Karaaan, thanks for bringing up this very interesting subject. Corruption is as they say: "a problem from hell." Like most complicated problems no part of the interactive system will have unilateral control over any other part of it. So it solutions are like dancing with a partner. Transparency at the highest levels is important, but as you quite rightly point out it's corruption on the most basic levels, the big base of they pyramid, that seems the most intractable.

A couple of things came ot mind about this level of corruption. Before container ships stevedores and longshoremen had much more direct contact with stuff. A certainly percentage would "disappear" and could be more or less factored into the shipping costs. Much of this loss was at the hands of stevedores and longshoremen who found it advantegeous to organize for bargining power.

"Loss of stuff" was part of the equation, but longshoremen kept a check on this, mainly through informal or workplace "culture." It was alright to steal, but only up to a point. Stealing on a grand scale was discouraged because it set up competition which might undermine the advantages of organization.

Again, perhaps not so much in today's chain resturants, but still in the play in the resturant business is some workplace culturally regulated stealing that's partly reenforced by the "tip" part of the business model. Woe to the waiter who tries to cheat the busboy's or bartender out of their percentage of tips. And a waiter who tries to steal from another waiter, double woe. But on the other hand a certain amount of theft maybe tolerated. For example a bar owner may tolerate a certain amount of "free drinks" given by a bartender as essentialy promotion. Likewise a certain percentage of the wine or liquor bill might be "given" to employees in order to grease the wheels. Surplus food given out or even factored in for similar reasons.

In both situations are informal "checks" on the level of corruption that serve to reduce competition among employees to maximize theft, and in fact to "regulate" it so it remains within tolerences. There are advantages for the system to seem fair.

The situation with the "low standing paper pushers" seems somewhat similar, the bribe seems only fair. In a resturant we know that the prices on the menu do not reflect the whole cost of the meal, that an additional 12%--20% must be added as a matter of custom. It seems that one way to reduce the corrosive effects of corruption at this level might be to regularize the amount for various services. In other words if it's $5 for a signature it's $5 and never $50. Clearly there can be a range, say $3- $6, the important thing is that the amount is predictable over time.

People imagine that the cash they give to waiters isn't taxed. That's not true, because the Internal Revenue Service understands the percentage and taxes accordingly. A similar realism about the "tradition" of offering the paper pusher $5 for a signature and taxing accordingly is one institutional control.

Finally another point. Micropayment cards are an interesting new business which might have bearing on this level of corruption; at least so far as regularizing the amount of it. Gratuities--the $5 under the table--could become that much more legitimate transactions.

Micropayment cards also have great potential to accelerate the legitimacy of alternative currencies because they allow for the record keeping of small real money transfers into alternative currencies.

[quote]If you ask me its all a question of money....government officials and the like need to be paid a much higher salary and hence not feel that they need to extort people....[/quote]

See here is the problem with the more liberal path to law enforcement. Some one needs to get elected or rise up through the civil service who thinks the corruption needs to stop. After this miracle he needs to pay a small army well to act as his enforcers. Track down the corruption, and punnish it. A few exicutions of high level officials with evidence of gross missuse of the public trust is a good way to start. Make all the underlings think twice. If big boss man gets a public trial and just as public an exicution everyone starts thinking twice. Even a large crime boss wanting to go legit could pull it off the person need not be a saint just dedicated and have the loyal firepower to clean up.

Problem is this isnt likely either. Anyone with that much power only gets it by being corrupt. While punnishing corruption is a good way to maintain your power base, you have to clean up your act at some point along the way. There is just too much money in corruption for it to be given up easily.