????世界各國的人都意識到了腐敗的問題。

????蓋洛普最近的一項民意調查顯示，2006-2013年期間，持有“腐敗是政府內普遍現象”觀念的美國人已從59%上升至79%，而另一項調查顯示，219個國家中有108個國家的大部分民眾都贊成這一觀點。

????經濟學家雅各布?斯文森對腐敗的定義是：為私利而濫用公共權力。根據這一定義，我們很容易找到人們對腐敗深惡痛絕的原因，因為這種行為竊取的是大家共有的資源。一旦腐敗大行其道，它對社會造成的影響將是毀滅性的。在《經濟展望期刊》（Journal of Economic Perspectives）上刊載的一篇論文中，斯文森就腐敗對于經濟的影響調查了相關文獻，結果發現影響會非常嚴重。他寫道，國家的財富與腐敗程度之間是強烈的反比關系，而且腐敗往往損害的是社會中最貧苦人的利益。斯文森還列舉了多個近些年來惡名昭彰的類似案例。

????“據保守估計，扎伊爾前總統蒙博托?塞塞?塞科（Mobutu Sese Seko）侵吞了國庫約50億美元的資金……據稱，印尼前總統默罕默德?蘇哈托（Mohamed Suharto）和菲律賓前總統費迪南德?馬科斯（Ferdinand Marcos）所挪用的資金是蒙博托的兩倍和七倍……國際貨幣基金組織內部報告稱，僅2001年一年，近10億美元的石油儲量或人均77美元的財富從安哥拉國庫蒸發了，是安哥拉2001年收到的人道主義援助資金的三倍。然而，這個國家四分之三的民眾每天的生活費都不到1美元，而且1/3的兒童都活不過5歲。”

????當然，大多數腐敗都遠沒有達到上述的這種瘋狂程度，而且有時候，腐敗的出現反而會帶來公正的結果。哥倫比亞大學政治中心副教授克里斯?布拉特曼（Chris Blattman）稱，這也可能是經濟學家們為什么沒能把不同程度的腐敗與經濟增長率掛鉤的原因。盡管腐敗程度越低，財富總量就會越多，但是鮮有證據證明，腐敗放緩了經濟的增長步伐。布拉特曼寫道：

????“為什么會出現這種情況？原因之一：大多數人都想象不出，腐敗對于為經濟繁榮齒輪的運轉來說具有潤滑劑作用。而在某些效率低下的官僚機構（意味著企業家和大公司在運輸、出口或遵守相關法規方面感到很吃力），腐敗可以提升效率，促進經濟增長。行賄就像是計件工資或價格歧視，對于那些等待機會成本頗高的公司來說，它能帶來更快或更好的服務。”

????那么這種看似良性的腐敗是否也對美國有幫助呢？在《紐約客》雜志上周刊載的一篇文章中，馬爾科姆?格萊德維爾認為有幫助，而且沒必要將其稱之為腐敗。他在文章中將20世紀早期的意大利黑手黨和如今城市中的有組織犯罪進行了比較。格萊德維爾認為，在整個美國歷史進程中，一波又一波的移民被拒之門外，無法接觸到原本可以幫助其過上體面生活的那些機制，而且一旦發生這種情況，這些群體就會訴諸于犯罪，也就是社會學家詹姆斯?歐肯所說的“扭曲的梯子”（the crooked ladder）。

????Americans, and citizens around the world, have corruption on the mind.

????A recent Gallup poll showed that from 2006 to 2013, the percentage of Americans who believe “corruption is widespread throughout the government” has increased from 59% to 79%, while a separate poll showed that majorities in 108 of 129 countries agree.

????Economist Jakob Svensson has defined corruption as the misuse of public office for private gain and, by this definition, it’s easy to see why it upsets us so much, as it constitutes a theft of resources that belong to all of us. And when corruption is widespread, it can have devastating effects on a society. In a paper published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, Svensson surveys the literature on the economic effects of corruption, and they can be severe. He notes that there is a strong negative correlation between the wealth of a nation and its level of corruption, and that this corruption often harms the poorest in a society. Svensson offers several recent examples of such egregious malfeasance:

????“A conservative estimate is that the former President of Zaire, Mobutu Sese Seko, looted the treasury of some $5 billion…. The funds allegedly embezzled by the former presidents of Indonesia and Philippines, Mohamed Suharto and Ferdinand Marcos, are estimated to be two and seven times higher…. An internal IMF report found that nearly $1 billion of oil reserves, or $77 per capita, vanished from the Angolan state coffers in 2001 alone. This was about three times the value of the humanitarian aid received by Angola in 2001—in a country where three-quarters of the population survives on less than $1 a day and where one in three children die before the age of five.”

????Of course, most corruption is nowhere near as outrageous, and there are times when the presence of corruption can actually lead to just outcomes. According to Chris Blattman, an associate professor of political science at Columbia University, this might be why economists have not been able to link levels of corruption to growth rates. While overall wealth is associated with lower levels of corruption, there is very little evidence that corruption leads to slower economic growth. Writes Blattman:

????“Why might this be so? One reason: Most of us fail to imagine that corruption can also grease the wheels of prosperity. Yet in places where bureaucracies and organizations are inefficient (meaning entrepreneurs and big firms struggle to transport or export or comply with regulation), corruption could improve efficiency and growth. Bribes can act like a piece rate or price discrimination, and give faster or better service to the firms with highest opportunity cost of waiting.”

????Could this seemingly benign corruption be helpful in the U.S.? In an article in this week’s New Yorker, Malcolm Gladwell, without necessarily calling it corruption, argues it could, as he compares the Italian Mafia of the early 20th century with organized crime in cities today. Gladwell argues that throughout American history, waves of immigrants were denied access to the sorts of institutions that would have enabled upward mobility, and when that happened, these groups turned to crime, what sociologist James O’Kane calls “the crooked ladder.”