Corruption is an integral part of any society; although it sometimes seems useful, corrupt practices have incredibly dire consequences in the future. In prospect, the advantage of a bribe here and now is easily transformed into several problems in the future. The authorities, ready to provide specific services for illegal payment, can entangle a company in a network of corrupt machinations, demanding large bribes in the future. Also, corrupt bureaucrats can quickly thwart a business by helping one’s competitors occupy the same niche and taking enormous bribes from them. Consequently, while exploiting corruption for a business may seem like a Machiavellian pragmatic move, it turns out to be a rash move without looking at the consequences.
In the example from the case question, everything looks perfect for making a deal at first glance. However, as mentioned earlier, a bribe is a decision with long-lasting consequences. The fact that corruption is an “acceptable” measure in the countries represented, which seems like a plus in this situation, is, in fact, only an indicator of future problems. The more corruption is entrenched in the government, the more difficult it is for businesses to exist in conditions of local competition with other corrupt officials. One also must understand that local oligarchs and entrepreneurs will expel foreign companies using a large pool of corrupt levers.
These factors signify significant risks, which means that such a transaction will bring more harm and less than good. Summing up, it should be said that deals with corrupt officials have more problems in the future than advantages presently.
However, giving up expansion is also extremely risky. The solution to this dilemma lies in the middle: in smooth expansion. It would be a good move to test the situation by occupying a niche with a small company branch to increase the staff and assets for some time. Then, if no demands for new bribes come from government officials and the accompanying sabotage of the enterprise, it is safe to expand more steadily and confidently.
This approach is cautious and may seem too slow, but it is the best option available in this case. Thus, the risks will be minimized because the company’s branch begins to incur losses and experience difficulties. Its closure will not be as expensive and crushing as if, after a bribe, the company began to finance all the allocated resources at once. As a result, the most optimal strategy for solving the bribery dilemma would be the option of consent but with caution at the beginning of the branch’s development.
In summary, despite the prevalence of corruption in any social system, it does not mean that it should be encouraged. Even more so, one should not deceive oneself with its false benefits for their business and work. A bribe always carries grave consequences for everyone: the state, enterprises, and even the corrupt officials themselves. The main problem of this entire system is the very fact of the systematic nature of corruption. This means that everyone who resorts to it becomes involved in further corrupt actions, which is extremely risky for the enterprise. Businesses rarely benefit significantly from engaging in these kinds of adventures.
However, it should be borne in mind that the use of single bribes and a considerable interval between them, balanced analysis of further consequences, and a careful start-up expansion can benefit the company.