Corruption seems to me like a phenomena that’s of a different nature then just looking to advance in the politics in an organization by exchanging political favors with each other. If Bob speaks in favor of Alice proposal on A in exchange for Alice speaking in favor of Bob’s proposal B that’s not corrupt.
In my mental model a key factor of corruption is that it’s about exchanging things of a different nature with each other.
If Bob speaks in favor of Alice proposal on A because Alice gives him a personal introduction to a doctor that’s a specialist for an illness under which Bob suffers, that’s corrupt because it’s exchanging things of a different nature.
I don’t think the crux is exchanging things of a different “nature” but rather allowing a personal benefit to influence or determine an agent decision.
So, “Install new windows in my house and I’ll recommend your company for the contract” and “Install new windows for the HQ office, and I’ll recommend your company for the contract” are the same exchange, but the first benefits the agent, while the second benefits the company/principal.
Install new windows for the HQ office, and I’ll recommend your company for the contract”
This still feels corrupt to me. Having competitive bidding where the best bid gets selected seems to be an important feature of good governance and making deals that circumvent the system of competitive bidding is corrupting such good governance.
If the HQ install goes well it’s evidence of quality. It could also be evidence of the lack of quality.
“If you do a good job installing the HQ office windows, I will tell everyone on the purchasing committee about that’s evidence of your company providing high quality services” would be proper more proper.
Circumventing the competitive bidding procedure by making side-deals that are not open knowledge to the purchasing commitee would be a lot mroe problematic.
Corruption seems to me like a phenomena that’s of a different nature then just looking to advance in the politics in an organization by exchanging political favors with each other. If Bob speaks in favor of Alice proposal on A in exchange for Alice speaking in favor of Bob’s proposal B that’s not corrupt.
In my mental model a key factor of corruption is that it’s about exchanging things of a different nature with each other.
If Bob speaks in favor of Alice proposal on A because Alice gives him a personal introduction to a doctor that’s a specialist for an illness under which Bob suffers, that’s corrupt because it’s exchanging things of a different nature.
I don’t think the crux is exchanging things of a different “nature” but rather allowing a personal benefit to influence or determine an agent decision.
So, “Install new windows in my house and I’ll recommend your company for the contract” and “Install new windows for the HQ office, and I’ll recommend your company for the contract” are the same exchange, but the first benefits the agent, while the second benefits the company/principal.
This still feels corrupt to me. Having competitive bidding where the best bid gets selected seems to be an important feature of good governance and making deals that circumvent the system of competitive bidding is corrupting such good governance.
Define “best bid”—the HQ install is evidence of quality/ability. A free sample, as it were.
If the HQ install goes well it’s evidence of quality. It could also be evidence of the lack of quality.
“If you do a good job installing the HQ office windows, I will tell everyone on the purchasing committee about that’s evidence of your company providing high quality services” would be proper more proper.
Circumventing the competitive bidding procedure by making side-deals that are not open knowledge to the purchasing commitee would be a lot mroe problematic.