You are hired as a consultant by the President of India. He ran on a campaign promise of reducing corruption and you've been included in the team of economists running his national program to achieve that goal.

Your first job is to explain to the team the four main ways that corruption can be reduced. They are very comfortable with mathematical models, so if helpful, you should use a simple model to explain why people decide to engage in corrupt behavior.

The President really needs this program to work, so he's only willing to spend resources on policies we know will work. Citing evidence, make an argument for trying to reduce corruption through any one of the four levers you mentioned above. Discuss evidence on both effectiveness and cost-efficiency of the option you chose.

One concern among the team of analysts is that a "culture of corruption" in India may make any policy intervention ineffective. This camp cites the Fisman and Miguel paper on parking tickets among diplomats in New York City. However, one of your colleagues has been vocal about her opinion that the problem may not be that India has a culture of corruption. She contends that the people of India aren't generally more corrupt, it's just that in India the most corrupt people in the country tend to become bureaucrats. Discuss the evidence for both possibilities, including a discussion of which evidence is or is not convincing (and why).