Thoughts on Borders and Bribery

An excellent story by the New York Times yesterday chronicles the rise of border officials accepting bribes:

The pattern has become familiar: Customs officers wave in vehicles filled with illegal immigrants, drugs or other contraband. A Border Patrol agent acts as a scout for smugglers. Trusted officers fall prey to temptation and begin taking bribes.

In 2007, the Inspector General's office had 79 open investigations into "corrupt" border officials from the states bordering Mexico. As one expert in the article notes, people who work the border are especially vulnerable to corruption given the solitary nature of the work and the desperate desire of so many who want to cross. It is, after all, bribery, not force, that breached the great wall of China and allowed the Manchu to conquer.

If you were to set up an experiment in corruption, you would set it up at the border between a very wealthy country and a poorer one, where both languages are known by most people. You would throw every possible plea at the border agent--some appeals to pity, some to money, some to romance, some to power--every day, while the border agent went through a million different moods, and every kind of weather. Some days you would offer him $10,000, some days you would offer him $10, some days you would offer him nothing, but show him a pregnant woman.

You would give him a job in which he is responsible for stopping a crime where the harm is to something abstract, and the motive for many is to something noble, like taking care of a family, or seeking dignity.

In lab experiments on bribery researchers have found that reciprocity and trust are important factors in increasing the likelihood of bribery; because there is no legal enforcement mechanism, players must know each other and trust that there will be repeat interactions so that defecting will have an impact on future interactions. In a very straightforward way, the more often people interact, the more likely they are to eventually offer and accept a bribe. Some experiments also show that awareness of negative influences on others have very low, or no, impact on the likelihood of offering or accepting bribes. They also find that people perpetually underestimate the likelihood of themselves getting caught, even when they know the actual odds of getting caught are significant.

Along with reciprocity and trust comes something harder to describe in game theory terms--human sympathy, affection, and pity. In Graham Greene's classic The Heart of the Matter, he tells the story of an upstanding policemen who lies, then borrows, then commits adultery, murder, and suicide. He does not start with a million dollar temptation, or a gorgeous seductress. He starts his trajectory away from 20 years of steady rule-following because of a fat, sweating ship captain who begs and pleads that he not turn over a letter he has written to his daughter, against wartime regulations. The catholic policemen rejects the bribe offered by the ship captain, but in a small lie shrugs off a question about whether anything was found, and because of the lie, sprung from true pity, then burns the letter. It does not read like a crime, it reads like pity--which I can imagine is also part of the story at the border.

Our tendency is to focus on two strategies in response: transparency and criminal law. Both are important, but neither seems promising as a comprehensive solution. A criminal-law only strategy seems doomed to failure--and seems to reflect a failure of imagination. Against the battering ram of time, variety, pity, and temptation, I cannot imagine that even the stiffest penalties will create the impenetrable wall pontificated about in so many political speeches.

Despite the threat of years in prison, we have proved very poor at reducing opportunities for temptation. Our big construction projects--Iraq, Katrina, and our effort at building an intimidating border wall--have all been riddled with bribes. Just this month two contractors were indicted for accepting bribes in connection with a New Orleans levee project.

I'm currently working on a book about the American founders' strategies in combatting corruption; when the crafters of the Constitution spent their own sweaty summer in Philadelphia, they were obsessed with corruption, and tried to include "every practicable obstacle" in the Constitution to limit its causes and consequences. Very few of their strategies involved criminal law. Instead, they were focused on limiting temptation, creating structures that would not put men (and it was all men, then) in positions in which they would have to regularly confront their own weaknesses.

All of this is to say that while criminal law and transparency each have their role, structural responses are more sustainable in the long run. We ought not design a society in which we put people in a situation with too much temptation, not just because it is cruel, but because it doesn't work. The wall we can build and top with glorious turrets, but unless we deal more humbly with human motives, pity, temptation, ambition, greed, and chaos, we will miss the mark, whatever it is.

Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,
And spills the upper boulders in the sun;
And makes gaps even two can pass abreast..
--Robert Frost

Comments (52)

1. What would the Founders have thought of Halliburton....it's relationship to the White House....and the utter lack of concern of that WH or the previous GOP Congress as to the BILLIONS it was paid (for poor, even harmful services)?

   And those who proclaim loudest about both their superior Christian morality...the corrupting influence of Government...and "what the Founders would have wanted"?!??!?

   Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008 @ 03:33am

2. this also the case with the drug war. corruption flourishes. the money is just too big.

   Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 12:27pm

3. Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008

   Well Mask, considering they were still hammering out how this country would come together, I don't think they would have thought much about the affairs of the WH, afterall they were the original lobbyists. (hehehe)

   Posted by ACook at 05/28/2008 @ 12:30pm

4. Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/28/2008

   Just two questions then, for you and PONTI....neither having to do with their "stock prices"...

