I Paid a Bribe | Hacker News Reader

I Paid a Bribe

ipaidabribe.com

146 pointsalbertsun98 comments

Darn, this seems like a site meant to uncover and curb corruption.

I was hoping it was a site where everyday folks share their stories about when it helps to give a nice tip or innocently grease a few palms.

Well known cases would be the "$20 trick" you give to the hotel clerk to get a free room upgrade. Once during an airport emergency, I gave two $10 bills to the bellhop to cut the long line at my hotel taxi stand (the bellhop keeps one $10 bill and gives the other to the taxi stand valet guy, who waved us into the next cab).

I remember seeing on Friends that you can shorten your restaurant wait times by giving money to the hostess, and the book Doormen claims you can get lots of perks by over-tipping your doormen. What I need is a menu of all such extra services that can be achieved and the average cost / success rate, so I minimize the chances of looking like an idiot.

I remember seeing on Friends that you can shorten your restaurant wait times by giving money to the hostess

This article was very popular on HN a while ago and discussed extensively: "Bribing maitre d' to skip the line"

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1653891

In that discussion I made an effort to distinguish between "bribing" an official and "bribing" a waiter: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1654295

What the grandparent is talking about I would call extravagant tipping, not bribing.

Sorry, instead of it being a site where your wealthy greedy self could gain a meaningless personal advantage over others it is a site that is trying to make the world a better place for everybody. I know it is useless for "everyday folks" from your class, we'll try harder next time.

Tipping low-wage customer service workers for unadvertised services and favours is now some sort of evil "class" issue that indicates greed and corruption?

Do you get mad when other diners at your favourite restaurant tip better than you and get friendlier service for their trouble?

Give me a break.

I have to agree with guelo. The services you describe are unadvertised for a reason. You're effectively asking someone from a lower class to possibly break the law (by getting paid under the table, and presumably not reporting the additional income) and possibly get into trouble with their employer because they want your extra money. If that's not a class issue, what is?

Of course they report it, there's a spot on the tax return for "tips" specifically.

>Of course they report it, there's a spot on the tax return for "tips" specifically.

And there's a sign at the side of the road with the speed limit ...

hahahahahahahahaha. ha.

(No, seriously, I've worked in jobs where it's socially acceptable to get tipped. Unless you're a waitress that makes less than a minimum wage, nobody reports tips.)

True but that doesn't make this statement from the GP any less ridiculous: "You're effectively asking someone from a lower class to possibly break the law".

I know of waiters/waitresses that don't report all of their tips. Do we now say that tipping them is asking them to break the law? Of course not because that's their responsibility, not your's or mine. We're certainly not stopping them.

I think that's kinda silly too, but "getting in trouble with their employer" is 100% legitimate. His overall point still stands.

I accidentally conflated tipping and bribing. I feel tipping is acceptable in certain narrowly defined and publicly acknowledged circumstances, whereas bribing is almost always wrong. I also feel there isn't a sharp distinction between the two.

I mostly disagree there too (at least in the US). Tipping is so ingrained in American culture that I don't think you can put the burden on the tipper to know that doing so can get someone in trouble with their employer.

Just as it's their responsibility to report the income, it's their responsibility to inform the tipper that they cannot accept and, if they want to explain, tell them that it could get them in trouble.

Persistence with that knowledge is unacceptable but that's another matter.

Every scenario he described involves people who already make money from tips. If they underreport their tips, that's their own issue. I've read experimental reports from people attempting to bypass social conventions by means of $20 bills, and it only works when the bribee's job and legal status are not on the line.

I'm guessing that bypassing social conventions is where most of the outrage comes from. Queueing etiquette is something sacred; defectors face strong social punishment. Seems wrong to have someone taking something that's yours--your place in line--simply by having more money.

But queueing is just a non-monetary rationing system for a slightly scarce resource that most people don't care enough to pay for. It'd be fairer if everyone waiting participated in an auction for places in line, and the proceeds were distributed evenly, but unless you care enough to set that system up I think the moral outrage against people who buy the front position directly from the coordinator(s) of the queue is misplaced.

To cite one example, the Alton Towers theme park in the UK has a ticketing system that allows you to pay more for "fast track" tickets.

Fast track tickets allow you to join a separate queue. The number of fast track tickets available are limited so the queues remain very short, and actual boarding of each ride is controlled so it is never dominated by fast track ticket holders.

The fast track ticket prices vary depending on which rides they are usable on, and how many times you can re-use them.

The system seems to work very well. Those who assign a high value to getting on every ride can opt to pay the extra for a more intense day. Those who are happy with the slow pace of a day out with some queueing can still afford the regular priced tickets.

