A Dynamic Model to Explain the Bribery Behavior of Firms
Shaomin Li,Ming Ouyang
2007-01-01
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT
Abstract:Most studies on corruption have focused on corrupt officials but not on the bribing firms, and tended to be static. We propose a dynamic model to explain the bribery behavior of firms considering three factors: the macro regulatory environment, firm behavior, and the inter-firm competition in bribing. We show that, first, if the level of corruption in a society is significantly greater than zero, regardless of how clean (anti-bribing) a firm is, the environment will force the firm to bribe. Second, if the combined self-restraint from bribing by all firms is greater than the combined motivation to bribe by all firms, then the level of corruption is manageable; otherwise, the level of corruption escalates rapidly. Third, a firm's effort in bribing or anti-bribing may have a multiplicative effect and can significantly change the bribing momentum in a society. 1. Introduction 1.1 Bribery: The Tragedy of the Commons Firms with well-defined property rights in a free market have no incentives to bribe government officials. However, if the government uses monopoly power to interfere with and restrict the market, then firms may be forced to bribe government officials. Firms face the prisoner's dilemma in the sense that if all firms refuse to bribe, they will all be better off. However, every firm realizes that others will cheat and must therefore bribe to remain competitive and are collectively worse off as a result [see, e.g., (Shleifer & Vishny, 1994); (Rose-Ackerman, 1997)]. Hardin, in his seminal 1968 essay, calls it the of the (Hardin, 1968). Fortunately, in reality, we observed that the tragedy of the commons does not occur everywhere. In some societies, firms paying bribes to the government are very rare (e.g., the Scandinavian countries). While social scientists, including business scholars, have accumulated a rich literature on the study of corruption [see (Jain, 2001 ) and (Svensson, 2005) for detailed reviews], as demonstrated in the following review, some gaps exist and need to be filled. This research introduces a firm-bribing model that demonstrates the dynamics of firm bribing, and discusses the conditions under which bribery may increase or may be eradicated. 1.2 Gaps in the theoretical models Efforts in modeling corruption can be divided into two major groups (Jain, 2001). The first group uses a principal-agent framework, where the voters (taxpayers or citizens) are the principal and the government officials are the agent. In general, agency models view corruption as a consequence of the principal's inability to effectively prevent the agent from abusing its power for his/her personal gain. The main reasons for this inability are the principal's lack of information on the agent's work (information asymmetry), lack of effective checks and balances, and ineffective enforcement and punishment for corrupt officials. Scholars in this school focus on the incentive mechanisms in the political system, especially in the legislative branch, that may motivate lawmakers to make laws in their own favor. In general, these models examine how the elected officials balance their private interests (staying in office) with the interests of the various interest group that support (or pay) the elected officials, and want to influence the legislation for their own interest at the cost of the welfare of the voters [(Barro, 1973); (Becker, 1968); (Grossman & Helpman, 1994); (Rose-Ackerman, 1999)]. Another group of researchers analyzes corruption from the perspective of resource allocation. They view corruption as a factor that changes the relative costs of inputs and outputs. In turn, these changes will alter the decisions and behavior of the (corrupt) officials and other players (such as firms) in the game. Collectively they affect the output of the economy. Scholars in this stream focus on how cost, demand, and supply of public goods affect the extortion behavior of bureaucrats who control these public goods and sell them for personal gain [(Rose-Ackerman, 1978); (Shleifer & Vishny, 1993)]. …