   1. How much did they get paid in Government contracts?

   2. How much tainted water going to veterans is enough for you to care more about the troops than a corporation?

   Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008 @ 12:56pm

5. it seems rather odd when i hear people rattle on about the corrupt mexican drug lords

   when after all,

   they are just providing a service that so many north americans desire.

   the drugs of choice in mexico are alcohol and tobacco. anything else is taboo.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 1:06pm

6. halliburton, kbr, dyncorp.....

   i wonder how many bribes they have given in iraq.

   Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 1:07pm

7. and what about that canadian guy who "donated" money to clinton's "library" after he secured the uranium deal in kazakhstan?

   Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 1:08pm

8. and what about the czechs, poles, and romanians with their "blacksites" and missile "defense"?

   Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 1:10pm

9. etcetera...........

   Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 1:11pm

10. Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/28/2008

    That's the problem with Washington altogether. You have a lot of big moneyed interests fighting for their share and a bunch of "politicians", who's lust for power and money is insatiable. You HAVE lust for power in order to make it anywhere in politics. You have to be willing to do things that are considered unscrupulous if you plan to stay in office.

    Mr. Smith wouldn't have made it in today's Washington.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/28/2008 @ 1:17pm

11. Mr. Smith wouldn't have made it in today's Washington.-----Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/28/2008

    HAPPY would have been one of the bit players working for Claude Rains and Edward Arnold!

    heheh

    Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008 @ 2:20pm

12. more like mr. scratch!

    ;+]

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 2:26pm

13. the drugs of choice in mexico are alcohol and tobacco. anything else is taboo.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 |

    c'mon now, they don't smoke weed? or do a few lines? I don't buy it.

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 2:27pm

14. I don't buy it.

    Posted by emile duBois

    neither do they.

    well, nothing like their neighbours to the north.

    mexico is a VERY conservative place.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 2:37pm

15. I will bow to your experience here, but your categorical statements are usually too far reaching.

    they grow a lot of pot in Mexico. how do they keep from smoking it?

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 2:42pm

16. they grow a lot of pot in Mexico. how do they keep from smoking it?

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008

    It's the simple rule of drug dealers that so few follow. Never do what you sell. It's bad for profits.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/28/2008 @ 3:02pm

17. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/28/2008

    what about the growers?

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 3:05pm

18. in my 40 years of buying grass, I have never had a dealer who did not partake.

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 3:06pm

19. as with any generalization, the closer you look, the more discrepancies you will find.

    however,

    they drink (a lot) and smoke cigs (a little)

    let's see:

    OPIATES Annual prevalence of abuse as percentage of the population aged 15-64 (unless otherwise indicated)

    North America

    USA, 2000 0.6

    Canada, 2000 0.4

    Mexico, 2002 0.1

    COCAINE Annual prevalence of abuse as percentage of the population aged 15-64 (unless otherwise indicated)

    North America

    USA, 2004 2.8

    Canada, 2004 2.3

    Mexico, (12-65),2002 0.4

    CANNABIS Annual prevalence of abuse as percentage of the population aged 15-64 (unless otherwise indicated)

    North America

    Canada, (15-64) 16.8

    USA, (15-64), 2004 12.6

    Mexico,(15-65),2002 1.3

    see what i mean?

    http://www.unodc.org/pdf/WDR_2006/wdr2006_chap6_consumption.pdf

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 3:12pm

20. in my 40 years of buying grass, I have never had a dealer who did not partake.

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008

    Bad dealers I guess. All the dealers I have known said that was their main rule. They only ever took enough to make sure it was good.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/28/2008 @ 3:12pm

21. they were not bad dealers. again I don't like categorical pronouncements.

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 3:14pm

22. It's the simple rule of drug dealers that so few follow. Never do what you sell. It's bad for profits.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/28/2008

    "Layer Cake" with Daniel Craig?

    Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008 @ 3:14pm

23. This born-again Mennonite is the latest casualty of a well-organized and burgeoning criminal enterprise that generates millions of dollars in profits every year from drug smuggling, a network that spans Mexico, the U.S. and Canada. And the Canadian hub of this powerful Mennonite mob quietly thrives in a swath of small farming communities in southwestern Ontario, home to more than 50,000 Old Colony Mennonites.

    Growing up, Detective Constable Mark Loop, lead investigator with the Leamington Police Service, thought that gangsters like those who inhabit the Mennonite mob existed only in dime-store novels or in big cities such as Detroit and Toronto -- not in his home town, and certainly not as members of the Old Colony Mennonite faith, which is among the most conservative branches of one of Christianity's most traditional sects.

    http://www.caj.ca/mediamag/awards2005/(Andrew%20Mitrovica)%20Saturday%20 Night%20Magazine.htm

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 3:15pm

24. I have no problem with drug smuggling.

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 3:18pm

25. like i said the mexicans are not users.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 3:25pm

26. "Layer Cake" with Daniel Craig?

    Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008

    No but that is a great movie.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/28/2008 @ 3:40pm

27. May 6, 2006 ... About 500 protesters held a marijuana smoke-in in Mexico City, and a presidential ... Mexico's Congress Legalizes Drugs for Personal Use ...