There doesn't seem to be any moral or social stigma attached to those using the fast track system, but I think part of the reason is that it is perceived as fair, and everyone has the option to participate if they choose.

"it is perceived as fair, and everyone has the option to participate if they choose."

But why doesn't everyone choose to do so? After all, it would mean a shorter wait, and who wouldn't want that?

Could it be that not everyone can afford to use the system? Is this really fair? And how do you know that it's "perceived as fair"? By whom? How many people who are waiting in the slow line have you surveyed?

"But why doesn't everyone choose to do so? After all, it would mean a shorter wait, and who wouldn't want that?"

I see it as a trade off.

Lets say you are in a queue that is 2 hours long. You are offered the opportunity to half your queue time for £5, and you can pay multiple times to repeatedly half your queuing time as many times as you want. How many times will you pay the £5 for an ever decreasing return?

There is a trade off here between queueing time and cost. Regardless of your available wealth you won't repeat the payment indefinitely. Internally you assign a value to your lost time, and you trade that against the value of the payment you are willing to make.

The balancing point of the trade off depends on your personal circumstances, availability of monetary wealth and your desired goals.

The fast track system builds the same trade off. The more you are willing to pay the more reduction in wait times you can get, but the higher up the scale you go, the smaller the gain becomes, and there are a range of available ticket types that target different goals (Multiple use, certain rides only, single use, booked time slots, etc). Each user can trade off money against queue time to maximise their goals.

It's fair because all of the available options are clearly documented and made available to everyone indiscriminately. The choice is yours to trade money for time.

It's also fair because those who don't assign high value to the trade off are protected in some way. Fast track tickets are limited in quantity, so most people have to queue, there is not a situation where 10% get stuck waiting exponentially longer. 90% have the same queue, and only the 10% who assign the highest value to the trade off can receive the benefits.

Just because some people can't afford something doesn't make it unfair. I can't afford a Ferrari, but that isn't unfair.

"By whom?"

By me. ;-)

Seriously though, while I have witnessed people cutting into lines unfairly and arguments starting in many other situations I have never seen a confrontation due to the fast track ticket system.

(Perhaps this is because it is sanctioned by the organisation so maybe people just grumble silently in this case, who knows)

They're not even bypassing social conventions. If they were, people would refuse to take the tips. The $20 tip itself is a social convention, even though not talking about it is also a social convention.

How can buying favours be anything other than a class issue?

Because you can be in the same class as the person you're buying a favor from. It doesn't require any class differences.

That would seem to me to be beside the point: Buying favours requires some form of capital, which is more available to some classes than others. If you don't have any, you can't buy favours from any class - your own or otherwise.

Are you saying that having less money than someone else puts you in a lower class in society? Or are you saying that being in a higher class makes money more accessible, somehow?

Yes, both. Feel free to attempt to change my humble opinion :)

Is this a serious question?

The correlation between wealth and class is almost 1.0. How can you seriously argue otherwise? This discussion has taken a turn to the bizarre.

I can, for example, give 100 bucks to a friend to do my homework, and he might accept and do my homework even though he has more money than me. Trading money for favors is not necessarily a measure of wealth, and wealth does not preclude asking/providing any kind of favors

That's not trading money for favors, that's employing someone. If you give 100 bucks to the teacher to ignore the fact that you don't do your homework, that's trading money for favors.

You can see it however you like, however you're completely missing the point. If you pay 100 bucks to a teacher to look the other way while you're living on ramen and have 300 bucks in your savings account, while your professor has say 20k in his checking account and property to his name, who's wealthier or upper class? The point I was making is that trading money for favors is not some exclusive power only the wealthy/upper-class does to the not-wealthy/lower-class.

How would you rate the relative proportions of same-class bribery such as that and 'downwards' bribery?

Ahhh that's a whole different enchilada! If you told me that bribery in which money changes hands generally has a higher incidence when the briber is significantly wealthier than the bribee and can provide a monetary amount worth while for the party accepting the bribe, I would definitely have to agree with you.

A valet parking employee might get 'bribes' from different people to fetch their car first in the queue, such people might be DHH waiting for his custom Zonda HH (and giving the valet a 50), me waiting for my 335i (and giving the valet a 10 dollar bill), or the dude next to me that earns as much as the valet waiting for his Corolla (giving the valet a 5 dollar bill). The catch is that to bribe people with money, you need to have money to 'throw away' so to speak. Any one with sufficient disposable income can bribe a valet, and most that can actually do in some way or another, but how do the car and money less bribe a valet and why should they since they don't have a car anyways?

