of prosecution, for the recipient and/or financier, is zero. Their influence over the media often prevents open criticism, hides flagrant abuses of power and further guarantees the absence of any ramifications for clearly immoral and self-interested behaviour. It is also worth noting that through reduced government tax revenues and market competitiveness, as well as environmental and social costs, borne from regulatory non-compliance, wealth is transferred from consumers to shareholders, managers and recipients of bribes. Such transfers are key factors in creating, and sustaining, prolonged periods of inequality. The negative implications of bribery are not limited to economic inefficiencies- there is also a clear human cost. Thus, in these cases, the extent to which bribery is normalized depends on degree to which societies can alter the political landscape of their state to behave transparently and in the interests of its people. Bribery offers individuals and firms a highly profitable avenue through which business activity can be conducted and the fact that the benefits of bribery are frequently of a very large magnitude ensures that it is often the expected costs of bribery that determine whether bribery is committed. The extent to which legislation exists to counter bribery and the extent to which it is enforced will determine how large the cost of bribery is perceived to be. The frequency with which bribery is detected and the resulting sanctions on its perpetrators set clear precedents to those considering committing the act with heavy sanctions and high rates of detection acting as clear deterrents. But amongst the deliberately imposed costs, including monetary fines and criminal convictions, are also indirect consequences such as reputational damage to those involved, consumer backlash, reduced sales, the loss of morale amongst employees and damage to relationships with other firms and regulatory bodies. But, despite the potential scale of costs, it must be acknowledged that the costs are only borne by the perpetrator upon, and only upon, the discovery of bribery. Thus the disincentives to potential
perpetrators are entirely dependent on the ability of regulatory bodies to discover and respond to bribery. The threat of huge fines are unsubstantiated if the likelihood of discovery is zero. If the bodies responsible for discovering, and responding to, bribery are unable to do so then we may find that there is little disincentive for those considering committing the act. In such a scenario, where we assume that any potential perpetrator is driven solely by the implications to the profitability of his business, if the expected costs of bribery are less than the expected benefits we must expect that firms would make the choice to bribe. Economic theory tells us that decisions are made on the basis of private interests and often, as a consequence, neglect the interests of broader society. Thus where there are few downside risks to perpetrators, we may well find that bribery pays and, as a result, could be committed on a frequent enough basis so as to call it normal. The normality of an action is decided by its perpetrators whereas what is right is defined by societal consensus. Thus that which is normal may not always be right. Bribery instils poverty, removes competition, weakens legitimate democracy and destabilizes vital institutions. Thus bribery is wrong in an absolute sense. But the two parties have differing motivations for considering an action and thus clear differences, between which actions are socially beneficial and which are beneficial to private interests, arise. This is seen most clearly through the fact that the benefits to its perpetrator are far outweighed by the cumulative inefficiencies and human costs that it creates. Ultimately, it is the ease with which the interests of one group are able to subvert and redirect the interests of the other that will determine whether bribery becomes normal. Thus the fact that it is easy to bribe in situations where the rule of law is non-existent allows the act of bribery to become normal. But bribery is as much a symptom as it is a cause of problems in both the developed and developing world. Eliminating the ability of private interests to
43
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker