappropriate gifts.

Corruption is the abuse of bestowed power or position to acquire a personal benefit.Ampratwum E.F. (2008),

Poverty is general scarcity or dearth, or the state of one who lacks a certain amount of material, possessions or money.Voskanyan F.(2000).

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE OF REVIEW

2.0 INTRODUCTIONS

This section of the thesis presents critical review of relevant literature focusing on both the theory and empirical findings it presents concepts, ideas, opinions, from authors /experts, theoretical perspectives, related studies.

2.1 CONCEPTS, IDEAS, OPINIONS, FROM AUTHORS /EXPERTS.

Corruption has become a widespread phenomenon in the world, taking a top priority on the agendas of governments (both developed and developing), development organizations and banks, researchers, economies, and citizens. According to Sardan (1999), “corruption has become a common element of the functioning of the administrative and Para-administrative apparatus, from top to bottom, in almost all African countries”.

The term corruption is used to mean different things in different contexts. Due to the existence of corrupt practices throughout the world both in developed and developing countries, people Attach various practices to corruption differently on the basis of their culture and norms. Tanzi (1998) indicates the debate on the definition of corruption by a statement: “a few years ago, the question of definition absorbed a large proportions of the time spent on discussions of corruption at conferences and meetings”.

Sardan (1999), emphasizing the moral economy, explained the complexity of the phenomenon particular to Africa. The author argues that  The moral economy of corruption in Africa does not merely concern corruption in the strict sense of the word, but rather the ‘corruption complex’ in a wider sense, which covers a number of illicit practices, technically distinct from corruption, all of which none the less have in common with corruption their association with state, parastatal or bureaucratic functions, and also contradict the official ethics of ‘public property’ or ‘public service’, and likewise offer the possibility of illegal enrichment, and the use and abuse to this end of positions of authority (p. 3-4).  Despite the complexity of the phenomenon, different observers often agree on whether a particular practice connotes corruption. Most working papers by World Bank, UNDP, and other international organizations define corruption as “the use of public office/authority for private gain”, without denying the possibility for variation in included practices between countries. USAID hand book on fighting corruption (1999) as cited in (Chetwynd et.al 2003) define corruption as “the misuse of public office for private gain including, but not limited to embezzlement, nepotism, extortion, influence peddling, and fraud”.

Corruption as broadly defined by Lawal (2007), is  a systematic vice in an individual, society or a nation which reflects favoritism, nepotism, tribalism, sectionalism, undue enrichment, amassing of wealth, abuse of office, power, position, and derivation of undue gains and benefits. Corruption also includes bribery, smuggling, and fraud, illegal payments, money laundering, drug trafficking, falsification of documents and records, window dressing, false declaration, evasion, underpayment, deliberate bending of rules of a system, deceit, forgery, concealment, aiding and abetting of any kind to the detriment of another person, community, society or nation (p.2-3).

Whenever a public office is abused, the public objective is set aside or compromised. It is only if a public function is unproductive that policy goals are not harmed by corruption.

Types of corruption We examine this section Some types of corruption are bribery,  embezzlement of public funds and theft, and fraud.

 

     

2.1.1 TYPES OF CORRUPTION

Bribery is the most widespread form of corruption driven by lucrative profits and the giving of some form of benefit to unduly influence some action or decision on the part of the recipient or beneficiary. Bribery provides incentives for over-regulation and over-bureaucratization of procedures. Bribery is likely representing the transfer of a portion of rent to government officials. Bribery is committed when a public servant is offered, promised, or granted an in return for an action already carried out or is to be expected. Bribery can be initiated by the person soliciting the bribe or the person offering the bribe. The benefits may vary from money or other valuables to less tangible ones such as inside information or employment. Bribery as illegal action of corrupt relationships is conducted between the involved expending time and resources to keep their secret out of risk and instability that harms reputations when a word ultimately leaks. (Zemanovicova et.al, 2002). Ades and Di Tella (1994)

 

Embezzlement and theft as broadly defined by Lawal (2007), are forms of corruption characterized by the taking or conversion of money, property or other valuables for personal benefit. Embezzlement often happens by colluding with the subcontractors who are employed for performing some services such as the maintenance work. Officials can have a source of revenue if they embezzle money from the budget for financing the maintenance work, for example. Embezzlement and theft involve the taking of property by someone to whom it has been entrusted. In the aggregate, this represents embezzlement of state revenues of the first order.

 

Fraud consists of the use of misleading information to induce someone to turn over the property voluntarily, such as the case of misrepresenting the amount of people in need of a particular service. Also other typical fraudulent practice is the sales-buy relationships between public and private sectors. It is well known the form of corruption based on fraudulent sales of second hand or surplus equipment, but when the buyer is the public sector there is no attempt to include the extent of fraud within the private sector. (Bayley, 1966).

 

2.1.2 CAUSES OF CORRUPTION

Literature regarding causes and consequences of corruption are not few. Most of them show that both causes and consequences of corruption that are common to all countries are subject to debate. They depend on country‟s social, political, and economic backgrounds. Ndikumana (2006) asserts that the theoretical research on the causes and vehicles of corruption draws from the work of Bhagwati (1974), Krueger (1974), and Rose-Ackerman (1978), among others. The literature characterizes corruption as the outcome of some form of government regulation that creates opportunities for rent.

While definite causal linkages are difficult to establish, literature suggests that wherever these factors exist corruption will prevail. These factors include weak rule of law, low wage of civil servants, wider discretionary power owned by politicians, legacy of colonial rules, historical dominancy of the state in economic and political affairs, and interest to keep status quo, among others. Some indicate that due to the unstable political condition and the uncertain future in developing countries, officials and civil servants prioritize corruption benefits to keep their own living and that of extended family for the future (Ampratwum, 2008; Aidt, 2003).

Tanzi (1998) classifies the causes of corruption as factors that affect demand and those that affect supply for/of corrupt acts. The most important factors affecting the demand side include authorization and regulations, bad characteristics of tax system, spending decisions, and Provision of goods and services at low market prices. The supply promoters include bureaucratic tradition, level of public sector wage, the penalty systems, institutional controls, the transparency of rules, laws, and processes, and the examples provided by the leadership. He further argues that the growth of international trade and business and the economic changes that have taken place in many countries and especially in the economies in transition have contributed for the spread of corruption.

Voskanyan (2000), acknowledging to Leslie Holmes (1993) classifies the causes of corruption in to three categories: cultural, psychological and system related. He argues that some acts of corruption may be acceptable mainly due to the traditional political culture in many poor countries. Traditional societies in these countries are often criticized for their inability to identify „gifts‟ from „bribe‟4, which undoubtedly make the problem persistent. Weak tradition of rule of law may also have contributed in promoting corruption.

See also Rose-Ackerman (1998a) and Tanzi (1998) for discussions on gifts versus bribes.

Among the psychological factors indicated are „the evil nature‟ of some individuals, peer-pressure associated with individual’s relationship with a group, and fear of not acting in a similar way for his/her supervisor and of under-fulfillment of a plan. The author also addressed the type of government structures and different dimensions of institutional structure such as the monopoly power of officials, the degree of discretion by officials, and the degree of accountability and transparency in institution as a system related causes of corruption.

