Can knowledge and communication stop corruption?

01 January 1970 31 9K Report

Here is a small challenge. In a research community (e.g., uni faculty, conferences) consisting of researchers (e.g., professors, etc), every researcher knows each other. There are good researchers and a corrupt one. Each researcher knows about some other researchers and whether each of them is good or corrupt, but s/he doesn't know whether her/himself is corrupt or not. One day, a queen who has the power to know everything about all communities, came to the research community and told that "there is one corrupt researcher in this community. You should not exchange with each other what you already know about the corruption. I ask any of you to leave in the midnight of the day once you know that yourself is corrupt."

Question: how many days will it take to get rid of the corrupt researcher? in what condition? How many possible answers? Can the community get rid of the corrupt one at all? If not, what is academia pursuing?
Context: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Which_is_more_important_for_a_good_professor_citations_ethics_or_morals

Version 2: In a committee of n researchers, each researcher interacts with exactly k other researcher each day and finds out whether any of the k is corrupt. The researcher then gossips the new finding with 1 other research on that day. Note that, the corrupt researcher can also gossip, but his/her message can be true/wrong each time. If the queen comes and tells that there is one corrupt researcher, can the committee spot it out? in how many days? if there is no such queen, can the committee still find it out?

=======

Corruption detection in Distributed Network

=======

In computer science, if a 'good entity' doesn't act under the rule nor communicate their knowledge, it is said malfunctioned, compromised or corrupted. Theoretically, those entities actually become no different from the corrupt ones who actually targets the network. Mathematically, if many such 'good' entities existed, the whole network is compromised, it can no longer distinguish what is good or not. When the network comes to that state, it is irreversible. Detected corruption is as important as the knowledge, and sharing detected corruption must be part of the rules.

Only computer science is given in this example, readers may get their own intuition in the matters they are concerned.

=======

My conjecture

=======

Given: there are rules (law) for every good entity to follow, and assume they all follow.

Conjecture: If all good entities still act (do, follow, obey) based on the common rules (law) and share knowledge (communication), then corruption can be uncovered if not dominant.

=====

Summary of discussions

=====

Knowledge and communication may be not sufficient to stop corruption. It needs rules and transparency.

H.G. Callaway Popular answer

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Nguyen & readers,

Aside from the puzzle you employ in your question, it seems clear that greater access to information and communication can slowly uncover corruption --of any sort in research, politics, business, etc. The point belongs to the persistent emphasis on "transparency." To get at corruption, one requires information on insider practices.

That's the way exposure and action against corruption generally works. Though concepts of proper or un-corrupted activities may differ somewhat from place to place and from time to time, still, given any positive concepts of ethical constraint, there will be a corresponding conception of corruption. In consequence rejection of corruption is virtually universal.

H.G. Callaway

Sergio Torres-Martínez

Who is to decide who's corrupted or not? What is a good researcher, and, what is a scientist? What is this distinction supposed to mean? In our days, corrupted is often a label to get rid of fair players. Thus, in the times of metrics and funding begging, those who stick to the core values of research and truth-seeking are the underdogs. This question should be read the other way around. Communities should be based on more profound values and not on such shallow criteria.

Quan Hoang Nguyen

Sergio Torres-Martínez, it's based on ethics and morals of a researcher, for example. Former colleagues and collaborators can judge.

Quan Hoang Nguyen

Subhi M Bazlamit, this is similar to the well-known problem. The difference is the word *some*, not *all*. But would like to hear any discussions and assumptions.

Nasim Ahmad

I suggest reading a story for children "Emperors New Cloth"......... i feel it will be hard to negate the false... corruption occurs in a culture of corruption ....

