At one level, corruption can be seen as a problem of multiple equilibria. When bribes are rare, someone who sees a bribe or bribe offer might reasonably expect to be supported for exposing it, and fear being exposed and punished for going along with it. But when bribes are common, one can expect to be punished more for trying to expose corruption.
why are you yelling
what does it mean political weakness is causes of corruption
corruption is the burning topic these days . I can't understand that why people have become so self centered . Today the thing which matters for all of us is just money and this is what causes corruption , is this why the leaders of our past have struggled so much . Though we have got freedom from Britishers but i don't think That ever in our life we would succeed to freed ourself from corruption .IT IS THE HIGH TIME WHEN WE ALL SHOULD JOIN HANDS TO THROW OUT CORRUPTION FROM OUR COUNTRY AND MAKE IT THE MOST DEVELOPED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. AND MAKE THE EFFORTS OF OUR LEADERS USEFUL
IN INDIA CORRUPTION IS PREVALENT AMONGST POLITICIANS AND BUREAUCRATS, SOMETIMES WE WONDER WHETHER THE ILLITERATE POLITICIAN IS ONLY CORRUPT, NOT SO, IN INDIA THE ILLITERATE POLITICIAN AND THE EDUCATED POLITICIAN/ BUREAUCRAT ARE EQUALLY CORRUPT. MANY A TIME THE EDUCATED BUREAUCRAT TEACHES THE POLITICIAN THE WAYS TO CORRUPT DEALS.THE LAW MAKER IS THE LAW BREAKER, BUT HE OR SHE WILL TALK AS THOUGH THEY ARE THE MOST VIRTUOUS BEING'S IN THIS WORLD.
Multinationals already have a bad name, why should they now try to make a good one? What's even more important: they don't really provide an alternative to political parties. They're one and the same, there's no difference that would survive for more then a few years.
RJB, political parties have more reputation, as they exist longer, but multinationals can offer even more data on their performance, and weak parties can less control member behavior.
David and Doug, multinationals are eager to preserve their reputation for giving customers what they want. When hired by administrations, they do what those administrations want, not what the public wants.
Basil, yes we'd want to greatly raise the fees paid to those who win election, to entice such organizations to run for office.
JG and Scott, I agree the law now bars firms; I'm say this is a cause of our poor policies.
By "big multinationals with reputations to protect" you mean multinationals such as British Petroleum, Goldman Sachs, Blackwater, Halliburton, Firestone Tire and Rubber Company, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wik..." Union Carbide?
I agree with JGWeissman. Robin, you seem to overlook a more basic reason why people would reject this: they would reject corporations holding any office at all. The inhumanness of corporations makes people uncomfortable, even if some of the inhuman qualities would actually be advantageous here, benefiting society overall.
It seems silly to worry about why multinational firms don't run for local office when firms don't run for local office. Candidates for government office are people (not legal fiction people).
Let's not discount culture... you can imagine many decisions made by the US government which enhanced certain private companies' wallets being defined as corruption even if none really existed..... the whole 'follow the money mantra' as if even Rosie the Riveter's main motivation for WWII was a good factory job.
Not an overall bad idea given independent oversight should be sought where possible, just not sure if any really independent firms exist.
Maybe a business idea :-)
Why would a multi-national firm run for office? I wouldn't think the direct pecuniary benefits would be enough. There may be indirect benefits that would provide sufficient incentive... but this would (justifiably) given reason for citizens not to trust multi-national firms.
What you're really suggesting is the need for a strong 'brand' that survives on reputation. Political parties are supposed to do this, but your characterisation suggests that they are not strong enough and citizens vote for people, not parties. Or at the very least, poor bahaviour by politicians cannot tarnish the parties' reputation.
Suppose American voters were to be persuaded by this argument. If a candidate from an anti-corruption Danish for-profit stood for election in a U.S. county which used Diebold voting machines, would not the Diebold technicians simply set the machines to ignore votes for the candidate?
Nationalism also means a multinational's reputation at home is not harmed so much by its actions abroad. Who cares what Apple does in India as long as I get new gadgets here in the west? Plus foreign employees of the multinational would probably take any blame.
We've handed over a substantial part of warfighting to multinational corporations. Did that help with corruption? Just think back to the corporate entity once known as Blackwater. I think there are two lessons here. One is that the reputation harm to a multinational is often less than the benefit of raking in forklift loads of dirty money. The second lesson is that if brazen acts of corruption do finally tarnish a brand, the corporation can opt for a rebranding.
Also, Paul Romer advocates just this (well, not having them run for election) as an anti-corruption measure. Crown Agents is a non-profit, but it has existed since at least the mid 19th century.