Most cross-sectional studies indicate that poverty is among the causes of corruption, presenting the following theoretical reasoning. The poor populations often have low education, less exposure to media, low political participation, and less asset or wealth which would have given them the capacity to protest and complain further on corrupt acts. These factors that can be Stated as both the supply and demand side drivers particular to the poor may make them accept and practice corruption (You and Khangram, 2005).

 

                     2.1.3 CONSEQUENCES OF CORRUPTION

The debate on the impact of corruption as beneficial and harmful are commonly categorized as “grease the wheels” and “sand the wheels” hypotheses. While the former evidenced the ill-functioning inefficient institutions in developing countries as reason for the advocacy of corruption, the latter strongly argue that, under whatever circumstances, the net effect of corruption does not show the supplementary role, rather a persistent national welfare loss.

It has been argued that corruption can enhance political participation for historically marginalized and deprived individuals, groups, and communities (Bayley, 1966). In the same study, it is indicated that “corruption, whether in the form of kickbacks or of payments originating with the briber, may result in increased allocations of resources away from consumption and into investment”. He explained that civil servants, who represent a relatively more educated and skilled group than the rest of society in the African and other developing countries, have more information about economic growth and prospects for wealth creation than ordinary people. Hence, corruption helps to transfer scarce resources to members of the civil service who, according to the author, have a higher propensity to invest in the creation of wealth (and hence, economic growth) than the individuals who bribe them.

Lui (1985) indicates that in a system with a queue, it is optimal to allow bribe to jump the queue so that waiting costs remain minimum. Leff (1964) also advocates corruption to bring economic growth in a country with weak rule of law and poor institutions. Huntington (1968) agrees that corruption can help to overcome tedious bureaucratic regulations and enhance growth.

He strengthen his argument by stating “In terms of economic growth, the only thing worse than a society with a rigid, over centralized, dishonest bureaucracy is one with a rigid, over centralized, honest bureaucracy”.

According to Beck and Mehar (1986) and Lien (1986), corruption can reduce the problem of information asymmetry in decision making. It may improve the choice of the right decision by officials since the ranking of bribes can replicate the ranking of firms by efficiency. Leys (1964) and Bayley (1966), emphasizing on the quality of civil servants, argue that benefits from corruption acts in public sector compensates the low wages in the sector and hence attract quality professionals from other sectors. In recent years however, the forces that consider corruption as beneficial to economic and political development have all been discredited. Though corruption may benefit, such benefits are completely negated by their costs. It has generally stunted the creation of wealth and severely limits the government‟s ability to deal effectively with poverty and deprivation.

Nbaku (2008) strongly argue against the efficiency enhancing argument, through the transfer of resources, stating the real experience of African civil servants for the last fifty years. He asserts that African civil servants to whom a large proportion of resources went for the last fifty years fail to develop into entrepreneur as evidenced by most of business activities in African countries are still dominated by foreign interests.

Corruption encourages competition in bribery, rather than competition in quality and in the price of goods and services. It inhibits the development of a healthy market (Zemanovicova et.al, 2002). Ades and Di Tella (1994) added to this argument by making a strong conclusion that “more competitive countries should be less corrupt”, to indicate that corruption has a potential to destroy market competition.

A number of studies show that corruption exacerbates poverty and deprivation. Gupta et.al (1998) relates corruption and poverty in two channels. One is through the impact of corruption on growth. They, presenting the finding by Ravallion (1997) that a higher growth rate is associated with a higher rate of poverty reduction, argue that corruption slows the rate of poverty reduction by reducing growth. The other is through its impact on income inequality. Corruption, according to them, creates biased tax system which favors the „haves‟ and hurts the „Have-not‟ and thereby aggravates income inequality. It also results in poor targeting of social programs, diversion of human capital distribution and formation, and increase in risk on investment premium of the poor which end up in inequality and poverty.

The “governance model” asserts that corruption affects poverty by first influencing governance factors, which in turn impact poverty levels. Corruption disrupts governance practices, destabilizes governance institutions, reduces the provision of services by government, reduces respect for the rule of law, and reduces public trust in government and its institutions. These reduce the capability of government to support its citizens and particularly hurt the poor (Ibid).

The extent of the impact of corruption is often related to the institutional and infrastructure development levels of a country. Choudhary (2010) in his analysis about the impact of corruption on growth in India asserts that states with poor social and economic infrastructure Feel the impact of corruption more adversely. This implies that corruption hurts poor countries like Africa more than their counter parts though the effect on growth of both categories of countries is adverse. Handley et.al (2009) also categorizes corruption among the political-economy maintainers and drivers of poverty in Somalia.

Apart from the negative social and economic consequences, corruption has also a political impact. It is one of the tools used by politically dominant groups to monopolize political spaces and limit the participation of certain ethnic, social, and racial groups. In a corrupt environment, the citizens lose their confidence in the country and in the rules. Not only the rule of law is put in question, but also democracy and moral declines and criminality grow. Corruption undermines democratic development, inhibiting the performance of public institutions and the optimal use of resources. It feeds secrecy and suppression (Zemanovicova et.al, 2002).

Johnston (1986) suggests that serious corruption threatens democracy and governance by weakening political institutions and mass participation, and by delaying and distorting the economic development needed to sustain democracy. Some, still, argue that the relationship between corruption and democracy is not yet clear especially for Africa. Sardan (1999) argues that establishing democracy in a number of African countries has done nothing to put a brake on corruption. Even if democracy has the capacity to reduce corruption, Africa has left behind from enjoying this remedial tool.

Poverty is often defined as the lack of access to necessities. The definition evolves over time from the only focus on lack of a standard dollar amount necessary for basic needs such as food, shelter, and medical care to the denial of access to basic and comprehensive economic, social, and political needs and rights.

Most researchers working on poverty in developing countries contexts have justified with the money metric measures, which defined poverty as lack of a certain standardized minimum amount of money essential to purchase basic needs at standard prices. Measuring poverty in terms of GDP or Purchasing Power Parity does not fully capture the phenomenon of poverty. A broader definition treats it as multidimensional, including low income, low levels of education and health, vulnerability to (income loss, natural disaster, crime and violence, education curtailment), and voicelessness and powerlessness (feeling discrimination, lacking income earning possibilities, mistreatment by the state institution, and lacking status under the law) among the many aspects of well-being (Chetwynd et al. 2003).

Matte (2008) describes the multidimensionality of poverty by acknowledging to the definition by the 1995 world summit on social development in Copenhagen.

Poverty has various manifestations, including lack of income and productive resources sufficient to ensure sustainable livelihoods; hunger and malnutrition; ill health; limited or lack of access to education and other basic services; increased morbidity and mortality from illnesses; homelessness and inadequate housing; unsafe environments and social discrimination and exclusion. It is also characterized by a lack of participation in decision-making and in civil, social and cultural life …. Absolute poverty is a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, Health, shelter, education and information. It depends not only on income but also on access to services (p. 8).

While measuring poverty in terms of income level seems relatively straight forward, the multidimensional approach may be more complex and include variables that are difficult to quantify. To manage this problem, researchers have developed indices such as the UNDP Human Poverty Index which conceives of poverty in terms of longevity, knowledge, and economic provisioning.

