Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Corruption erodes social trust more in democracies than in autocracies

frontiersin.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 414 posts

Re: Corruption erodes social trust more in democracies than in autocracies

#151

Post by stingraycharles »

yason wrote: post #130

It's well known that in authoritarian regimes (which autocracies generally are) corruption is, rather than a problem, a necessary element of society to keep things going. Anyone with the slightest amount of official power, like a government officer, has the ability to prevent things going forward on his part. In this kind of society, most people are poor and it would be considered stupid to not demand a small (or lar…

I would not say that corruption is a positive trait, but rather that in societies with an authoritarian regime, corruption has a positive impact on getting you what you want. Which, of course, makes sense when there are no rules to follow, and it enables you to get things going.

Where this fails is when the person who wants to get things going their way doesn’t have enough money. And that’s why it’s usually paired with inequality as well.

Re: Corruption erodes social trust more in democracies than in autocracies

#152

Post by abhinai »

mentalgear wrote: post #146
Telemakhos wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does this square with regimes like Singapore, which is one of the least corrupt nations in the world yet also an authoritarian, one-party system?

These are the 'benevolent authoritarian-ship' outliers - very rare and depends on chance that the current person in power truly acts in the interest of the public - but when they are gone there's no legal framework in place that keeps their successors to do whatever they please. EDIT: commenters are still all referring to Singapore which I remind you is the very rare outlier case.

Not true. LKY has been gone a while and Singapore GDP has only gone up.

Re: Corruption erodes social trust more in democracies than in autocracies

#153

Post by mystraline »

mentalgear wrote: post #142
yason wrote: post #130

It's well known that in authoritarian regimes (which autocracies generally are) corruption is, rather than a problem, a necessary element of society to keep things going. Anyone with the slightest amount of official power, like a government officer, has the ability to prevent things going forward on his part. In this kind of society, most people are poor and it would be considered stupid to not demand a small (or lar…

[flagged]

The problem with meritocracy: who decides what "merit" is?

The answer is: those who are already in power.

Re: Corruption erodes social trust more in democracies than in autocracies

#155

Post by stingraycharles »

mentalgear wrote: post #146
Telemakhos wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does this square with regimes like Singapore, which is one of the least corrupt nations in the world yet also an authoritarian, one-party system?

These are the 'benevolent authoritarian-ship' outliers - very rare and depends on chance that the current person in power truly acts in the interest of the public - but when they are gone there's no legal framework in place that keeps their successors to do whatever they please. EDIT: commenters are still all referring to Singapore which I remind you is the very rare outlier case.

I guess it’s a good thing that the ruling party has been in power for about 6 decades at this point.

Re: Corruption erodes social trust more in democracies than in autocracies

#156

Post by timojaask »

mentalgear wrote: post #142
yason wrote: post #130

It's well known that in authoritarian regimes (which autocracies generally are) corruption is, rather than a problem, a necessary element of society to keep things going. Anyone with the slightest amount of official power, like a government officer, has the ability to prevent things going forward on his part. In this kind of society, most people are poor and it would be considered stupid to not demand a small (or lar…

[flagged]

> Reminds me of a report that Russians have no word for "bribe"

This is just false. The word is “взятка”.

If I were you I would not trust that report you’re referring to.

Re: Corruption erodes social trust more in democracies than in autocracies

#157

Post by danans »

Sharlin wrote: post #107
bojan wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The black market is not an institution, it's a messy anarchy where you have zero guarantee you'll get what you paid for. > As is the "bribe economy" – the general understanding that getting X done generally costs you around Y, where Y is not arbitrary That's really not how that works. Sometimes your bribe will be refused. Sometimes they'll ask for more money even when you think you paid. Sometimes they'll simply not…

I'm obviously not defending these things, but people do get things done in everyday life in deeply corrupt countries. It's not chaos. Society is self-organizing like that, and this stuff is all iterated prisoner's dilemma in the end.

> Society is self-organizing like that, and this stuff is all iterated prisoner's dilemma in the end..

"Iterating the prisoners dilemma" at all levels of interface with government, moral qualms about autocracy/authoritarianism aside, is a very inefficient way to run a society, because government is an inherent and natural monopoly.

Even in private commerce, it only works where there are choices and not monopolies.

"Zero trust" is optimal for machine communication networks, not human organizations.

Re: Corruption erodes social trust more in democracies than in autocracies

#158

Post by collabs »

zipy124 wrote: post #147
Telemakhos wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does this square with regimes like Singapore, which is one of the least corrupt nations in the world yet also an authoritarian, one-party system?

It doesn't because their premise falls apart in democracies too. Civil servants in democracies are not elected and they have the same 'stopping power'. A planning officer in the UK could just as easily decide to arbritrarily block plans they disagree with as in an authoratian country.

My guess is there is some kind of momentum with these things. If everybody demands bribes, then by not demanding bribes yourself when you are in a position to do so, you are effectively pissing away your take but remember you still need to pay bribes to everyone else because they don't care you didn't take bribes.

On the flip side, if nobody else requires bribes but you do, you will surely stick out like a sore thumb. If I don't get paid bribes and I am an influential powerful person, why should I pay you any bribes? Especially for something that is legitimate and a part of your duties?

Re: Corruption erodes social trust more in democracies than in autocracies

#160

Post by dotancohen »

yason wrote: post #130

It's well known that in authoritarian regimes (which autocracies generally are) corruption is, rather than a problem, a necessary element of society to keep things going. Anyone with the slightest amount of official power, like a government officer, has the ability to prevent things going forward on his part. In this kind of society, most people are poor and it would be considered stupid to not demand a small (or lar…

An interpretation of the title and conclusions of the article is that the government actions or perception, is less of an influence on high-trust / low-trust societies. The far more influential factor is social, between citizens.
Post reply on HN