Advertisement

The Institutionalization of OECD Anti-bribery Collaboration

  • Lianlian Liu
Chapter

Abstract

Grasping the dynamic of the institutionalization process of the anti-bribery collaboration from the FCPA to the OECD Anti-bribery Convention is critical for the next step of analyzing the actual performance of these laws. Previous works, grounded in realist ideology, often reduce the dynamic process to a question of states’ free will and rational responses to expected payoffs in relative legislative strategies. This realist approach offers only speculative and inaccurate explanations that cannot sustain an understanding of the operation of the anti-bribery collaboration at successive stages. Instead, this study employs a historically contextual approach, stressing how decision-makers were constrained by existing and evolving institutions by analyzing the process of intertwined interactions among involved political parties, and concludes that the process of institutionalization is composed of a sequence of unavoidable choices by decision-makers in a concrete historical context. A lawmaking game among rational parties in an evolving context may plausibly result in altruistic consequences.

Keywords

FCPA The OECD Anti-bribery Convention A rational-choice approach A historically contextual approach 

References

  1. Abbott, Kenneth W., and Duncan Snidal. 2002. Values and Interests: International Legalization in the Fight against Corruption. Journal of Legal Studies 31: 141–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adler, Tamara. 1982. Amending the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977: A Step toward Clarification and Consolidation. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 73 (4): 1740–1773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahdieh, Robert B. 2010. The Visible Hand: Coordination Functions of the Regulatory State. Minnesota Law Review 95: 578–649.Google Scholar
  4. Baughn, Christopher, Nancy L. Bodie, Mark A. Buchanan, and Michael B. Bixby. 2009. Bribery in International Business Transactions. Journal of Business Ethics 92 (1): 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beck, Paul J., and Michael W. Maher. 1989. Competition, Regulation, and Bribery. Managerial and Decision Economics 10 (1): 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Beck, Paul J., Michael W. Maher, and Adrain E. Tschoegl. 1991. The Impact of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act on US Exports. Managerial and Decision Economics 12 (4): 295–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boettke, Peter J., Christopher J. Coyne, and Peter T. Leeson. 2008. Institutional Stickiness and the New Development Economics. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology 67 (2): 331–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brewster, Rachel. 2010. Stepping Stone or Stumbling Block: Incrementalism and National Climate Change Legislation. Yale Law and Policy Review 28: 245–312.Google Scholar
  9. Carrington, Paul D. 2009. Enforcing International Corrupt Practices Law. Michigan Journal of International Law 32 (129): 129–164.Google Scholar
  10. Carter, Jimmy. 1977. Foreign Corrupt Practices and Investment Disclosure Bill Statement on Signing S. 305 Into Law, 20 December 1977. Accessed December 29, 2013. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=7036.
  11. Clinton, William J. 1998. Statement on Signing the International Anti-Bribery and Fair-Competition Act of 1998, 10 November 1998. Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents 34 (46): 2290.Google Scholar
  12. Copeland, Michael, and Robert F. Scott. 1999. Efforts to Combat Transnational Bribery: Problems with and Alternatives to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Journal of Security Administration 22 (1): 41–57.Google Scholar
  13. Cragg, Wesley A., and William Woof. 2002. The US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: A Study of Its Effectiveness. Business and Society Review 107 (1): 98–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davis, Kevin E. 2002. Self-Interest and Altruism in the Deterrence of Transnational Bribery. American Law and Economics Review 4 (2): 314–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. ———. 2012. Why does the United States Regulate Foreign Bribery: Moralism, Self-Interest, or Altruism? NYU Annual Survey of American Law 67 (3): 497–511.Google Scholar
  16. EU Convention against Corruption, No. C 195 (25 June 1997).Google Scholar
