Speaking broadly, there are two systems for receiving services in Egypt: The government system and the do-it-yourself system. Instead of following the channels of bureaucracy, most people rely on an informal system of personal contacts and bribes to get a building permit, pass an inspection, get a driver’s license — or make a living.
While I realize the thought might not be popular in the corridors of power in Egypt or, for that matter, the NYT newsroom, a refinement on the "informal system of personal contacts and bribes" is a "market". Try them sometime -- they work fabulously!
Signed,
World That Does Not Wade Through Trash On Commute To Work
It doesn't always work. The city of Napoli in Italy also has its own system of "informal system of personal contacts and bribes" to get things done: yes, the Mafia controls garbage collection there, and for some time it looked like this:
When the government obstructs the market in egregious ways, it is called corruption.
When the people circumvent it, it is called the black market and it is often the most important market when the government is corrupt or incompetent.
The claim isn't that corruption is caused by govts, it's that govts make corruption inevitable.
Corruption requires a govt from which to extract special privs via illicit means. (Unless, of course, you're referring to moral corruption.)
It isn't corruption to dump sewage into the drinking water supply if there's no govt restriction on said dumping that you evade through "connections". (Yes, it's wrong to do so even if there's no rule against it, but corruption is the evasion, not the act itself.)
Of course, black markets often involve corruption because "black market" is, by definition, illegal, which requires a govt.
There is a form of corruption involving companies (such as bribing someone to get hired) but they don't affect other people.
All govts selectively enforce laws. The "bad" cases get called corruption.
> Of course they affect other people, what do you mean?
Exactly what I wrote. If I don't do biz with a company, whether or not it follows its rules doesn't matter to me at all. In fact, I can even avoid a company that obeys all of its rules.
One can almost always avoid a company. It's very hard to avoid a govt.
> There are all kinds of harmful corrupt practices not involving governments.
>All govts selectively enforce laws. The "bad" cases get called corruption.
Agreed, but I don't see what this has to do with our discussion. Selective enforcement of laws by a government is certainly one form of corruption, but I see no reason to define the word "corruption" so that nothing else counts. If you prefer, we can talk about "schmorruption", and reserve the term "corruption" for cases involving governments, if the definition of this particular word is so important to you.
>. If I don't do biz with a company, whether or not it follows its rules doesn't matter to me at all
That's just false. Ever heard the word "externality"? If a company has corrupt hiring practices, for example, that's going to adversely affect the people who would have been employed by that company if it had a fair hiring process. And in any case, it's not always so easy for consumers to avoid doing business with a company (try avoiding business with your local electric company).
>>All govts selectively enforce laws. The "bad" cases get called corruption.
>Agreed, but I don't see what this has to do with our discussion.
The relevance is that you charged in arguing that govts weren't all that relevant to corruption, your best argument being that they "enforce laws". I merely pointed out that how they enforce laws is where most corruption occurs.
> That's just false. Ever heard the word "externality"?
Yes, I have, and it has nothing to do with biz-only corruption.
>>How about three examples? [of biz-only corruption that affect other people unwillingly]
> Nepotism, price fixing and protection rackets.
You seem to think that every bad thing that a company can do is corruption. It isn't.
You're not owed a job at a given company, so nepotism isn't interfering with something that you're entitled to.
Price fixing and protection rackets aren't even (necessarily) violations of a company's rules (which is a necessary condition for corruption).
>The relevance is that you charged in arguing that govts weren't all that relevant to corruption
No, I didn't say that.
> I merely pointed out that how they enforce laws is where most corruption occurs.
I don't really understand what this sentence means, or what you mean by "selective" when you say that corruption results solely from selective enforcement of the law by governments. Your original statement was this:
>Corruption requires a govt from which to extract special privs via illicit means.
This is clearly false. It requires only some or other party from which to extract special priveledges by illicit means. There is no requirement that the party in question be a government.
>Yes, I have [head the term "externality"], and it has nothing to do with biz-only corruption.
Are you claiming that the corrupt actions of a business have no externalities? I don't understand how you can possibly think that is true.
>You seem to think that every bad thing that a company can do is corruption. It isn't.
Nepotism, price fixing and protection rackets are examples of what is ordinarily called "corrpution." You are free to define the word so that it only applies in cases where a government is responsible, but then your claim that all corruption is preconditioned on government is just a tautology. I've already said that I'm happy for you to use the word "corrpution" however you please -- we can choose to use some other word if it makes you happy.
>You're not owed a job at a given company, so nepotism isn't interfering with something that you're entitled to.
This depends on what you think you're entitled to. I personally think that I'm entitled to a fair assessment of my job application. And in an earlier post, you admitted that bribing someone to get hired was a "form of corruption." In any case, the entitlement issue has nothing much to do with the question of whether or not it is corruption. Same goes for your other examples.
> price fixing and protection rackets are examples of what is ordinarily called "corrpution."
No, they're not. Corruption requires that an organization violate its own rules. Price fixing, while illegal/bad, is an example of an organization doing something that it wants to do. The same is true of a protection racket - it's the purpose of the organization.
You seem to think that every instance of bad activity is corruption. It isn't.
Let's go back to your definition "It requires only some or other party from which to extract special priveledges by illicit means."
According to that definition, all theft is corruption. As is all extortion. As is anything that results in some gain to the "bad actor".
That's absurd. Corruption implies a loss of integrity. Protection rackets and other thieves haven't "lost integrity" - they're criminal enterprises and their acts are completely consistent with that.
> Corruption requires that an organization violate its own rules.
Does it? Where did you get that requirement from?
>According to that definition
You're misinterpreting the scope of "only", as should be obvious from the context. I was not proposing a necessary and sufficient requirement for something being corruption, I was just saying that the party from whom privileges are extracted doesn't have to be a government.
>You seem to think that every instance of bad activity is corruption
It seem to me like you are trying to jam a square peg into a round hole. Trash collection, at least in major cities in the US, is done either by some branch of civic government (for example New York's Department of Sanitation), or by a private contractor, usually on a long term contract (Greenwaste Recovery in San Jose).
It's pretty far removed from what could be considered a free market. Yet it's not expensive (at least compared to things like phone service, water, or cable), its employees tend to be reasonably fairly compensated, and as you mentioned, it works. ...even if that reality might not be popular in libertarian circles.
If anything trash collection in Cairo sounds more like something approaching a free market than what large cities do in the states.
While I realize the thought might not be popular in the corridors of power in Egypt or, for that matter, the NYT newsroom, a refinement on the "informal system of personal contacts and bribes" is a "market". Try them sometime -- they work fabulously!
Signed,
World That Does Not Wade Through Trash On Commute To Work