> Do we have less corruption because of enforcement of anti-corruption laws? Or do we have those laws and an expectation that they're enforced because of some other factors?
Neither answer is complete. Laws and enforcement can only go so far. It is not feasible to police every single interaction between people.
My amateur hypothesis would be a combination of a wealth of resources, growth outlook, shared struggles, traditions and cultural outlooks that provide utility and propagate downstream, etc. Probably impossible to intentionally recreate. And of course, very possible to lose.
If everyone in society decides they want to screw each other, then no amount of laws will help. Unfortunately, in many societies, the game is very adversarial with dire consequences, and you have to play that way.
On the other hand, a society where people are mostly out to engage in good faith transactions can greatly benefit from reduced friction, enabling more transactions and each actor wasting less energy in preventing themselves from being screwed.
Neither answer is complete. Laws and enforcement can only go so far. It is not feasible to police every single interaction between people.
My amateur hypothesis would be a combination of a wealth of resources, growth outlook, shared struggles, traditions and cultural outlooks that provide utility and propagate downstream, etc. Probably impossible to intentionally recreate. And of course, very possible to lose.
If everyone in society decides they want to screw each other, then no amount of laws will help. Unfortunately, in many societies, the game is very adversarial with dire consequences, and you have to play that way.
On the other hand, a society where people are mostly out to engage in good faith transactions can greatly benefit from reduced friction, enabling more transactions and each actor wasting less energy in preventing themselves from being screwed.