The author opens the discussion by referring to two different cases in which business tried to influence the legislative process in Singapore and Argentina. Despite interferences in both contexts, only in the case of Argentina were people sentenced, and this occurred despite the fact that Argentina rates higher on the scales of corruption than Singapore. The author argues that the difference lies in the institutional structures of the legislative process, and due to the concentration of power. Using two datasets, the author argues that countries that grant parties a greater role in the legislative process are more prone to corruption. However, the author also argues that business groups can exert policy influence without having to engage in extensive corruption, and that nations can benefit from the technical expertise and performance accountability that business interests provide without having to incur the heavy costs of corruption.
Oxford University Press