Bribery vs. extortion: allowing the lesser of two evils
Rewards to prevent supervisors from accepting bribes create incentives for extortion. This raises the question whether a supervisor who can engage in bribery and extortion can still be useful in providing incentives. By highlighting the role of team work in forging information, we present a notion of soft information that makes supervision valuable. We show that a fear of inducing extortion may make it optimal to allow bribery, but extortion is never tolerated. Even though both increase incentive cost, extortion penalizes the agent after “good behavior”, while bribery penalizes the agent after “bad behavior”. Since bribery occurs when a violation is detected, the bribe is a penalty for “bad behavior”, and helps somewhat in providing incentive. We find that extortion is a more serious issue when incentives are primarily based on soft information, when the agent has a greater bargaining power while negotiating an illegal payment, or when the agent has weaker outside opportunities. Our analysis provides explanations why extortion may be less of a problem in developed countries.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)
|Date of creation:||Jul 2009|
|Date of revision:||Jul 2009|
|Publication status:||Published in RAND Journal of Economics, Volume 41(1), 179–198, Spring 2010|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Box 353330, Seattle, WA 98193-3330|
Web page: http://www.econ.washington.edu/
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- Juan D. Carrillo, 2000.
"Graft, Bribes, and the Practice of Corruption,"
Journal of Economics & Management Strategy,
Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(3), pages 257-286, 06.
- Olsen, Trond E & Torsvik, Gaute, 1998.
"Collusion and Renegotiation in Hierarchies: A Case of Beneficial Corruption,"
International Economic Review,
Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 39(2), pages 413-438, May.
- Olsen, T.E. & Torsvik, G., 1998. "Collusion and Renegotiation in Hierarchies: A Case of Beneficial Corruption," Norway; Department of Economics, University of Bergen 179, Department of Economics, University of Bergen.
- Strausz, R.G., 1995.
"Collusion and Renegotiation in a Principal-Supervisor-Agent Relationship,"
1995-48, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
- Strausz, Roland, 1997. " Collusion and Renegotiation in a Principal-Supervisor-Agent Relationship," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 99(4), pages 497-518, December.
- Caillaud, Bernard & Tirole, Jean, 2007.
"Consensus Building: How to Persuade a Group,"
IDEI Working Papers
435, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse.
- La Porta, Rafael & Lopez-de-Silanes, Florencio & Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert, 2000.
"Investor protection and corporate governance,"
29408126, Harvard University Department of Economics.
- La Porta, Rafael & Lopez-de-Silanes, Florencio & Schleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert, 2001. "Investor Protection and Corporate Governance," Working Paper Series rwp01-017, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
- Rafael LaPorta & Florencio Lopez-de-Silanes & Andrei Shleifer & Robert Vishny, "undated". "Investor Protection and Corporate Governance," Working Paper 19455, Harvard University OpenScholar.
- Baliga, Sandeep, 1999. "Monitoring and Collusion with "Soft" Information," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 15(2), pages 434-40, July.
- Ariane Lambert-Mogiliansky, 1998. "On optimality of illegal collusion in contracts," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 3(4), pages 303-328.
- Antoine Faure-Grimaud & Jean-Jacques Laffont & David Martimort, 2002.
"Risk averse supervisors and the efficiency of collusion,"
LSE Research Online Documents on Economics
20, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
- Faure-Grimaud Antoine & Laffont Jean-Jacques & Martimort David, 2003. "Risk Averse Supervisors and the Efficiency of Collusion," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 2(1), pages 1-32, January.
- Tirole, Jean, 1986. "Hierarchies and Bureaucracies: On the Role of Collusion in Organizations," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 181-214, Fall.
- Mookherjee, Dilip & Png, I P L, 1995. "Corruptible Law Enforcers: How Should They Be Compensated?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 105(428), pages 145-59, January.
- Johnson, Ronald N & Libecap, Gary D, 1989. "Bureaucratic Rules, Supervisor Behavior, and the Effect on Salaries in the Federal Government," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 53-82, Spring.
- Emilson C. D. Silva & Charles M. Kahn & Xie Zhu, 2007. "Crime and Punishment and Corruption: Who Needs "Untouchables?"," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 9(1), pages 69-87, 02.
- Yeon-Koo Che, 1995. "Revolving Doors and the Optimal Tolerance for Agency Collusion," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(3), pages 378-397, Autumn.
- A. Mitchell Polinsky & Steven Shavell, 1999.
"Corruption and Optimal Law Enforcement,"
NBER Working Papers
6945, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:udb:wpaper:uwec-2007-11-p. 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: (Michael Goldblatt)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.