[From Bill Powers (2000.04.12.0243 MDT)]
Norman Hovda (2000.04.11.1110 MST)--
The source of the corruption is the buyer, not the seller.
That's a curiously one-sided perspective! A good example of the bias
against business and in favor of government that I was talking about.
It's not a bias. A corruptible seller is needed for the buyer to be able to
take advantage of the situation. But if you make all sellers uncorruptible,
the buyer still wishes to do something that the laws forbid. You can argue
that some of the laws are unreasonable, but it's hard to say that about all
laws; most laws were decided upon in order to redress some inequity or harm
to a person or class of persons. And anyway, isn't the basic principle of a
law-based system that the laws are to be obeyed, or changed by the
available mechanisms, but not flouted? In other words, if there is a
contract supposedly agreed to by several parties, the contract is not to be
arbitrarily broken, but renegotiated. Changing the law by corrupting the
lawmakers (or enforcers) is not one of the generally-recognized legitimate
methods for changing the law.
I have a business relationship with a US citizen, native born Nicaraguan
contractor whose Nica company seeks to build homes for the emerging
middle class ($20-25K) and the poor ($5-8K).
Even with new democratic reforms trending towards greater eco
freedom, he is frustrated with the EXTRA and unnecessary COSTS of
bribes to get anything done - in order that he not break any laws (e.g.
permits and other legal nightmare rules and regulations). These "legal"
costs make the final product that much more expensive to those least
able to afford it as the contractor passes these "fees" on to the
consumer.
Well, the solution is obvious, isn't it? Simply do away with all building
codes, sanitary regulations, regulations concerning safety or crowding or
lighting, and so on, and the contractor can sell anything he can persuade
an ignorant or innocently trusting poor person to buy. If there are no laws
to enforce minimum standards, there will be no need to bribe corruptible
officials before building substandard housing. Would your partner prefer
that these officials be uncorruptible, so he could not persuade anyone to
relax the legal requirements?
Of course I recognize that a corrupt inspector can demand bribes simply for
approving of a perfectly legal construction. But it is at least equally
common for the bribe to be offered in return for overlooking the breaking
of laws.
I don't know about your business partner in particular, but when a
businessman complains about regulations, I always want to ask exactly which
regulations he is complaining about. For example, many businessmen complain
about OSHA inspections, because they can end up costing considerable
amounts of money. But in some cases I have seen first-hand, the reason for
the extra cost was the need to do things like putting guards on bare saw
blades or exposed presses, ventilating poisonous fumes, and remounting
emergency exit doors so they open outward instead of inward. All costly, of
course, but is that the point? In times like ours, where labor is scarce,
you can always say "Let the workers choose the safer workplaces." But when
labor has little power and unemployment is high, that is not a viable
choice; you work where you can get a job, or starve.
It could well be that some regulations are unreasonable, but to assume that
is true of all of them would be a mistake. Generally speaking, such
regulations were put in place because of egregious safety hazards and
actual disasters. Perhaps there is a better way to arrive at safety and
prudence, but so far nobody has suggested one. What you hear instead is
"All that safety is too expensive." This is a narrowly self-serving
attitude that is not likely to get much sympathy from the public in general.
It is the seller, in this case, that is the source of the corruption IMO.
You have to ask, what is that but for which there would be no corruption?
If the corrupt official demands a bribe for approving a perfectly legal
project, we can say the official is the source. But if the contractor
offers or agrees to a bribe in order to avoid having to obey the law, it is
the contractor who is the motiving source of the corruption -- "that but
for which" the question of corruption would not arise.
Best,
Bill P.