I don’t have a problem with widespread corruption inherently, but it has to be well understood and broadly applicable (which it generally isn’t).
For the average citizen, it doesn’t make much of a difference if you have to pay a €10 processing fee at town hall to get a copy of an official document or if you give the teller €10 under the table to make sure your document gets processed. In fact, there’s an argument to be made that the bribe fosters the local economy more than the processing fee. The problem occurs when a person who does not expect corruption doesn’t pay the €10 that no one tells them is necessary and doesn’t get their document.
Of course the processing fee, being publicly disclosed, is subject to pushback from the populace as a whole, whereas the bribe can be set based on how badly the individual needs something from the government/how positively the official feels about the individual and can therefore be incredibly unfairly applied, which is obviously worse.
I disagree but it is interesting to note that your conception of corruption essentially doesn’t make the distinction between extractive and quid-pro-quo.
Extractive corruption is where one party uses authority to essentially shake down someone else. A cop pulls you over for a spurious reason and demands $200 in cash to make it all go away on the spot, or you can fight it and maybe win in court after significant inconvenience, cost, or just be met with immediate violence. In any case, in this case there is a perpetrator and a victim and the victim gets nothing out of it other than getting screwed.
In quid-pro-quo type corruption, both parties benefit to some degree. So for example if you’re applying for a permit at a local government office and you need it done fast, you slip them $50 to bump it to the top of the queue. They get paid, you get your permit faster .
China’s anti-corruption efforts famously dealt very harshly with extractive corruption while allowing a certain degree if quid-pro-quo corruption on the basis that 1) you cannot fully eliminate corruption so you have to prioritize and 2) quid-pro-quo corruption actually meets a market demand that isn’t being met within the official system, as you noted. So long as the clerk continues to eventually process permits for people who don’t pay the $50 bribe , there is a certain like of logic that says that you might as well let that clerk keep doing this since not everyone needs permits fast.
This form of “allowed” corruption itself requires monitoring and regulation, though as it can easily turn extractive and such practices essentially require that the clerk have some reasonable fear of going too far.
It feels like with your system you’re mostly just heading to a world where demographics with lesser abilities/skills in various ways end up being penalized.
How does a mentally challenged person navigate government corruption? What about someone who just generally isn’t very bright? I know someone here is thinking along the lines of ‘maybe they should be penalized’ and I get that feeling but I don’t feel like I want to live in that world.
That’s a very good point. I was picturing a society where this is common and accompanied by a reduced government role, which would require more community support for people who have greater need of it, but that’s not very realistic.
I like where your heads at, minimizing bureaucracy and keeping government local. It’s an admirable goal, but it’s easy to forget that one of the intended purposes of bureaucracy at a basic level was to enforce fairness. We’ve strayed a lot from that, but the basic concept should be sound if we could figure out how to do it properly.
Welcome to Lithuania. Want to see a doctor? Gotta bribe the secratary. Wanna get those blood results? You better bring a fine whisky with you to give to the doctor himself
Incredibly bad take incoming:
I don’t have a problem with widespread corruption inherently, but it has to be well understood and broadly applicable (which it generally isn’t).
For the average citizen, it doesn’t make much of a difference if you have to pay a €10 processing fee at town hall to get a copy of an official document or if you give the teller €10 under the table to make sure your document gets processed. In fact, there’s an argument to be made that the bribe fosters the local economy more than the processing fee. The problem occurs when a person who does not expect corruption doesn’t pay the €10 that no one tells them is necessary and doesn’t get their document.
Of course the processing fee, being publicly disclosed, is subject to pushback from the populace as a whole, whereas the bribe can be set based on how badly the individual needs something from the government/how positively the official feels about the individual and can therefore be incredibly unfairly applied, which is obviously worse.
The clerk could take the bribe and still not do your paper. What recourse is there when you operate outside the framework? Not much.
You could try bribing his boss, but likely he’s taking a cut as well from the clerk and wouldn’t even listen to your complaints.
Well, yes. I’m assuming honor where it shouldn’t be assumed.
You’re right, that is an incredibly bad take
I disagree but it is interesting to note that your conception of corruption essentially doesn’t make the distinction between extractive and quid-pro-quo.
Extractive corruption is where one party uses authority to essentially shake down someone else. A cop pulls you over for a spurious reason and demands $200 in cash to make it all go away on the spot, or you can fight it and maybe win in court after significant inconvenience, cost, or just be met with immediate violence. In any case, in this case there is a perpetrator and a victim and the victim gets nothing out of it other than getting screwed.
In quid-pro-quo type corruption, both parties benefit to some degree. So for example if you’re applying for a permit at a local government office and you need it done fast, you slip them $50 to bump it to the top of the queue. They get paid, you get your permit faster .
China’s anti-corruption efforts famously dealt very harshly with extractive corruption while allowing a certain degree if quid-pro-quo corruption on the basis that 1) you cannot fully eliminate corruption so you have to prioritize and 2) quid-pro-quo corruption actually meets a market demand that isn’t being met within the official system, as you noted. So long as the clerk continues to eventually process permits for people who don’t pay the $50 bribe , there is a certain like of logic that says that you might as well let that clerk keep doing this since not everyone needs permits fast.
This form of “allowed” corruption itself requires monitoring and regulation, though as it can easily turn extractive and such practices essentially require that the clerk have some reasonable fear of going too far.
It feels like with your system you’re mostly just heading to a world where demographics with lesser abilities/skills in various ways end up being penalized.
How does a mentally challenged person navigate government corruption? What about someone who just generally isn’t very bright? I know someone here is thinking along the lines of ‘maybe they should be penalized’ and I get that feeling but I don’t feel like I want to live in that world.
That’s a very good point. I was picturing a society where this is common and accompanied by a reduced government role, which would require more community support for people who have greater need of it, but that’s not very realistic.
I like where your heads at, minimizing bureaucracy and keeping government local. It’s an admirable goal, but it’s easy to forget that one of the intended purposes of bureaucracy at a basic level was to enforce fairness. We’ve strayed a lot from that, but the basic concept should be sound if we could figure out how to do it properly.
To me it sounds like you’re advocating for “tipping” public servants.
Welcome to Lithuania. Want to see a doctor? Gotta bribe the secratary. Wanna get those blood results? You better bring a fine whisky with you to give to the doctor himself
Did you just re-tell the joke, but seriously?