H.G. Callaway

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Nguyen & readers,

H.G. Callaway

Paul Nnodim

In a free-rider society, corruption is a normalcy. It will take education to open people's eyes to corruption as an anomaly. Someone growing up in a corrupt society may mistake a sense of injustice for a sense of justice. Again, it will take education (knowledge or awareness) and effective communication (exposing the injustice and convincing people to see corruption as a bad thing) to get people to acquire the capacity for the good and justice. If you visit a poor country where government officials live a lavish lifestyle and are very corrupt, then try asking some kids over there what they intend to become when they grow up. Most of them would probably answer: a governor, a commissioner, a senator, etc.

Karl Pfeifer

In real life, corrupt people will also use knowledge and communication to conceal their corruption or to pursue corrupt opportunities. It's like an arms race.

Quan Hoang Nguyen

Karl Pfeifer Agree. Corrupt people tend to create their own network to conceal their corruption and to influence other people outside of their network. At worst, when a corrupt person climbs up to be a professor, it destroys the values of academia (education and research), e.g., negative impacts for her (victim) collaborators, and deteriorating workplace for co-workers, removing research motivations from peers and negating the core values of truth-seeking.

Reza Biria

Corruption has turned into a common event in most countries of the world. It is often stated that corruption is caused by those who are thirsty for power . They tend to monopolize everything and their actions lack transparency. I personally believe that communication and knowledge cannot solve the issue of corruption. The fight between good and evil has been and will be forever.

Quan Hoang Nguyen

This is a sad fact, especially in academia which is supposed to be the kingdom of truth, ethics and morals.

We can feel that transparency is mandatory, but not many people are willing to speak out. It is seen that only few people are willing to discuss this problem even though it is very abstract. Would there exist Einstein if he had to work in corrupt environment? What is the expected outcome if corrupt people lead education and research?

Quan Hoang Nguyen

Luke Tudge

is correct. This problem is different from the traditional version. It seems hard. I just added a version 2 in the description. Any new suggestions?

Quan Hoang Nguyen

Luke Tudge

Thanks for your long detailed discussions. Appreciate it. Your interpretation of the problem is right.

There are some variations in which a researcher can interact with k other researchers each day. (1) they divides into disjoint groups (of k+1 size) and each member only talks within its own group. (2) the sets of k researchers do not form disjoint groups.

For exploring the network, each can choose k each day by (1) random selection, (2) some preferential criteria.

It doesn't matter if the corrupt one knows her/himself is corrupt. But it's important that the whole network knows that the corrupt one is corrupt. Please bear in mind that the corrupt one can insert false/true information about other peers randomly, and that information can further be spread out by peers.

Question is: what is the minimum day that the whole network can find out the corrupt one? is it O(log_k(n)) of days?

Quan Hoang Nguyen

This version 2 was made so simplistic and idealistic just to see if corruption can be detected at all.

In reality, there is no such ruling of nor transparency in communication. Thus, it seems harder to detect such a corrupt one, as an obvious fact that corruption does still exist.

Jerzy Hanckowiak

I am wondering why only men participate in this discussion. Are women more aware of their imperfections than men:-)?

H.G. Callaway

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Nguyen & readers,

So far as I have discovered in historical research, popular or public interest reform movements start from exposure of corruption in the press --often local newspapers. That would seem to make a free and independent press essential, or practically essential, to the process of reform and recovery from the social and political evils of corruption.

Correspondingly, if the public media are beholding to the political powers-that-be, then exposure and reform will be less likely.

H.G. Callaway

Joseph Tham

If I may be permitted to ask a "stupid" question.

Could you kindly define "good" and "corrupt". I would like to think about this challenge. Unfortunately, I got stuck at the definition stage. Perhaps everyone else knows the definitions. If so, kindly enlighten me and I will be most grateful.

H.G. Callaway

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Tham & readers,

Good question.

Corruption is a moral and legal concept. It helps to look at the academic studies, of course.

A good place to start, though, is the dictionary. Webster's says:

Definition of corruption

1a: dishonest or illegal behavior especially by powerful people (such as government officials or police officers) : DEPRAVITY

b: inducement to wrong by improper or unlawful means (such as bribery) the corruption of government officials

c: a departure from the original or from what is pure or correct the corruption of a text the corruption of computer files

d: DECAY, DECOMPOSITION the corruption of a carcass.

--End quotation

Of special interest for present purposes are 1a and 1b.

According to the great Oxford Dictionary, "corruption" and its cognate terms in most European languages, derive from theological Latin; and it seems much to the point to remark that theological Latin involved traditions of translations from ancient Greek.

H.G. Callaway

Quan Hoang Nguyen

Hi Joseph, the definition can be found here https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/corrupt.

H.G. Callaway

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Tham & readers,

We could, of course, go through some variations of ethical theory, starting, say with Aristotle, etc. Moral standards and relevant laws do vary from place to place, and from time to time, of course --as a factual point.

However, none of this is usually a practical problem. It is usually the people in a given society who are most concerned with corruption in that society; and they generally agree among themselves about what is corrupt and what is not. Generally it is seen as a kind of self-dealing, betrayal of trust on the part of people holding and entrusted with power.

That point generally makes it unnecessary to attend to variations in any great detail. Corruption is an acknowledged problem --just about everywhere.

H.G. Callaway

---you ask---

And definition of "good"? Is it not-corrupt?

Theodore Costopoulos

Corruption needs at least two persons to happen. It is inside the nature of the people, according to the rule that one action creates one or more reactions. In other words, the existence of good persons will create devils. So, we just have to be careful.

John Hodge

No.

Corruption is caused by the desire to fit-in with a group. Knowledge and communication are conduits for such action.

Ever notice how many truly original thinkers are outsiders?

Srini Vasan

Greater access to knowledge and communication can unearth corruption but not necessarily stop it. It would depend on what stake holders are there who are supporting the corruption. As is said "absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Quan Hoang Nguyen

Costopoulos, if based on ethical or moral standards, corruption does not need to be conducted in pair. A broken machine can give wrong results itself. The other part of your comment seems an extreme.

Joseph Tham

Perhaps one can use economics to think about this problem.

There is the demand for corruption, and the supply of corruption.

Since the supplier does not wish to get caught, she must be careful. At the time, the demander needs to find out which of the “civil servant” is the corrupt one. The demander must also be careful. Both the suppliers and demanders will send out feelers. Over time, as the information in the system improves (the friction is decreased), the market system works better. In many places, to find out the “corrupt” person, you know who to ask. It is all very discreet and depends on trust. There is friction (lack of information) in the system. A better flow of information could lead to improvements in corruption by allowing the suppliers to meet the demanders.

data:{widgetId:

1 Recommendation

5th May, 2019

H.G. Callaway

Temple University

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Tham,

If we see corruption increasing in a particular domain, then this indicates, in the end, what sorts of folks are running the show.

Though our "free" marketeers may have few scruples, still the success of moral scruple and its lack depends on whether we have moral leadership.

By and large and in tendency, markets only supply what the law allows --or what law-enforcement overlooks.

H.G. Callaway

1 Recommendation

5th May, 2019

Quan Hoang Nguyen

Fantom Foundation

Knowledge and communication may be not sufficient to stop corruption. But if there are rules (law) for every good entity to follow, and assume they all follow, then it will help. In practice, if all good entities still act (do, follow, obey) based on the common rule (law) and share knowledge (communication), then corruption can be uncovered if not dominant. In computer science, if a 'good entity' doesn't act under the rule nor communicate their knowledge, it is said compromised or corrupted.

1 Recommendation

5th May, 2019

Joseph Tham

Duke University

If all entities are good and follow the rules, then there is no need for rules; the reason WHY we have rules is because the entities are not angels.

5th May, 2019

Joseph Tham

Duke University

H.G. Callaway

We do not get bread from the benevolence of the baker; similarly, we do not get cocaine from the malevolence of the poppy farmer. The market is a neutral mechanism that links consumers (demanders) to suppliers. No more, no less. No one is running the “market show”. The amazing thing is that it runs on its own, except when policy makers decide to intervene with laws.