I’m always curious to see how people justify or explain official corruption. How do some societies end up corrupt while others are “clean”? I don’t believe for a moment that it’s some kind of inbuilt genetic (sorry Razib) or cultural thing, nor does religion have anything to do with it (sorry, Max Weber). Also, how much damage does small-scale corruption really do? Slate has an article by Joel Waldfogel summarizing a recent study that was done with 800 people who needed drivers’ licenses in Delhi. Right off the bat, Waldfogel gives us a possible advantage to corruption while waiting in line:

The Department of Motor Vehicles, here and in many foreign countries, is a place of long lines, sour bureaucrats…, and bleak interior decorating. By the time you get to the front of the photo line, you need to shave again. Since access to government clerks is normally allocated on a first-come, first-served basis, people pay with their time rather than their money. This is inefficient: Suppose you’re in a big hurry and would be willing to pay a lot to avoid waiting, while I don’t mind waiting. Then you could go ahead of me, making you a lot better off and me only a little worse off, which reduces our collective frustration. One way to achieve this efficiency would be to charge a higher price for expedited service. Yet, an expedited government service option typically does not exist. So, in some countries, the offer of a bribe in exchange for quicker processing is a common form of corruption—reducing the social cost of waiting in line. (link)

There are some real advantages in that, just as there are to the “Lexus Lanes” many American cities are thinking of introducing on highways to give drivers the option to get out of traffic jams on the regular highway if they’re willing to pay to be on a specially constructed, parallel toll lane. What if you really need to be somewhere, and you’re willing to spend $10 to get there?

Though I’m sure government corruption in India is better now than it was during the infamous “License Raj” days of Indira and Rajiv, India as a whole still ranks pretty high on the corruption scale:

India is a good place to study corruption. On a 10-point corruption scale devised by Transparency International, where 10 is squeaky clean and 0 is completely corrupt, in 2005 India came in about 90th among 159 countries, with a score of 2.9. By comparison, Iceland was least corrupt (9.7), while Chad and Bangladesh tied (at 1.7) for most corrupt. (The United States was 17th-least corrupt, coming in between Germany and France with a score of 7.6.) (link)

A long way from Iceland, but not quite as bad as Chad or Bangladesh. (Maybe we could improve the rank a bit if we give them fifty rupees?)

In the study, predictably, hiring an unlicensed “agent” to navigate the process (and get to the front of the line) did reduce the amount of time it takes to get a license in Delhi, and also improve the chances of success. It also cost more than twice as much:

So, what happened? More than a third (37 percent) of the control group got a license, compared to 45 percent of the subjects who took driving lessons and 65 percent of the people who got paid for getting a license quickly. Subjects in the cash bonus group were most likely to hire “agents” to help them navigate the bureaucracy, spending an average of 1,280 rupees to get a license, compared with 560 rupees for those without an agent. And applicants using agents got their licenses 15 percent faster, making an average of a quarter fewer trips to the Indian DMV (which is actually called the Road Transport Office). They spent about three hours of their own time, as opposed to five hours for those who did not hire an agent. (link)

Waldfogel ends by going back to safety — people who used the corrupt system got lower scores on a driving knowledge exam given by the study. On this note, the conclusions might be meaningless: have you ever driven in India? The real Indian driving gyaan is not something you can really learn from an exam; I doubt that exam scores will have much correlation with the likelihood of getting into an accident.