 

         2.1.4 CONSEQUENCES OF POVERTY

  1. Low level of Education

Education is the key to career success and economic self-sufficiency. Higher education is one of the most effective ways that parents can raise their families’ incomes. Conversely, low education levels of parents increase the likelihood of low family income.  If parents have low education levels, full-time employment does not protect their families from poverty. Nationally, nearly three-quarters (73%) of children whose parents do not have a high school degree live in low-income families, compared with only 15% of children whose parents have at least some college education. Sardan (1999)

Illiteracy or low literacy is a passport to poverty. Today’s economy and society require literacy skills at Level 3 or higher, measured on a five-point scale. Approximately 300,000 greater Hartford adults, or roughly 41% of the adult population are functioning below Level 3. Below this level, people have difficulty filling out a job application or reading the newspaper, street signs, ATM screens, or the dosage on a medicine bottle. As a result, these adults do not have some of the most fundamental economic, social and personal abilities. Matte (2008)

  1. Health Lives lost mean reduced economic productivity as well as personal tragedy. Productivity is further slowed while people are ill or caring for others. There were 1.7 HIV-related deaths in 2007 and 990 thousand deaths from tuberculosis. Most of these were among young people and adults in their most productive years. Corrupt activity is likely to damage the ability of the health care system to deliver high quality, effective care to the people who can benefit most. There is growing evidence that high levels of corruption impoverish populations, increase inequality, and cause health status to deteriorate, especially among the most vulnerable population groups. Hildebrandt and McKenzie (2005)

In heavily affected countries billions of dollars of economic activity are lost each year as a result of illness and death from HIV, TB and malaria. This can seriously reduce economic growth in countries that are already struggling. Malaria reduces economic growth by 1.3% in heavily affected countries, and costs around $12 billion in lost GDP across Africa. TB costs around 7% of GDP in the worst affected countries. (UNDP, 2001).

  1. Low standard of living

A low standard of living means that segment of the population may not have much wealth or access to basic services and amenities. Factors that can contribute to a low standard of living include lack of adequate industry in a particular area, lack of jobs, insufficient health care services, lack of public transportation, lack of food or water, government oppression, and many more factors.

Government corruption can be caused such poverty and high crime rates by several factors, including, lack of funding for basic public services, occurrence of natural disasters such as droughts, floods, and hurricanes, or isolation from other societies. Corrupt governments exist throughout the world, and the general populace of that country can suffer immensely. The distribution of wealth in a country can be skewed so that very few people have the most money, while the majority of people must make ends meet with very little. This can lead to unrest in society, anger toward the government, and upheaval that leads to even more strife in an area. (UNDP, 2001).

 

   Cause of poverty: A poverty profile often describes the pattern of poverty without due attention to why some people are poor. Poverty may be due to national, sector specific, community, household, or individual characteristics. Correlates indicate that poverty is high in areas characterized by geographical isolation, a low resource base, low rainfall, and other inhospitable climatic conditions. Regions with inadequate public services, weak communication and infrastructure, and underdeveloped markets are poorer than those with improved facilities (Haughton and Khandker, n.d) 2007.

Among the national/regional characteristics that affect poverty are good governance, economic and environmental policy, macroeconomic and political stability, mass participation, global and regional security, rule of law, and gender, ethnic, and racial inequality. At the community level, infrastructure which often includes proximity to paved roads, availability of electricity, proximity to large markets, availability of schools and medical clinics, access to employment, social mobility and representation, and land distribution is a major determinant of poverty. The age structure of household members, education, gender of the household head, and the extent of Participation in the labor force is some of the important household and individual characteristics that relates to poverty (Haughton and Khandker, n.d).

As reviewed by Ulimwengu (2006), there are two broad categories of explanation about the problem of poverty. The individualist approach and the structuralism approach. The Individualist theories argue that individual choices matter above all, while the structuralism theories assert that socioeconomic structures constrain people’s choices and may inhibit them from developing and utilizing personal capacities to accumulate assets. He asserts that none of the approaches are sufficient independently, rather they augment one another to make the explanation complete.

According to the individualists view, responsibility for poverty is placed on the poor themselves who are thought to lack individual capacities such as attitude, motivation, and morals to overcome individual and social hurdles, and enabling them to generate enough assets. Culture of poverty theory, human capital theory, and status attainment theory are the prominent individualist theories of poverty that blame the poor themselves for remaining poor. These theories, however, neglect larger economic, social, and political structures‟ influences.

To this end, the structuralism approach to poverty focuses on those circumstances beyond individual control. Poor people are poor because they lack access to quality education, adequate health coverage, job opportunities, political participation, and by and large, they lack conducive environment (manmade or natural) necessary to get out of poverty. Poorly and ill functioning institutions and lack of good governance in developing countries in general and Somalia in particular undoubtedly are among the factors driving poverty in the regions. Cho and Kirwin (2007) also demonstrate a vicious circular relationship between mistrust in state and experience with corruption. Their result suggest that citizens‟ experience of corruption lowers their trust in political institutions and that lower levels of trust are likely to increase the experience of corruption. Levellee et.al (2008). And the perception that corruption is widespread have a negative impact on citizens‟ trust in political institutions.  The study by Kaufmann et.al (1999) about the effect of governance on per capita income in 173 countries, treating the „control of corruption‟ as one of the components of good governance, show a strong positive causal relationship running from improved governance to better development outcomes. A one standard deviation improvement in governance raised per capita income 2.4 to 4 times. Kaufmann and Kraay (2002), using governance data for 2000/01 particular to Latin America and Caribbean countries, found that better governance tends to yield higher per capita incomes. The study, on a sample of 97 developing countries over the period 1997-2006, by Negin et.al (2010) show that corruption and poverty go together with bidirectional causality. The results of all the specifications and the Granger causality test show that there is significant relationship between poverty and corruption.                                                     

2.2   THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVESTweet Widget

Two Theories of Poverty Matt Bruenig on July 28, 2014 Paul Ryan released In it, he proposes that a variety of federal means-tested welfare programs be turned into cash block grants to states, who would then be allowed to dole out the cash in exchange for recipients laying out a life contract for how they will increase their market incomes for a nosy case worker. As I explained on the day it came out, this is a bad idea, unnecessary, and seriously misunderstands the nature of American poverty.In response to Ryan, many commentators pointed out that people do not need life contracts to go on to boost their market incomes because they already do that (myself, Weissman, Bouie). These writers point out that people move in and out of poverty a lot. Even though the poverty rate stays pretty steady year to year, “poor people” are not the same people each year.Although these rebuttals have been fairly modest in scope, they actually lay bare a fundamental difference in the way right-wingers and left-wingers understand poverty.

2.2.1 THEORY ONE: POVERTY IS INDIVIDUAL

Paul Ryan wrote in 2014The right-wing view is that poverty is an individual phenomenon. On this view, people are in poverty because they are lazy, uneducated, ignorant, or otherwise inferior in some manner. If this theory were true, it would follow that impoverished people are basically the same people every year. And if that were true, we could whip poverty by helping that particular 15% of the population to figure things out and climb out of poverty. Thus, a program of heavy paternalistic life contracts to help this discrete underclass get things together might conceivably end or dramatically reduce poverty. Larker (1998),

2.2.2 THEORY TWO: POVERTY IS STRUCTURAL

The left-wing view is that poverty is a structural phenomenon. On this view, people are in poverty because they find themselves in holes in the economic system that deliver them inadequate income.  Paul Ryan in the 2014Because individual lives are dynamic, people don’t sit in those holes forever. One year they are in a low-income hole, but the next year they’ve found a job or gotten a promotion, and aren’t anymore. But that hole that they were in last year doesn’t go away. Others inevitably find themselves in that hole because it is a persistent defect in the economic structure. It follows from this that impoverished people are not the same people every year. It follows further that the only way to reduce poverty is to alter the economic structure so as to reduce the number of low-income holes in it. by David P. (1992).

