Microsoft using bribes in Africa, the Middle East or parts of Asia isn't a Microsoft problem, it a problem that those specific countries need to deal with. Microsoft would most likely have made their sales anyway, if bribes hadn't been a thing, it would just be slightly cheaper to do so, so I don't think management at Microsoft cares one way or the other.
Now, put a lot of air in that thought-baloon and you will see how basically every for-profit will end up doing immoral things.
The worst morale failures in history have been perpetrated by governments.
I'd argue that it's a WTO problem, let's just cut of all ties to countries where bribing in any form is acceptable, leaving us with what? The Nordic countries and New Zealand?
I'm not arguing that it's not an issue, but what would you have them do exactly? The bribing isn't going to disappear because Microsoft says no. Africa will just be running on Red Star OS and Tecent Cloud.
Just like the US is using their clout to force people around the world to eg force French companies not to do business with Iran.
> I'd argue that it's a WTO problem, let's just cut of all ties to countries where bribing in any form is acceptable, leaving us with what?
As a compromise, you could target countries in which bribing is de jure _legal_, and worry about de facto later.
That's already the case. It's already illegal for an American company to pay bribes abroad, even if it's "legal" there. The problem is that like many other people said - you just hire a local "consulting" business that handles that for you and your hands are clean.
Just make that illegal, too? And make sure that ignorance is not an excuse before the law. (Something like gross negligence, if you don't check on your subcontractors well enough.)
It's a shitty argument, I'll grant you that, but it's not a problem that Microsoft can fix. They should take the moral high ground, but the money was always going to be siphoned of.
Saying it is fine when Americans bribe in foreign countries is saying it is fine if Americans are corrupt.
We even had a visiting member of the EU parliament and the CEO directly asked about this scenario. The PM argued that it wasn't ideal, but that it was part of doing business with, in this case, China. Technically, yeah you know, legally, just don't have the word bribe in the contract with the consultants.
I guess people just don't know that that it's just as illegal, or feel it's less objectionable than paying bribes directly. Or they speculate that it's harder to prove.
It also create an uneven playing field. Western countries can't do business in large part of the world, while companies from those same countries are free to sell anywhere.
If you did, sanctioned countries wouldn't be a thing.
'I want to make money' isn't some kind of first, last, or sole moral consideration, overriding all others.
It's obvious though that the problem is getting caught. If bribery is endemic, then you pay both the corporate bribe costs and the "not-getting-caught" bribe costs
Just so y'all know, people have been convicted for international bribery in the US using "arms-length" consultants. This has been called out in every ethics training I've had to take since like 2004.
That's why people need to start thinking of these issues globally, not in terms of what "their country" can do
"Facilitating payments" aka "grease payments" are explicitly allowed in the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.
This article is about actual, real bribery, which is illegal under the FCPA.
Now, having said that, the conditions are appalling and the employers do many unscrupulous and illegal things. But it is a voluntary arrangement unlike slavery.
On arrival, the worker realizes that everything they have been told is a lie. Their passport is confiscated and they are told that, if they try to run away to their embassy etc, goons will go to their family to extort the money owed for the loans by any means necessary, including torture and death.
Would you still call this a "voluntary arrangement"?
Perhaps not for the first guy to ever fall for this. But existing workers are still communicating with the folks back home, so prospective new workers now what to expect and what to believe and not to believe.
I agree that they aren't treated well; but we can't ignore that the situation back home is often even worse.
Were a visit to the doctor might kill you, because they all got their diploma because they know the same family and never spent a day awake and sober in university. And the health minister is from that family. And the whole anti-corruption self-repair mechanism is dysfunct, cause its married to that familys cousin.
Don't you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_pardoned_or_gra...
Because thats what lobbying is.
So i dobt understand what people mean when they say “lobbying is legal bribery”.
Please explain
For instance:
I've always thought it was really funny when westerners adopted the belief that Benazir Bhutto was some enlightened champion of democracy and progress while remaining blissfully ignorant of the historical position of vast wealth and power her family occupies in Sindh.
