A mixture of cultural norms and legal norms. As to cultural norms, I'll give an example. Go to a Starbucks and note how people don't crowd around the bar area where the drinks come out. People will stand in a wide circle around the bar, because nobody wants people to think that they're not waiting their turn. This attitude is indoctrinated from elementary school, where teachers chastise kids for cutting in line or not "playing fair." That same attitude inhibits corruption. Taking a bribe isn't "playing fair." It's shameful and socially ostracized in a way that it isn't in India or Bangladesh (my family is Bengali). In India, everyone will crowd around the bar because appearing like you're "looking out for yourself first" is much more socially acceptable.
As for legal norms: bribery and kickbacks are prosecuted strongly in the U.S. The federal government being separate from the state governments means that federal prosecutors have no inhibitions about going after state and local government officials. Moreover, low-level things like bribery are easy to prosecute because it's easy to prove that money changed hands.
This reminds me of a great study about the relationship between cultural and legal norms in looking at corruption. Because of the UN, nearly every country has a diplomat in New York, and because of diplomatic immunity, none of them are responsible for their parking tickets. So you effectively had to rely on their own cultural norms about how to behave with your car, rather than legal enforcement. They found that there was a strong correlation between the number of parking tickets issued to diplomats from a country and independent measures of corruption in that country, showing that the norms really were an important part, and carried over even into a different environment.
there was a strong correlation between the number of parking tickets issued to diplomats from a country and independent measures of corruption in that country, showing that the norms really were an important part, and carried over even into a different environment.
That makes sense, in the same way that you'll find that Americans tend to tip even in countries where tipping is not customary. The real question is how did those cultural norms start in the first place?
Since the article only quotes total amounts owed (US diplomats owing 7.2 million out of a total of 67 million), it probably just says the US sends more diplomats to the UK than most other countries.
The notion that federal, state, and local executive branch authorities are independent is taken for granted in the US but I believe is unusual from a global point of view.
I believe de Tocqueville had a lot to say about this in 'Democracy in America' but I couldn't quickly find a pithy quote.
Indeed. There are plenty of cases of local and/or state level corruption in the US, but there is also the FBI who has the responsibility of tracking that corruption and prosecuting offenders.
In the US, there are "the police who watch the police": the FBI. But their powers are relatively limited in scope... the FBI does not do routine traffic stops, or patrol neighborhoods. So even if the FBI were corrupt, the typical citizen wouldn't come across them very often.
Is there a local Mayor or Governor who is accepting bribes or illegal kickbacks? Call the FBI on them. Is there a local police officer who is giving trouble? Are the local courts too corrupt to prosecute the officer?
Then prosecute him in Federal Court, for federal corruption crimes.
Similarly, FBI Agents are still subject to the rules of the towns and states that they go under. Even if the Feds were corrupt... the State Attorney can prosecute any FBI Agent that oversteps their bounds.
"In Europe a criminal is an unhappy man who is struggling for his life against the agents of power, while the people are merely a spectator of the conflict; in America he is looked upon as an enemy of the human race, and the whole of mankind is against him." Although it should be noted that people lived in much smaller towns two centuries ago. http://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper/DETOC/1_ch05.htm
I think that bribery is too pervasive to be based on cultural norms. I take it as a sign of disorganization and lack of professionalism in government and institutions, which is a sign of weak rule of law and a weak ability to govern. Establishing order and predictability in society is the core function of government, and that's incompatible with officials not taking their jobs seriously and accepting bribes.
It's a self-perpetuating cycle, whether for better or for worse: children in the US grow up expecting professionalism in government, and children in most other countries learn not to expect it.
I agree and would like to add 2 more point ...i.e "population" and "education" .... countries with high population has high corruption because gap between rich and poor increases along with heavy unbearable weight on providing food, housing, education and other infrastructure ....
same goes with literacy rate: highly literate society has low corruption ...
As for legal norms: bribery and kickbacks are prosecuted strongly in the U.S. The federal government being separate from the state governments means that federal prosecutors have no inhibitions about going after state and local government officials. Moreover, low-level things like bribery are easy to prosecute because it's easy to prove that money changed hands.