There are bribes, there's corruption and there's undue influence. Are lobbying and bribery substitutes for each other? What direction do different companies take? Is there a trade off between corruption and influence? And what are the implications for policy makers?
Some worthwhile analysis in a recent study Strong Firms Lobby, Weak Firms Bribe: A Survey-Based Analysis of the Demand for Influence .
Focusing on thousands of businesses in 57 countries, the researchers found that companies that can afford lobbyists have, not surprisingly, more political influence. Weaker firms, without that sort of influence, resort to bribes or target corrupt bureaucrats. But because they don't have political influence, they don't have much bargaining power.
Researchers found that small companies more inclined to bribe had less faith in the system. So it's a vicious cycle. Because they don't believe the system works, they're more likely to sling a bribe.
This has important implications for anti-corruption laws. If companies with influence are less likely to bribe, they're less likely to bend the rules.
These findings are particularly significant in light of the lobbying and favors extended over laws addressing climate change and health care reform. It's not quite bribery. But one is a substitute for the other.
no comment untill now