>Tipping low-wage customer service workers for unadvertised services and favours is now some sort of evil "class" issue that indicates greed and corruption?

It is absolutely corruption. There is no question about it.

Sure, the corruption is from a less powerful position, but the morals and outcomes are largely the same: Someone is selling privileges they have no right to sell, and the same mentality is the mentality that allows corruption in public office.

"Do you get mad when other diners at your favourite restaurant tip better than you and get friendlier service for their trouble?"

What a terrible example. Tipping occurs at the end of the transaction, and is intended as a reward for good service. If you had to pay the server before getting served, and it decided the level of care and concern you would get, I am quite confident that it would be forcefully abolished by every restaurant immediately.

It works that way when you order pizza online with a credit card.

Since you enter the tip in advance the driver knows it. A bigger tip upfront (yes, you can still tip with cash) gets you a faster pizza, nicer service, and occasionally additional perks like extra sauces, etc.

Five minutes ago I was looking for a donation link on your site, but I completely lost interest after reading this post. The person you replied to grew up in a lifestyle and culture different than you. This doesn't mean that he's greedy or that his motivations are meaningless. You seem like you've got a huge chip on your shoulder and that's not going to help you in the long run. Why would people be interested in engaging someone who spits venom after a fairly innocuous comment?

As an American who has lived in India, I am with Guelo.

The "everyday folks" the parent refers to--for most of us, (relatively) wealthy people with white-collar jobs living in rich Western societies--constitute some 5% of the world's wealthiest people. Most human beings living today are not in a position to blow $20 (Indian gross income per capita, per World Bank, 2008: $1040/yr) on a perk, let alone a bribe for something as simple as applying for benefits or starting a business. That's where the outrage comes from.

Education is an important part of changing that culture, and they deserve your donation.

You're argument is orthogonal to my point. I'm aware of the wealth differences. I see similar differences quite often in the inner city of Chicago. One overarching trend among the less well off that Guelo demonstrates is a venomance that gets in the way of cooperation and progress. As an example, I have seen young children refuse to be taught by quite capable teachers because the teacher is white and wears jeans that cost more than $20. There's an unfounded resentment here and it needs to be named. It's as if an apology is expected for being born into the middle class. The hate here is unhealthy because ultimately the person doing the hating is the one that loses.

My objection isn't to the wealth of the responder. My objection, and I think Guelo's, is that although there may be a market out there for sites that help people with the means throw around $20 bills, it wasn't really the time or the place to bring it up as a response to a site trying to fight genuine corruption, which the US does not suffer from much and which disproportionately affects the very poor.

Also, poverty in America is not, as far as I can tell, much like poverty in the US, although I've not spent any time in the rough parts of Chicago; like most middle-class white people, I spend most of my time on the north side.

Unrelated: I am mystified by your competent use of the term "orthogonal" coming just two words after you used "you're" instead of "your." That is just bizarre!

It's not a grammar mistake, I have trouble when I type quickly. Another error that I make: I often type a word that sounds similar in place of what I actually meant. Case in point: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2067123.

The child doing the hating has lost already, they didn't lose because they hated after the fact. They're children growing up in one of the most neglected public school systems in the country in one of the most segregated cities in the country. When I was growing up there, I feared and hated white people too, because my only experiences of them were negative ones. Sitting in that horribly overcrowded, neglected school with my decade old books faced with a teacher who would have much rather taught at the private school his/her kids went to, and who thought that my motivations were as simple as jealousy over his jeans wasn't an easy situation for a kid, and probably still isn't.

And why exactly would you ascribe a trait or "trend" that you notice in Guelo to the "less well off"? Do you have to be poor to be against bribery - or, rather - tipping for special treatment? Is the only possible motivation to be against the corrupt administration of services jealousy? These are not rhetorical questions.

People can get angry over something that another person would think nothing of. Even something as simple as throwing away a half-eaten candy bar. Just because a man is brought up to do something wrong, it does not absolve him of the fact it is wrong.

That 'innocuous' comment has enough social subtext for people of certain viewpoints to find it repulsive. Like, say, a guy running an anti-bribery campaign.

Personally, I don't begrudge people paying more to get better service/food, but extravagant tipping for better service in a situation where people are expecting to be served fairly sends a strong signal: "I am too good for your rules."

Not everyone has the same outlook on life as you do.

We can play this game all the way down to the most impoverished society on the planet. A poor Indian could find it reprehensible that a middle class American will throw away a candy bar. A starving African could find it reprehensible that a poor Indian will use comparatively expensive spices in his food. After all, why not eat the most tasteless food possible and then donate the extra money? The point is, unless you are from the most impoverished society on the planet, you are doing something that someone somewhere could find reprehensible because of social subtext.

