There’s a reason this post is a question and not an essay. I point to something unclear that I don’t understand well.
Sorry if it wasn’t clear but I’m also trying to make sense of your question and understanding what you mean by ‘corruption’ was my most significant obstacle.
The standard working definition of corruption I use is that it’s about trading things of different domains.
My problem with this is that it still seems too nebulous. I’m not sure how to answer the question without having a sharper distinction for what is and isn’t ‘corruption’ so as to at least estimate its total costs and benefits.
You mentioned “white-hat lobbying” and that’s exactly what I was thinking of when I asked whether you consider lobbying itself to be a form of corruption. From the evidence and info I’ve gleaned from the lobbyist I know, there’s quite a bit of the ‘mechanics’ involved, e.g. in ‘accessing’ politicians, that seems at least a little corrupt.
And I’ve read a reasonable defense of corruption in general arguing that, in effect, corruption provided something liked liquidity to political markets and that made negotiation among coalitions generally easier to conduct (which is itself arguably good). I’m very sympathetic to that.
I’m sorry I haven’t been able to provide a clear answer or even clear thinking about your question. I think it’s an interesting question tho!
Sorry if it wasn’t clear but I’m also trying to make sense of your question and understanding what you mean by ‘corruption’ was my most significant obstacle.
My problem with this is that it still seems too nebulous. I’m not sure how to answer the question without having a sharper distinction for what is and isn’t ‘corruption’ so as to at least estimate its total costs and benefits.
You mentioned “white-hat lobbying” and that’s exactly what I was thinking of when I asked whether you consider lobbying itself to be a form of corruption. From the evidence and info I’ve gleaned from the lobbyist I know, there’s quite a bit of the ‘mechanics’ involved, e.g. in ‘accessing’ politicians, that seems at least a little corrupt.
And I’ve read a reasonable defense of corruption in general arguing that, in effect, corruption provided something liked liquidity to political markets and that made negotiation among coalitions generally easier to conduct (which is itself arguably good). I’m very sympathetic to that.
I’m sorry I haven’t been able to provide a clear answer or even clear thinking about your question. I think it’s an interesting question tho!