2.2.3 THEORETICAL ASPECT OF CORRUPTION

One best way to look at corruption is when individuals act negates the moral principle

that guides their official obligations. Corruption thus cannot be devoided from breaching of

ethnical rules that bind the conduct of official duties. Every official position either in private or

public is guided by ethics and these ethics are there to regulate official conduct.

Several factors would make having a consensus on the causes and successful way of

combating corruption a bit problematic. Among these factors are according Agubamah (2009)

the uniqueness of each society and or country, the dynamic or changing nature of the socio

political and economic interactions within the global community and the differences in the

perception of corrupt practices by different academic disciplines.

One of the theories of corruption is the modernization theory. In the word of Huntington

1968, one of the theorist of modernization cited by Adefulu (2007) he observed that: the process

of economic and political development in modernizing societies tends to breed inequality,

political instability and corruption which may be defined simply in terms of the use of public

powers to achieve private goals.

Earnestly worked after the (1955) Bandung Conference of the Non-Aligned movement…

modernization theorists explained that: the causes, scale and incidence of corruption and corrupt

practices in pre-colonial African states in terms of the logic of patrimonialism, neo

patrimonialism, prebendalism, and patro-clientelism and the main proposition common to all

these theories of cooption centers on the view that extractive corruption in African (and

elsewhere in developing countries) is one of the unsalutary consequences of grafting modern

political structure and processes on indigenous socio political structures which function on the

basis of old values and obligation (ibid). Modell S. (2004.

In spite of the presumed benefits of mixed government pinpiontedlyl Sklar (2003) as

reported in Adefulu (2007) the incidence of corruption in Africa is seen as an outcome of the

behavior of public officials which deviates from the accepted norms, and which also signifies the

absence of effective political institutionalization that makes it difficult for these officials to

divorce their public roles from private ones, thus prompting them to subordinate their

institutional roles to exogenous demands’.

 

 

 

 

To Adefulu (ibid) Huntington’s way of show casing the orthodox theories of corruption

simply pictures the origin of the menace by justifying corruption based on parochial reasons in

terms of political under-development and in terms of the inclinations of traditional societies to

engage in what Clapham (1985) cited by Adefulu (2007) has described as the private of gift

giving which is believed to be almost universal in patrimonial societies. As robust as the

argument of the orthodox theories of patrimonialsm e.g. Huntington, is to explain and spiral the

reason for corruption in African states Nigeria a case study of patrimonialism, that, it breeds

inequality, political instability as believed to have caused by faulty process of economic and

political development, the concept of patrimonialism failed to tell us meaningful reason about the

actual causes and prevalence of corruption. This failure prompted Western liberal nalyssts to

operationalise another related concept tagged neo patrimonialism to explain the phenomenon.

The basic features of neo-patrimonialism as noted by Clapham (1985) and still reported by Adefulu (2007)

 

2.3   RELATED STUDIES

Poverty Just under one billion people in the world today live in extreme poverty. There are many dimensions to their deprivation, low and irregular incomes, lack of safe drinking water, poor housing, limited access to health and education, and social exclusion and discrimination. Their poverty makes them extremely vulnerable to life cycle, natural, or economic hazards. In many cases, extreme poverty persists over time. Pollitt C. (1995), “Management Techniques for the Public Sector.

 

Using a definition of chronic poverty as those people who remain under the poverty line for at least five years, approximately 400 million people in the world are chronically poor. The persistence of poverty over time eats into their assets and networks, undermining their resilience and voice. For a number of reasons, those affected by chronic and extreme poverty are often left out in policy initiatives. They are often harder to reach, require stronger and longer term support, and have limited political influenza. Singh A. (2003).

Poverty is a complex phenomenon. It is usually defined in relation to income, often measured in terms of per capita gross domestic product (GDP). Extreme poverty is often defined as an income of less than $1 per person per day in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP).2 Some researchers define Power, M. (1997), The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification, Oxford University Press.

poverty as the lowest income quintile in a referenced population. Critics argue that measuring

poverty in terms of GDP or PPP does not fully capture the phenomenon of poverty. A broader

definition treats poverty as multidimensional, including (i) low income, (ii) low levels of

education and health, (iii) vulnerability (to health or income loss, natural disaster, crime and

violence, and education curtailment) and (iv) voicelessness and powerlessness (feeling

discrimination, lacking income earning possibilities, mistreatment by state institutions, and

lacking status under the law) (World Bank, 2001). Many other indicators such as caloric intake

and female literacy are also used. While measuring poverty in terms of income level may seem

relatively straightforward, the multidimensional approach is more complex and involves factors

that are difficult to quantify. To manage this complexity, researchers have developed indices,such as the UNDP Human Poverty Index, which conceives of poverty in terms of longevity,knowledge, and economic provisioning.

 

Corruption Public sector corruption is commonly defined as the misuse of public office for private gain. The USAID Handbook for Fighting Corruption (1999) describes the various forms that corruption can assume: It encompasses unilateral abuses by government officials

such as embezzlement and nepotism, as well as abuses linking public and private actors such as bribery, extortion, influence peddling and fraud. Corruption arises in both political and bureaucratic offices and can be petty or grand, organized or disorganized. Corruption is inherently a secretive transaction and, thus, difficult to observe and measure. Several organizations – including the World Bank, Transparency International (TI), and Pricewaterhouse Coopers Foundation – have attempted to develop corruption indicators; all of them depend on aggregate surveys of citizens, businesses or experts and therefore base their results on perceptions of the problem as opposed to more objective data. While these measurement approaches have acknowledged reliability and validity problems, they are the best that we have for the time being (MSI, 2002; Johnston, 2000; Johnston and Kpundeh, 2002). In general, these are the indices employed in the poverty-corruption research. “Second generation” governance indicators currently under development may resolve some of the measurement and methodological issues.

 

 

 

CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

3.0 RESEARCH DESIGN:

This study was conducted through descriptive correlation research design. Correlation is a research design that determines whether or not, and to what extent an association exist between two or more paired and quantifiable variables (Oso&Onen, 2008). The main purpose of this study was to describe the variables and then explain the relationship between the two variables, effect of corruption and on poverty. This design is considered to be suitable for because it determines whether and to what degree a relationship exists between quantifiable variables. In addition, quantitative analysis was employed since the study is being aimed to investigate the the effect of corruption on poverty to gain feedback from government institutions and educational centers. The study was used questionnaire as research instrument to collect the data.

3.1 RESEARCH POPULATION:

In the first phase the researchers was selected different institutions including government institutions and education centers in the capital of Somalia. the research had a target population of all employee of the government institutions and educational centers.

NO Institutions Selected Employees
1 Minister of internal affairs. 18
2 Minister  of finance 12
3 Salaam university 9
4 Al-akhyar secondary school 6

 Table3.1 Source: Researchers, 2015

3.2 SAMPLE SIZE:

In view of the nature the target population where the number is too small to take a sample, we need almost the entire population to take all 45 of the target population as sample in order to achieve accuracy. As the sample size is equal to the population size, the variance is equal to zero. And the confidence that is needed in the findings, accuracy required and likely categories for analyses affects the size of the sample that needs to be collected. Statistical analyses usually require a minimum sample size of 30, Research question(s) and objectives that do not require statistical estimation may need far smaller samples” (Saunders, Lewis &Thomhill, 2009, p, 243).