The question needs to be asked, where does this game get us? Nowhere. All good people are ultimately batting for the same team. Sure, truly evil people should be named and shamed, but that's not what happened in this thread. Guelo picked a fight because he thought he had the right to, and he doesn't. At least, not with Leelin. Hateful dialogue has absolutely zero positive benefit and often hurts the person doing the hating: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2067014.

> The point is, unless you are from the most impoverished society on the planet, you are doing something that someone somewhere could find reprehensible because of social subtext.

When you see a liberal with hunched shoulders, it is because this issue is bearing heavily on their mind. /s

You're right, of course. Selling all your possessions to donate the proceeds to a poor family only gets you so far, and then only in the short term. The real goal is battling for systemic change, either by fixing the system or boosting the economy to give more people more wealth. Infighting because you disagree on a 0.1%, that doesn't help at all, and is why passion needs a little control from time to time...

Well said.

>Selling all your possessions to donate the proceeds to a poor family only gets you so far

Actually, done well, it goes quite far. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11950843

I still agree with your sentiments, of course.

Innocuous? Don't make me laugh. I don't see this as spitting venom or that the poster has a huge chip on their shoulder - that's rather an extreme characterization.

My first thought on seeing the title for the site was that it was a project to try to reduce corruption and bribery. Because I was curious I clicked through to discover more. Nicely designed site, tackling a real social ill which obviously affects the poor more than it does the rich. Must have taken some time to get up and running, and as it's not a profit-driven thing, you'd need to be fairly passionate about what you're in it for.

And then along comes this guy making asinine comments about greasing palms to get the jump on people in queues and other trivial frippery - that he even presumed it was a site that would give those with fat-wallets a few hints at how to snare a few perks is telling.

Given your interpretation of this conversation I doubt you would have donated at all.

As far as the donation goes, my conscious is clear. I donate a big piece of my income to charities and my family and I work with thousands of impoverished kids in the inner city of Chicago every day.

Based on my experience, characterizing the poster as having a chip on his shoulder is accurate. I run into this problem all the time when working with those less well off than me and it's a serious problem. It's a significant barrier on communication between otherwise well intentioned people.

Finally, I stand by my characterization of innocuous. There was no harm or offense intended and I'd like to see you argue otherwise. I myself had the same reaction to the title of the submission and it's because of my middle class upbringing. What is importent here is not shaming people for their upbringing but rather to seek an understanding of why people react in different ways.

First, it's "conscience", not "conscious".

Second, the word "innocuous" means "harmless", not "not intended to offend".

It's quite obvious that the original comment was not intended to offend anyone. The guy who made it was probably oblivious to its potential offensiveness.

But that doesn't mean it was harmless. He was basically advocating making bribery easier, which is not only offensive to many people (no matter what his intentions were), but could very well make the world worse if people start acting to make what he's advocating a reality.

That said, kudos to your volunteering efforts and donations. More people should follow your example.

When being pedantic, it's best to be right: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/innocuous.

    1: producing no injury : harmless
    
    2: not likely to give offense or to arouse strong feelings or hostility : inoffensive, insipid

But it was likely to give offense, and did give offense (as is evident by the responses he got).

Hey ... no offense was meant, I never said that you're not a generous or giving person - I was just pointing out that we have no way of knowing whether you would have donated regardless of seeing the post that annoyed you. I think that you should go with your gut and donate anyhow :)

We'll have to agree to disagree, it's not obvious to me whether that guy his a chip - but in fairness I will always side with those less well off rather than those who are more affluent because all other things being equal that is the fair way to balance the inequalities in this world.

It was not innocuous, it was crass and gauche. I was snorting in derision whilst reading it and was very glad and not at all surprised that it was responded to strongly.

Middle class in the US (I presume you're from the US) is far beyond the reach of most of the world, when will you begin to learn this? I'm from Ireland where we as a nation only recently became affluent, maybe this colors things somewhat. Look, I have no issue with you but it's easier to rub shoulders with other people from vastly different backgrounds due to the decentralized open nature of the Net and maybe we should all remember that :)

I can't find any evidence that guelo, or his consulting company, was in any way involved in the site.

You're forgetting that the people that are being "greased" are those same "others." I've worked as a server, a host, and a valet, and I would have been very grateful to make an extra $10-20 here and there. In a way, the rich are subsidizing the income of the service employees and making the dining (or whatever) experience more affordable for everyone else.

