The economics of corruption

 In a country where the Corruption Perceptions Index of 2012 was ranked 69 (#1 being the least perceived corrupt country in the world), we, Brazilians, often see uncovered corruption scandals on the news and how there should be measures taken about it. In addition, people usually associate "corruption" as being related to the government; there are even some who define this term as being "an abuse of power by a public official for private gain." Although this is certainly a type of corruption, someone who bribes a boxer to purposefully lose a match to win a bet is also committing a form of corruption -- and there is nothing public about that. And this is one of the many reasons why corruption is not something "black and white" in society, which leads us to one of the knowledge issues linked to this question, "how do we know what is corrupt?" and "how does perception affect the way people view corruption?" Another term that needs to be defined is what exactly is to live a "good" life. As we study a variety of the most prominent philosophers of our time, when developing an ethical philosophy, it is common to mention reaching happiness as being good. But not even this handful of intellectuals could come to an agreement of what exactly is happiness. That is why the study of economics and the theory of utilitarianism will help us answer the question of "Is it possible to live a good life in a corrupt society?"
     In the study of economics, many assumptions about humans and how they make decisions were developed over time in order to facilitate economists' job of making conclusions about a certain topic. The first one states that people are rational and make decisions that will maximize their "utility," which is the economists' way of measuring, per se, happiness. Another assumption made by economists is that information is perfect and consistent to everyone -- which means that people know exactly what they are "getting into" when they make a decision. However, we all know that to assume these things actually happens in "real life" is to be very naive. In relation to corruption, if information was actually perfect, the people committing these scandals would have been long sent to jail by now. 
     As people study countries economically as a whole, on the other hand, and begin to notice trends, conclusions become more realistic. There is a branch of studies called "economic development" which deals with the concept of low-income countries promoting the increase of standard of living of the population, where they take into account indices of health, education, among other rates. This pertains to the "good life" part of the question, where there is a mathematic approach to knowing whether someone is living a good life or not, one of the areas of knowledge. In addition, a relationship between reduction of corruption and economic development has been highly accepted over time. Statistically, this trend is clear; however, there is more than meets the numbers. One of the main criticisms in regards to creating conclusions off of one of the most used indexes, the Human Development Index (HDI), which composes of statistics of life expectancy, education, and income indices, is the fact that, although it draws attention from governments, there is no way it could possibly "calculate" each individual's happiness and take these into account. This well-being index could say that a country has one of the worst indices of well-being for the population overall (possibly because of the gnawing corruption issues inside the government, for instance) -- but it takes one really happy person (read: living a "good" life) to disprove this index, making it very possible to live a good life in a corrupt society, just like disproving a deduction argument. 
     Utility in economics and utility in ethics have similar principles; they are both a measure of happiness. However, the theory of utilitarianism in the eyes of philosophers such as Jeremy Bentham or John Stuart Mill, utility contrasts with economics in that it also takes into account the good of all -- not just of the individual. For a "good" life, in their opinion, corruption is completely out of the question. Mathematically, it is easy to estimate how much money has been taken from the people due to corruption in Brazil, which is just one step from estimating how many schools could have been created, or how many doctors could have been better paid in public hospitals. The concept of corruption is completely out of question in a Utilitarian's eyes because of the number of people that are affected by this occurrence, making it completely unethical. However, Bentham was greatly influenced by Hobbes' way of interpreting human nature; he understands and acknowledges that humans are driven by both pleasure and pain, calling these ethical columns the "two sovereign masters." Bentham even states that it is in human nature to seek pleasure and avoidance of pain. As soon as we go deeper in to the roots of what drives an individual to make a decision, contrary to the utilitarian belief, we start to notice that people who corrupt may possibly live a good life -- especially if he/she does not foresee any direct consequences with him/her or with anyone for that matter. So, if someone who steals public money genuinely thinks that this will not be bad for the population and knows that this will give him/her pleasure, then isn't that utilitarian after all? Although the utilitarian theory may seem as mathematical and straightforward as 1+1=2, it actually needs to take into account of the perception of the "corrupter" and the "corrupted." And again, going back to the rules of deduction, it only takes one person to think it is bad to steal money from the public share, and it the utilitarian thought is out of question once again. 
     As we saw in both ways of exploring utility, economically and ethically, perception plays a big role in both theories of utilitarianism, whether the intellectuals who developed them knew it or not! Mathematically is only one way of perceiving happiness and if someone is living a "good" life, such as the complex economic HDI or the Bentham's simple "whatever will do more good goes" theory. Overall, it is definitely possible to live a good life in a corrupt society.