But the mood is different in South Korea these days. There’s always been public opposition to corruption and nepotism in the country’s chaebol conglomerates, but the country has never seen anything like the massive protests that swept the streets last year and helped drive President Park’s approval rating down to four percent. In a climate like this, where widespread outrage can lead to the impeachment of a president, even a Samsung chairman might have reason to worry.
When a Korean, Chinese, African, or South-American man gives money to politicians in exchange for favours, we call it corruption. When a western man gives money to politicians in exchange for favours, we call it lobbying.
Language shapes perception.
It’s still called corruption. The problem in the US at least is that there is a very strict standard for what is considered “quid pro quo”. The money has to be given for a specific reason like “I donate to your campaign if you promise to vote down this tax bill”. Getting money from lobbyists and then voting with their interests is not considered quid pro quo without a specific agreement in place and of course known to authorities.
Lobbying is losing its appeal and I do not think it can continue being like this unless west is going to be fine with being less and less fair in all the castes of the society. Unfortunately, if the current trend in US and EU and rise of populism is going to gain momentum we are not going to solve it soon anyway. I wonder when we look at it and say “remember when we came with an idea of lobbying, well now the system can have a broader view on those matters than a small number of massive companies. So we will trust our studies than suggestions coming from those businesses”. Is it just a fantasy?
I think it is naive to consider that corruption in the west (I assume you refer to North America and Europe) is just the lobbying.
There is plenty of old-fashioned corruption where contracts are just sold in exchange for money that gets into someone pocket. In a way, I’d say lobbying and corruption are a bit different. Lobbying tries to game the rule as it is being written, while corruption games how the rule is executed. But that’s just my opinion and I am not an expert in this kind of stuff.
NaÃ¯ve… Lobbying is when a group try to influence politics by presenting a case for whatever they promote (that includes ordinary people e.g. wanting to reduce environmental impact from some industry). Bribery is paying someone to ensure favorable treatment.
Lobbying is lobbying and bribery is bribery – and language doesn’t change that.