Wow, I'm sorry you found my comments so offensive and insensitive (and for pseudo-hijacking). I understand this community to enjoy discussing hacks, both computer and non-computer related, and the underground world of tipping is one of the more mysterious and fascinating classes of hacks in my eyes.

What I'm requesting actually isn't so different from what the authors of this site ultimately want; more transparency and widespread knowledge of common bribes. Once everything is out in the open, establishments can either explicitly offer the higher priced solution, or the public outcry can be strong enough to put an end to such practices.

For example, I'd be all for a priority queue at the taxi stand for people with real emergencies. I'm a bit more iffy on express lines at Disney World or restaurants, and I'm guessing very few people would approve of an express list for kidney donations.

Actually I'm in favour of a free market for kidneys. Some folks have two kidneys and need money. Some folks have no kidneys and plenty of money. We shouldn't forbid them from figuring this one out.

You left out the people with no kidneys and no money. They are the reason people frown on selling organs. (That, and the question of whether all the donors would actually be voluntary.)

They're in need of charity regardless; allowing compensation doesn't change that, and would likely make the required charity less expensive by increasing the supply.

Some people think it's sad, I think it's natural selection.

I could possibly obtain many kidneys, in return for plenty of money. In fact, I believe this is the whole point of not having a free market for body parts.

What? That some folks might start buying 'em (very expensively, the transplant surgery alone is tens of thousands) to throw away just for shits and giggles? I'd say that's the least problem with a free market for kidneys.

It might be regarded as ill-mannered to hijack a thread about a serious subject that affects the lives billions with your thoughts on a subject that mildly inconveniences the relatively well-off..?

I made a smartass remark, but seriously: That sentence does not need a question mark.

Your point stands, however.

I still really like the idea of the zero-Rupee notes circulating in India, created specifically to present to government officials asking for bribes. Apparently, in many cases the official is so shamed on being handed the nil bill that the bribe is effectively paid.

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1353796

Are they really shamed? I would like to believe this is true but I have trouble coming to terms with the idea that people taking bribes have any shame at all.

Unrelated, The 5th Pillar (the organization that came up with the zero-rupee note) seems to have an office building very close to mine. I've seen the bill pasted on the back of cars and can see their wifi network from where I am.

It's easy to think that everyone accepting (or even demanding) bribes just decided one day that they wanted to be evil. In reality, they may very well have been pressured into it by their environment, or from fears that their peers will rat them out if they aren't participating.

I'm not saying they'd be right or should be pitied, but it'd certainly be possible for them to be shamed.

It is a systemic problem. Let me give an example where reasonable number of people will laugh at you if you don't bribe your way out of a harmless situation.

Road infrastructure is sorely lacking in India which results in crowded streets. A huge percentage of drivers violate traffic laws everyday to gain even the slightest advantage over fellow roadsters. If the person gets pulled over, what is the best thing to do in that situation: go to the nearby police station, wait for a few hours, pay the fine legally or bribe the cop and get on with your travel? Which would you choose? In this case the person who violated traffic is almost begging for the traffic cop to take a bribe so that he can be on his way.

Same situation permeates every public office. Do not underestimate the problem caused by people who are willing to pay a bribe to get preferential service. As long as such people exist, people who accept bribes cannot be shamed into not accepting it.

Well said. Corruption in India is indeed a systemic problem. While there is no denying that the system of governance is corrupt, it is also true that citizens are ready to bribe as long as their work gets done.

It is in this context that IPAB believes in a systemic approach to tackling corruption. We do not target individuals as they are dispensable and replaceable. It is the system and processes which need to be changed. Alongside focusing on procedural change in the government we also focus on greater knowledge and understanding on the part of the citizen. We work on the belief that citizens who are well-informed of their rights wrt govt services are less likely to indulge in paying a bribe.

To this end, on our site we provide Citizen Charters which are documents of service timelines published by the government. Armed with this document, citizens are better enabled to stand up against corruption. On the govt-facing end of our campaign, we have come out with Janamahiti report for the Transport Department of Bangalore which analyses bribe reports received on our site, pinpoints the most corrupt processes and puts forward suggestions to tackle corruption rampant in this department. We are also briefing the Transport department this week on the Janamahiti and the recommendations it provides.

But there are also cultures that say that someone who doesn't demand a bribe is selfishly turning down money he could use to support his relatives out of fear of punishment for bribe taking.

This is an interesting idea, but it needs some cachet to catch on. Don't get me wrong: India _needs_ this site, and needs it badly. Corruption and graft have become so bad that everyone from the top-most office down to the lowest level refuses to even lift a finger without getting his palm greased. Things have become so bad that officials are willing to cause a loss of billions of dollars to the taxpayer just to make some money (ref. the "2G scam").

