> "The key to corruption is improving the quality of government. Without that, anti-corruption strategies are bound to fail". > "If you put people in the right

> "The key to corruption is improving the quality of government. Without that, anti-corruption strategies are bound to fail". > "If you put people in the right environment, with the right institutions, you can reduce corruption substantially, possibly because they quickly adapt to what’s going on in their environment". The way you seem to be using the word "cultural" here and in your other comments seems to be to imply that corruption is, in some sense, "inbuilt" into certain people, based on their "culture", and not into others. I.e., Mexicans are inherently more corrupt, and Europeans inherently less corrupt. By their nature. Is that an accurate reading of what you're saying? If it is, then the actual point of the article quite violently contradicts your view. If corruption were some inherent aspect of people's "being", based on their "culture", then changing governments or institutions would surely make no difference whatsoever to corruption levels, right? Their true nature would just continue, unperturbed, as prone to corruption as ever. The article says clearly and repeatedly - as in the quotes I share above - that this isn't the reality of what happens. Put differently, you could say that corruption is "cultural", if by "cultural" you meant specifically that it is dependent on one's environment, and isn't whatsoever inherent in a person's "nature". You seem to be saying the opposite, though, and still claiming the article confirms that? Puzzling.