Defeating Corruption

Fifty years ago, we lived in a world of discrimination. It still exists, cripplingly so in some places, but we can marvel at what has been achieved. Disability, gender, colour or sexual preference are no longer the barriers they once were, at least in much of what we call the Western world.

There are other reasons to celebrate. Child mortality has been almost defeated. Many killer diseases have been tamed. And progress is even being made against extreme poverty. In the face of screaming negative headlines, we should remember to celebrate these advances.

And yet. I was in discussion with an interesting guy who came to fix my fridge last week. We got on to the subject of racial quotas, and scholarships restricted to minorities. These can be argued both ways – it does seem warped when colleges in the USA devote such a lot of their resources to sports, hardly a core activity.

But then I asked: if you were to be born today, would you rather be black or white? A man or a woman? American or Somali?

There is no doubt of the answers. For all the complaining we do about the complexities of life in the West and the simple, spiritual lives of others, I am not sure many of us would accept the offer of a swap at birth, for ourselves or our kids. While this is the case, I think we should happily swallow our doubts about a few quotas or scholarships?

One area I am not sure mankind has made enough progress is against corruption. I define this fairly widely, to include any abuse of a privilege, and to include institutional abuse as well as personal abuse.

Watching Downton Abbey gives a stylized picture of British society of a hundred years ago. Your status was inherited not earned, and the right status gave almost complete impunity, whether as a card shark or a philandering Prince of Wales. At the other end, a job was only retained at the whim of an employer. In my definition, this is a corrupt and sick society, its inefficiencies glaring. It might be noted that virtually all progressive moves away from this have been opposed by vested interests, usually of the right.

But how far have we come? When I looked at the various manifestations of corruption, I reached an unflattering conclusion. There are many examples.

When I was younger, I paid direct bribes, usually when travelling or to police. This has become more rare, and a recent study showed considerable progress in Africa. Yet it is still possible to demand a tip in NYC – you could argue this as equally corrupt.

As sports have become more professional and better paid, corruption has got a lot worse. I cannot watch cycling or athletics now without suspicion, and cricket is heading the same way.

There used to be many easy jobs available for life where the work required did not match the rewards available. My first job was a relief postman. I was given a typical round, and completed it with ease in under an hour. But I was told not to show up at the depot in under two and a half hours, lest I damage the cozy relationships there, all built on pretence. This ripped off the taxpayer. Does it still? My guess is that while the number of such jobs has gradually diminished, there are still many that exist. Unions have much to answer for here.

Cartels used to be everywhere, and accepted. When I joined Shell, it had just de-merged in the UK from BP, yet it was clear that personal relationships persisted and the market was carved up. I saw many examples through my career, places where if a call came through it was most often from a supposed competitor. The EU and the US have made positive strides on this one at least. But I have also seen companies recently where it appeared that the corruption was of breathtaking proportions, so there is a long way to go.

Finance has become more greedy and cynical. Probably the Madoffs existed fifty years ago – Ponzi goes back further – but now the stakes are higher and behavior seems no better. Exactly how do you think these people earn their bonuses?

A whole new category is lobbyists. Before, this took the form of the Earl of Grantham having a quiet word or the local freemasons making a case. Now, lobbyists are everywhere and have a massive impact, usually to the direct detriment of the taxpayer and the powerless. The US seems particularly badly served in this regard. Read Lexington in last weeks economist about a Florida by-election and weep.

Reading the Economist each week, it appears that many countries have governments composed of corrupt criminals, with shady figures in the background looting at ease. Fifty years ago we had never heard the word Oligarch. The prescriptions the West imposed on countries exiting communism after 1989 have a lot to answer for.

Furthermore, corruption of opportunity continues almost to the same degree as before. The best way to get to medical school is if Dad is a Doctor. Amazingly, children of alumni have advantages at getting into US colleges. The worst schools are still in the most deprived areas. While a recent study showed that social mobility in the US had not deteriorated in the last thirty years, it had not got any better either. To buy a house in London nowadays is virtually impossible if Mum and Dad don’t stump up most of the ante. The freemasons still exist do their dirty work, as do lots of religious organisations. Should it really help someone to get a job if a parent gets a priest to lobby with a parishioner boss? We all do it, but we have colluded in creating a playing field where privilege counts, and for me that is corruption.