What India needs is a WikiLeaks. And a "wikileaks" for corruption, where you can list the name, position, etc. of the officials who are corrupt. It would be a pretty long list, I can imagine.

>> Will you help us set up something like [WikiLeaks] in our town?

>> There already is a WikiLeaks in your town: WikiLeaks. The corruption exposure business is [global], not regional.

It's often forgotten that WikiLeaks isn't specifically aimed at the US, and the vast majority of their leaks until recently were from other parts of the world.

It's true, but with their 'maximum exposure' policy, and the fact that they've said they've still got the banks, other private industry, and the EU all lined up, I think it'll be a while before we see more stuff from WikiLeaks about non-Western countries.

Then again, maybe not.

I understand that WikiLeaks is global. I also know that they have exposed leaks from Kenya, India, etc.

But I think there is still room for a local "wikileaks" which is tailored to the local environment in India (which is a big enough country that it would make sense).

Even though India has its version of the FOIA, asking too many questions can get you killed: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/27/india-rti-activi...

I live in Mexiko. The corruption here is enourmous, from top to bottom. Wikileaks has showed this corruption.

The problem IMHO with corruption is that nobody can/want to do something about it. It doesn't matter (at least here) if you collect all the proofs necessary, because the people that can do something about it are corrupt as well.

And I don't think it's that easy to denounce bribes and send to jail the guilty ones.

There was a case against ABB (http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2010/2010-175.htm), ABB was charged of paying bribes to Mexican government. There are two ways to make bussiness here, pay a bribe or to leave. ¿Who is more guilty, who pays the bribe (and get no income at all) or the one who receives it? I don't think companies have any moral. So the option is to follow a corruption scheme.

And I'm not saying I agree with that or that I'm happy with it. I'm only saying that it doesn't serve a purpose to denounce bribes, if there's no one to punish them.

I believe if there is a public uprising against the government and the authorities, they will be forced to answer these issues. Wikileaks faclites this by publishing the documents through all types of medium which cannot be censored by the government. As a citizen you can also contribute by spreading it more and more.. My best bet would be to spread it in schools and colleges as they seem to be fearless lot. An uprising is what we need.

I'm Romanian. We're not as bad as Mexic, in the sense we don't have drug lords and piles of bodies, but we definitely don't lose in corruption.

I've spent not a little time thinking about what can be done. I know the problem (pretty much everybody knows the problem) - politicians suck. They're either corrupt and incompetent, or just corrupt. Problem is, we really really don't have any alternatives. There is absolutely no party, not even a small youth one that's not the same. We can barely trust non-political watchdog organizations - hell, after the last elections we don't really trust them either.

The media is... ok. Private for the most part, and so heavily politicized (yes, it makes sense here), but they don't pull punches when it comes to criticizing the government. They're pretty open with both obvious mistakes and obvious cases of corruption - but the problem is, nothing ever comes out of it.

In a working democracy this would be a case for the justice system. Well, we have two problems. First, the whole system is also corrupt as hell. Second, it's also (probably on purpose) extremely inefficient. All the reforms in the past years, including a ridiculously publicized new constitution a few years back only made things worse.

So yes, I know what we need. We need:

   * to respect the now largely ignored law saying that public institutions, education and health are non-politic;
   * justice system reform
   * new and fresh options for the next elections
   * untainted public organizations

It's no mystery, really. The only problem is... how do we do it? It it my personal conviction that solving this chicken and egg problem is the next greatest challenge. A generic solution would be extremely useful for most developing countries, i.e. half the world right now.

In India for example, I think everyone pays a bribe to get a passport. If we don't, then passport will be stuck somewhere for months and months without coming out. Even for knowing why it is not getting processed, you have to pay bribe. So finally, everyone has stopped questioning and started giving money to agents to get the things done.

The problem is no one is responsible if the citizen is not getting the promised services. We cannot see the status about why it is pending online, we don't know whom to contact online, no helpdesks. You just have to go to the office and wait and wait for turn only to be turned away without even getting a chance to speak.

If one person is made responsible for citizen satisfaction for services and he is like the manager in the office whose compensation is dependent on the rating the citizen gives for the services, then I think this will change.

How to make government officials answerable to the people? This is difficult, because a government is voted for a period of 5 yrs into power and they have 5 yrs to loot without doing anything and then bribe their way into power again. If this vicious cycle can be broken by clear communication about the government performance, so clear that people can't ignore, then they may vote for another government which is not much better than this. But by consistently projecting these metrics about corruption and government performance, we might give a chance for some party to fight on the plank of eliminating corruption.

