A police officer in rural Colombia can be negotiated with to obtain an outcome that is satisfactory to all parties. Try that at the San Fransisco DMV, even if they want to help you they can't because the process is the process.
There are pros and cons to both systems. The low bribery systems tend to curb the worst behavior (no amount of donating to the right causes will help you put a toxic waste processing plant in Manhatten) at the expense of really screwing the people who are edge cases.
The equatorial developing nations tend to have a lot of class divide and racism problems that get nastier in a regulatory environment where everything is fuzzy. If you want to see a bribery based regulatory environment done right look at eastern Europe from 1980-2000ish (years vary depending on where you look).
HN loves the "hurr durr stupid poor countries and their bribery" trope but for those countries routine bribery is mostly just a cultural workaround for the fact that they can't afford a massive administrative state to grant you a stupid variance from their stupid zoning rules on your stupid garden shed (or whatever). They're effectively pushing decision making onto the leaves of the organizational tree and cutting the organizational tree out of the payment loop somewhat. Yes, it goes awry sometimes but it's not like western bureaucracies have any lack of similarly bad outcomes.
I don't know about you but I don't want my police officers to be "negotiated with". I want them to enforce the law fairly and evenly, and not waive laws for their personal gain.
That works fine on paper and in internet comments but in reality the law is often asinine and/or intentionally broad to facilitate easy enforcement and enforcement is almost always subject to the discretion of those doing the enforcement. Their discretion is anything but fair and even.
By saying you want the goalposts located at the "fairly and evenly line" you're just moving the inequality from being the fault of the enforcers to be the fault of other parts of the system. The poor guy can't take time off work to fight the ticket and the end result of the system is barely any fairer.
If you're being reasonable it's much easier to say "officer, I'm being reasonable, here's some money, screw off" than it is to try and appeal to a bureaucracy, especially if you're doing something that's outside the letter of the law but within the spirit of the law.
For most people most of the time the difference is a wash. The main difference is the edge cases and failure modes. Think about this next time you're (you reading this comment with disdain, not the person I'm replying to in particular) waiting for a police officer to finish writing you your ticket for going the same speed as everyone else while looking slightly more interesting than everyone else.
There are pros and cons to both systems. The low bribery systems tend to curb the worst behavior (no amount of donating to the right causes will help you put a toxic waste processing plant in Manhatten) at the expense of really screwing the people who are edge cases.
The equatorial developing nations tend to have a lot of class divide and racism problems that get nastier in a regulatory environment where everything is fuzzy. If you want to see a bribery based regulatory environment done right look at eastern Europe from 1980-2000ish (years vary depending on where you look).
HN loves the "hurr durr stupid poor countries and their bribery" trope but for those countries routine bribery is mostly just a cultural workaround for the fact that they can't afford a massive administrative state to grant you a stupid variance from their stupid zoning rules on your stupid garden shed (or whatever). They're effectively pushing decision making onto the leaves of the organizational tree and cutting the organizational tree out of the payment loop somewhat. Yes, it goes awry sometimes but it's not like western bureaucracies have any lack of similarly bad outcomes.