The purpose of this litany is to reflect on how little progress we have made in this area compared with others. Looking at it topic by topic certainly gave me a jolt.

It is not hard to see why this has persisted. Vested interests want it to! That includes any of us who want to give our kids the benefits of our wealth or influence. Inheritance tax is a particular bugbear of mine. George Osborne gained popularity by promising to raise the threshold in the UK before tax became payable, a threshold that in the US is an incredible (to me) five million dollars. We support these policies, yet they are the epitome of a society of unequal opportunity.

To see the plus side, look at how much easier it is nowadays to follow good practice and to benefit as a consumer. Whether booking a hotel or selecting a choir director, the internet offers fantastic information, and, in my experience, open processes yield far stronger results.

The least corrupt place I lived was Sweden, and I think I know why. Partly it was a collective mindset, backed up by accepted redistributive taxation. But a key was also IT. Even then, everyone had a personal ID number, linking together health tax and police systems. It was so easy for everyone to know your business that being corrupt was much harder. Looking back, I take a more cynical view than I used to about the people who lobbied to block the ID card in Britain. Think about it: would entrenched privilege really want something like that?

So what are the solutions? Strong institutions must play a part – it was madness to introduce capitalism to Eastern Europe when there was no solid rule of law. I think Sweden also proves that IT has a role to play. It is a shame that the NSA and others have given mass data collection such a bad name, for actually this could be used for the common good.

And as usual, we must look at ourselves. Rather than complaining about quotas and scholarships for minorities, perhaps we should campaign to challenge the advantages still enjoyed by majorities, whether in cushy public sector jobs or professions, or subsidies for mortgages or in a host of other areas. That is more painful, for that means us.

But I personally am ashamed that, a hundred years after Downton Abbey, the answers to the questions about gender and inherited wealth and colour are still so emphatic. Let us use the next fifty years better than we used the last hundred.  

Do, Do Dubai, Do

My wife and I had the chance to visit Dubai last week. It was the first time either of us had been in that part of the world apart from stopovers. Welcoming the chance to escape the brutal New York City winter for a few days, we were fascinated to see the place for ourselves. It did not disappoint.

I must admit to arriving with a few negative prejudices. I suppose cynicism is part of my nature. I expected to see opulence and vanity projects and some absence of soul, however one might discern that. The idea of a city built in the middle of the desert also seemed to fly in the face of sustainability somehow.

Well, there was certainly opulence. Dubai is not cheap. It has probably overtaken London for cost of living, at least in the centre and its more Western parts. Rents have shot up, and our hotel cost much more than I expected. They have even learned the unpleasant American habit of slapping unexpected taxes onto bills. Perhaps most telling, I bought a meal for four for over a thousand dollars, a new high for me, which for the young people we were visiting clearly represented a regular night out. Now that, in my book, is opulence.

But as for vanity projects, the view was more nuanced and I came home rather sold on the Sheikhs and their vision. What we saw was a well thought out business plan executed with excellence. Dubai has redefined the concept of a hub and made it its own.

Imagine you run a large multinational organization. A nice thought? This might have something to do with oil and gas, but not necessarily. Where might you want to grow your business? Europe and the Americas don’t have so much potential. There is China of course, but where else? Africa seems to be coming up. India is a vast potential market. The rest of South Asia and the Middle East also has many people, from Pakistan to Iran to Kazakhstan and all those other stans.

You can set up small local offices in each of those markets, but it makes no sense for these to each supply their own services like marketing or finance. But if you choose to run these services from London or New York you are going to fail to appreciate local cultures and make awful blunders – probably you’ll end up failing like a colonial power, drawing straight lines, making unjustified assumptions, and annoying all your local partners. Your consultants and your agencies and your bankers will be just as naïve and fail along with you (well, not fail in their case, just take large fees for doing bad work).

What to do? You need somewhere with connections to all these places, somewhere where you can send local staff to develop without losing their culture completely, somewhere where it is easy to live and where business taxes are low and ambitious and talented people are happy to spend a few years.

Twenty five years ago, the sheikhs spotted precisely this opportunity and set about making it happen in Dubai. This is no vanity project. Nor is it an unsustainable edifice built on oil and gas alone, though of course it helps to have seed money to invest and sovereign wealth to offer some security to bankers. It is a brilliant concept, superbly executed, and it seems to be working.