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 4:20pm

28. Possessing marijuana, cocaine and even heroin will no longer be a crime in Mexico if they are in small amounts for personal use under new reforms passed by ...

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 4:25pm

29. what say you now, expert?

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 4:25pm

30. Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008

    I've heard smoking grass alot makes you cranky.

    Posted by Benchrest at 05/28/2008 @ 4:34pm

31. my mood swings go from bellicose to belligerent.

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 4:41pm

32. I've heard smoking grass alot makes you cranky.

    Posted by Benchrest at 05/28/2008 |

    don't believe everything you hear.

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 4:42pm

33. hmmmm?

    500 ÷ 110,000,000 = .0004%

    yep.

    potheads all.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 4:48pm

34. Posted by frosty zoom

    now don't be ridiculous.

    why do you think they would legalize personal use of grass if no one was smoking it.

    your categorical claims are always wrong.

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 4:51pm

35. the boss wants me to get back to work.

    shit, I'm the boss.

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 4:59pm

36. Posted by marybretbrad at 05/28/2008

    Seemed like they ran out of ideas and just slapped it on. It happens a lot. I still like the rest of the movie though.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/28/2008 @ 6:35pm

37. Froz, according to your statistics.

    1.3% of Mexicans "abuse" cannabis. 110 million Mexicans, that makes 1million four hundredthirtythousand Mexicans "abuse" cannabis. did I get the math right?

    no they don't smoke cannabis down there. sure.

    hahahahahaha

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 6:57pm

38. Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008

    I don't think he said they didn't do it all. I think his point was that when you look at the percentages compared to other countries it is barely a blip on the map.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/28/2008 @ 7:07pm

39. Posted by Cccomfo1

    he was pretty categorical.

    no one can know everything about a given subject.

    the decriminalization speaks volumes.

    what IS true, is that we have a bigger drug habit than most other countries. we have more money to spend for one thing.

    if anyone sees me make a categorical statement, feel free to challenge me.

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 7:30pm

40. Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008

    I think part of the reason is because it IS so strictly controlled. Look at a country like Amsterdam. It's the same with Alcohol in the US. Why is it that there are fewer alcoholics in countries where the drinking age is lower and drinking isn't such a taboo. It's a weird coincidence.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/28/2008 @ 7:40pm

41. Posted by marybretbrad at 05/28/2008

    Seemed like they ran out of ideas and just slapped it on. It happens a lot. I still like the rest of the movie though.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/28/2008

    A lot like "Apocalypse Now".

    Posted by Mask at 05/28/2008 @ 7:51pm

42. yes, I hate the fact that I can't send my 17 year old son to get me some beer.

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 7:53pm

43. mexico is a VERY conservative place.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008

    mexico is a poor place as well. note the correlation between wealth per capita and drug use.

    Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2008 @ 8:23pm

44. Golly....years ago when visiting Mexico you kind of expected that the border guides would be looking for a handout. Now you tell me our borderguards are doing the same? Geezzz....where have all the cowboys gone?

    Posted by OneVote at 05/28/2008 @ 8:26pm

45. your categorical claims are always wrong.

    Posted by emile duBois

    blah blah

    MOST MOST MOST MOST DO NOT

    HARDLY ANY HARDLY ANY HARDLY ANY HARDLY ANY DO.

    ¿entiendes?

    sheesh.

    pick pick pick those nits.

    legalizing saves money for the government.

    IT ALSO WILL HELP BOLSTER TOURISM FROM PLACES WHERE REEFER IS ILLEGAL.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 9:40pm

46. the knicks suck.

    go pistons.

    heheh.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 9:42pm

47. and everything made in china,

    down to the last quark, lepton and boson,

    is JUNK!

    heheh.

    ('cept this computer, of course (knock on plastic!))

    btw the knicks really really suck.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/28/2008 @ 10:04pm

48. Frost, don't be so ignorant. the Knicks haven't made the playoffs in a while. I don't like them. the team I liked was the Nets, who went to the finals twice a few years ago, before the owners broke up the team.

    if there are a million and a half potsmokers in Mexico, that contradicts your previous assertions. end of story.

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/28/2008 @ 10:36pm

49. Posted by emile duBois

    consumption is relative, einstein.

    ender of story.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/29/2008 @ 12:12am

50. HAPPY3

    happy,

    if you want to make money on your grandkid's demise...

    go ahead.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/29/2008 @ 12:15am

51. HAPPY3

    wow,

    you're channelling JOHN MAASCH.

    so, organic farming suppresses freedom.

    i see.

    you don't own any organic producer stock, do you?

    it's a wise investment.

    sometimes you have to remove the dumb from freedom.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/29/2008 @ 12:47am

52. Just want to let you know.....I'm still here scratching my head, over this "country" :~)

    Posted by HAPPY3 at 05/28/2008

    Sorry it was a long day yesterday.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/29/2008 @ 12:54pm