3.3 SAMPLING PROCEDURE

The study will employ both purposive sampling technique and simple random sampling. The researcher will use purposive sampling to choose the respondents whom  believed that they have the relevant information. Purposive sampling was used to select the poverty area. On the other hand, simple random sampling will use to select the Mogadishu aria.

 

3.4 RESEARCH INSTRUMENT

This study was used questionnaire as a research instrument, questionnaire: “is a collection of items to which a respondent is expected to react in written” (Oso et al, 2005). Questionnaire is “a technique of data collection in which each person is asked to respond many countries of the world Fadzly and Ahmad (2004). the main purpose of questionnaire is to collect a lot of information over a short period of time (Oso et al, 2005). Because it is suitable if the population is large and time is limit. It also has a limitation of leading problem because they are one way communication, often there is no strong motivation for respondents to respond. The questionnaire of this study was adapted from study conducted by Erapu peter in the year 2011. The questionnaire was developed by examining prior literature depending mainly questionnaire used by ( Dr. A. C. Abimiku in the year 2010).

 

3.5 VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF THE INSTRUMENT:

The most important issue in the research is to ensure reliability and validity. Joppe (2000) to determine the reliably, accuracy of the research devised instruments for qualified respondents. All the respondents were included in this study. the questionnaire was administered and the quality being measured is stable, the results was  constant and essential the same in previous studies.

The questionnaire of this study was adapted from study conducted by Erapu peter in the year 2011, The researchers were made small modification because there is lack of the transparence of financial aspects then were distributed to the sample of this study.

After data has been collected using this study, researchers made data entry into SPSS version 16.0 then a reliability test was made and the result shows a chronbach’s alpha of 0.820 and this shows that it is reliable since there are some scholars who suggest that a chronbach‟s alpha of 0.71 is reliable, as it is argued by kathuri& palls (1993) the instrument with validity coefficient of at least 0.70 or 70% are accepted as valid in research.

 

 

3.6 DATA GATHERING PROCEDURE

Three sequences of data gathering procedures were implemented, before the administration of the questionnaire, during the administration of the questionnaire after administration of the questionnaire. The researchers gained an authority letter from faculty social science cy of SALAAM University to give the researchers an authorization of carrying out the research project after that the researchers was began by distributing the questionnaire to the population and the researchers were supported the respondents during data collection. The researchers also were request the respondents three matter, to sign informed consent, to answer all questions, not leave unanswered question, to avoid biases and to be objective in answering the questions.

The questionnaires within retrieved within five days. All questionnaires retrieved were checked if completely filled out. The data gathering was collated, encoding in to the computer and statistically treated using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) and connected with the objective of the study.

3.7 DATA ANALYSIS

Quantitative data analyses was conducted in this study, because the research instrument of this study is questionnaire, descriptive and correlation statistics was conducted in this study, because it can be utilized our objectives, inferential statistics specially correlation analysis is used when the researcher wants to predict and describe the association between two or more variables in terms of magnitude and direction, correlation is a measure of the degree of association between two or more scores, or two or more variables that have been obtained from the same group of subject  (Oso et al 2005).Statistical package for social science (SPSS) version 17.0 was used to analysis the data collection of this study, because it is not easy to analyze the data collected in a study manually without using any statistical packages.

 

3.8 ETHICAL CONSIDERATION

In general, ethics is defined as “systematic study of behavior based on moral principles, philosophical choice and value of right and wrong conduct” (Shaikh and Talha, 2003, p.159). In this study the researchers were considered the ethical issues throughout the research project, and were kept the openness, privacy and confidentiality of the respondent, to keep the ethical issues data given by the respondent were used only for academic purpose.

This research was fully conducted ethically and all copyright was observed and where permission is required to reproduce materials was sought, the researchers made sure that their opinion do not override other interest of the research rather than academic purpose and gave fair consideration.

 

3.9 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY:

This study has many limitations which may affect the generalization of the study, such limitations include: the geographical scope, the study was limited only in Mogadishu,the study also was limited only 45 respondents for all employees of  these institutions government institutions and education centers as a sample and as well as limitation of the population, the Potential research  need to cover large samples in the future research.

 

 

CHAPTER FOUR

4.0 PERSENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND ENTERPERTATION OF DATA

DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

This study examined the impact of corruption on poverty in Mogadishu; this was in the light of discovering this impacts. This chapter presents and illustrates the study analysis, which is the output of the questionnaire from the respondents to examine the research objectives. The chapter will contain data analysis, which is to be illustrated in graphical and tabular form.

4.1 DEMOGRAPHIC DATA

In general, 45 questionnaire were distributed incomplete the respondents three institutions two government institutions and two  education centers in which 64.4 of them are male respondents and 35.6 are female respondents. Also the study was discussed the age, educational level of employee institutions in Somalia especially institutions in Mogadishu.

4.1.1 Gender of the respondents

The sample was included 45 respondents who are working four institutions in Mogadishu. Table 4-1 shows that majority of the respondents of this study (64.4 %) were male while the other minority of the respondents (35.6%) were female. Hence majority of the employees in government and non governmental institutions are male.

 

 

 

 

Respondents of gender

 

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Male 29 64.4 64.4 64.4
Female 16 35.6 35.6 100.0
Total 45 100.0 100.0

 

Source: Primary Data 2015

According to table 4.1.there are 45 respondents, out of them 29 are male and 16 are female respondents. That is, sample consists of 64.4% of male respondents and 35.6% of female respondents.

4.1.2 Marital Status of the respondents

Both married and unmarried employees are included into the sample. Marital status of respondents of the sample is illustrated in the table 4:1.2. The table indicates that out of 45 respondents, 26 are married employees and rests or other 19 employees are unmarried.

 

 

 

 

Respondents of marital status

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Single 19 42.2 42.2 42.2
married 26 57.8 57.8 100.0
Total 45 100.0 100.0

 

Source: Primary Data 2015

According to table 4.1.2 there are 45 respondents, out of them 26 are married and 21 are single respondents. That is, sample consists of 57.8% of married respondents and 42.2% of single respondents, so this means that most employees of government and non governmental institutions are married.

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4.1.3 shows that there are 45 respondents, most of respondents 3 are secondary 8 are diploma , 24 are bachelor degree and 5are master degree, 1  respondents is PHD and another 4are others.

 

 

               Respondent’s educational level

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Secondary certificate 3 6.7 6.7 6.7
Diploma 8 17.8 17.8 24.4
Bachelor degree 24 53.3 53.3 77.8
Master degree 5 11.1 11.1 88.9
PHD 1 2.2 2.2 91.1
Others 4 8.9 8.9 100.0
Total 45 100.0 100.0

 

Source: Primary Data 2015

According to the above table there are 24 of the respondents have bachelor degree, and 8 have diploma, 3 have secondary certificate, 5 have master degree, 1 have PHD while another 4 have other experience. That is, sample consists of 53.3% are bachelor respondents and 17.8% are diploma, 11.1 % are master degree,8.9 % are others experience, 2.2 %  has PHD and 6.7 %  are secondary respondents.

So the majority respondents have bachelor degree 53.3%.

