Corruption, lobbying, and improper political influence plague our political systems, wasting money and creating bad governance. We should start using randomized sting operations to expose corruption.
Brian, great stuff as always! Your punch line about stings being inherently dishonest and sneaky is not the point. Those being “stung” play victim saying that it was all a set up and they should not be held accountable. The point is one needs to fight fire with fire. Corruption and the fight against it is inherently an asymmetric game/battle. Those engaging in corruption have no rules, yet those fighting it must follow rules.
What you are proposing is to even the playing field. As an economist by training, using this game theoretic approach makes sense and should be implemented widely across not just those in authority such as police and politicians but also across other sectors of the economy at upper management and C-suites.
BTW, what you propose has been around in the economic literature for at least 3 decades to enforce rules (say environmental laws and regard in which I was interested at the time). The idea is random, unannounced monitoring helped enforce such regimes across the board where direct monitoring across all sites is impractical for technical or cost reasons.
The same principles apply to rooting out corruption. But unfortunately, when the corrupt and ideologically homogenous groups control the levers of power, such methods are used to crush dissent, ideas, and the free flow of information such as in authoritarian regimes. Spies and informants are everywhere and you do not know who they are.
Yes, indeed - I didn't presume to suggest that I'd invented some radical new idea, but rather that I was puzzled why politicians -- the most obvious targets -- aren't targeted. We tend to scrutinize so many other areas of society so much, and so little institutionalized oversight is produced for those who make the biggest decisions in our societies. It's completely bonkers, in my view. I hadn't read about the environmental literature, though -- that's very interesting. Thanks, as always, Paul - can always count on you for an interesting response to each edition.
Brian, apologies if you thought I was being critical. I agree you were not saying you invented or discovered something new. What I love is taking seemingly disparate observations and practices and applying them in new an innovative ways. I have made a career out of doing that in energy, power, and environmental economics and policy. That is why I find your writing and ideas so fascinating and inspiring.
Brian I generally agree with you. Here I worry about justifying stings. I'm all for getting the corrupt corporation or politician. But the poor guy stung in a cop orchestrated drug purchase. Not so much. Granting legitimacy to one, Grant's it to the other.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I disagree, though -- I think we have plenty of areas of life where we say that a certain group of people are subject to extra scrutiny. For example, there are extra safeguards for people working with vulnerable adults or young children. That doesn't mean those safeguards have to be deployed everywhere. The same is true for stings. There are certain positions with immense power that I think should face this extra level of scrutiny. I don't think that you have to say that doing this to politicians means it's automatically legitimate for anyone else.
I agree that doing it for politicians doesn't automatically make it legitimate for others. However, currently society does believe it is legitimate for the lowest level among us. Meanwhile, the top of the top, not so much. I wish it were the opposite.
Great article!
Brian, great stuff as always! Your punch line about stings being inherently dishonest and sneaky is not the point. Those being “stung” play victim saying that it was all a set up and they should not be held accountable. The point is one needs to fight fire with fire. Corruption and the fight against it is inherently an asymmetric game/battle. Those engaging in corruption have no rules, yet those fighting it must follow rules.
What you are proposing is to even the playing field. As an economist by training, using this game theoretic approach makes sense and should be implemented widely across not just those in authority such as police and politicians but also across other sectors of the economy at upper management and C-suites.
BTW, what you propose has been around in the economic literature for at least 3 decades to enforce rules (say environmental laws and regard in which I was interested at the time). The idea is random, unannounced monitoring helped enforce such regimes across the board where direct monitoring across all sites is impractical for technical or cost reasons.
The same principles apply to rooting out corruption. But unfortunately, when the corrupt and ideologically homogenous groups control the levers of power, such methods are used to crush dissent, ideas, and the free flow of information such as in authoritarian regimes. Spies and informants are everywhere and you do not know who they are.
Yes, indeed - I didn't presume to suggest that I'd invented some radical new idea, but rather that I was puzzled why politicians -- the most obvious targets -- aren't targeted. We tend to scrutinize so many other areas of society so much, and so little institutionalized oversight is produced for those who make the biggest decisions in our societies. It's completely bonkers, in my view. I hadn't read about the environmental literature, though -- that's very interesting. Thanks, as always, Paul - can always count on you for an interesting response to each edition.
Brian, apologies if you thought I was being critical. I agree you were not saying you invented or discovered something new. What I love is taking seemingly disparate observations and practices and applying them in new an innovative ways. I have made a career out of doing that in energy, power, and environmental economics and policy. That is why I find your writing and ideas so fascinating and inspiring.
Not at all! I didn't take it that way! Don't worry. Thank you!
Brian I generally agree with you. Here I worry about justifying stings. I'm all for getting the corrupt corporation or politician. But the poor guy stung in a cop orchestrated drug purchase. Not so much. Granting legitimacy to one, Grant's it to the other.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment. I disagree, though -- I think we have plenty of areas of life where we say that a certain group of people are subject to extra scrutiny. For example, there are extra safeguards for people working with vulnerable adults or young children. That doesn't mean those safeguards have to be deployed everywhere. The same is true for stings. There are certain positions with immense power that I think should face this extra level of scrutiny. I don't think that you have to say that doing this to politicians means it's automatically legitimate for anyone else.
I agree that doing it for politicians doesn't automatically make it legitimate for others. However, currently society does believe it is legitimate for the lowest level among us. Meanwhile, the top of the top, not so much. I wish it were the opposite.
I agree with that!