I need one comment on my paper of what I did correctly

The pattern that I see is that Scandinavian countriesmake up the majority of the top 5 in terms of perceived corruption and bribery.Perhaps, because these countries are more socialist than the U.S., more government regulation in place makes corruption more difficult.At the other end of the spectrum, there seems to be a difference in the worst countries with regard to perceived corruption vs. willingness to pay bribes abroad.For corruption, it appears that the worst are countries with unstable governments or those without a clear central government.North Korea would be an exception; however, due to their isolated nature, they are a special exception.With minimal personal resources, it is likely temping for government bureaucrats to try to increase their lifestyle via corrupt practices.In contrast, regarding the countries with the worst scores in bribery, many of these countries have stable (perhaps totalitarian) governments.A loose pattern appears with regard to the middle of the road countries like Canada and the U.S.Specifically, it seems logical that most of these countries would appear in the middle tier because when one thinks of a highly corrupt country, Canada or the U.S. do not pop into mind.When one thinks of countries with high rates of bribery, neither the U.S. or Canada are likely to be thought of first.

It does not surprise me that the U.S. did not make the list.One reason is that this organization has its headquarterslocated in German.Thus, it is no surprise that German places higher on the list than the U.S.No organization is going to be 100% free of corruption or bribery.Transparency International is no exception.For example, TI received $3,000,000 in donations from Siemens (a German company) that paid a 1.6 billion dollar fine for corporate corruption.Another reason that I am not surprised that the U.S. did not make the list is that some cities (like Chicago) are notorious for having government corruption.Rod Blagojevich would be one example, illustrating that even the Governor of Illinois can become a convicted criminal.Yet on the other hand, corruption and frank bribery seem to be more of the exception than the rule, if one excludes the "perks" that members of Congress receive from private donors.

A global business executive could use TI's data to decide which countries to expand their business in.A country with low rates of bribery and corruption would likely have lower hidden costs to the company due to corruption.The cost of doing business in that country wouldbe easier to estimate as a result, and likely cost the company less money overall to operate in.TI has many things available on their website such as tools to support transparency in local governance, which can help a company reduce corruption.

I think that there is a meaningful difference between corruption and bribery.Specifically, TI'sreport corruption is actually PERCEIVED corruption.Perception is not always exactly the same as reality; however, there usually is some correlation between the two.The definition of bribery (whether perceived or measured somehow) is less clear, including from the textbook or TI'swebsite.The textbook definition of bribery is "when people engage illegal practices to further their personal business interest."Another definition of bribery from criminal.findlaw.com is "the offer or acceptance of anything of value in exchange for influence on a government/public official or employee.So, this would represent someone using another person's job position to their advantage by offering something of value.On the other hand, the textbook's definition of corruption is "when people engage illegal practices to further their personal business interests."Thus, corruption can occur with just a single person deciding to act illegally for their own personal gain.Corruption does not require two parties to consciously make a decision to do something illegal.With regard to international business, avoidance of bribery is something that can be fought if a company decides to offer bribes or do business in a situation where a bribe is expected or asked for.Corruption is more difficult to combat because a single person with ill-intent can participate in corruption and will likely try to cover their tracks (assuming they are smart enough to try).

The absence of a set of standardized global practices does put countries on an uneven playing field.For example, The U.S. and the U.K. make it illegal for businesses to participate in corrupt practices overseas.A Russian customs agent can make it much easier for a business located outside of the U.S. or U.K. to import items into Russia, giving this country an unfair advantage over the U.S. or the U.K.If the customs brokers build these "bribes" into their pay, would it be ridiculous to consider a tip to a restaurant server a bribe for good service?One might argue that serves are paid incredibly low hourly wages and that the tip should be considered part of their salary (and is according to IRS.A customs broker in Russia may claim the same thing.This is a ridiculous parallel, but there is some overlap in ideas.One solution might be for a large group of countries (such as the EU) to agree not to do business with a country where customs brokers expect a bribe.