And Now Corruption in Arms

Transparency International has come up with a new index of corruption in the defense sector.  I haven't had a chance to dig too deeply into the details yet.  Unsurprisingly Russia ranks high (low?) on corruption in the study.

The report can be found here.
A press release can be found here.

This critical passage comes from the press release:

The Index shows that only 15 per cent of governments assessed possess political oversight of defence policy that is comprehensive, accountable, and effective. In 45 per cent of countries there is little or no oversight of defence policy, and in half of nations there is minimal evidence of scrutiny of defence procurement. 

The study also finds that citizens are frequently denied basic knowledge about the defence sector. Half of the countries’ defence budgets lack transparency entirely, or include only very limited, aggregated information. In 70 per cent of the countries, citizens are denied a simple indication of how much is spent by their government on secret items.

The patterns of corruption from the front page of the report are not entirely unexpected.

 I am surprised there was not data on Canada in the study. Australia and Germany are the exemplar states for openness in defense reporting and relations.

I'll need to dig into this a bit further as a factor in arms transfers.  The ability of certain actors in society to enrich themselves through arms deals that are notionally being used to enhance the defense capabilities of the state is an interesting variant of the principal agent problem.

This is definitely an area that could use some further examination.