3 ms·
I think that it is merely a consequence of when you have a small number of people that get a huge benefit which is paid by the rest of society contributing just
by parados 12y ago
I think that it is merely a consequence of when you have a small number of people that get a huge benefit which is paid by the rest of society contributing just a little each. It is greatly in the interest of the smaller group to continue this by whatever means, even criminal ones. It is not really in the interest of the rest of society to end this because, as individuals, they contribute very little and it would take a huge effort to stop paying.
You get the same effect when, for example, governments subsidise an industry such as agriculture. A tiny group benefits (and lobbies for this to continue) but the cost to the rest of society is individually quite small, for example in Europe around EUR 5-10/person/week.
- hga 12y agoThis is one of the things covered by public choice theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice#Special_interests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice#Special_interest...
- trhway 12y ago>A tiny group benefits (and lobbies for this to continue) but the cost to the rest of society is individually quite small, for example in Europe around EUR 5-10/person/week. and your individual power to affect things is even smaller than that. Add to that that corrupting a multi-billion project results in the huge payoff to the participants where is successfully defending a project against corruption results in no payoff to the ones fighting against the corruption. Thus money and power is on the side of the former.
- sdoering 12y agoThanks, read this once in (I believe) Freakonomics (regarding protective tariffs on sugar in the US), but did not get the connection. Your comment opened my eyes - so thanks a lot for putting my thoughts on the right track.