In the phrase "you _____ follow the law",
- Most of Latin America is 'should/oughta' - North America is more like 'have to' - Europe is 'need to' - And majority of Asia is simply 'WILL'
(disclaimer: I'm from LatAm)
- Most of Latin America is 'should/oughta' - North America is more like 'have to' - Europe is 'need to' - And majority of Asia is simply 'WILL'
(disclaimer: I'm from LatAm)
Nope. It's also "should/oughta" as well - even in developed Asian countries like South Korea, Taiwan, and Japan where bribery in development tenders is treated as the cost of doing business.
GAN Integrity [0] and the Yeun Yuen Ang's unbundled corruption matrix [1] is the best way to think about corruption and compliance risk.
To quote the 2016 remake of The Tick:
"Goat: I'm going to speed-dial the police.
Arthur: You pay organized crime weekly to protect your store and you say nothing.
Goat: At least the organized crime is organized."
LatAm isn't that different from much of Asia or Eastern Europe (or much of Southern Europe 15-20 years ago) - the only difference is the bulk of FDI that would have gone to LatAm shifted to Asia in the 1990s-2000s because of stronger linkages thanks to Japanese and Taiwanese financial partners. And European FDI in LatAm shifted to the CEE, Balkans, and Turkiye thanks to the EU expansion and the Eurozone crisis overimpacting LatAm oriented countries like Portugal, Spain, Italy, and France.
One of my acquaintances at the HKS who's the goto researcher on anti-corruption (eg. Worked directly with national governments in Asia, the UNODC, and the OECD on corruption and compliance standards) has themselves argued that LatAm (especially Brazil) got overly penalized following Lava Jato due to the lack of intermediaries. For example, American FDI into Asia is usually done in conjunction with Singaporean, Japanese, Korean, and Taiwanese partners who take the legal and operational burden which acts as a liability firewall but American and European FDI into LatAm is direct, which increases liability and compliance risk.
[0] - https://www.ganintegrity.com/country-profiles/
[1] - https://oecd-development-matters.org/2020/06/25/unbundling-c...
These days, the authorities are somewhat less forgiving: https://www.archiwik.org/index.php/%27Archer%27s_Garage%27,_... (illegally demolished building, _forced to reinstate it_), https://www.thejournal.ie/diggers-begin-demolition-of-co-mea... (illegally built building, demolished).
(Ireland has become generally significantly less corrupt in the interim.)
"need to": It is a moral imperative for me to do this
"WILL": Because of course this is the case
When people say the government has a monopoly on violence, this is what they mean. Eventually, violence will be used to ensure compliance. Most people comply before that happens, under threat of it.
Have to - I know it's the right thing to do, and if I don't, there's a good chance I'll get caught and fined heavily enough that it's not worth the risk.
Need to - rules are to be followed, and the alternative is massive fines and/or jail, plus disobeying might make me a social pariah.
Will - there is no alternative. (but I'm not sure that's actually true for Asia writ large).
Because that's how this stuff works most of the time except in places where the incumbent interests dominate and everyone is rich enough to believe their own BS.
There's a tendency within certain filter bubbles to portray other parts of the world as blindly law following even including the spirit of the law as a means toward making some point to the tune of saying that people (presumably more local) who don't do that to their own detriment are wrong, bad, whatever. Nobody blindly follows the law to their own detriment unless they're indoctrinated to the point of ignorance. People comply just enough to keep the threats of violence away.
I think that's almost a universal truth, the must/should/will is all just shades of gray.