Tag Archives: China

Twelve Years Later, Did China’s Sweeping Anticorruption Campaign Deliver?

Posted on by
Reply

When Xi Jinping rose to power as General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party in 2012, he kicked off a sweeping campaign to eliminate corruption across government. Xi vowed to discipline both “tigers” and “flies” — high-ranking party leaders and low-level bureaucrats — and warned officials of the risk that corruption posed to the government’s legitimacy. Official efforts to address corruption were hardly new in China, but Xi’s anticorruption drive was notable for its aggressive enforcement and willingness to pursue even the most powerful. Xi empowered and expanded the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI), the highest supervisory organ of the party, while also reorganizing the government to create a new National Supervisory Commission (NSC) that would unify the state’s anticorruption enforcement. Xi’s enforcers employed harsh rhetoric, seeking to deter corruption by strict enforcement. Twelve years later, millions of officials have been disciplined or purged, including top party figures such as former Chongqing party chief Bo Xilai and former security minister Zhou Yongkang. Under China’s draconian criminal justice system, such defendants stand little chance. And private individuals have not been spared, with prominent industry and business leaders caught up in bribery and corruption investigations. On top of this sweeping crackdown, Xi has taken steps to permanently institutionalize anticorruption across the party and government.

In many respects, Xi has done much of what anticorruption practitioners advocate for: He has prioritized anticorruption at the highest level of government, increased enforcement dramatically, and reformed both government and political institutions. There are signs that his anticorruption efforts have paid off. Public perception of government has improved, with officials wary of ostentatious consumption of luxury goods and other openly corrupt behavior. Xi himself declared overwhelming victory in the fight against corruption in early 2024.

Yet despite the impressive numbers, Xi’s campaign has failed to address the underlying dynamics driving corruption in China. Indeed, the fact that anticorruption authorities continue to catch record-breaking numbers of corrupt officials at all levels of government may be a warning sign, not a marker of success. While Xi’s campaign is viewed in some quarters as a model for top-down, government-led anticorruption campaigns, China’s experience over the last dozen years also highlights the inherent limitations of that approach.

Continue reading →

Cautious Optimism: Leveraging Free Trade Agreements as Anticorruption Tools

Posted on by
Reply

The international trading system has had a dire decade. There has been a stunning drop-off in the growth of global trade, and the most recent World Trade Organization Ministerial Conference did little, if anything, to halt the multilateral trading system’s decline. Yet anticorruption policy’s place in international trade negotiations has never been stronger. Many of the most prominent regional free trade agreements (FTAs) that have either come into force or been the subject of intense negotiations over the last half-decade have featured remarkably strong anticorruption provisions. The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which came into force in 2020 as a replacement for NAFTA, included entirely new anticorruption protections alongside only modest, technocratic tweaks to actual barriers to cross-border trade. The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), the post-2016 replacement for the U.S.-led Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), includes almost all of the anticorruption provisions that the U.S. championed in the TPP. The negotiations for an Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF), though much maligned for their failure to coalesce around meaningful trade liberalization, nevertheless produced a “Fair Economy” pillar that includes substantial initiatives aimed at fighting corruption. And these are not the only examples: Indeed, there has been a general increase in anticorruption provisions in FTAs and bilateral investment treaties.

Of course, lumping all of these different provisions together is a bit misleading, because the “anticorruption” provisions in FTAs take a wide variety of forms. Many, including the anticorruption provisions of the USMCA and the CPTPP, commit members to adopting laws that either directly criminalize certain behavior (bribery, facilitation payments, etc.) or require that firms adopt transparency measures, such as regular financial disclosures. Other FTAs, like the IPEF or the World Customs Organization’s Anti-Corruption and Integrity Promotion (A-CIP) Program, focus on capacity building through information sharing, technical assistance, and training programs. Still others, like the African Continental Free Trade Area (which is still being negotiated), attempt to tackle corruption in trade through measures like simplifying and automating the customs process. Yet despite this diversity, it is fair to say that anticorruption is now firmly part of the international trade agenda—thanks in large part to sustained advocacy by pro-transparency and anticorruption advocates since the 1990s.

