论文代写招聘-Ideological elements of corruption。From an apparent perspective, it can be said that causes of corruptions are varied. It cannot be determined to exist in any one form. It can essentially occur in any system. Primarily it depends on the individuals who have discretionary powers. These acts of corruption arise due to the dynamic nature of the events (Kennedy, 2007). These events cannot be completely comprehended or detected. Nevertheless, certain commonalities are observed in this system. Based on these similarities classification can be made about corruption. Those factors correspond negatively or positively to corruption into three categories. These three categories are namely political, economic and social determinants (Teixeira & Grande 2012). Officials of the different governmental offices are bestowed with certain level of discretionary powers. These discretionary powers enable officers to ensure that there is smooth flow of processes in the different sectors. This power is given to the officers by the individual governments with the primary belief that these officers will act ethically. In many cases it has been found that the officers do act ethically. These powers are however misused for personal gain by other officers. The discretionary power is a main political determinant related to the level of corruption (Mahmoudi, 2014). Bureaucrats will be inclined to corrupt by way of making and implementing more profitable laws and regulations to distribute government goods when they gain more discretionary power. Owing to the immense benefits that can be garnered by the process of corruption, bureaucrats seem to develop more protocols and enter new governmental procedures to gain more control over the societies (Dong & Torgler, 2013). Specifically, discretionary power is a reflection of decentralization of powers by the individual governments. Individual governments cannot handle all the requirements of the people. To combat this issue they allow certain discretionary powers to certain individuals. Primary belief is that the individuals will not use these powers for self-interest and that they would serve the greater good of the society (Dong & Torgler, 2013). In reality this is not the case. There are a number of factors that tempt officials to indulge in unethical practice. This can be explained more clearly by using the example of rent. In some instances, local authorities are blinded by self-interest. They demand more rent from firms or give institutions preferential access to resources. Owing to this they are found to benefit from their economic results (Treisman, 2000). They ensure that there is a circle of activities that are dependent on their powers. More officers and players enter into this process. More regulations and extensive regulations are found to enter into this process. This is to primarily maintain control of operations. This would ensure that the individuals gain self-serving goals. The officials without their knowledge become a part of a network that is corrupt. Each stakeholder in this operation tries to garner some self-interest goals. This in turn becomes a vicious circle. Subsequent to this it results in rampant corruption in an area (Shleifer & Vishny, 1993). This is one of factors that attributes to the ideology of corruption. There are also other proposed theories.
论文代写招聘 -Ideological elements of corruption。 从表面上看，腐败的原因是多种多样的。它不能以任何一种形式存在。它可以发生在任何系统中。这主要取决于拥有自由裁量权的个人。这些腐败行为是由于事件的动态性而产生的(Kennedy, 2007)。这些事件不能完全理解或检测到。尽管如此，在这个系统中还是发现了一些共性。基于这些相似性，可以对腐败进行分类。这些因素或消极或积极地对应于腐败分为三类。这三个类别分别是政治、经济和社会决定因素(Teixeira & Grande 2012)。不同政府部门的官员被授予一定程度的自由裁量权。这些自由裁量权使官员能够确保不同部门的程序能够顺利进行。这种权力是由个别政府授予官员的，其主要信念是这些官员将按道德行事。在许多情况下，人们发现这些官员的行为是合乎道德的。然而，这些权力被其他官员滥用于个人利益。自由裁量权是与腐败程度相关的主要政治决定因素(Mahmoudi, 2014)。当官员们获得更多的自由裁量权时，他们将倾向于通过制定和实施更有利可图的法律法规来分配政府产品，从而腐败。由于腐败过程可以获得巨大的好处，官员们似乎制定了更多的协议，并进入新的政府程序，以获得对社会的更多控制(Dong & Torgler, 2013)。具体来说，自由裁量权是各国政府权力分散的反映。个别政府不能满足人民的所有要求。为了解决这个问题，他们允许某些个人拥有一定的自由裁量权。主要的信念是，个人不会为了自身利益而使用这些权力，他们会为社会的更大利益服务(Dong & Torgler, 2013)。事实上并非如此。有许多因素诱使官员们沉迷于不道德的行为。这可以用租金的例子来解释得更清楚。在某些情况下，地方当局被自身利益蒙蔽了双眼。他们要求公司支付更多的租金，或者给予机构优先获得资源的权利。正因为如此，他们被发现从他们的经济成果中获益(Treisman, 2000)。他们确保有一系列依赖于他们权力的活动。更多的官员和球员进入这个过程。更多的法规和广泛的法规被发现进入这一过程。这主要是为了维护对操作的控制。这将确保个人获得自私的目标。不知情的官员成为腐败网络的一部分。此操作中的每个利益相关者都试图获得一些自利目标。这就形成了一个恶性循环。在此之后，它导致了一个地区猖獗的腐败(Shleifer & Vishny, 1993)。这是腐败意识形态的因素之一。还有其他被提出的理论。