I disagree but it is interesting to note that your conception of corruption essentially doesn’t make the distinction between extractive and quid-pro-quo.
Extractive corruption is where one party uses authority to essentially shake down someone else. A cop pulls you over for a spurious reason and demands $200 in cash to make it all go away on the spot, or you can fight it and maybe win in court after significant inconvenience, cost, or just be met with immediate violence. In any case, in this case there is a perpetrator and a victim and the victim gets nothing out of it other than getting screwed.
In quid-pro-quo type corruption, both parties benefit to some degree. So for example if you’re applying for a permit at a local government office and you need it done fast, you slip them $50 to bump it to the top of the queue. They get paid, you get your permit faster .
China’s anti-corruption efforts famously dealt very harshly with extractive corruption while allowing a certain degree if quid-pro-quo corruption on the basis that 1) you cannot fully eliminate corruption so you have to prioritize and 2) quid-pro-quo corruption actually meets a market demand that isn’t being met within the official system, as you noted. So long as the clerk continues to eventually process permits for people who don’t pay the $50 bribe , there is a certain like of logic that says that you might as well let that clerk keep doing this since not everyone needs permits fast.
This form of “allowed” corruption itself requires monitoring and regulation, though as it can easily turn extractive and such practices essentially require that the clerk have some reasonable fear of going too far.
I disagree but it is interesting to note that your conception of corruption essentially doesn’t make the distinction between extractive and quid-pro-quo.
Extractive corruption is where one party uses authority to essentially shake down someone else. A cop pulls you over for a spurious reason and demands $200 in cash to make it all go away on the spot, or you can fight it and maybe win in court after significant inconvenience, cost, or just be met with immediate violence. In any case, in this case there is a perpetrator and a victim and the victim gets nothing out of it other than getting screwed.
In quid-pro-quo type corruption, both parties benefit to some degree. So for example if you’re applying for a permit at a local government office and you need it done fast, you slip them $50 to bump it to the top of the queue. They get paid, you get your permit faster .
China’s anti-corruption efforts famously dealt very harshly with extractive corruption while allowing a certain degree if quid-pro-quo corruption on the basis that 1) you cannot fully eliminate corruption so you have to prioritize and 2) quid-pro-quo corruption actually meets a market demand that isn’t being met within the official system, as you noted. So long as the clerk continues to eventually process permits for people who don’t pay the $50 bribe , there is a certain like of logic that says that you might as well let that clerk keep doing this since not everyone needs permits fast.
This form of “allowed” corruption itself requires monitoring and regulation, though as it can easily turn extractive and such practices essentially require that the clerk have some reasonable fear of going too far.