QUESTION 1 A country with a history of corruption and bribery has made great efforts via education and prosecution to conduct government business in an open and fair way. The country has made considerable progress. As part of its reform, the country overhauled its visa procedures for foreigners wanting to live in the country. In the previous corrupt environment, people with money would secretly pay off a government employee to have their visa application approved quickly, while other visa applications took much longer. Now the government has made the application procedure transparent and established a new procedure in law. The new procedure offers two visa tracks, the "Regular Track", which does not require any payment, and the "Premium Track", which requires a US $10,000 payment. The Regular Track takes just as long to process a visa application as an application without a bribe took before the reforms. The Premium Track moves along just as quickly as a visa application with a bribe took before the reforms. Most people wanting to immigrate to the country cannot afford the Premium Track. What are the issues of integrity, ethics and law posed in the case study? What options does the country have, and what should it do and why? Answer Some of the questions raised by this case study include how the issue first arose, what stakeholders are involved and what power they have or don't have; whether the current arrangement is ethical; how the integrity and ethics of countries are similar and different from those of people, and whether the country is acting or should act with integrity; whether the current arrangement legalizes an essentially unfair arrangement, and if so, how that affects people's view of the law. However cognitive dissonance only means that people are uncomfortable in some way when they are faced with conicts within themselves; for example, if their ethics and behaviour are not consistent. The idea of cognitive dissonance does not suggest how people will resolve this uncomfortable feeling. People can resolve cognitive dissonance by making their behaviour conform to standards of integrity and ethics, but they can also use a very different strategy change or lower their ethical standards, or change their perception that they have done something wrong to the perception that they have not done anything wrong. Social factors can also inhibit or promote integrity and ethics, and David Luban reviews scholarship from social science which suggests that integrity is much harder to sustain in a group because there is a diffusion of responsibility (Luban, 2003). Luban notes that situations can create pressure and temptation, . . . . . Lul- tel-Int nun-Ian \"nnnln .nnnuunl-Ju nvwnunnmn +Lnnn nunnnllunn nu.. n. nunnulmnnl'n min-IIII'II'I-n-l h. Innunnnn