I'm not siding with Microsoft here or any other business, just stating that this is how things are. I mean, of course, there could be many other ways, but this carries the least risk for the business.
I've been in contract negotiations where the purchase of industrial equipment is contingent upon prostitutes and trips to DisneyWorld.
Of course we don't want to pay for these things, but if you don't, they just give the contract to someone who will.
Even in old and established democracies, there's usually a large gap between what is said of the democracy, and what the democracy actually is and does.
> You need a rule of law, to tame corruption and no non-democracy has that.
As far as I can tell, that implies the only combination that's impossible is non-democracy and non-corruption. Ie all non-democracies are corrupt, but some democracies might also be corrupt.
Btw, I don't think that's even true: British ruled Hong Kong had rule of law, but no democracy.
However statistically, there seems to be at least a weak correlation (negative) between corruption and democracy.
As long as contracts are being upheld, and court decisions are speedy and predictable, and public officials don't enrich themselves, that counts as low / no corruption, doesn't it?
Democracy might help with that ideal, but it's by no means strictly necessary.
As far as I can tell, an absolute monarchy that is run for the benefit of the ruler can still have rule of law and low corruption.
As an alternate history example, take Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore, but make him king and increase his salary to 1 billion SGD per year (instead of 1 million SGD per year). Change nothing else.
They would still be one of the least corrupt countries on earth, and have a judiciary that enforces the rule of law.
> Rule of law in a non-democratic polity inherently benefits its rulers more than other citizens.
That can and does happen in democracies, too.
Corruption, and even corrupt laws, exist in democracies too, but in a non-democracy all laws are inherently corrupt. Non-democracies have no legitimate basis for even having laws.
What are company location maps? What on earth are you talking about? You think Israelis are bribing Arab companies (as in almost entirely state-run giant oil and petrochemical enterprises) to do business with them?
> Now, as the western exported "cultural revolution" winds down in obvious failure, all that veneer fades away and the ugly old world reappears as if it was never gone.
What.. cultural revolution? Have you been watching the dictator drunk again? What is this comment. Very Aladeen.
Where is the incentive for honesty or long term thinking for politicians or political candidates?
The politician's primary concern is to win the next election. Promises of any sort can be fielded to win this battle. Ideally his promises should motivate voters to support his campaign. After the election, excuses can be made. The opposition offers an easy scapegoat for not delivering upon previous promises.
While in office, the politician has every incentive to milk his position for all it is worth. He doesn't personally have a stake in the country's budget. The politician is driven to drive funds towards his donors. His only time preference is to make it happen before his term expires. Long term results of policies or contracts are besides the point.
After spending considerable time in 3rd world countries, my takeaway is that corruption in the developed world is simply more expensive. Yes, you can legally lobby for your company to receive gov. contracts. The difference is that you need to pay expensive lawyers to execute the process. You can't just simply throw a few hundred dollars around or ask your brother-in-law.
There's a right way to lobby in the west and a wrong way, which is tabooed as corruption. The end result is much the same. The difference is often partisan perception.
Old British-ruled Hong Kong arguably had rule of law and no democracy.
Contrary to common belief, corruption does not have much to do with democracy. There are many non-democratic countries without corruption, and many democratic countries with corruption (and the inverse too for both).
The relation is that, currently, a high standard of living leads both to less corruption and to more democracy.
The attempt to deploy western culture globally has failed miserably, generating jobs who exist merley to errect a veneer of compliance.
Behind the thin layer of paint, the old culture and world continus happily on unphased by the hysterics. And it was always painfully obvious for those in the know.
For example there was a law in many arab countries, that you could not do buisness with israel and do buisness with them. Yet, when you opened company location maps, there they were, side by side, right next to the company "morals & mission statements" tab. The obvious answer, bribes in broad daylight.
Now, as the western exported "cultural revolution" winds down in obvious failure, all that veneer fades away and the ugly old world reappears as if it was never gone.
Very soon, the workers with confiscated passports might as well be called slaves again. Its a sad, depressing state of affairs, but then it was for the non deluded befor this point in time too.