Tolerance to gratification as a proxy for corruption: Comparison between Indonesia and Hong Kong
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Corruption is a global problem faced by every country and culture around the world. Since overt corrupt behaviour does not develop in a person overnight, it is therefore important to identify the more proximal and benign forms of corruption. In this research, taking advantage of the cultural and corruption perception index differences between Indonesia and Hong Kong, we conducted a qualitative study on the phenomenon of gratification, the act of giving a public officer monetary or physical rewards for a service they provide, even though the service is within their job description. The research subjects were drawn from Hong Kong and Indonesian college students or fresh graduates. During the interview, we found striking differences between Hong Kong and Indonesian respondents in terms of the experience of being asked for a reward, the perception and urge to give a reward, and the tendency to accept a reward during a public service transaction. Indonesian respondents are generally more exposed, familiar, and permissive to gratification than their Hong Kong counterparts. The reasons for this phenomenon were then investigated and a possible correlation of this permissiveness with the country’s corruption perception index was then discussed. It is suggested that corruption eradication must be accompanied by sociocultural and educational intervention toward naïve subjects, thus preventing them from being permissive to gratification, which can act as the proxy for active corruption in the future.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
References
Ahwan, A., & Santoso, T. (2022). Discontinuation of corruption investigation and prosecution: A comparison of Indonesia, The Netherlands, and Hong Kong. Jurnal Penelitian Hukum De Jure, 22(1), 1–16.
Arifin, R., Rodiyah, R., & Puspita, F. (2019). A comparative analysis of Indonesia’s KPK and Hong Kong ICAC in Eradicating Corruption. Jambe Law Journal, 2(2), 163–179.
Bahnik, S., & Vranka, M. (2020). Punishment and corruption. PsyArXiv, under revi. https://psyarxiv.com/ew436/
Ethridge, P., Kujawa, A., Dirks, M. A., Arfer, K. B., Kessel, E. M., Klein, D. N., & Weinberg, A. (2017). Neural responses to social and monetary reward in early adolescence and emerging adulthood. Psychophysiology, 54(12), 1786–1799. https://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12957
Fazzan, F., & Ali, A. K. (2015). Gratification in the perspective of the positive law in Indonesia. Ar-Raniry, 2(1), 173–190. https://jurnal.ar-raniry.ac.id/index.php/jar/article/view/7424
Garrett, N., Lazzaro, S. C., Ariely, D., & Sharot, T. (2016). The brain adapts to dishonesty. Nature Neuroscience, 19(12), 1727–1732. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4426
Gede, D., & Sugama, D. (2019). The urgency of criminal sanctions renewal for criminal acts of gratification in Indonesia. Academic Research International, 10(2). www.savap.org.pk
Graycar, A., & Jancsics, D. (2017). Gift giving and corruption. International Journal of Public Administration, 40(12), 1013–1023. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2016.1177833
Hamzah, A. (2005). Pemberantasan korupsi melalui hukum pidana nasional dan internasional. Raja Grafindo Persada. https://lib.ui.ac.id
Harahap, N. D., Sitompul, S., Firmansyah, E., Siregar, A., & Wulandari, A. (2023). Pentingnya pendidikan anti korupsi dimulai sejak dini. Jurnal Ilmiah Pengabdian Pada Masyarakat, 2(1), 55–58.
Hilman, Y. A. (2018). Praktik upeti dalam tradisi hegemoni nusantara (Telaah kritis terhadap praktik mengakar KKN di Indonesia). Historia, 6(2), 309. https://doi.org/10.24127/hj.v6i2.1268
Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values (Vol. 5). sage.
Kamil, D., Mukminin, A., Ahmad, I. S., & Abd Kassim, N. L. (2018). Fighting corruption through education in Indonesia and Hong Kong: comparisons of policies, strategies, and practices. Al-Shajarah: Journal of the International Institute of Islamic Thought and Civilization (ISTAC), 155–190.
Kayam, U. (2005). Dialog. Metafor Publishing.