4.1.4 Age of the respondents

The respondents were asked to indicate their ages in the questionnaire and the offered choices classified the age into eight parts, part one was intended for those whose age in between 18-25 years, part two was for those who are in between 26-33 years, part three for those between 34-41 years, and finally part are more than 40 years.

The following table illustrated the collected results for the age of the respondents in accordance with the above five parts.

          Age’s respondents
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 18-25 8 17.8 17.8 17.8
26-33 11 24.4 24.4 42.2
34-41 19 42.2 42.2 84.4
more than 42 7 15.6 15.6 100.0
Total 45 100.0 100.0

 

Source: Primary Data 2015

 

According to the above table there are 18-25 are 8 respondents, 26-33 are11 respondents, 34-41 are 19 respondents, more than 42 are7 respondents. That is, sample consists 34-41 are 42.2%, the next 26-33 are 24.4% , 18-25 are 17.8% , and more than 42 are 15.6 so the majority respondent’s  age are 34-41 of 42.2%.

4.2 MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF FACTORS EFFECT OF CORRUPTION VOLUME

The first objective of this study were to determine factors that affect of corruption volume on poverty in Mogadishu Somalia, therefore , the following table presents questions related factors that effect on corruption  volume.

Table 4.2:  the factors that affect on the corruption.

 

Descriptive Statistics
N Range Mean Std. Deviation
1= The major strategy that corruption reduce are Accountability and transparency. 44 4 2.05 1.140
2=Corruption increase poverty and makes more persistence. 45 3 1.87 .757
3=Corruption lowers compliance with construction environmental or other regulations reduces the quality of the government service and infrastructure. 45 4 2.04 .928
4=Corruption can facilitate criminal enterprise such as trafficking, money, drugs, and money laundering. 45 4 1.89 .982
5=Corruption causes legislature and judiciary to be weak. 45 4 1.67 .905
Total 9.52 4.72

Source: primary data 2015

According to the above table 4.2 presented the factors effect of corruption volume were scored High mean 9.52 overall and standard deviation of 4.72, these result indicates that there is highly effect  corruption volume in Mogadishu Somalia.

The major strategy that corruption can reduce are accountability and transparency mean 2.05 and standard deviation 1.140 indicates that there is corruption in Mogadishu institutions.

Corruption increase poverty and makes more persistence mean 1.87and standard deviation of .757 indicates that corruption  were highly effect on units produced.

Corruption lowers compliance with construction environmental or other regulations reduces the quality of the government service and infrastructure means 2.04 and standard deviation of .928 indicates that corruption were highly effect.

Corruption can facilitate criminal enterprise such as trafficking, money, drugs, and money laundering mean 1.89 and standard deviation of .982 indicates that Mogadishu  facilitate  criminal enterprise such drugs.

Corruption causes legislature and judiciary to be weak mean 1.67 and standard deviation of .905 indicates that corruption in Mogadishu cause legislature to be weak.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.3 MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION ON THE EFFACT OF POVERTY

The Second objective of this study was to determine the level of poverty in selected government institutions and educational sectors in Mogadishu Somalia therefore, the following table presents questions related level of effected poverty.

Table 4.3: level of effect of poverty

N Range Mean Std. Deviation
1=There are direct relationship corruption and poverty because corruption increase poverty. 45 4 2.24 1.334
2=Corruption workers against economic development, growth, equity, poverty reduction and social welfare.

 

45 4 2.20 1.272
3=Corruption minimize the ability of the government to reduce poverty. 45 4 2.11 1.172
4=Poverty has various manifestations’ including lack of income, productive resource insufficient to the sustainable lives hoods, hunger, malnutrition and ill health. 45 5 2.09 1.258
5=Among national and regional characteristics that effect poverty good governance economic and environmental policy. 45 4 2.04 1.107
Total 10.69 6.143

Source: primary data 2015

According to the above table 4.3 presented the level of poverty was scored highly mean 10.69 overall and standard deviation 6.143, that result indicates that Mogadishu government institutions and educational sectors.

There are direct relationship corruption and poverty because corruption increase poverty mean 2.24 overall and standard deviation of 1.334, that result indicates the government institutions and educational sectors they have direct relationship corruption and poverty.

Corruption workers against economic development, growth, equity, poverty reduction and social welfare mean 2.20 overall and standard deviation of 1.272 that result indicates that corruption workers against development, growth and etc.

Corruption minimize the ability of the government to reduce poverty mean 2.11 overall and standard deviation of 1.258 that result indicates the corruption minimize the ability of the government to reduce poverty.

Poverty has various manifestations including lack of income, productive resource insufficient to the sustainable lives hoods, hunger, malnutrition and ill health mean 2.09 overall and standard deviation of 1.258 that result indicates poverty has various manifestation including lack of income.

Among national and regional characteristics that effect poverty good governance economic and environmental policy mean 2.04 and its standard deviation is 1.107 that result indicates regional characteristic that effect poverty.

 

 

    4.4 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CORRUPTION AND POVERTY

The relationship between corruption and poverty is bidirectional, meaning corruption has a statistically significant effect on poverty and poverty also has a significant effect on corruption. Causality test results also show that bidirectional causality exists between them. It is shown that corruption Granger-causes poverty, and poverty also Granger-causes corruption. This indicates that the severity of one may increase unless the other is carefully managed. Higher rural population which is characterized by underdeveloped facilities also exerts negative pressure on poverty Political instability and violence also positively contributes to the problem of corruption since the high probability of a government to be overthrown by unconstitutional and violent means strengthen the reluctance of corrupt officials to work in a justice/fair environment. If the capacity of the government to formulate and implement sound policies is weak, corruption flourishes. Likewise, the significant coefficient of government effectiveness indicates that the quality of civil services, public services, and their independence from political pressure matters in efforts towards combating corruption. Poor quality of the services is associated with increased corruption and vice versa.  In a nutshell, corruption and poverty have a significant relationship with bidirectional causality running in both directions. For both corruption and poverty,

governance matters. Voice and accountability, regulatory quality, rule of law, political stability and absence of violence, and government effectiveness independently and significantly affects corruption. This, therefore, adds to the literature that governance factors affects poverty may be through their impact on corruption and hence on economic factors.

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER FIVE

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.0 FINDINGS

  • There is strong relationship between corruption and poverty.
  • The corruption can increase poverty level.
  • Corruption works against economic development, growth, equity, poverty reduction, and social welfare.
  • Poverty has various manifestations, including lack of income and productive resources sufficient to ensure sustainable livelihoods; hunger and malnutrition; ill health; limited.
  • Among the national/regional characteristics that affect poverty are good governance, economic and environmental policy
  • Corruption causes legislature and the judiciary to be weak.
  • The Corruption can facilitate criminal enterprise such as drug trafficking, money laundering
  • Corruption lowers compliance with construction environmental or other regulations, reduces the quality of the government service and infrastructure.
  • The major Strategies to reduce corruption are Transparency and accountability.

                                             

 

 

5.1 CONCLUSIONS

Poverty is serious problem that faces human being in different cycle, it can be lack of necessary goods such as food shelter cloth and also causes to increase mortality of the children, Increased morbidity and mortality from illnesses; homelessness and inadequate housing; unsafe environments and social discrimination and exclusion. It is also characterized by a lack of participation in decision-making and in civil, social and cultural life …. Absolute poverty is a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information. It depends not only on income but also on access to services.