Dubai the city seems to double in size every five years or so, and the population grows in proportion. There is still plenty of spare land to expand into, and even the city centre does not feel overcrowded, with plenty of vacant or underused lots. What Manhattan would give for those! The city hit the headlines during the financial crash, and indeed a correction was needed, banks having driven up prices too far and too fast. But I wish I had visited in 2008, for I am fairly sure I would have reached the right conclusion and invested in Dubai firms, for it seems clear that there is room for the positive trend to run through many more cycles.

Several things in the execution of the model are impressive. Take Emirates airline. It might not be all that profitable, and indeed neither of my planes were completely full. But it has a clear strategy, of acting as a hub with generous connections, good planes and strong facilities, backed up by smart advertising and sponsorships. I think that makes a better investment than Alitalia, for example.

Another example is the stunning architecture. It is classy and acts as a beacon, epitomizing the concept of “build it and they will come”. Isn’t it remarkable that the world’s tallest building is in Dubai, given the arrogance of the US and ambition of China? The policy is to build big and with quality and ahead of need. I visited a hotel at the Dubai racecourse that was stunning in its design and scale. A cynical Westerner might mutter “white elephant”, observing its low utilization and vacant surroundings, but my guess is that within five years this will be centre of a bustling new district.

There is also a lot more to Dubai than mega-projects. They have a well-designed metro and road system. They have invested in schools, and are working on medical tourism as an opportunity. Security is adequate without being intrusive.

Dubai feels almost as much as a world village as New York, yet is even more stratified. The Arabs and rich Africans provide source funds and enjoy life, the whites earn a good posting with their brands and services, Indians provide the engine room of commercial nous, and Filippinos underpin it all via service with a smile. Is this a half empty glass, displaying a humanity of separation and exploitation? Maybe, but I prefer the half full version: every person in Dubai is there to make something of their life and the city offers more chances than exist at home, and the chance to benefit a homeland through remittances as well. Occasionally, some horrid story of trafficking or exploitation comes to light, but which country is free of those?

Indeed, my main takeaway from the city is its energy, coming from a humanity striving to create. The place has not developed an underclass, or benefit dependents, old people, or even much obesity. Commit a crime and you will no doubt be deported. If you are not Arab and don’t have a job, you have no place in Dubai. No doubt these things will evolve over time, but I am confident the Sheikh will have an effective plan to deal with them when the time comes.

In the West, we are fed a lot of propaganda about Muslim countries. I do find the male dominance disturbing, though I recall it was not so many years ago that we had the same. Do I condemn the covered clothes? Perhaps, but when in Dubai I see Western women seeing the need to parade almost naked to “win” with our rules, I hesitate. There is also something to admire about a society where prayer and meditation are never far away. What is more disturbing is the apparent hypocrisy of some visiting Arab men from less liberal regimes, happy to drink and buy sex in Dubai while preaching abstinence for less wealthy people at home. Is the West free from hypocrisy though?

What disturbed me more was a thought about how humanity chooses its leisure. Think about it, part of the business model is to create an atmosphere that people will want to visit and live in. Of course you can’t create 1000 years of history when it is not there, but otherwise the makers of Dubai had a free hand. What did they come up with? Shopping malls! True, a shopping mall with a ski slope, a beautiful if unintentionally phallic waterfall, and a fantastic if schmaltzy musical fountain, but still shopping malls. Is that the best we can come with as a human race for our utopia? There must be more to life than shopping, surely?

So, all in all, Dubai was a wonderful experience, and, shopping malls apart, an experience that brought out the optimist in me. Humanity can achieve wonderful things when we apply our positive energies. Globalisation only grows the possibilities. There is also a lesson hidden away about political and economic systems. Without autocracy, such an audacious business plan could not have been implemented. But without capitalism, it could not have blossomed so colourfully. There is no one single right route to success.

Changing Gear

Something happened this morning that made me laugh. We suffered yet another snowstorm last night (it has been a tough winter in New York and we are still only half way through it), so my wife’s office decided to open later than usual. I had to go into the city too, so we decided to travel in together. On the way to the express bus, navigating through alternate obstacles of ice and puddles, I found myself further and further behind her as she rushed ahead.

As I was trying to avoid falling further behind, I recalled how on our weekend walks we encounter the opposite issue. Seemingly I am prone to rushing ahead. Now, my theory is that my speed is pretty much the same, while it is hers that is changing. Why might that be? It is about changing gears.

I think that many of us deal with the complexity of modern life by taking different attitudes and approaches to different aspects of our daily lives. Working in Manhattan and commuting requires fighting through people, meeting deadlines and showing some aggression. Getting the most from the weekends requires a conscious slowing down and savouring of simpler experiences.

That leads to two speeds. And from the experience of this morning, the faster speed starts as soon as the front door is closed and the first deadline, the due time for the bus, approaches.

One of the blessings of my last years of work in Holland was that I had a walking commute, mostly through a pleasant park. I remember consciously using that twenty minutes to change gear. In the mornings, by the time I got to work I was ready to face it, usually starting with a rush through overnight e-mails. In the evening, by the time I got home I had transitioned to a slower, domestic pace. The walk itself was where I used to learn my songs for singing, much to the amusement of passers by – another difference in New York, no-one would think it remotely strange to pass someone singing away here, anything goes in this city.

When I thought about it more, I found more evidence that our different attitudes can infect each other. One clear example was thinking about my occasional trips to Romania, where I typically spend a week every few months with people in a business that struggles with many things, including humanity in its management.

I have a mean side, epitomised by a sharp tongue. Although it is a blessing to have quick humour sometimes, my cynical mind has let me down many times when it has led me to speak before thinking. Most of my regrets come this way.

Now, I have recently noticed that the incidents of such regret usually occur nowadays soon after a trip to Romania. I don’t think that is a coincidence. While there, my mind has to be sharp, and I witness others behaving in a sharp way. It leaves a mark, and it takes me several days after returning to revert to my less inconsiderate self.

What is scary is realizing that for most of the last thirty years, the atmosphere I now experience in Romania was present most of the time. Probably I was sharp and inconsiderate most of the time. At times of greatest stress, I probably did not manage to wind down before winding up again. I remember taking a vacation of three weeks and suddenly feeling tension flow out of my body during the second week. I am sure this would apply to most people working in stressful jobs.

We all need to psyche ourselves into a different attitude depending on the task at hand. A recent public example in the US concerned a (US) football player called Richard Sherman. He made the decisive play right at the end of a critical game, and within two minutes an inane reporter thrust a microphone at him and asked him how he felt. What emerged from his mouth was an ugly tirade of arrogance and abuse towards a member of the opposing team.

Sherman was roundly condemned around America for this outburst – he had the last laugh as his team won the Superbowl on Sunday with a masterful display. Rather, I condemn those who condemn him. He had not had a chance to change gear from his game attitude, which required him to be aggressive in order to perform. It is unreasonable to expect him to somehow revert to his usual demeanour in such circumstances.

I suspect trouble with changing gear may be one reason people struggle with retirement. Suddenly, a life characterised by walking quickly to catch the bus morphs into one of slow walks in the woods. That is not easy. It can throw someone off balance, and do the same to people around them as well.

What lessons are on offer from this?

Firstly, as usual, comes self-awareness. If we have multiple modes, it can only help if are aware of it. Asking our loved ones for feedback on the subject would be a great place to start. I wonder if others were left trailing on their walk to the bus this morning?

The other part of self-awareness is knowledge of the potential unintended consequences of a particular mode. Walking quickly to a bus does little damage, but my sharp tongue has hurt many people over the years. If I had been able to maintain my aggressive mode but at the same time take enough distance to see its harmful effects, some of that hurt might have been avoided. Then again, perhaps this is not always possible: no one in Seattle would have liked Richard Sherman to tone down his aggression during the games.

There is more potential in focusing on the gear change itself. How can we make sure it is complete? How can we speed it up? What equivalents can we find for my musical daily walk to and from work? Rituals can play a role here. The first action when arriving home from work might be consciously designed to effect a change of gear.

Then we need to be aware of contamination between modes, and of desirable modes being lost altogether. It is not good that my work life became so intense that it took a three week vacation to rediscover any calm (and presumably, to rediscover considerate behaviour). Perhaps many stressed work lives have invaded characters like that. And it is no wonder that such characters would end up evading what should be oasis of retirement.

What are your dominant modes? Have you lost some important gears? Do you need to repair your gearbox? Like in a car, make sure you do it before it is too late and you are stuck on the side of the motorway with a written-off motor.