
Why Anti-Corruption Strategies May Backfire - dnetesn
http://nautil.us/blog/why-anti_corruption-strategies-may-backfire
======
smallnamespace
One of my US high school history teachers once taught us that bureaucracy and
endless mounds of red tape were the natural consequence of Americans valuing
fairness over efficiency, and in the end getting neither.

We want a system that is:

1\. fair, and Americans immediately suspect that humans tend to favor their
friends

2\. based on clear, written rules, so everyone can compete on an even playing
field

3\. good enough to handle any edge case, so that 'exceptions' to rules via
human override (and potential corruption) can be avoided

Implementing 1-3 means building a giant, inflexible bureaucracy, where
responsibility is widely distributed (so nobody can be corrupt) and an immense
book of rules and red tape (so it can handle every edge case).

Unfortunately Americans don't even really get fairness in practice.

The cost of following all the rules to the letter is _so incredibly expensive
and inefficient_ that obviously government agencies and their favored contract
bidders have back channels with one another so that they know exactly how to
structure their bids to win.

This is why conservatives sometimes have a point - many regulations not only
do _not_ do anything for the public good, but they actually help entrenched
interests.

~~~
js8
I suspect if you think that U.S. is too bureaucratic or unfair, you have never
been to other countries, really. There is only a handful of countries that can
be said to do better in one of those respects.

It seems to me that you claim that there is a trade-off between bureaucracy
and corruption. I disagree, to me it seems (although I cannot readily prove
it) that these are more often correlated than not.

~~~
smallnamespace
> U.S. is too bureaucratic or unfair

Not so much at the local level where a citizen deals with the bureaucracy, but
certainly at the level where _lots of money gets allocated and spent_ , such
as military procurement.

Just look at what SpaceX has managed to achieve largely _outside_ the world of
government cost-plus contracting at a small fraction of the budget of its
competitors.

Large parts of the military-industrial complex are jobs programs for
underserved portions of the country disguised as 'defense'. The inefficiency
is purposeful. It keeps mounds of people employed in states where there
otherwise wouldn't be much investment.

It requires an army of federal bureaucrats who spend years writing detailed
waterfall-style calls for bids, then an army of engineers at the large firms
that craft bids that are happen to be perfectly suited to the government's
needs. A clique of politicians from those states that will provide unwavering
support to make sure the jobs remain in their states

A small town worth of lawyers, accountants, inspectors, to make sure that the
entire process is 'fair' and 'transparent', and to produce thousands of pages
of documentation to a public that will never read (but is always available to
defend against charges of corruption).

This is still 'corruption', but legally, done at a massive, industrial scale
and with more steps.

But note that much of this is simply make-work, the equivalent of digging
holes and filling them again. The country would probably be safer and have a
better military if we were just honest with ourselves, made those industries
efficient, and then pay off the existing beneficiaries with direct transfers
and massive investments in health care and education.

------
belorn
The conclusion/title seems a bit obvious but also wrong at the same time.

In society when corruption is not punished and you combine that with full
transparency, what you get is open crime. Prohibition comes to mind, and I am
pretty sure no one has thought since then that prohibition would have worked
if we just shone enough sunlight on the lawbreakers. That said, more
transparency on the bribery and political corruption could have led to further
reduced trust in the police and political system until the breaking point
where civil war breaks out and the system gets replaced.

The researchers' experiment did not allow for total replacement of the system
and leaders. It can show the obvious that transparency can reduce trust when
it demonstrates corruption and a failure to punish it, but what happens next
is left unanswered.

------
meshr
Let me disagree. Corruption is corruption but not cooperation. The same as
cancer is a decease but not your new living form. The “bribery game” is bad
corruption model because corruption often occurs when you don’t have a choice
and you have to accept the corruption risk (which can cost you infinite
money). “The public pool is multiplied and divided equally among the players”
– they modeled Denmark but not Kenya to learn corruption, didn’t they?
“Corruption is largely inevitable” – they should learn about blockchain.
Lastly, I grown up in corrupt country (Russia) and I do not only think that
bribes are acceptable but also think that anyone who does this should donate
the same money to anticorruption agencies to treat this disease.

~~~
petre
Anticorruption agencies can essentialy be neutered by corrupt leadership.
They're subject to public funding. This is what happens as we speak in Eastern
Europe (notably Poland and Romania). Bad economic conditions, lack of
infrastructure and education only make it worse. This is why the Marshall Plan
did wonders to post-war GDR. And this is why halting EU funds to corrupt
Eastern Europe states will only make matters worse and reutrn these countries
90s cleptocracies.

------
throwaway122517
This is such bullshit. Corruption is not cooperation, it's more like a leech
on public resources.

I work with one of the big consultancy corps which got hired by one of the
indian state governments to help put in place the eGovernance initiative. Well
it turns out a lot of the civil servants involved have made it their goal to
make sure that the system is as incompetent as possible so that people are
forced to fall-back to the old systems where it'll be easier for them take
bribes.

It infuriates me to no end that progress (which is supported by the elected
government) in a country is being blocked by corrupt numbskulls who just wish
to make sure they can fill their pockets.

~~~
smallnamespace
I think you missed the entire point of the article

> What we call “corruption” is a smaller scale of cooperation undermining a
> larger-scale.

The vast majority of people don't work for some abstract social good. They
work for specific concrete goods: helping themselves, helping their loved
ones, helping their friends first and foremost.

People also believe in reciprocity and fairness. Sometimes that means that if
someone 'helps you out', you do the same back... even if that interaction
wasn't completely 100% sanctioned by the rest of society.

