Contributed Content (0) and Suggested Materials (1)
Ask a Question
Do you think the gap in corruption between the first world former colonies of the UK (US, Canada, New Zealand, Australia) and the developing nation former colonies (such as Nigeria) might be warping the studies on corruption in former British colonies? How corrupt are the latter in comparison when you separate them from the former?
This lecture enlighten to me how ideological and dependent of judges of value can be any discussion about "corruption" in abstract. It is very easy to fit moral ideas with those analysis, nut I think it is a futile exercise, maybe is more useful to focus in specific practices under specific circumstances than spoke in general on a general construct called "corruption", Frankly I can´t see the utility to discuss on "causes of corruption" in general and think that if we are protestants, democrats, open to imports, etc. we will trow away "corruption". I think it is not a moral issue but a simple cost/benefits issue: anyone will be "corrupt" -in general terms- if the benefits -all considered- outperform the costs, so I think it is a case to case issue, can not be treated in general.
I wonder that Hypothesis #10 has no clear impact for more corruption. Maybe a comparison between decades makes less sense then a comparison between countries. I think a country like Nigeria is a good example for the so-called resource curse. Also see some more arguments here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse#Corruption