While the incorporation of anticorruption provisions in FTAs has obvious symbolic importance, we don’t yet know as much about the practical impact of these provisions. This is partly because it’s just too soon to make such assessments: Other than a few exceptional cases, the inclusion of anticorruption language in FTAs is a relatively recent phenomenon). Very few studies have engaged in empirical assessments of how FTA anticorruption commitments actually fare as anticorruption tools in practice. But the limited evidence we do have appears encouraging:

Continue reading →

The Price of Rhetoric: Anticorruption Narratives and Violence Against Doctors in China

Posted on by
2

In China, violence against doctors and other healthcare professionals has become a worrisome trend. Much as Americans have gotten depressingly used to the expression “school shooting,” Chinese citizens are now familiar with “hospital stabbings.” While still quite rare events relative to China’s enormous population, these incidents are both troubling in themselves and indicative of larger problems, including distrust and anger toward medical professionals and the healthcare establishment.

Could this distrust and anger have something to do with the rhetoric that has accompanied some of China’s high-profile anticorruption campaigns? It is hard, perhaps impossible, to prove a direct link, but consider the following suggestive evidence: Continue reading →

Would the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act Help the U.S. Counter China?

Posted on by
2

The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) makes it a criminal offense for U.S. domestic concerns, firms that issue U.S. and any anyone acting in U.S. territory from offering or paying bribes to foreign government officials. The FCPA does not, however, apply to the foreign officials who receive those bribes. (On occasion some prosecutors have advanced the theory that a foreign government official who takes a bribe can be convicted for aiding and abetting, or conspiring in, an FCPA violation, but courts have generally rejected these theories.) Additionally, while U.S. criminal law prohibits domestic government officials from soliciting or accepting bribes, the relevant statutory provisions do not apply to foreign officials who engage in comparable conduct.

Many U.S. anticorruption activists believe that U.S. law ought to target the demand side of foreign bribery transactions (that is, the bribe-takers), not just the supply side, and have therefore advocated for the adoption of the so-called Foreign Extortion Prevention Act (FEPA). These advocacy efforts appear to be paying off: In late July, the Senate adopted FEPA as an amendment to the Senate’s version of the National Defense Authorization Act. This does not guarantee that FEPA will become law, as the House of Representatives has yet to vote on a comparable bill, and there is no guarantee that the FEPA language will remain in the bill after final negotiations conclude. But the odds have gone up significantly.

Would FEPA be a good idea? I think the answer is probably yes, though the impact is likely to be modest, and probably somewhat less than FEPA’s proponents hope. I may post again later about my own assessment of FEPA’s likely impact, should it pass in something like its current form. But for now, I want to focus on a striking argument in favor of FEPA that appeared in an op-ed a couple of weeks ago. That op-ed, coauthored by Elaine Dezenski (Senior Director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies) and Scott Greytak,(Director of Advocacy at Transparency International’s US office), argued that FEPA would “blunt China’s malign economic influence” by countering the practice of Chinese government or government-affiliated entities using bribes to secure access to valuable resources and to expand China’s political sway over developing countries.

There are many good arguments in favor of FEPA, but I’m not sure that this is one of them. I don’t want to dismiss it outright, as it’s entirely possible that I’ve missed something. But it seems to me that FEPA would have little to no impact on corrupt overseas bribery by Chinese entities, and at least in the short term might make that problem (slightly) worse. So let me lay out the source of my confusion: Continue reading →

New Podcast Episode, Featuring Andrew Wedeman

Posted on by
Reply
A new episode of KickBack: The Global Anticorruption Podcast is now available. In latest episode, host Dan Hough interviews Andrew Wedeman, Professor of Political Science at Georgia State University, about the politics of anticorruption campaigns in China, including the aggressive anticorruption campaign instigated by President Xi Jinping. Professor Wedeman discusses the effects this campaign has had on Chinese society at all levels, and assesses the evidence as to whether the campaign has made meaningful progress in getting corruptino under control. The conversation also touches on some of the challenges in researching these issues in China. You can also find both this episode and an archive of prior episodes at the following locations: KickBack was originally founded as a collaborative effort between GAB and the Interdisciplinary Corruption Research Network (ICRN). It is now hosted and managed by the University of Sussex’s Centre for the Study of Corruption. If you like it, please subscribe/follow, and tell all your friends!

From the World Cup to the Olympics: Why Are International Sporting Events So Corrupt?

