The United States looked unrealistic, and perhaps even eccentric when the U.S. Congress passed the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act FCPA in 1977, making it illegal for publicly held companies to bribe foreign officials.

Many U.S. firms complained about this law, arguing that in many countries the payment of bribes was commonplace and tax deductible.

They also claimed that the law hindered their efforts to compete internationally against companies from countries that had no such anti-bribery laws.

Research at the time supported this claim by indicating that in the years after the anti-bribery legislation was enacted, U.S. business activity declined precipitously in those countries in which government officials routinely received bribes.

Since then, the issue of bribery has taken on new momentum. Thirty-eight countries, eight more than its membership of 30 nations are now subscribing to the OECD rules which prohibit the bribery of public officials, among them South Korea, Japan, Mexico, South Africa and Argentina.

Large companies such as Siemens have been taken to court and punished for paying bribes. Increasingly, companies state that the anti-bribery drive now gives them a clear rationale to say “no” when bribes are requested. The progress is good. Several questions remain though: Should rules across borders be the same, particularly when it comes to the allocation of expenses and the treatment of family members, or should there be an acknowledged role for cultural differences? Current estimates of bribery levels range between 5 and 20 percent of international contracts. What is a realistic level of how low we can expect to drive this pernicious waste.

via The End of Corruption?.