I've always seen a dilemma with increased bureaucracy driven by corruption prevention:
Systems too focused on defeating corruption as a main objective tend to miss their original intent, and become overly restrictive, to the point of having to rely on rule breaking to actually perform their function.
But once a particular rule is OK to break, every other rule is in jeopardy.
This way you end up with systems like the Spanish access to public jobs: extremely punishing for the participants that are subject to humongous nonsensical competitive examinations, ostensibly to select the very best strictly on their merits, but still rife with corruption.
Systems too focused on defeating corruption as a main objective tend to miss their original intent, and become overly restrictive, to the point of having to rely on rule breaking to actually perform their function.
But once a particular rule is OK to break, every other rule is in jeopardy.
This way you end up with systems like the Spanish access to public jobs: extremely punishing for the participants that are subject to humongous nonsensical competitive examinations, ostensibly to select the very best strictly on their merits, but still rife with corruption.