3 ms·

I'm not sure what your point is. If you ask yourself what corruption is; it's not a force of nature appearing from nowhere, it's a social response in a populati

by hnarn 6y ago

I'm not sure what your point is. If you ask yourself what corruption is; it's not a force of nature appearing from nowhere, it's a social response in a population to uncertainty, unmet needs and danger. So a country with a history of conflict, for example, would be expected to develop some level of corruption as the fabric of society breaks down. The way you're phrasing it, it almost sounds like you're insinuating that some countries simply "are" less corrupt, and this is why they are more developed, which is perhaps a comforting thought if you happen to live in a highly developed country, but it's quite obviously not true which a simple historical review of a few centuries back can normally show.

prepend 6y ago
I think they mean that reducing corruption is one of the factors that leads to economic development. Some countries are less corrupt and this leads to more development, investment, etc. It’s a low cost investment as the amount of corruption is very low, but the friction has much greater impact negatively than the cash generated. I wish I could find the paper, but economically it’s better off to give the inspectors raises above the amount from bribes as that will improve development from the things that now happen that were being blocked by bribes.
- hnarn 6y ago
  > economically it’s better off to give the inspectors raises above the amount from bribes I can't speak to whether this is verified or not, but at least it makes sense. The same logic is often used to motivate why politicians have relatively high wages, as decreasing them would incentivize bribes. It's of course not black and white and well-off politicians may still accept bribes, but at least I have a hard time seeing how the wage wouldn't be a factor. I heard a similar anecdote about badly paid police officers, how many countries have this issue where police are paid so little they pretty much have to take bribes, in a perverted sense like waiting jobs in the US "include" tips, so the notion of an uncorrupted police officer is completely foreign as you simply wouldn't be able to make ends meet.

by hnarn 6y ago

prepend 6y ago

I think they mean that reducing corruption is one of the factors that leads to economic development. Some countries are less corrupt and this leads to more development, investment, etc. It’s a low cost investment as the amount of corruption is very low, but the friction has much greater impact negatively than the cash generated. I wish I could find the paper, but economically it’s better off to give the inspectors raises above the amount from bribes as that will improve development from the things that now happen that were being blocked by bribes.

hnarn 6y ago
> economically it’s better off to give the inspectors raises above the amount from bribes I can't speak to whether this is verified or not, but at least it makes sense. The same logic is often used to motivate why politicians have relatively high wages, as decreasing them would incentivize bribes. It's of course not black and white and well-off politicians may still accept bribes, but at least I have a hard time seeing how the wage wouldn't be a factor. I heard a similar anecdote about badly paid police officers, how many countries have this issue where police are paid so little they pretty much have to take bribes, in a perverted sense like waiting jobs in the US "include" tips, so the notion of an uncorrupted police officer is completely foreign as you simply wouldn't be able to make ends meet.