Corruption is worse in countries where institutions, such as the legislature and the judiciary are weak, where rule of law and adherence to formal rules are not rigorously observed, where political patronage is standard practice, where the independence and professionalism of the public sector has been eroded and where civil society lacks the means to bring public pressure to bear.

This paper studies the relationship between corruption and poverty, corruption and the causal link between them. In order to achieve the result from multicollinearity test conducted prior to other econometric analysis shows no multicollinearity problem in all of our models.  The estimation results show that the relationship between corruption and poverty is bidirectional, meaning corruption has a statistically significant effect on poverty and poverty also has a significant effect on corruption. Causality test results also show that bidirectional causality exists between them. It is shown that corruption Granger-causes poverty, and poverty also Granger-causes corruption. This indicates that the severity of one may increase unless the other is carefully managed. Higher rural population which is characterized by underdeveloped facilities also exerts negative pressure on poverty.

 

 

 

5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS

  • Creation job opportunities to the Somali youth, who were straggling basic needs of the life.
  • Getting functioning government that can control and guard the corruption of the country can made allot of awareness to remove this bad act.
  • The international community must cooperate with local administration to fight against the corruption.
  • Poverty can eliminate to give civil society micro finance to great their own business.
  • The Corruption of Mogadishu Somalia can minimize to make committee those are monitoring and controlling government institutions.

5.3 AREAS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

  • The effect of corruption on the public sectors service.
  • The effect of corruption on the governmental institutions and non governmental institutions.
  • The impact of the level corruption on the level of

 

 REFERENCES

Ades A. and R. Di Tella (1999), “Rents, Competition, and Corruption”, the American Economic Review, 89: 4, 982-993.

African Development Bank Group (2003), “Combating Corruption in Africa” Proceedings of the regional learning workshop, African Union conference center, Addis Ababa.

Africa Development Indicators (2010), “Silent and Lethal: How Quiet Corruption Undermines Africa’s Development”, the World Bank.

Aidt T.S. (2003), “Economic Analysis of Corruption: A survey”, The Economic Journal,

113:491, F632 – F652.

Ampratwum E.F. (2008), “The Fight against Corruption and Its Implications for Development in developing and Transition Economies”, Journal of Money Laundering Control11:1, 76-87.

Components”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 76, 598-606.

Anoruo E. and H. Braha (2005), “Corruption and Economic Growth: the African Experience”, Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, Vol.7, issue 1.

Bardhan P. (1997), “Corruption and Development: A Review of Issues”, American Economic Association, Journal of Economic Literature, 35: 3, 1320-1346.

Bayley D.H. (1966), “The Effects of Corruption in a Developing Nation”, the Western Political Quarterly, Vol.19, No. 4, 719 – 732.

Beck P.J. and M.W. Maher (1985), “A Comparison of Bribery and Bidding in Thin Markets”, Economics Letters 20, 1 – 5.

Braun M. and R. Di Tella (2000), “Inflation and Corruption”, Working paper 00-053, Harvard University.

Chang E.C.C. and Yun-han Chu (2006), “Corruption and Trust: Exceptionalism in Asian Democracies?”, The Journal of Politics, vol.68, no. 2, 259-271.

Chetwynd E., F. Chetwynd, and B. Specter, (2003), “Corruption and Poverty: A Review of Recent Literature”, Management System International Final report, Washington DC.

Cho W. and M. Kirwin (2007), “A Vicious Circle of Corruption and Mistrust in Institutions in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Micro-level Analysis”, Afro-Barometer Working Paper, No.71.

Choudhary K. (2010), “The Impact of Corruption on Growth: an Empirical Analysis in the Indian Context”, Asian Journal of Public Affairs, Vol.8 No.2. 

Dincer O.C, and B. Gunalp (2008), “Corruption, Income Inequality, and Poverty in the United States”, Nota Di Lavoro Series, htpp://www.ssrn.com=1158446.

Dollar D. and R. Gatti (1999), “Gender Inequality, Income, and Growth: Are Good Times Good for Women?”, working paper series No.1, Policy research paper, World Bank.

Gray Cheryl W. and D. Kaufmann (1998), “Corruption and Development”, Journal of Finance and Development, March issue.

Grindle M.S. (2007), “Good Enough Governance Revisited”, Development Policy Review, 25(5): 553-575.

Gupta S., H. Davoodi, and R. Alonso-Terme (1998), “Does Corruption Affect Income

Inequality and Poverty?”, IMF working paper, 98: 76.

Gyimah-Brempong K. (2002), “Corruption, Economic Growth, and Income Inequality in

Africa”, Economics of Governance, 3, 183 – 209.

Handley G., K. Higgis and B. Sharma, and K. Bird and D. Commack (2009), “Poverty and Poverty Reduction in Sub-Saharan Africa: An Overview of Key Issues”, Overseas Development Institute (ODI) working paper 299.

Haughton D. and Khandker (n.d), “Understanding the Determinants of Poverty”, Chapter 8.

http//www.worldbank.org/PGL/Resources/PMch8.pdf.

Herath G. (2005), “Analysis of the Potential and Problems of New-Institutional Economics for Third World Development”, International Journal of Social Economics, 32: 10,877-892. 9.

Huntington S.P. (1968), “Political Order in Changing Societies”, New Heaven: Yale University Press.

Islam N. (1998), “Small Sample performance of Dynamic Panel Data Estimators: a Monte Carlo Study on the Basis of Growth Data”, seminar paper, Harvard University.

Jain A.K. (2001), “Corruption: A Review”, Journal of Economic Surveys, Vol.15, No.1.

Johnston M. (1986), “The Political Consequences of Corruption: A Reassessment”, Journal of Comparative Politics, 18: 4, 459-477.  (2000), “Corruption and Democratic Consolidation”, conference paper on „corruption and Democracy‟, Princeton University.

Jung, H. and H. U. Kwon (2007), “An Alternative GMM Estimation in Dynamic Panel

Models”, Discussion Paper Series No.217, Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo.

Kerstedt S. (2001), “The Culture of Inequality and Corruption: A Cross-cultural Analysis of Corruption”, http://www.aic.gov.au/conferences/2.pdf

Kaufman D. (1997), “Corruption: The Facts”, Foreign Policy, No. 107(summer), 114-131.

Kaufmann D. and A. Kraay (2002), “Growth without Governance”, World Bank.

Kaufmann D., A. Kraay, and M. Mastruzzi (2010), “The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology and Analytical Issues”, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 5430.

Kaufmann D., A. Kraay, and P. Zoido-Loboton (1999), “Governance Matters”, World Bank Policy Research working paper 2196.

Khemani M. (2009), “Anti-Corruption Commissions in the African State: Burying the Problem or Addressing the Issue”, http:/ssrn.com.

Knack S. and Ph. Keefer (1998), “Why Don’t Poor Countries Catch-Up?, A Cross-National Test of an Institutional Explanation”, reprint No. 79, IRIS center, University of Maryland.

Kumsa A. and I.M. Mbeche (2004), “The Role of Institutions in the Development Process of African Countries”, International Journal of Social Economics, 31: 9, 840-854.

Kurer O. (1993), “Clientelism, Corruption, and the Allocation of Resources”, journal of public Choice, Vol.77, No. 2, 259-273.

