Philipp Ertl completed the Matura and IB at the Academic Gymnasium Innsbruck with excellent results in the school year 2019/20. He is now studying at King's College in London and shares his experiences. An extract from his superb first essay (in English language) can be found below.
Im September war es für mich endlich soweit: Ich übersiedelte mit 6 Koffern nach London, um dort am renommierten King’s College London mein Bachelorstudium in Politik und Wirtschaftswissenschaften zu beginnen. Die ersten zwei Wochen waren, wenn auch durch die Pandemie leicht eingeschränkt, die „Welcome Weeks“, währenddessen sich mehr oder weniger alle „Freshers“ aus ganz London bei verschiedensten Events treffen. Nachdem diese zwei unvergesslichen Wochen aber schließlich doch zu Ende gegangen waren, fing das Studium vollumfänglich an. Bereits bei der ersten Vorlesung machten die Professoren klar, dass sie außerordentliche Leistungen erwarten würden, denn schließlich gilt es, den internationalen Ruf des Colleges zu wahren. Dementsprechend hoch ist das Arbeitspensum: 400 A4. Seiten Lesematerial, aufgeteilt auf 4 Module, ist das Minium pro Woche. Für mein Studium reicht der Lehrstoff von Politischer Philosophie bis hin zu Makroökonomischen Konzepten. Wie dem auch sei, es ist es eine wirklich spannende Herausforderung, der man sich in einem so internationalem Studentenumfeld gerne stellt. Insbesondere die „Seminars“ dienen dazu, das Gelesene in Gruppen von höchstens 10 Studenten genauesten zu besprechen. Trotz der Covid-19 Krise, die auch in London allgegenwärtig zu spüren ist, fanden diese Seminare auf dem eindrucksvollen Campus direkt an der Themse statt. So verging Woche um Woche und schließlich waren die ersten Essay-Abgabetermine für vier Papers (zwischen 1000 und 2000 Wörter pro Paper) näher gerückt. Nun galt es, die extrem umfangreiche Abteilung für Politk und Wirtschaftswissenschaften der Uni-Bibliothek „Maughan Library“ einmal auf den Kopf zu stellen, um an möglichst interessante Publikationen zu kommen.
Abseits des Studiums ist natürlich auch immer viel geboten. Die verschiedensten Societies stellen eine angenehme Möglichkeit dar, sich mit neuen Leuten zu treffen und seinen nichtakademischen Interessen nachzugehen. Ich persönlich trat dem Laufclub, dem Debattierklub und noch zwei weiteren bei. Darüber hinaus ist London selbstverständlich die perfekte Studentenstadt mit vielen Angeboten: Sei es ein Dinner am Wolkenkratzer oder ein Abend mit Freunden in der Stadt – es ist garantiert für jeden etwas dabei. Alles in allem bin ich wirklich froh darüber, die Chance zu haben, an so einer tollen und internationalen Universität wie dem King’s College in London studieren zu können.
His first essay with the title “Is corruption bad because of its effects or because it is wrong in itself?” was the second best among all submissions from almost 500 students. For this he received a letter of appreciation from the module convenor. We would also like to congratulate Philipp on his achievement and present an excerpt from his essay at this point:
[…] Different scholars define the term “corruption” varyingly within their papers, having a significant effect on their way of argumentation. Mark E. Warren conceptualizes corruption as “duplicitous exclusion” (Warren 2004, 330). He raises the essential aspect that in non- corrupt democracies citizens have the capacity to “associate for collective purposes” (Warren 2004, 330) which is based on mutual trust. Rose-Ackerman proposes an alternative, defining corruption as a “misuse of public power for private or political gain” (Ackermann 2004, 301). This understanding prioritizes the individual benefit of the perpetrator but, contrary to Warren, ignores the aspect of considering other people’s right to be included in public- decision making. Based on this merit this essay’s line of argument will rely on Warren’s definition of corruption being “duplicitous exclusion” (Warren 2004, 330).
Researchers across the world argue that duplicitous exclusion of citizens from decisions of public importance can only have negative effects. Warren evaluates that corruption weakens the democratic basis of society (Warren 2004, 328) by reducing the level of prevailing trust in public institutions. According to Rothstein, this loss of social capital (Rothstein 2013, 1010), has adverse effects on society as a whole because individuals’ appreciation for moral decreases. Rose-Ackermann’s survey (Ackermann 2004, 309) in Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Ukraine provides empirical evidence for this showing that in states with low levels of social capital, such as Bulgaria, citizens would willingly engage in bribery for their own benefit. Another negative effect of duplicitous exclusion is the creation of economic inefficiencies (Warren 2004, 340). By bribing politicians, influential businesses have the potential to seek advantageous regulations to reduce competition on the free market. Consequentially, economic and technological progress are inhibited, leading to slow or no increase in living standards for the overall population.
In view of those negative implications of corruption, it is common to oversee its positive impacts. As outlined by Nathaniel H. Leff duplicitous exclusion has the potential to compensate for bad public policy (Leff 1964, 11-12). He illustrates this with the example of the stagnation of food production in Chile and Brazil induced by inflation. Contrary to Chile, in the latter bribed local authorities failed to implement price regulations and thus promoted an increase in food production. Thereby, the impacts of a bad policy response were thwarted, clearly showing the positive effects corruption can entail. Consequentially, the conclusion that corruption is bad because of its effects is flawed because, as shown above, duplicitous exclusion can also have positive consequences.
Instead, it has to be asked why corruption is inherently wrong in itself. To that end, the underlying moral principles of duplicitous exclusion have to be investigated. Above all, corruption is unjust in both a social and economic sense. This is because the people’s chances of success depend on their financial status rather than their talents. John Rawls criticizes such non-meritocratic social structures in his book “The Theory of Justice” where he presents two “Principles of Justice and Fairness”. The second principle explicitly states that offices and positions shall be reachable by everyone, no matter their economic background, given they have the prerequisite motivation and talents (Wenar Leif, 2017). A corrupt state deprives individuals from unfolding their full potential in the Rawlsian sense since bribed officials will act as patrons over the bribe-givers. Stuart Corbridge illustrates this social injustice using the example of India where job applicants paid high ranked officials to be awarded the job (Corbridge 2013, 225). Therefore, duplicitous exclusion is wrong in itself because it is selective in terms of financial means. In addition, since it does not treat people as equal but reduces them and their talents according to financial merits, corruption acts socially exclusive. […]
Bibliography:
Corbridge, Stuart. 2012. Chapter 19: ‘Corruption in India’. In: Routledge Handbook of Indian Politics
Leff, Nathaniel H. 1964. ‘Economic Development Through Bureaucratic Corruption’, American Behavioural Scientist 8:3, 8-14.
Rose-Ackermann, Susan. 2004. ‘Governance and Corruption’, in Bjørn Lomborg, ‘Global Crisis, Gobal Solutions’. Cambridge University Press
Rothstein, Bo. 2013. ‘Corruption and Social Trust: Why the Fish rots from the Head down’, Social Research 80:4, 1009-1032.
Warren, Mark. 2004. ‘What Does Corruption Mean in a Democracy’, American Journal of Political Science 48:2, 328-343.
Wenar, Leif. 2017. ‘John Rawls’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