Kumorotomo, W. (2009). Inovasi daerah dalam mengurangi korupsi. https://kumoro.staff.ugm.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/inovasi-daerah-dalam-mengurangi-korupsi.pdf
Lembaga Survey Indonesia. (2018). National survey result: Trends of public perception of corruption in Indonesia. https://www.lsi.or.id/file_download/171
Li, S., Triandis, H. C., & Yu, Y. (2006). Cultural orientation and corruption. Ethics and Behavior, 16(3), 199–215. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb1603_2
Mapuasari, S. A., & Mahmudah, H. (2018). Korupsi berjamaah: Konsensus sosial atas gratifikasi dan suap. Integritas : Jurnal Antikorupsi, 4(2 SE-Articles), 159–176. https://doi.org/10.32697/integritas.v4i2.279
Meyer, C. (2016). Transgenerational culture transfer as social constructions in intergenerational relationships. In C. Hunner-Kreisel & S. Bohne (Eds.), Childhood, Youth, and Migration (pp. 223–242). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31111-1_14
Mulligan, E. M., & Hajcak, G. (2018). The electrocortical response to rewarding and aversive feedback: The reward positivity does not reflect salience in simple gambling tasks. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 132, 262–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2017.11.015
Murphy-Berman, V., & Berman, J. J. (2002). Cross-cultural differences in perceptions of distributive justice. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33(2), 157–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022102033002003
Nadler, J., & Schulman, M. (2006). Favoritism, cronyism, and nepotism. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 37(3), 202–210.
Ruyadi, Y., Syarif, E., & Sofyan, I. (2016). Gratifikasi dan pelayanan sipil: Suatu femonena sosial dalam kehidupan masyarakat. Sosietas, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.17509/sosietas.v6i1.2865
Schmidt, C., Skandali, N., Gleesborg, C., Kvamme, T. L., Schmidt, H., Frisch, K., Møller, A., & Voon, V. (2020). The role of dopaminergic and serotonergic transmission in the processing of primary and monetary reward. Neuropsychopharmacology, 45(9), 1490–1497. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-020-0702-3
Siregar, F. Z., Hafsah, H., & Siregar, R. S. (2022). Implementasi nilai-nilai kebijakan Kementerian Agama nomor 24 tahun 2015 tentang pengendalian gratifikasi pada kementerian agama (Studi Kasus Penyuluh Agama Islam di Kementerian Agama Kabupaten Asahan). Al-Mashlahah Jurnal Hukum Islam Dan Pranata Sosial, 10(02).
Supit, A., Mautang, T., & Pangemanan, M. (2023). A school-university collaboration to promote school health and physical education in North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Christian Journal for Global Health, 10(1), 43–46. https://doi.org/10.15566/cjgh.v10i1.761
Susanto, A. A., & Fernando, F. (2022). Analisis sosiologi korupsi terhadap praktik gratifikasi pada layanan publik pemerintah: Jurnal Kolaboratif Sains, 5(12), 828–833. https://doi.org/10.56338/JKS.V5I12.3066
Sutherland, H. (1979). The making of a bureaucratic elite: The colonial transformation of the ... - heather sutherland - Google Buku. Asian Studies Association of Australia.
Transparency International. (2019). Results - 2019 - CPI - Transparency.org. https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2019/results/idn
Triandis, H. C., Carnevale, P., Gelfand, M., Robert, C., Wasti, S. A., Probst, T., Kashima, E. S., Dragonas, T., Chan, D., Chen, X. P., Kim, U., De Dreu, C., Van De Vliert, E., Iwao, S., Ohbuchi, K.-I., & Schmitz, P. (2001). Culture and deception in business negotiations: a multilevel analysis. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 1(1), 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/147059580111008
Zainuddin, M., Karina, A. D., Suhud, H. K., & Susilowati, K. (2023). Peningkatan pemahaman tindak pidana gratifikasi sebagai upaya mempersiapkan generasi anti suap. Sang Sewagati Journal, 1(1), 23–30. https://doi.org/10.37253/SASENAL.V1I1.7468