[flagged]
Corruption erodes social trust more in democracies than in autocracies
221–230 of 414 posts
Re: Corruption erodes social trust more in democracies than in autocracies
#222It'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…
> Western corruption mostly concerns about the powerful and rich making friendly mutual agreements to bend the governing bodies and law to enable themselves become more powerful and richer. There's an awful lot of low level corruption in the form of NGOs who receive government funding with no accountability for what the funds are spent on.
well that's a different 'kind' of corruption
corruption you have to GIVE to get stuff done
vs corruption with loophole for RECEIVING money
(I'd rather have the latter )
Re: Corruption erodes social trust more in democracies than in autocracies
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have an unusual perspective here. In my country the politicians are openly very corrupt. (Well, possibly yours too ;) Recently there has been a lot of improvement to the infrastructure. I realized that what has happened is, a lot of EU funds have been made available for development, and people are lining up to skim a little bit off the top. How you say, the incentives are aligned, yeah? I find myself in the odd sit…
I am not sure the incentives are aligned. those people fixing the roads are incentivized to do the work cheaply so they can skim more “off the top” And you still need to fight corruption to some level or it will come to a point where there’s more skimming than work being done
>those people fixing the roads are incentivized to do the work cheaply
this incentive exists with or without corruption
Re: Corruption erodes social trust more in democracies than in autocracies
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
That's not true, in a democracy you tend to have methods of appeal that actually work, and their threat keeps the wheels of bureaucracy greased. This is because, in principle, everything comes down to the fundamental threat that the people can remove the current government, and the government does have full control over the unelected civil servants. If they keep ignoring appeals, they'll eventually get dethroned. The…
The US elected government has no control over the unelected civil servants as congress over the past 150 years did everything they could to prevent the spoils system.
Re: Corruption erodes social trust more in democracies than in autocracies
#225It'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]
Bullshit. We have more words for flavors of bribery than for types of snow.
Re: Corruption erodes social trust more in democracies than in autocracies
#226Is there a reason not to simplify this to: corruption erodes social trust more in high-trust societies than in societies where trust is already degraded? Meaning: is the type of government actually the controlling factor, or just code for high vs. low trust societies?
Re: Corruption erodes social trust more in democracies than in autocracies
#227It'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…
Very well said. I live in Sweden, one of the world's highest-trust societies, but I have experience from a more corrupt environment and my whole family lived most of their lives in a corrupt autocracy. This means that in a corrupt society, it's extremely difficult as an individual not to participate. The corruption isn't something that happens at some level, it's a core part of the economy. If you try to do things by…
Access to corruption is never widely understood and accessible to every person, otherwise it would be written into law and stated plainly for everyone to see. Corruption is a form of economic eugenics that breeds fraudsters and cheaters who can buy into the in-group via know-how, money or aesthetics while slowing the growth of a law abiding populace that competes honestly on merit but doesn't fit the unwritten rules of admission. Any participation in that system is a spiraling force that makes the world worse, and it's always a choice.
In the US we're being led by a career fraudster who was a Wharton grad only because he had a family friend who was an admissions officer, and according to his sister, he paid someone to take his SATs for him. We have not been serious about the massive consequences of white collar fraud and corruption and we are now beginning to understand the butterfly effects.
Re: Corruption erodes social trust more in democracies than in autocracies
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Western corruption mostly concerns about the powerful and rich making friendly mutual agreements to bend the governing bodies and law to enable themselves become more powerful and richer. There's an awful lot of low level corruption in the form of NGOs who receive government funding with no accountability for what the funds are spent on.
well that's a different 'kind' of corruption corruption you have to GIVE to get stuff done vs corruption with loophole for RECEIVING money (I'd rather have the latter )
The NGOs find ways to route the received money back to the politicians in the form of campaign donations, or having a politician's friend/relative being an executive at the NGO.
The NGOs also subcontract to other NGOs, who take their cut, and eventually just a trickle winds up going to the purpose of giving money to the NGO.
Re: Corruption erodes social trust more in democracies than in autocracies
#229Earlier quoted context omitted.
Very well said. I live in Sweden, one of the world's highest-trust societies, but I have experience from a more corrupt environment and my whole family lived most of their lives in a corrupt autocracy. This means that in a corrupt society, it's extremely difficult as an individual not to participate. The corruption isn't something that happens at some level, it's a core part of the economy. If you try to do things by…
As I commented elsewhere, the Russian name for this is blat. It isn't just corruption. It is a personal trust network for getting things done, that you can't get done if you follow the official rules. You get what you need through corruption, and your ability to do so strengthens your trust in your personal network. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn86C4ZwBSg for an excellent explanation of it. And also an explan…
I was initially confused because blat (блат,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blat_(favors)) sounds, to my non-slavic-speaking-ear very close to bylad (блядь, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_profanity#Bly%C3%A1d'), and I thought "even the Russians wouldn't be that cynically direct about it, right?"
Re: Corruption erodes social trust more in democracies than in autocracies
#230Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Western corruption mostly concerns about the powerful and rich making friendly mutual agreements to bend the governing bodies and law to enable themselves become more powerful and richer. There's an awful lot of low level corruption in the form of NGOs who receive government funding with no accountability for what the funds are spent on.
well that's a different 'kind' of corruption corruption you have to GIVE to get stuff done vs corruption with loophole for RECEIVING money (I'd rather have the latter )
The two aren't really separate, because the grifters who are on the receiving end also often end up being ones "donating" to the corrupt politicians who select their organizations to receive money.