In many countries
bribery is regarded as tradition. Public officials in many countries are
routinely under-paid relative to market forces, and therefore they supplement
their income by taking bribes. Of course, there are small time petty “bribes”
by lower level public officials, and big time “BRIBES,” by higher level
officials. Is bribery always wrong, never wrong, or sometimes wrong? Are there
hyper-norms involved?
The most serious problem
with regulating bribery at a global level is that it is that it is almost
impossible to monitor and enforce laws against it. It takes place in private.
Bribes are often perceived by both offerers and payers as a business
opportunity, and therefore tend to perpetuate the tradition.
Conceptually, bribery
is a problem for both stockholder and stakeholder theorists. Stockholder
theorists tend to embrace “When in Rome do as the Romans do." But on the other hand, bribery obviously raise the cost of doing business, without adding to the value of the product or
service. Stakeholder theorists promote international laws that insist on corporate
“transparency” and laws that make it more difficult to pay bribes, especially
laws against money laundering. Stockholder theorists often argue that some of
these laws violate the right to privacy, or that these laws are costly and
ineffective.
1 comment:
Can bribery serve a social good? That is, can it serve to overcome a greater corruption (albeit via a minor corruption) that prevents a company or charity or individual from operating in an otherwise lawful manner. Example. Equipment for drilling water wells is held in a warehouse and the official will not release it without a bribe. Or, food is sitting on a dock in the heat and rain awaiting liberation by means of a bribe.
Post a Comment