Long answer.. hopefully there is some juice in it.

I disagree that everyone in India pays a bribe for a passport. A handful of my friends applied for their passport while in college and none of them paid, neither did I. In fact my passport got stolen while I was in US and it was kind of urgent that I get a replacement, but I managed to get one without bribing. It took time though.

I think sometimes we hastily assume that a bribe is needed and are proactive about it. But I have to say that it still tickles me no end to think about the policeman who had come to our college for the express purpose of collecting bribes from us. He had come all the way from Lucknow to Kanpur a good 3 hour journey expecting to make a killing.

Just the look on his face when my friends refused...priceless !!

But a lot of the lack of transparency that you mention can now be tackled thanks to instruments like RTI (the Indian analogue of FOIA).

Entering the European Union did some good for us. A lot of public services have to adhere to European standards, and it works. For example there is a set period in which you must get your passport/identity card/driver's licence and they respect it.

The corruption mostly moved higher. I had a coffee with a friend who works in a public institution a couple of weeks ago, and we talked about EU funds absorption. I'm a software guy, and I'd love to do projects for his institution (or any other). There's a huge need for software projects at every level - national and local. And there are lots of money available for this, provided by the EU. So why am I not working with the government (nor is anybody I know)?

Because things go like this. Say my friend wants to put something online in his institution. He has to get about 3 signatures, the last of which is pretty high in the ministry. And the guy in the ministry will invariably think something like: "if it's am idea worth doing, then we'll file it for when we can do it on a bigger scale with our boys".

So yeah. Like I said, main problems are 1. politicians up high and 2. the fact that institutions are now completely political, to the level where I can bet there's a doorman somewhere who's been hired just because his brother in law is in the right party.

I saw a great film that came out this year called Kapitalism: Our Improved Formula that paints an really dire picture of the current state of Romanian corruption, and if any country has had a public uprising against the state of their government, Romania qualifies.

Yeap. The current state of affairs is no secret to anybody. The problem is a complete lack of realistic solutions.

We won't get out in the streets. We're not hungry enough, and we don't have a culture of protesting. We pretty much think the French are uncivilized when they burn cars in the street - civilized peoples solve their problems otherwise. But how?

It's be easier if the press was somehow keeping silent, but they're not. They're scathingly vocal, if somehow distracting. The future definitely looks a lot more like Brave New World then 1984...

The movie had an interview with a Jerry Springer style talk show host guy, and his take on it was that most of the people who took to the streets during the revolution left the country when they realised that in the new capitalism would be owned by the old ex-Securitate(sp?) types. The people who were left were the fearful keep-your-head-down types that watched everything on tv, the people from the countryside who wouldn't even have good enough roads to make it to a protest, and the people who weren't that dissatisfied with the way it was.

So basically, he said that the culture of protest got a train ticket and left.

Neh, not so many people left. Plus it's been 20 years already, that's a full generation. I was 10 when it happened. Plenty of time to replace them.

It's just that protesting wouldn't do any good. Say the current government falls... what do you replace it with? We tried it. We actually had something which looked like a "turning the tide" a few years ago. We voted in a completely new regime (including a new president), much preferred by the younger people, including myself. It started great... In the first 3 weeks they lowered and standardized taxes, and put a minister of justice straight from the NGOs. Dream come true. About a year later, the opposition got together, broke off a piece from the current government, and together tried to (rather illegally ) impeach the president with no good reason.

(you think you guess the rest of the story? guess again). The president managed to force a referendum on the issue, and proved he had the overwhelming support of the population. The impeachment failed. The parliamentary majority belonged to the opposition now, but somehow the good guys managed to name their own Prime Minister, and so in effect hold most of the power.

Fast forward to present time. The NGO Justice Minister is long gone, taxes are at a record high, the president is unanimously vilified, and his party is doing the hiring in every public institution and a few private companies as well. Plus they turned out to be much more incompetent then the previous guys.

There are no heroes in politics here.

Instead of more laws, tougher rules or oversight authorities, it may be worthwhile to just reduce the number of regulations, papers, fees, approvals, stamps or 'adeverințe' needed to function. Tougher rules won't work when the rulers are inherently corrupt; rules are the very thing that justify their power.

Moral values can go by percentiles. What you do is punish officials in the lowest percentiles of legality and thank and reward the officials in the highest percentiles of legality. Over time, there will be a shift toward the higher percentiles, and then you can raise standards.

bet we would need a separate site for publishing the list. The elections are near. Hope they get a good reply

Ajays, we beg to differ. IPaidABribe believes that corruption in India is systemic and only procedural change can make a difference. Merely booking corrupt individuals is a band-aid solution to a deep-rooted problem as they can easily be replaced by another corrupt officer. Instead, if there is a transparent and accountable system of governance in place it would naturally reduce the degree of discretion which officials enjoy today in India. This, we believe, would help build a corruption-free India.