Corruption is not people ignoring their moral instincts and choosing to be
evil. It is them weighing _one_ set of moral instincts more strongly than
_another_ set of moral instincts (egalitarianism, not breaking rules).

The struggle is to _align the incentives properly_ so that 'helping yourself'
also means to help society. Unlike what many libertarians and pure free-
marketeers seem to believe, _this doesn 't just happen magically_, but
requires careful thought and planning.

------
scotty79
Corruption is not only present with relation to government officials.

It's not uncommon that small companies bribe employees of large companies so
they award them contracts for services.

Bribes are whenever person has decision power larger then income from making
correct decissions. Then he can be bribed to make incorrect ones but
beneficial to the one who bribes.

------
vemv
I think the article's point would be more convincing if they related that
study to real-world examples.

Personally I cannot imagine how corruption makes the world any better?

~~~
petre
It doesn't. I fell like this article is a summary to a game theory study.

~~~
Overtonwindow
I'm glad you say that because I had the same thought.

------
baxtr
I wonder for a long time now: what are _underlying_ factors for societies to
be less corrupt than others? How come that many western states fare better
than other countries?

It’s gotta be related to what’s mentioned in the article: people valuing a
larger-scale cooperation higher than a smaller-scale/immediate one. By why?
Ideas/hints anyone?

~~~
smallnamespace
Social trust and cohesion, a unified set of values that every member of
society agrees with.

> How come that many western states fare better than other countries

Because Western societies are by and large the product of 19th-century
nationalism. The ideal has always been: one nation, one people, one language,
one state. If you steal from the public, you are also stealing from members of
your own 'group'.

If you don't view other members of your country to be part if your own social
group, then of course it's much easier to be corrupt. You can see this
happening in India in particular -- everything is drawn along lines of
religion, ethnicity, and caste. The same thing is happening to the US.

------
alexryan
I dispute that corruption is inevitable and propose that its origins lie the
violation of a foundational moral at the heart of most religions:

In Christianity, this is the commandment: Thou shall not steal. In Buddhism,
the precept is more explicit: Do not take that which has not been freely
given.

If we live in a society where the majority of people are willing to violate
this rule by directing the state to steal from those who have more and
redistribute to those who have less, those who are being robbed will naturally
seek to find a means to defend themselves and their families from the
predation of the majority.

Being outnumbered, they do not have the votes to defend themselves at the
polls. Naturally, they will use the resources they do have. They can bribe
those who are tasked with committing the theft. This is entirely rational. No
matter how many prohibitions against corruption are erected, those who are
being preyed upon will seek to defend themselves and there will always be
people willing to help them, especially in exchange for cash.

The origin of corruption lies in the decision to violate the prohibition
against theft. The violation of the prohibition against theft creates a need
for bribery which would not otherwise exist. When a need is created, market
forces will move to ensure the need is met.

One way to create a society free of corruption is for the majority to
voluntarily commit to the prohibition against theft and to enforce the
prohibition against those who choose to violate it.

I would further propose that this could lead to a more general replacement of
zero sum games with positive sum games. This, in turn, would serve to further
accelerate the rate of innovation and thus speed the rate at which all,human
needs are met. When trust is strengthened, instead of seeking to meet our
needs at the expense of each other, we are naturally more willing to work
together to solve the larger problems which afflict us all.

~~~
Fnoord
> If we live in a society where the majority of people are willing to violate
> this rule by directing the state to steal from those who have more and
> redistribute to those who have less

I don't know about your ancestors, but we've lived the past millennia in
societies where the regents rule over the masses in various forms. Mostly,
those in power over those lacking that power, and who _want to keep it that
way_. Money grants power. Therefore, the rich are powerful. More powerful than
the poor. An example where you can see all of this in practice is Europe's
colonial history. Furthermore, wealth is currently vastly unfair distributed.
So what I quote from you, those tax laws you're likely referring to, don't
make up for that. They don't fix that, not in the slightest; it isn't their
goal either.

> Being outnumbered, they do not have the votes to defend themselves at the
> polls.

Outnumbered? Where exactly? On the contrary, right-wing Christians & liberals
(European definition, not United States definition) together apparently
defined as conservatives are steadily in control in the United States, United
Kingdom, The Netherlands, and Germany. Occasionally a party like the Democrats
(US), Labour (UK), PvdA (NL), or SPD (DE) get in control but they're quite on
the right end of the left-wing spectrum. The only exception is the far right-
wing nationalism which is on the rise. Examples are Trump (US), UKIP (UK), PVV
(NL), AfD (DE). You can draw many examples for other countries & parties, such
as France, Austria, Belgium, and many, many more.

If you speak about absolute numbers then see my comment about unfair
distribution of wealth.

My explanation of corruption is far more simple: it is white collar crime.
With crime in general, if people get away with being selfish (risk of getting
caught), get no or low punishment when caught (lack of repercussions), and
they're unhappy with their possessions & wage (equality, happiness) then it
will occur more often. White collar crime, or corruption are no exception to
this.

~~~
alexryan
"unfair distribution of wealth"? What is wealth? If you offer me something
that meets my needs, I will feel grateful and offer you something in exchange
for it. You have _earned_ that wealth. If you are really good at meeting the
needs of others, then you will be better at earning wealth. There is nothing
unfair about that. You do not deserve to be looted and I would defend you from
the looters.

It is true, that amongst the looters some are significantly more successful in
their looting than others. They attain power and use that power to further
their looting. There is no disputing that. I agree with you.

I am simply suggesting that generalized looting is not a solution which will
ever yield a corruption free system because looting itself is the problem.
There is plenty of evidence from the past hundred years to support that
conclusion.