  17. EU Protocol to the Convention on the Protection of the European Communities’ Financial Interests, No. C 313 (27 September 1996).Google Scholar
  18. German, Peter M. 2002. To Bribe or Not to Bribe—A Less than Ethical Dilemma, Resolved? Journal of Financial Crime 9 (3): 249–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Graham, John L. 1984. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: A New Perspective. Journal of International Business Studies 15 (3): 107–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hall, Christopher L. 1994. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: A Competitive Disadvantage, But for How Long? Tulane Journal of International and Company Law 2: 289–316.Google Scholar
  21. Harstad, Bard. 2008. Do Side Payments Help? Collective Decisions and Strategic Delegation. Journal of the European Economic Association 6: 468–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hines, James R. Jr. 1995. Forbidden Payment: Foreign Bribery and American Business after 1977. Working Paper. Accessed July 11, 2014. http://www.nber.org/papers/w5266.
  23. Holmes, Leslie. 2009. Good Guys, Bad Guys: Transnational Corporations, Rational Choice Theory and Power Crime. Crime Law Social Change 51: 383–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jacoby, N.H., P. Nehemkis, and R. Eells. 1977. Bribery and Extortion in World Business: A Study of Corporate Political Payments Abroad. New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.Google Scholar
  25. Johnson, David T. 2010. Keeping Foreign Corruption out of the United States. The DISAM Journal of International Security Assistance Management 32 (1): 94–98.Google Scholar
  26. Johnstone, Peter, and George Brown. 2004. International Controls of Corruption: Recent Responses from the USA and the UK. Journal of Financial Crime 11 (3): 217–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kaikati, Jack G., and Wayne A. Label. 1980. American Bribery Legislation: An Obstacle to International Marketing. Journal of Marketing 44 (4): 38–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kennedy, David. 1999. The International Anti-Corruption Campaign. Connecticut Journal of International Law 14: 455–465.Google Scholar
  29. Keohane, R.O. 1989. International Institutions and State Power. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  30. Kim, Suk H. 1981. On Repealing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: Survey and Assessment. Columbia Journal of World Business 16 (3): 16–21.Google Scholar
  31. Klich, Agnieszka. 1996. Bribery in Economies in Transition: The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Stanford Journal of International Law 32: 121–147.Google Scholar
  32. Koehler, Mike. 2012. The Story of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Ohio State Law Journal 73 (5): 929–1013.Google Scholar
  33. Kozolchyk, Boris. 1994. NAFTA in the Grand and Small Scheme of Things, 3 May 1994, III. Accessed June 16, 2014. http://www.iatp.org/files/NAFTA_in_the_Grand_and_Small_Scheme_of_Things.htm.
  34. Magnuson, William. 2013. International Corporate Bribery and Unilateral Enforcement. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 51: 360–417.Google Scholar
  35. Marinaccio, Charles L. 1982. S. 708: An Amended Version of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce 9 (2): 345–353.Google Scholar
  36. McGraw, Kathleen M., and Thomas M. Dolan. 2007. Personifying the State: Consequences for Attitude Formation. Political Psychology 28 (3): 299–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McSorley, Thomas. 2011. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. American Criminal Law Review 48: 749–781.Google Scholar
  38. Milinski, Manfred. 1987. Tit-for-tat in Sticklebacks and the Evolution of Cooperation. Nature 325 (29): 433–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nadipuram, Abhay M. 2013. Is the OECD the Answer? It’s Only Part of the Solution. The Journal of Corporation Law 38 (3): 636–657.Google Scholar
  40. Nesbit, Julie B. 1998. Transnational Bribery of Foreign Officials: A New Threat to the Future of Democracy. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 31: 1273–1319.Google Scholar
  41. Nichols, Philip M. 1997. Outlawing Transnational Bribery through the World Trade Organization. Law and Policy in International Business 28: 305–381.Google Scholar
  42. ———. 1999. Regulating Transnational Bribery in Times of Globalization and Fragmentation. The Yale Journal of International Law 24: 257–303.Google Scholar
  43. ———. 2000. The Myth of Anti-Bribery Laws as Transnational Intrusion. Cornell International Law Journal 33: 627–656.Google Scholar