Posted on by
4

The recently-concluded FIFA World Cup in Qatar has served as yet another reminder of the corruption that seems to accompany the awarding of hosting rights for major international sporting events. According to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), in 2010 representatives of Qatar bribed three South American FIFA officials to win the run-off vote against the United States to host the 2022 World Cup. And this came after two members of the FIFA selection committee had already been barred from voting after they had been caught agreeing to sell their votes. This was not an isolated incident. The DOJ also alleged that Russia bribed FIFA officials to host the 2018 World Cup, and indeed more than half of those FIFA officials involved in the 2018 and 2022 host country votes—including FIFA’s then-president Sepp Blatter—have been accused of improper behavior. Nor has this sort of behavior been limited to FIFA. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has had numerous similar scandals. The IOC has launched an investigation into nine members who were bribed to vote for granting Brazil the hosting rights for the 2016 Olympic Games; Sérgio Cabral, the former governor of Rio de Janeiro, admitted to paying $2 million to the former president of the International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF) to buy votes to select Rio as the 2016 Olympic host city, and the head of Brazil’s Olympic committee, Carols Nuzman, was sentenced to over 30 years in prison as a result. And when Russia secured the 2014 Winter Olympics bid, it did so with the assistance of the then-vice president of the Olympic Council of Asia, Gafur Rakhimov, an organized crime leader and heroin kingpin.

Why is the process of selecting host cities and countries for major international sporting events so constantly captured by bribery and corruption? There are several inter-related reasons for this ongoing problem:

Continue reading →

Will China’s Property Tax Reform Be a Catalyst for Corruption?

Posted on by
6

In China, most residential property owners do not need to pay real estate taxes. In 2011, China initiated property tax trial programs in Shanghai and Chongqing, but even here, the taxes applied only to a few types of properties (newly purchased second homes and high-value properties, respectively) and the tax rates under these trial programs were quite low, and based on a property’s transaction price rather than its current appraised value. But this is about to change. President Xi Jinping’s administration sees a property tax as a key tool to achieve its goal of “common prosperity,” and last October, the government announced a major property tax reform, which is to begin with a five-year pilot program implemented at the local level in selected subnational jurisdictions. Under this reform, most residential property owners will need to pay property taxes, though local governments will have broad discretion to decide on the scope, rates, and collection procedures (see here and here).

Most of the debate about this dramatic change to China’s tax policy have focused on whether the proposed property tax can stop rampant speculation in the housing market and help redistribute wealth. Some commentators, though, have suggested that the new property tax might also help advance President Xi’s anticorruption campaign, because (it is argued) the tax will force greater disclosure of businessmen and government officials’ property ownership. But that hope is misplaced. In fact, the evidence so far suggests that the property tax reform might actually create more opportunities for corruption.

Continue Reading

Guest Post: The Beijing Olympics Marks the End of the Era of Corrupt Authoritarian Megasports—But What Comes Next?

Posted on by
4

Today’s guest post is from Andy Spalding, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law and the Chair of the Olympics Compliance Task Force.

The present Beijing Winter Olympics are widely seen as yet another chapter in what has become all-too-familiar story of governance disasters in megasport events like the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup: 2008, China; 2010, South Africa; 2014, Brazil; and Russia; 2016, Brazil . . . again; 2018, Russia . . . again. And now, China . . . again. But for the last decade, pressure has been building for change in how the organizers of these megasport events approach anticorruption and human rights policy. And at last, change has come—even if it’s not yet obvious to casual observers only looking at the current games.

The period between roughly 2014 and 2018 became a tipping point in megasport anti-corruption and human rights policy. Russia consecutively hosted the Sochi Winter Olympics and FIFA Men’s World Cup with dizzying human rights and corruption problems. Meanwhile, the only two bidders for the 2022 Winter Olympics were China and Kazakhstan. Something had to change. Continue reading →

Chinese NPAs Target the Wrong Firms

Posted on by
7

Settlement agreements, such as non-prosecution agreements (NPAs) and deferred prosecution agreements (DPAs), have come to play a central role in resolving corporate criminal cases, including bribery cases. These settlement mechanisms are thought to improve overall enforcement by encouraging companies to voluntarily disclose wrongdoing and cooperate with investigators, in order to avoid the reputational and economic harm that would come with a criminal prosecution. The United States pioneered the use of NPAs and DPAs, but variants on these mechanisms have been adopted by many other countries as well (see here, here, and here).

