4 ms·

But not having corruption at a lower level makes a lot of difference (in my opinion)

yunohn 5y ago
I agree that as a normal citizen, it feels ickier and annoying. I definitely do not appreciate it myself. However, I feel like the focus on small-time corruption distracts us from the bigger institutionalised corruption that is ever prevalent. By deciding that the lower levels of gov are going to be both underpaid and devoid of other “benefits”, we still end up with gov employees that hate their job and have no motivation. It changes nothing other than convenience for the citizens and results in near-poverty for the gov employees. Meanwhile, the higher-ups are living in mansions in both situations. It’s effectively a classist gate keeping - wherein the powerful always get what they want, and have the opportunity to hide it enough that IME the average citizen in the West still truly believes that their gov is fair and not corrupt.
- michaelt 5y ago
  Does it make a difference who is actually expected to pay the bribe? For example, corrupt traffic officers' bribes are often regressive (as nobody's threatening the rich and powerful), leave people with less money in their pocket, and requires the creation of direct injustices like wrongful imprisonment or even violence. Whereas a defence contractor who has a bunch of retired generals and senators as "advisers" merely steals from tax revenue, which is collected progressively; the average citizen has no less money in their pocket; and no direct threats are needed at all. It's still corruption, certainly, but it doesn't put innocent people in jail.
  - yunohn 5y ago
    That’s a great question, I do see your viewpoint. I agree that low-end corruption is more regressive for the common person, both in that they are more forced to pay up, but also that it comes from a smaller wealth pool. High-end corruption is lobbying and think-tanks. While low-level bribing is for pettier things like paperwork, the rich and powerful aim to influence public policy to their benefit. While the common person might not have to visibly participate, these changes affect their lives. Taxes are only progressive by design, but in reality are disproportionately paid by those who can’t afford to evade/game the system. Moreover, the non-rich people are the ones who actually really need the outcomes of tax money. As more and more of it that is siphoned away by high-level corruption, you end up with decaying infrastructure. This outcome is quite visible in a lot of developed countries now. Another great example are defence budgets that dominate the entire national budget, but primarily funnel money to the rich military-industrial oligarchs, while being used to murder people in “faraway lands”.

I agree that as a normal citizen, it feels ickier and annoying. I definitely do not appreciate it myself. However, I feel like the focus on small-time corruption distracts us from the bigger institutionalised corruption that is ever prevalent. By deciding that the lower levels of gov are going to be both underpaid and devoid of other “benefits”, we still end up with gov employees that hate their job and have no motivation. It changes nothing other than convenience for the citizens and results in near-poverty for the gov employees. Meanwhile, the higher-ups are living in mansions in both situations. It’s effectively a classist gate keeping - wherein the powerful always get what they want, and have the opportunity to hide it enough that IME the average citizen in the West still truly believes that their gov is fair and not corrupt.

michaelt 5y ago
Does it make a difference who is actually expected to pay the bribe? For example, corrupt traffic officers' bribes are often regressive (as nobody's threatening the rich and powerful), leave people with less money in their pocket, and requires the creation of direct injustices like wrongful imprisonment or even violence. Whereas a defence contractor who has a bunch of retired generals and senators as "advisers" merely steals from tax revenue, which is collected progressively; the average citizen has no less money in their pocket; and no direct threats are needed at all. It's still corruption, certainly, but it doesn't put innocent people in jail.
- yunohn 5y ago
  That’s a great question, I do see your viewpoint. I agree that low-end corruption is more regressive for the common person, both in that they are more forced to pay up, but also that it comes from a smaller wealth pool. High-end corruption is lobbying and think-tanks. While low-level bribing is for pettier things like paperwork, the rich and powerful aim to influence public policy to their benefit. While the common person might not have to visibly participate, these changes affect their lives. Taxes are only progressive by design, but in reality are disproportionately paid by those who can’t afford to evade/game the system. Moreover, the non-rich people are the ones who actually really need the outcomes of tax money. As more and more of it that is siphoned away by high-level corruption, you end up with decaying infrastructure. This outcome is quite visible in a lot of developed countries now. Another great example are defence budgets that dominate the entire national budget, but primarily funnel money to the rich military-industrial oligarchs, while being used to murder people in “faraway lands”.