Correct me if I'm wrong

Did the Washington Post just publish an editorial advocating the benefits of corruption?

Posted by Prometheus 6 on February 20, 2005 - 9:10am :: War
 
 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

You're not wrong. I wonder who this guy thinks he's addressing. I haven't read any analysis of "what's wrong with the world" that depends exclusively (or even largely) on corruption. Sure, obvious corruption is endemic in a lot of poorer countries. Less obvious corruption is endemic is a lot of wealthier countries (the English-speaking ones int particular). But corruption as the only analysis tool? WTF?

Posted by  paperwight on February 20, 2005 - 4:55pm.

What the author doesn't seem to grasp is that all corruption is not equal. That some kinds of corruption stifle economic development, while others have less impact.

The most devastating is when any degree of business success is met by dozens of outstretched hands, each of which is capable of blocking more success. This is the kind of thing which kills Mexican small industry, and remains a huge problem in India. It's largely to blame for the lack of economic development in the third world. It's a case of eating one's young -- the young business is drained dry, and withers.

Traditional police corruption, being paid off to ignore prostitution and gambling, has minimal effect on the economic status of citizens. It needs to be stopped for other reasons, reasons involving civilization, but economically it may well be beneficial.

The kind of corruption hinted at by paperwight might be best categorized as businesses paying government to give the business some undeserved marketplace advantage. Sometimes it's even legal. The effect is higher prices of goods and services, which lowers the standard of living, but often the standard of living can remain acceptably high despite significant amounts of such corruption.

Posted by  dwshelf on February 20, 2005 - 6:35pm.