Took me far too long to find the "view stories" link:

http://www.ipaidabribe.com/sforms/view_reports_paid

It'd be great to have these on a map. I want to see where bribes are most common(ly reported)

Though, I suppose this site is so focused on Bangalore, it may not be much use.

Your feedback on navigation is appreciated. We will definitely include it in our next website redesign.

Not sure what you mean by map but there is a section called Corruption Commons which does give a map wrt bribes: http://ipaidabribe.com/sforms/corruption_commons We also have a graphical representation of bribes called Bribe Patterns on the homepage. Do take a look and feel free to get back to us with feedback. It's much appreciated.

Though it is true that IPAB is based out of Bangalore, we are a pan-India initiative. Our data being crowdsourced, it is just a matter of coincidence that we receive a large portion of our reports from Bangalore. Having said that our graphical Bribe Patterns will show you that Chennai, Mumbai, Pune, Hyderabad and Delhi also figure prominently in our data.

Is there some sort of context missing to go along with this? It's an interesting enough site, but I don't get it completely.

http://www.ipaidabribe.com/node/77

IpaidABribe.com is Janaagraha’s unique initiative to tackle corruption by harnessing the collective energy of citizens. You can report on the nature, number, pattern, types, location, frequency and values of actual corrupt acts on this website. Your reports will, perhaps for the first time, provide a snapshot of bribes occurring across your city. We will use them to argue for improving governance systems and procedures, tightening law enforcement and regulation and thereby reduce the scope for corruption in obtaining services from the government.

Though it is a good initiative, it is not effective yet. In the site the stories are not associated with the name and also there are no proofs. So in a way all the reports are toned down to just say that I had to pay a bribe but not who is taking the bribe. If it has that detail, then that official will be shamed and there is a possibility that corruption can be reduced faster.

But the site's aim is to gauge the amount of corruption and try for systemic changes to eliminate it - I would take even that compared to nothing. So all the best ipaidabribe

We have got a lot of similar feedback. However, after a great deal of thought we have decided not to give names of people, for the following reasons:

(a) We are not a prosecuting agency on behalf of citizens. They can also directly go to regulatory and vigilance authorities such as the Lokayukta and Central Vigilance Commission. (b) It distracts us from the main task of putting pressure on the government for systemic improvement (c) We do not want to open the floodgates of claims and counterclaims. We want the website to retain its focus on being a positive mover in the larger endeavour of eliminating corruption. (d) Elimination of corruption is better achieved by simplification of systems, transparency and other similar reforms. By targeting corrupt people without tackling such changes, we cannot achieve much.

Do not fight corruption in India unless you carry a licensed pistol.

... and the system is setup so that getting a licensed firearm is close to impossible (and you have to pay a lot of bribes to get one).

This is a gross exaggeration. The petty corruption that permeates is surprisingly easy to resist if you can put up with some delays and other inconveniences. If your comment was about going up against bigger fish like the mafia, then I don't think even that will help much.

Without caste/corruption India will disintegrate like USSR in no time.

    This was never the way I planned
    Not my intention
    I got so brave, pedal on the floor
    Lost my discretion
    It's not what, I'm used to
    Just wanna try this bimmer
    I'm curious how you
    Caught me speedin'
    
    I paid a bribe and I liked it
    The price of a new macbook
    I paid a bribe just to try it
    I hope my lawyer don't mind it
    It felt so wrong
    It felt so right
    Don't mean I'm in jail tonight
    I paid a bribe and I liked it
    I liked it
    
    No, I don't even know your rank
    It doesn't matter
    You're a corrupt cop
    Just human nature,
    It's not what,
    Good cops do
    Not how they should behave
    My head gets so confused
    Hard to obey
    
    Us yuppies we are so loaded
    Soft money, red bimmer, so predictable
    Hard to resist, so profitable
    Too good to deny it
    Ain't no big deal, it's innocent

I'll say it a thousand times, corruption is the cancer of all societies and we really need to find the cure as priority number one. Before going to mars, before sea-steading, before feeding africa.

You might want to stop saying that, since it doesn't make any sense. There's no more a global cure for corruption than there is a global cure for people not being nice. Not everyone is going to behave how you want them to, and there's no reasonable alternative.

No I won't, it makes a lot of sense, and there is a simple cure not everybody willing to accept: the law.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com