Longstanding laws intended to prevent corruption and conflict of interest [impose significant costs] Just because they have costs to them doesn't make them bad

Longstanding laws intended to prevent corruption and conflict of interest [impose significant costs] Just because they have costs to them doesn't make them bad. But maybe there are more efficient ways to police corruption? Or maybe a small amount of corruption is acceptable, if the cost of preventing it would be greater than the amount lost? The Standish Group, an information technology firm, deemed just 4.6 percent of large-scale government contracting projects executed in the past decade to be successful. More than half were “challenged,” and about 40 percent simply “failed.” https://www.google.com/search?q=percent+of+software+projects+that+fail https://www.google.com/search?q=percent+of+software+projects... Reported numbers vary widely, but a 40% failure rate doesn't sound clearly worse (or better) than private industry. The 4.6% success rate sounds rather bad, but a quick look doesn't immediately show private industry numbers to compare to.