The People’s Republic of China has also begun to explore a version of this mechanism. After some initial pilot programs at the local level, in June 2021 the Supreme People’s Procuratorate Office, together with eight other top authorities, promulgated Guiding Opinions on Establishing a Mechanism for Third-party Monitoring and Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs for Trial Implementation (or, more succinctly, the “Non-Prosecution for Compliance” mechanism). This mechanism, which can be used to resolve bribery cases as well as cases involving other types of corporate crime, resembles the NPA mechanism used in the United States: If a company accused of criminal violations admits wrongdoing, cooperates with the government’s investigation, agrees to pay certain fines, implements a compliance program that satisfies the requirements of the procuratorate office, and is overseen by a third-party monitor for up to one year, then prosecutors will agree not to prosecute the company, thus sparing the company not only the risk of criminal conviction but also the costs associated with defending against a criminal prosecution.

But there’s a big difference between the U.S. NPA system and the Chinese version: The U.S. (and other countries, like the U.K.) have used NPAs and DPAs to settle major cases against giant firms. In China so far, prosecutors (in the ten provinces and municipalities that piloted the NPA system) have only concluded NPAs with small and medium enterprises (SMEs), and have done so only when the offenses involved were minor crimes (those for which the responsible persons may be sentenced to less than three years in prison, the lowest permissible punishment for most crimes). This enforcement approach gets things exactly backwards: While the availability of NPAs can be very helpful in combating corruption and other crime in large companies—by giving those companies stronger incentives to disclose and cooperate, and by inducing them to enhance their compliance systems—offering NPAs to SMEs adds little value and is costly to the government. Rather than offering NPAs only to SMEs, as seems to have been the approach of Chinese prosecutors thus far, it would be better if SMEs were deemed ineligible for NPAs.

continue reading

Leniency Revisited: China Should Also Reward Bribe Takers Who Confess

Posted on by
16

China’s anticorruption campaign has focused almost exclusively on the so-called “demand side” of bribe transactions—the public officials who request or accept bribe payments. Indeed, it is quite common for a bribe-taking government official to be prosecuted while the bribe giver receives no punishment at all (see here, here, and here). Overall, China has convicted and punished almost four times as many bribe-takers as bribe-givers, and only 1% of bribe-givers have faced criminal prosecution. 

This lopsided emphasis on the demand side of bribery is mostly caused by a odd asymmetry in China’s Criminal Law. According to Article 390, bribe givers who confess their crimes to the authorities before the case is handed over the procuratorate office for criminal prosecution are eligible for leniency, including outright exemption from punishment, but there is no equivalent provision for bribe takers. (There are some general provisions in Chinese criminal law that afford criminal defendants mitigated punishment, but these sections are applicable only when suspects voluntarily turn themselves in before any investigation has commenced, or provide sufficiently valuable service in uncovering other criminal misconduct. These provisions are not as generous as Article 390.) Due to the asymmetric structure of Article 390, coupled with the fact that bribery is often hard to uncover without the cooperation of one of the parties involved in the transaction, China’s principal anticorruption agency, the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection (CCDI), has cut deals almost exclusively with bribe givers, offering them immunity pursuant to Article 390 in exchange for their assistance in going after the corrupt officials.

This asymmetry has contributed to criticism that China is too lenient on bribe givers. Some critics have argued that China should eliminate the disparate treatment of bribe givers and bribe takers by abolishing Article 390 altogether, thus making it equally difficult for bribe givers and bribe takers to receive leniency (see, for example, here and here). While China has not gone that far, it has taken steps in this direction, for example by amending Article 390 back in 2015 to narrow the set of bribe givers who would be eligible to receive mitigated punishment under that section.

I agree that the asymmetric treatment of bribe givers and bribe takers makes little sense, but rectifying that asymmetry by restricting the availability of leniency to bribe givers who voluntarily confess is the wrong approach. On the contrary, China should expand Article 390 so that bribe takers who report to the government and offer evidence against the bribe payer would be eligible for leniency. But only the party that reports first (and fully and candidly) should be eligible for leniency—the other party to the transaction would be punished harshly. This system, which would resemble the US Department of Justice’s Antitrust Leniency Program, creates a prisoner’s dilemma problem for both parties to the bribe transaction, thus helping to detect and deter bribery more efficiently.

Continue reading →