Lawal G. (2007), “Corruption and Development in Africa: Challenges for Political and

Economic Change”, Humanity and Social Science journal, Vol.2, No.1, 01-07.

Lambsdorff J.G. (2003), “How Corruption Affects Persistent Capital Flows”, Economics of Governance 4, 229 – 243.

Leff N.H. (1964), “Economic Development through Bureaucratic Corruption”, American Behavioral Scientist, 8: 8-14.

Levellee E., M. Razafindrakoto, and F. Roubaud (2008), “Corruption and Trust in Political Institutions in Sub-Saharan Africa, DIAL 4, http://www.dial.prd.fr  Leys C. (1965), “What is the Problem about Corruption?”, The Journal of Modern African  Studies, vol. 3, No. 2, 215 – 230.

Li H., L.C. Xu, and H. Zou (2000), “Corruption, Income Distribution, and Growth”, Journal of Economic and Politics, Vol.15, No.2, 155 – 181.

Lien D.H.D. (1986), “A Note on Competitive Bribery Games”, Economic Letters 22, 337 – 41.

Lui F.T. (1985), “An Equilibrium Queuing Model of Bribery”, the Journal of

Political Economy, Vol.93, No. 4, 760-781.

Mattes Robert (2008), “The Maternal and Political Bases of Lived Poverty in Africa: Insights from the Afro Barometer”, Afro Barometer working paper, no. 98.

Mauro P.(1995), “Corruption and Growth”, the Quarterly Journal of Economics110: 3,681-712. ____________ (1996), “The Effects of Corruption on Growth, Investment, and Government Expenditure”, IMF working paper 98.

Meon PG. and K. Sekkat (2005), “Does Corruption Grease or Sand the Wheels of Growth?”,  Springer journal, public choice 122:69-97.

N‟ZUE Fofana F. and C.J. Francis N‟GUESSAN (2005), “The Causality between Corruption, Poverty and Growth: A panel Data Analysis”, working paper series Les cahiers du SISERA -1.

Nbaku J.M. (2008), “Corruption Cleanups in Africa: Lessons from Public Choice Theory”, Journal of Asian and African Studies, 43: 427.

Negin V., Abd Rashid Z., and Nikopour H.(2010), “The Causal Relationship between

Corruption and Poverty: a panel data analyses”, Munich Personal RePEc  Archive paper No. 24871.

Pelligrini L. and R. Gerlagh (2004), “Corruption’s Effect on Growth and its Transmission 74 Channels”, Kyklos Vol.57, No.3, 429 – 456.

Pillay S. (2004), “Corruption-the challenge to good governance: a South African perspective”, International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol.17, No.7, 586 – 605.

Ravallion, M. (1996), “Issues in Measuring and Modeling Poverty”, World Bank policy

Research Working paper 1615. (1997), “Can High-Inequality Developing Countries Escape Absolute Poverty?”, Economics Letters 56, 51 – 57. Razafindrakoto M. and F. Roubaud (2007), “Corruption, Institutional Discredit, and Exclusion of the Poor: A Poverty Trap”, Afro Barometer working paper 86.

Roemer M. and M.K. Gugerty (1997), “Does Economic Growth Reduce Poverty?” Technical paper, Harvard Institute for International Development. Roodman, D. (2006), “How to do xtabond2: An Introduction to Difference and System GMM in Stata”, Center for Global Development Working Paper number 103. Rose-Ackerman S. (1997), “High-Level Rent Seeking and Corruption in African Regimes:

Theory and cases”, World Bank group. Sardan J.P. Olivier de (1999), “A moral Economy of Corruption in Africa” the journal of modern African studies, 37: 1, 25-52. Shah A. (2006), “Corruption and Decentralized Public Governance” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, 3824. Shleifer A. and W. Vishny (1993), “Corruption”, MIT Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 108, No. 39(aug.), 599-617. Sirvastava M. (2009), “Good Governance-concept, meaning and Features: A detailed study”, social science research working paper series, No.NA. Tanzi V. (1998), “Corruption around the World: Causes, Consequences, Scope, and Curse”, IMF working paper 63. Tanzi V. and H. Davoodi (1997), “Corruption, Public Investment, and Growth”, IMF working Paper65.

Transparency International (2008), “Poverty and Corruption”, working paper 2.

Transparency International (2009), “Corruption perceptions index 2009”, Annual Report. http:/www.transparency.org.

Ulimwengu J.M. (2006), “Persistent and Transitory Poverty across Locations in the United States”, PhD Dissertation, Ohio State University. Economist Ian Senior

UNDP (2010), “The Real Wealth of Nations: Pathways to Human Development”, Human Development Report, 20th Anniversary Edition.

Voskanyan F.(2000), “A study of the Effects of Corruption on Economic and Political

Development of Armenia”, Master’s essay, American University of Armenia.

Windmeijer, F.(2000), “A Finite Sample Correction for the Variance of Linear Two-Step GMM Estimators”, Institute for Fiscal Studies Working Paper Series No. Woo/19, London.

World Bank (2000c), “Anticorruption in Transition: A Contribution to the Policy Debate”, the World Bank, Washington D.C.

You J.S. and S. Khangram (2005), “A Comparative Study of Inequality and Corruption”

American Sociological Review Vol.70, No.1, 136 – 157.

Zemanovicova D., Sicakova E., and Beblavy M. (2002), “Obstacles to Open and Honest Government: an Overview of Corruption”, Transparency International Slovakia.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDICES

QUESTIONNAIRE

I am a graduate student at SALAAM University (SU). I am conducting this study in fulfillment of the requirement for the award of Bachelor of Public Administration. Also I am Carrying out a study on the topic: the importance of public sector management service delivery in some selected government institutions in Mogadishu-Somalia.

Answering this questionnaire is a valuable contribution. The information is only required for academic purpose and its confidentiality is highly guaranteed.

  1. Gender (tick only one)

Male                 Female

  1. Marital status (tick only one)

Single                          married

  1. Education level (tick only one)

Certificate                             Diploma                   PHD

Bachelor’s degree           Master’s degree               Others

  1. Age (tick only one)

18– 25                                        26– 33

34-41                               more than 42

Answer the following questions by ranking the different options on a Liker scale of 1 – 5, where:

(1) = Strongly agree

(2) = Agree

(3) = Neutral

(4) = Disagree

(5) = Strongly disagree

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please tick the best respond to your satisfaction.

Variable SA (1) A(2) N(3) DA(4) SD(5)
1.    Major strategy that corruption can reduce are accountability and transparency.
2.    Corruption increase poverty and makes more persistence
3.    Corruption lowers compliance with construction environmental or other regulations, reduces the quality of the government service and infrastructure.
4.     Corruption can facilitate criminal enterprises such as trafficking, money, drugs and money laundering
5.    Corruption minimizes the ability of the government to reduce poverty.
6.    Corruption causes legislature and judiciary to be weak.
7.    Among national and regional characteristics that effect poverty are good governance economic, and environmental policy.
8.    Poverty has various manifestations including lack of income, productive resources insufficient to the sustainable lives hoods, hunger, malnutrition and ill health.
9.    Corruption workers against economic development, growth, equity, poverty reduction and social welfare.

 

10.                       There are direct relationship corruption and poverty because corruption increases poverty.

 

Xuseenkheyr@yahoo.com
Mob:0615139065

FADLAD KA DHIIBO FIKIRKAAGA QEYBTA HOOSE