Beaten by bribery: Why not blow the whistle?
A recent business survey in Norway reveals that firms rarely react to corruption, even when they have lost important contracts as a result. This disinclination to take action is explored in the light of market structures, business efficiency, judicial institutions and political corruption. The paper develops a theory about how these four variables deter firms from reacting against corruption, and, in particular, how the potential for collusion reinforces the incentives to remain silent. Considered separately, each of the factors are unable to explain the low frequency of anti-corruption reactions between firms. Considered in combination, however, the various impediments suggest a more complete explanation: When conditions in market structure suggest that the best response would be to take action, political conditions may favour inaction. When a potential whistle-blower expects support from local politicians or legal institutions, the given offender may be impervious to sanctions; its role in the market will not be altered by the given case. The sum of precondition for action suggests that firms rarely react against corruption. JEL L10, K42
|Date of creation:||2006|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: P.O. Box 6033, N-5020 Bergen|
Phone: +47 55 57 40 00
Fax: +47 55 57 41 66
Web page: http://www.cmi.no
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Theodore C. Bergstrom & Hal R. Varian, 1985. "When Are Nash Equilibria Independent of the Distribution of Agents' Characteristics?," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 52(4), pages 715-718.
- Schmalensee, Richard, 1987. "Competitive advantage and collusive optima," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 351-367.
- Ariane Lambert-Mogiliansky & Konstantin Sonin, 2006.
"Collusive Market Sharing and Corruption in Procurement,"
Journal of Economics & Management Strategy,
Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(4), pages 883-908, December.
- Ariane Lambert-Mogiliansky & Konstantin Sonin, 2003. "Corruption and Collusion in Procurement Tenders," Working Papers w0036, Center for Economic and Financial Research (CEFIR).
- Ariane Lambert-Mogiliansky & Konstantin Sonin, 2005. "Collusive market-sharing and corruption in procurement," PSE Working Papers halshs-00590773, HAL.
- Ariane Lambert-Mogiliansky & Konstantin Sonin, 2006. "Collusive market sharing and corruption in procurement," Post-Print halshs-00754175, HAL.
- Friedman, J. & Thisse, J.F., 1992.
"Sustainable Collusion in Oligopoly with Free Entry,"
Papiers d'Economie MathÃ©matique et Applications
92-18, UniversitÃ© PanthÃ©on-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
- Friedman, James W. & Thisse, Jacques-Francis, 1994. "Sustainable collusion in oligopoly with free entry," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 271-283, February.
- Friedman, J.W. & Thisse, J.-F., . "Sustainable collusion in oligopoly with free entry," CORE Discussion Papers RP 1084, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
- Daniel Kaufmann & Pedro C. Vicente, 2011.
Economics and Politics,
Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(2), pages 195-219, 07.
- Andrei Shleifer & Robert W. Vishny, 1994. "Politicians and Firms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 109(4), pages 995-1025.
- Bjorvatn, Kjetil & Soreide, Tina, 2005. "Corruption and privatization," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 903-914, December.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:chm:wpaper:wp2006-5. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Robert Sjursen)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.