[random_coder]

As an Indian I often wonder, the real question is not why India is so corrupt(esp. at the lower levels of bureaucracy), rather how come certain countries have zero corruption at those levels? Perhaps I'm too pessimistic about human nature.

[jacquesm]

Because corruption is a thing that enters from the top down. If the cadre is corrupt then corruption will be seen as 'ok'. If the cadre is incorruptible then they can make a demand of those below them to act in a similar way or be booted out. The change from a corrupt state to one that isn't takes multiple decades, it is not something you can do overnight and at any point in time the arrow can reverse. The same goes for states that have low corruption today, that is not a guarantee for low corruption in the future.

China is interesting in this respect, on the one hand corruption is rife, on the other it is nominally totally out of bounds and the punishments are severe. I don't understand how those can both be true at the same time without a huge amount of selective enforcement.

My experience with India to date has one of utter amazement at the brashness and the degree to which corruption has infused society there. I suspect that for India a part of it is that it has social classes that are very disjoint. This creates a very fertile growth medium for corruption because it puts a lot of small people in positions of relatively large amounts of power over the lives of others.

[pjc50]

I think it's the other way round: corruption, or at least nepotism, is the natural state of man just as dictatorship is the natural state of government. It takes considerable effort and ideological groundwork to build anything else. Just as you can't airdrop democracy onto countries.

For example in the UK, if one were to write a history of corruption-fighting there would be three big strands since the 1500s. Religion: the replacement of a church that sold salvation with (sometimes extreme) Protestant moralism. Military: at one point commissions in the army were bought and sold. This practice was replaced with more meritocratic promotion in order to win wars. And financial: English law seems to be considered one of the world's fairest regimes for contract law, and is often used for contracts between non-English big companies.

[netcan]

I don't think this is universally true. I think corruption or some version of it tends to be more common nearer the top, but does not always filter down. When it filters down, that's when the whole system becomes corrupt and there are many degrees of corruption a system might have.

[lmm]

One interesting thing I saw in toy models is that a small number of incorruptible people (5% or less) can make it very dangerous to be corrupt. As corruption falls there's then a feedback spiral, because most people will report corruption if they're not corrupt themselves.

You definitely need a few people who are weird and unreasonable to start it off though. Have you seen the movie Serpico? I thought that gave a good portrayal of how odd and antisocial the people who cause that kind of change often are (and the real story was more so e.g. his marriage collapsed as part of the process). If we're going to be really speculative, maybe it takes an individualistic culture to even have that kind of personality?

[amag]

Haven't seen the movie, but I'm not sure you need to be super weird to be that person. I believe the word you are looking for is integrity.

[WaylonKenning]

As a New Zealander, any form of corruption is unacceptable. It's just not in the DNA of being a good New Zealander to be corrupt. Therefore, there's great social pressure to not be corrupt. Being corrupt is not celebrated, and I wouldn't show off or discuss it here.

[distances]

Everywhere in Northern Europe getting labelled as corrupt would be a huge stigma, too. Just not something that can be done.

This applies to direct corruption. There are different, structural kinds of corruption though, like "old boy networks" where business may get handled via personal relations. While still damaging for the society, it probably isn't even illegal in most cases.

[amag]

It used to be the same here in Sweden but unfortunately it has started changing for the worse. It's mainly centered around higher up municipal government officials who take bribes to let certain companies win contracts for the municipality. While citizens have yet to bribe the officials we still suffer because of sub-standard products from/work done by companies that "win" the contracts.

[jsudhams]

This would be a good way to get rid of corrupt but it is going to take long time to get that culture

[leafee]

I spent my first 25 years in India and the next 15 in the US. Widespread corruption in India was one of the things I hated most. I think in the end it comes down to just social norm, peer pressure and the prevailing environment. There are kinds of behavior that would be completely unacceptable and looked down upon in India and there are other kinds of behavior that is unacceptable in the US. Corruption is one of the behaviors unacceptable in the US but prevalent in India - and people just learn from the environment they grow up in.

I think many people in India, who consider themselves to have morally 'good' - wouldn't bat an eyelid while offering bribes. They don't get push back from peers either. What irked in India is when you try to do the right thing - i.e. not take the corruption shortcut - my peers would tell me I'm stupid or naive or something to that effect. In the US if I say that I attempted corruption, my peers will probably tell me I'm morally depraved. So you need a critical mass of people that enforce and most people just follow along.