  44. OAS Inter-American Convention against Corruption, S. TREATY DOC. NO. 105-39, 35 I. L. M. 724 (29 March 1996).Google Scholar
  45. OAS Permanent Council Resolution on the Behavior of Transnational Enterprises, CP/RES. 154 (10 July 1975).Google Scholar
  46. OECD. 1976. Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.Google Scholar
  47. ———. 1979. Review of the 1976 Declaration and Decisions on International. Investment and Multinational Enterprises (13 June 1979).Google Scholar
  48. ———. 1994. Recommendation of the Council on Bribery in International Business Transactions (11 July 1994).Google Scholar
  49. ———. 1996. OECD, Recommendation of the Council on the Tax Deductibility of Bribes to Foreign Public Officials (17 April 1996).Google Scholar
  50. ———. 1997. Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions S. TREATY DOC. NO. 105-43, 37 I.L. M. 1 (21 December 1997).Google Scholar
  51. ———. 2011. OECD WGB 2010 Annual Report.Google Scholar
  52. ———. 2012a. Economic Outlook, Volume 2012/2.Google Scholar
  53. ———. 2012b. OECD WGB 2011 Annual Report.Google Scholar
  54. Pieth, Mark. 1999. International Efforts to Combat Corruption. Conference paper at 9th International Anti-Corruption Conference (IACC), 10–15 October 1999, Durban, South Africa.Google Scholar
  55. ———. 2007. Introduction. In The OECD Convention on Bribery: A Commentary, ed. Mark Pieth et al. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Ramos, Roberto. 2012. Banning US Foreign Bribery: Do US Firms Win? Working Paper. Accessed June 11, 2014. http://www.cemfi.es/~ramos/Banning_US_Foreign_Bribery.pdf.
  57. Richardson, J. David. 1991. Sizing up US Export Disincentives. Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
  58. Richman, B. 1979. Can We Prevent Questionable Foreign Payments? Business Horizons 22: 14–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rubin, Seymour J. 1976. United States: Report of the Securities and Exchange Commission on Questionable and Illegal Corporate Payments and Practices. American Society of International Law 15 (3): 618–633.Google Scholar
  60. Ryngaert, Cedric. 2008. Jurisdiction in International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Salbu, Steven R. 1997. Bribery in the Global Market: A Critical Analysis of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Washington and Lee Law Review 54: 229–287.Google Scholar
  62. ———. 2000. A Delicate Balance: Legislation, Institutional Change, and Transnational Bribery. Cornell International Law Journal 33: 657–688.Google Scholar
  63. Schmidt, Timothy W. 2009. Sweetening the Deal: Strengthening Transnational Bribery Laws through Standard International Corporate Auditing Guidelines. Minnesota Law Review 93: 1120–1145.Google Scholar
  64. Sheldon, Kennon M. 1999. Learning the Lessons of Tit-for-Tat: Even Competitors Can Get the Message. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 77 (6): 1245–1253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sung, Hung-En. 2005. Between Demand and Supply: Bribery in International Trade. Crime, Law and Social Change 24: 111–131.Google Scholar
  66. Tarullo, Daniel K. 2004. The Limits of Institutional Design: Implementing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention. Virginia Journal of International Law 44 (3): 665–710.Google Scholar
  67. UN (1996) Action against Corruption 1996, UNGARsn129, A/RES/51/59 (12 December 1996).Google Scholar
  68. ——— (1996) Declaration against Corruption and Bribery in International Commercial Transactions 1996, UNGARsn 266, A/RES/51/191 (16 December 1996).Google Scholar
  69. USGAO Report to the Congress: Impact of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act on US Business, AFMD-81-34 (4 March 1981).Google Scholar
  70. Wendt, A. 1992. Anarchy is What States Make of It: The Social Construction of Power Politics. International Organization 46 (2): 391–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wolff, Jacqueline C. 1979. Voluntary Disclosure Programs. Fordham Law Review 47 (6): 1057–1082.Google Scholar
  72. World Bank. 1997. Private Capital Flows to Developing Countries: The Road to Financial Integration. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Zagaris, Bruce, and Shaila Lakhani Ohri. 1999. The Emergence of an International Enforcement Regime on Transnational Corruption in the Americas. Georgetown Journal of International Law 30: 53–93.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lianlian Liu
    • 1
  1. 1.Peking UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations