Reporter's Notebook Comments

• This Reporter's Notebook tackles two tasks extremely effectively. First, it gives a crisp, editorial account of the state of corruption throughout Brazil. Second, extracting information from a large swath of sources and citing numerous events, quotes, and the like, it provides a clear picture of the overwhelmingly complex and pervasive nature of corruption in Brazil.
  
  More specifically, however, I think the content of the notebook could use a little more beef. Perhaps in an effort to include as many quotes and examples as possible within word limits, the author gives several interesting snippits of information, but without much detail. In effect, while I think it demonstrates his/her knowledge of the issue and its complexity, it detracts from the "human face of corruption" goal for the notebook. Perhaps the researcher could tackle providing a more details perspective on the "human element" effects of corruption in Brazil, citing particular human accounts, or giving a more detailed background on how the demand to fight corruption has created one of the largest networks of anti-corruption non-governmental activity in South America. This could add interesting dimensions to this excellent Reporter's Notebook.
  
  
• This is a nice qualitative counterpart to the quantitative scorecard. I have one minor suggestion and one larger point.
  
  It might be nice to know how many of the 62 deputies and senators caught in the ambulance scandal actually ran for office, so as to know whether the 12 who ran and won were the exception or the rule. After all, if 12 ran and all were re-elected, that is very different from only 12 winning in a field of 60 who ran.
  
  The larger point is that the author rightly focuses on the increasing investigation of corruption by the MP, CGU and others, which is a very positive development for Brazilian institutions. But I think the author ignores the judiciary's role in corruption scandals. Despite the important changes in the CGU and other institutions, none of those caught in the scandals the author reports has yet been convicted (or proved innocent) in a court of law. The slowness of the court system means that there are many accusations lingering out there, with all the pernicious effects such accusations have for citizen confidence in democratic institutions. More troubling is the fact that as the CGU and MP get better, more accusations flood the media, but those accused continue to perform their public duties, without ever being exonerated or convicted.
  
  
• The Reporter's Notebook offers a good view of the Brazilian corruption situation. It is important to stress, and the Notebook does, that corruption in Brazil is a systemic process. It has a cultural side, demonstrated by "Gerson's law", but it also has an economic side that goes beyond the individual advantages. Considering that property and income are highly concentrated in Brazil, it also means that technology and productivity is also highly concentrated. In this way corruption has compensated in economic sectors for the lack of competitiveness. Special financial conditions, special regulations, defrauding public contracts, etc. became a "valid" means of economic war. Of course this culture of corruption will not be changed just by media criticism or minor reforms in the political system. The media plays its role, but it is highly concentrated and tends to reproduce the mainstream economic speech, making it biased. It is not by chance that corruption is mostly shown by the media as an individual or group problem, not as a systemic practice. So the media generally appeals to change the person or group implicated -- not the system. Political reform should be placed at the core of the national agenda. It is unacceptable that politicians could change party as they change a shirt, for example. It is also unacceptable to have such highly concentrated media. The problem is that despite the fact that political reform is unavoidable, we rely on the existing politicians to proceed and reform themselves. It is up to civil society to exert the necessary pressure on congressmen and congresswomen.
  
  
• The only factual correction: the bribing of federal deputies to vote for reelection happened in 1996, the vote itself occurred January of 1997. The scandal was unveiled six months later.