The Cause of Corruption

In China the punishment for corruption can be death, and it occurs frequently. I would think that a personal culture is difficult for politics to overcome because the culture can adjust to the restrictions. There are many ways to bribe someone.

I think of it a lot like sexual harrassment -- who has power over who?

The tolerance of behavior between co-workers is a lot different than between employer-employee, as it should be.

While both politicians and the electorate have lost their bearings on who's the employee -- it's clear who has the power. And as such, the tolerance of corruption in politics should be dealt with far more harshly.

Another problem with corruption is that it introduces 'noise' or uncertainty into decision-making.

Even a straightforward decision is not necessarily made on the basis of procedures because there may (or may not) be a bribe which alters the decision - so its outcome becomes more random, less predictable.

Corruption can hinder or even prevent the development of a modern society characterized by long complex chains of decisions based on standard procedure (eg. in bureaucracies). When each step in the information processing is open to corruption, then the final outcome becomes almost random.

So, from a systems perspective, corruption reduces the level of complexity of decision-making, reducing efficiency.

So, from a systems perspective, corruption reduces the level of complexity of decision-making, reducing efficiency.

I think it often reduces the level of complexity and increases efficiency.

Deviation from the rules is the issue. And deviation will not occur on an even playing field. It occurs when one party solicits the service of politicians or one party is a politician.

Lets be sure we have this political/personal culture distinction (continuum?) down. I take personal culture to refer to the traditions and norms about what individual people do and should do while political culture is the traditions and norms about what the law should do. Is this correct?

Corruption exists like beauty, in the eyes of the beholder. Was the character Schindler (in Steven Spielberg's movie "Schindler's List") corrupt, or was he a hero? How about the prosecutors recently fired from the Bush administration? Your answer depends upon what you believe states should do.

One can perceive corruption in the act of an officeholder only against a background of a "correct" pattern of behavior, a background which must exist in the beliefs of the perceiver. As such I would say that when a person reports seeing corruption in an agent of the state then this person shows belief that the state could be operated correctly. I differ with that belief.

Of course personal culture informs political culture, but in the end political culture is far more powerful.

My dad frequently flew to Mexico in his own little Beech Bonanza. On one occasion he was grounded by Mexican officials for some maintenance issue, and it was made clear to him that he could leave if he greased a few palms. My dad, a steadfastly ethical person who would rather alert every newspaper in town than kow-tow to extortion, refused and prepared to spend whatever time it took to get his plane. Then suddenly the officials reversed their position and he was allowed to return to the States. It was only after the fact that he found out that my brother had paid the bribes secretly, knowing that Dad would be furious at the notion.

In politically corrupt societies the ethical actions of a few conscientious people are wasted and ultimately those people are destroyed if they don't get the hell out first. This is why corrupt societies are doomed to increasing corruption: those who find it intolerable leave, and the cynical folks left behind just make the place worse and worse.

Richard O Hammer writes: "Corruption exists like beauty, in the eyes of the beholder."

Totally wrong. Talk to someone who has lived in a corrupt country then lived in one of the least corrupt countries (eg. New Zealand, Canada, Iceland) - there is a large and objective difference in the way that life is conducted. The difference is obvious every day, dozens of times a day. Talk to someone who has done business in both types of country.

Sheesh! Only a post-modern, multi-cultural, cultural-relative, non-rational analysis could conclude that corruption was subjective.

Less-corrupt countries, like the Anglosphere and Scandinavia, have _huge_ advantages over the most corrupt countries (eg. much of sub-saharan Africa, Pakistan and Bangladesh).

How can laws against corruption survive in a culture that does not see corruption as a bad thing? Wouldn't personal corruption inevitably lead to political corruption unless the government was lead by an anti-corruption autocrat? Are the currently countries that have laws that are harsher about corruption than the population of that country?

Isn't there a connection between bad laws (ones that are economically igrorant, like a minimum wage that is higher than the average personal income) and corruption?

It is easier to have corruption if there are more laws to break to carry on normal business...

Theodore Dalrymple says corruption gets a bad rap.

As a current Free Market Christian and Libertarian Paternalist, and former secular Libertarian, let me suggest that far too many "L"-Libertarians are smart but sexually frustrated men, who really don't know how to relate to women as different people (much less as being from Venus).

Whether it is the free sex - equal love on Heinlien's Moon (is a Harsh Mistriss), or the irresistible love/lust semi-rapes of Ayn Rand's characters, the secularists have a problem with sexual=personal commitment.

Bryan makes an excellent point about punishment vs shame in his post about this:
"Is it better to live in a country where corruption is mildly punished, but perceived to be shameful, or a country where corruption is harshly punished, but not perceived to be shameful?"

Consider, on a personal level, the commitment to remain married and faithful. Cheating is personal corruption. Too many Libs accept personal cheating.

There is also the democracy issue of "voting for a benefit" of Other People's Money -- if it's generally OK for popular benefit (education, health, farm, industry), why not for a bureaucrat's personal benefit?

Certain amounts of corruption are going to exist in every society; however, to what degree that corruption exists remains the difference between the United States and countries overrun by man's most evil characteristic such as Mexico and Columbia. Of course in America we have corruption on all leels of society, from crooked cops to politicians "Scratching each other's backs". Yet, our watchdog journalism and strong government allows our nation to rid itself of most of the corruption that ruins a country's ability to progress and succeed.