Hacker News Reader

Comment by IncreasePosts | Hacker News Reader

I can't read the full article, but imagine a scenario where countries A and B are competing on building a port in country C.

Country a has good quality work, and bribery is not allowed. Country B does poor quality work and allows bribing. But, since country B engages in bribery, they win the contract. Wouldn't it be better for country A and C if A won the contract by bribing?

View on HN

Yes, it is the better for the country C, if A wins the contract. However, the people who makes the decision for the country C cares about their bribes; that's what third world politicians, bureaucrats do--get fat bribes for their retirements, investments--because that's the best deal for themselves.

You can see the same phenomenon in large companies even in US: managers find silly projects, and get more head count, then keep expanding the beast, without caring about the large interests of the company.

If there's a 50% chance of A being better than B, then C has a 50% chance of getting the right contractor whether or not A has an anti-bribery law. The benefit to C is that they're likely going to pay less for the port when A has an anti-bribery law since the money for the bribes ultimately comes from the increased price C pays.

I think what you’re describing is a race to the bottom, and I also think a Country A(merica) focused on its soft power would believe Country C could be a part of a multilateral agreement to exclude the practices demonstrated by Country B from competition

Country A no longer believes in the efficacy of soft power.

> Wouldn't it be better for country A and C if A won the contract by bribing?

Wouldn’t it be better for country A and C if A won the contract because bribes were illegal?

Ah yes - the solution to gun violence is everyone carrying a gun.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com