Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Corruption

Corruption can be defined as the paying and receiving of bribes for preferential treatment. At the most basic level, the fees demanded and paid are used to subvert normal processes for the procurement and provision of public-sector goods and services. At more sophisticated levels, payments are used to secure undue access to, and influence over, policymakers whose decisions affect economic outcomes. But the line that separates undue influence and legitimate policy advocacy is often blurry. Money can buy favors as surely as it finances legitimate policy advocacy.

Where legitimate advocacy ends and bribery begins is partly a matter of definition, determined by culture, values, political systems, and institutional arrangements. Traditionally, responsibility for defining the rules has resided with national (and sometimes local) law- and rule-making bodies. Globalization changes that. Competing values now easily seep across borders, challenging traditional authority, customs, and governing institutions. Rule-making powers that were previously the exclusive province of nation-states are now partly invested in supranational bodies. Moreover, the technology infrastructure that facilitates global finance makes it easy for the fruits of corruption to travel across borders to be laundered. Money laundering and corruption go hand in hand.

An incentive for corruption is created when public officials have discretion over factors that influence private-sector costs or benefits. The magnitude of the impact, the probability of discovery, and the severity of punishment are likely determinants of the extent of actual corrupt behavior.

Beyond the traditional payment/extortion model that covers transactions between public and private actors, new variants have begun to emerge. Officials of international governmental organizations (IGOs) may dispense illegal favors to national government officials, either for private gain or to secure preferred policy outcomes. For instance, smuggling of arms, weapons of mass destruction precursors, illegal drugs, currency, and other contraband is sometimes directed by governments for strategic purposes. For policy reasons, or in return for financial incentives, officials of IGOs may turn a blind eye to cross-border illegal activity or may actively aid national government officials in circumventing treaties, covenants, regimes, and other obligations.

The demarcation between public and private responsibility is further blurred by the fact that national governments have increased reliance on private actors, including nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), to set standards and police behavior. For instance, many governments require banking officials to report suspicions of money laundering to the authorities. Chief financial officers and accounting firms sometimes have an affirmative duty to report financial wrongdoing. Consequently, private-sector actors face corruption incentives analogous to the ones traditionally faced by public officials.

Types of Corruption

The three most common types of corruption are: paying to receive a benefit, paying to avoid a cost, or paying to secure a government position. Governments can create tiered markets in which some customers receive favorable prices, while others are required to transact at market prices. Similarly, preferential treatment may be given to favored individuals or groups when governments lease property, sell assets, award contracts, or hand out subsidies. Circumstances like these create incentives to bribe public officials in exchange for preferential treatment.

Bribes are also paid to avoid the imposition of costs or to shift costs onto competitors. Governments can impose substantial costs on private actors when they act (or sometimes fail to act) to levy taxes, implement regulations, and enforce the criminal law. As compliance costs rise, so does the incentive to avoid them. Firms are more likely to consider bribery worth the risk of getting caught when compliance costs are high and penalties for noncompliance are low. Moreover, when compliance costs are high, it is economical to pay large bribes to avoid them. As the scale of bribery increases, so does the incentive for bribe seeking.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading