Deakin Law Review
|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Deakin Law Review |
|
Leigh Johns[*] and Mirko Bagaric[**]
Bribery is widely condemned in the Western world. Significant efforts have been made in the international law arena to stamp out bribery, which is seen largely as a third world phenomenon. The cultural characteristics that have been identified as enabling bribery and other corrupt practices to flourish are: ‘relationship-focused’ — personal connections are crucial; they are ‘strongly hierarchical’, valuing wide status differences; and they are ‘polychronic, with a relaxed attitude toward time and scheduling’.[1]
It has been suggested that these characteristics are common to developing countries.[2] The United States has recently received high praise for its determined efforts to eradicate the practice.[3] This has culminated in members of the OECD signing the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions in December 1997.[4] Article 1(1) of the Convention states:
Each Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish that it is a criminal offence under its law for any person intentionally to offer, promise or give any undue pecuniary or other advantage, whether directly or through intermediaries, to a foreign public official, for that official or for a third party, in order that the official act or refrain from acting in relation to the performance of official duties, in order to obtain or retain business or other improper advantage in the conduct of international business.
Thus, the Convention targets the person giving the bribe, as opposed to the receiver. The reason for this is that OECD members are the largest exporters of global trade and business and it is from these nations where most bribery money comes from.[5]
The Convention was implemented by Australia by the Criminal Code Amendment (Bribery of Foreign Public Officials) Act 1999 (Cth) which came into force in December 1999. The Act added chapter four to the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). In particular, section 70.2 creates the new offence of bribing a foreign public official. The section makes it an offence to provide, offer to provide or arrange for a benefit to be offered to a person if the benefit is not legitimately due to that person and the offer is made to influence a foreign public official to obtain or retain business or grant to the bribe giver a business advantage.
In contrast to bribery, networking is standard business practice in Australia and most Western nations. Despite the moral gulf (in terms of prevailing community sentiment) between the two practices it is difficult to find a principled and logical distinction between them.
In this paper we examine the nature of bribery and contrast it with the practice of networking with a view to discerning whether the different moral and legal treatment of the practices is based on principle or simply cultural preference, or perhaps even a sense of cultural elitism or imperialism.[6] The principal aim of this paper is to normatively evaluate the respective practices. This analysis is undertaken in section three. In the next section we first set the framework by defining the key terms.
We argue that bribery and one form of networking (expenditure networking - which involves spending money -normally in the form of providing services - on clients) both have the affect of distorting the proper functioning of the market economy by encouraging business decisions to be made on the basis of economically irrelevant considerations; namely, the thickness of the paper bag or the opulence of the corporate box. Expenditure networking is a little more subtle than bribery, but this is a difference in degree only - not nature. Thus, on a strictly economic analysis, both practices are equally wrong.
There is, however, perhaps a moral distinction between the two practices. Viewed more broadly, there is at least one important incidental good consequence stemming from networking. It encourages and fosters companionship. Recent studies have shown that social involvement is integral to human happiness. Thus, it may be that this positive effect of networking outweighs the economic downside associated with it.
Bribery is an offence at common law. A good starting point for considering the nature of bribery is to examine the manner in which it has been defined by the courts.
The offence of bribery was initially confined to judicial officers, but now applies to all public officials. The development of the offence is summarised in R v Glynn[7] where the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal made the following observations:
A convenient starting point in an understanding of the essential nature of the common law misdemeanour of bribery is the pithy treatment of the definition of it in Burdick, The Law of Crime (1946), Vol 1, par 288. There is no difference in this respect between the common law of England and that of the United States. So far as material Burdick states (at pp 426-427):
"According to Coke ... the crime of bribery was limited to the acceptance of a bribe by `any man in a judicial place' (Coke, III Inst 145). ... By the time of Hawkins, the law had extended and he said that `bribery in a strict sense is limited to judicial officers, but in a large sense it is sometimes applied to the receiving or offering of any undue reward, by or to any person whatsoever whose ordinary profession or business relates to the administration of public justice, in order to incline him to do a thing against the known rules of honesty and integrity'...But the view that bribery applies only to judicial officers, or to persons concerned in the administration of public justice, also became regarded as too narrow. The next step was to apply the offence to all public officers, and Russell's definition modified Hawkins by saying that `bribery is the receiving or offering any undue reward by or to any person whatsoever, in a public office, in order to influence his behavior in office, and incline him to act contrary to the known rules of honesty and integrity' (Russell on Crimes (9th ed), Vol 1, p 319). ..."
The evil to which the common law is directed is that of public officers being bought to act other than honestly and impartially in the performance of functions within the ambit of their office.
Thus, the paradigm case of bribery is a payment of money to an official in order to confer favouritism to the briber.
Unlike the criminal offence of bribery, in the business setting the notion of bribery extends beyond payments to public officials. It also includes payments to individuals in private business, such as company officers.
For the purpose of this discussion, we use the term bribery in a generic sense to refer to both the public and private business setting. As was noted by Philips in Bribery,[8] bribery means receiving any reward by a person who has official duties in order to influence his or her behaviour and incline him or her to violate an official duty of office. These duties need not necessarily derive from public office. They also arise out of the duty of fidelity and good faith implied into all private employment relationships[9] and derive from private office - for example, being a company director.[10]
Networking has been variously defined. A standard definition is that offered by the Macquarie Dictionary which states that to network is `to form possibly advantageous associations with other people '(emphasis added).
At the extremes, there are two forms of networking. The first can be described as simply `mingling networking'. This involves actively seeking out the company of people that one believes may prove to be useful business or professional contacts at some point in the immediate or distant future. Examples of this are where a person joins a professional association in order that he or she can make contacts with other people in that industry or joins a local sporting club in the hope that by expanding his or her sphere of contacts that some of them will include professional or business associates.
At the other extreme is `expenditure networking'. This involves providing services or goods to prospective clients, while at the same time socialising with the client. This differs from mingling networking in that it involves monetary expenditure by the agent which is aimed to directly confer tangible benefits to the agent. Commonly the money is directed towards paying for tickets to a sporting or cultural event. Often it goes well beyond this to include food, drink, travel and accommodation.
The moral status of bribery and networking is considered against the background of what we consider to be the two most influential and cogent moral theories. Consequential moral theories claim that an act is right or wrong depending on its capacity to maximise a particular virtue, such as happiness. Non-consequential (or deontological) theories claim that the appropriateness of an action is not contingent upon its instrumental ability to produce particular ends, but follows from the intrinsic features of the act.
The leading contemporary non-consequentialist theories are those which are framed in the language of rights. Following the Second World War, there has been an immense increase in ‘rights talk’,[11] both in the number of supposed rights and in total volume. Rights doctrine has progressed a long way since its original aim of providing ‘a legitimization of ... claims against tyrannical or exploiting regimes’.[12] There is now, more than ever, a strong tendency to advance moral claims and arguments in terms of rights.[13] Assertion of rights has become the customary means to express our moral sentiments. As Sumner notes: ‘there is virtually no area of public controversy in which rights are not to be found on at least one side of the question—and generally on both’.[14] The domination of rights talk is such that it is accurate to state that human rights have at least temporarily replaced maximising utility as the leading philosophical inspiration for political and social reform.[15] Despite the dominance of rights based theories in contemporary moral discourse, such theories have little role in evaluating the moral status of practices where there is no clear violation of the interests of an individual. As Tom Campbell points out:
The human rights movement is based on the need for a counter-ideology to combat the abuses and misuses of political authority by those who invoke, as a justification for their activities, the need to subordinate the particular interests of individuals to the general good.[16]
Thus, while the terminology of rights based discourse is highly suited to resisting demands which potentially violate identifiable important human interests, such as the right to life, property or liberty, rights nomenclature is largely irrelevant in the context of evaluating practices, such as bribery or networking, which concern consenting individuals in circumstances where the practice does not directly harm an identifiable individual. Rights vocabulary does not include the `right not be bribed' or `to be free from networking'. As is discussed in the context of networking, however, the Kantian theory of morality (which is also another leading non-consequentialist theory) is potentially relevant to the discussion at hand.
More relevant in the context of the present debate are consequentialist moral theories. Numerous consequentialist theories have been advanced, such as egoism and utilitarianism. The most cogent of these theories (and certainly the most influential in moral and political discourse) is hedonistic act utilitarianism, which provides that the morally right action is that which produces the greatest amount of happiness or pleasure.[17] Both practices will be evaluated against this theory.
Despite the widespread condemnation of bribery, it has been noted that some good consequences may stem from it. For example, it has been suggested that bribery generates new jobs[18] and supplements the income of lpoorly paid workers (for example, police and other mid-level government officials).[19] These considerations, however, are all short-term economic benefits which are clearly outweighed by the considerable costs and long term inefficiencies caused by bribery.
To this end, Niilante Wallace-Bruce identifies several negative effects of bribery:
The first, few would dispute that corruption reduces official government revenues. As people bribe their way through government processes, they are able to avoid the payment of tax and other charges which should have gone to government revenue. Second, transaction costs for the corrupter increase as a consequence of corruption.... For example, German officials have estimated that the German economy loses DM50 billion per year as a consequence of inflated contract prices and loses additional tax revenue as a consequence of bribes... Third, it has been shown that ...where there is marked corruption in a country, foreign investment tends to decrease, which in turn leads to slower economic growth... Fourth, corruption distorts global business generally because transactions are not made on the basis of supply and demand and the efficient allocation of resources... As the recent histories of Nigeria, Indonesia and the Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire) have demonstrated, when corruption becomes pervasive, it can bring a country to its economic knees (references omitted).[20]
Similar sentiments were expressed by the Commonwealth Attorney General, Daryl Williams, in his second reading speech regarding the Criminal Code (Bribery of Foreign Public Officials) Bill 1999. He stated:
It is important that Australia should support the OECD’s initiative to combat the bribery of foreign public officials and take a principled stand against corruption. ... There is good business sense, as much as morality, in introducing this legislation. Bribery distorts attempts at international competitive bidding, bribes themselves are non-productive and are therefore paid from profits and bribes distort trade in that contracts are not based on merit and can lead to production of poor quality goods and services. In the aid context, bribery can lead to a very poor selection of projects, and this can in turn lead to diversion of resources away from areas of greatest need.[21]
The main thrust of these comments is that bribery is bad because it prevents the proper operation of the market economy. Basic economic theory suggests that in order for the market to operate most efficiently business should be directed towards the person or entity that is best able to produce the relevant goods or supply the desired services. In this context, the most meritorious business is measured by two principal criteria: price and quality - not according to how much it is willing to pay `on the side' to win the business.
From the view point of mainstream moral theory, mingling networking is not objectionable. There is no demonstrable basis for assuming that the practice of mingling networking reduces the happiness of the agents involved.[22] Hence, it does not offend the utilitarian ethic. Likewise concerning a rights based theory of morality. A `right not to be approached by insincere or disingenuous people' is certainly not part of mainstream of moral discourse, and there is no obvious basis upon which such a right could be founded.
There is, however, one non-consequentialist moral theory upon which mingling networking appears to run foul. Theoretically, mingling networking can be criticised on the basis that it violates Kant's categorical imperative that people should always act as if every action were to become a universal law. It follows that we should treat others as ends given that that is how we regard ourselves. To treat another person only as a means to achieving what we want is to treat the person as a thing or tool and not as an agent. Given that we do regard our own functionality to others as being the criteria of our worth, we would not be prepared to prescribe using others as a universal norm and hence we should not use others.
According to this view, there is nothing inherently wrong with joining sporting or professional clubs. However, according to Kant motive is everything. People should join tennis clubs if they enjoy tennis and they should join the local law society because they are interested in promoting the objectives of the society. If in the process of participating in these activities one happens to incidentally form relationships which prove to be advantageous in the business or professional sense all the better. It is, however, morally objectionable, so the theory runs, to seek out others with the express objective of attempting to use them for personal advancement. The appropriate foundation for friendships and relationships is a genuine interest and concern for the other person, not `what's in it for me?'
Kant's theory has been subject to a number of criticisms.[23] However, one unassailable aspect of his theory is that moral judgments are universalisable. A judgment is universalisable if the acceptance of it in a particular situation entails that one is logically committed to accepting the same judgment in all other similar situations. If an action is morally good or bad, then it is so in all relevantly similar situations in which that action is performed.[24]
However even if we accept this, it does not necessarily follow that it is morally offensive to engage in mingling networking. For it is not contradictory for an agent to hold the view that it is appropriate for other people to use him or her as ends; particularly where this does not (as is normally the situation with networking) simultaneously disadvantage the agent. Thus, a business person may be happy to socialise with people that he or she is aware are indirectly seeking to gain some commercial advantage from him, such as a contract for the provision of service. After all, there is no threat to any of his or her tangible interests.
Further, even if we do adopt Kant's maxim, at the pragmatic level it does not appear to provide a workable or coherent foundation for proscribing mingling networking. There are an almost infinite number of reasons that people form friendships and other relationships. Most commonly friendships start on the basis of a common interest or experience, for example, the parties may work together, share an interest in tennis, have a similar dress sense, or share political values. Arguably, all friendships commence with at least one party seeking, or at least stumbling upon, a pleasurable social experience with another person. Sometimes the experience is simply companionship (that is, someone to talk to - irrespective of the subject matter of the dialogue), at others times it is the opportunity to engage in a social pastime such as golf or chess, on other occasions it is simply the opportunity to discuss relevant issues with another person. Friendships form when the parties become aware that they have more in common than one or two ‘common’ interests, and form a genuine interest in each other - which transcends their sphere of common interests. The important thing to note here is that there is no obvious limitation - apart from the desire to engage in conduct which is aimed to directly harm the other person - concerning the nature of permissible motivations for seeking out the company of another at the pre-friendship stage. Thus, the desire to speak to another concerning mutual business or professional activities would appear to be no less admirable than the other reasons which motivate us to seek human contact.
As is noted above, however, activities classified as networking in Western business culture go far beyond the casual conversation at the local tennis club. They include the concept of seeking out and entertaining prospective and existing clients. In this regard, three professions which are more active than most are accounting, law and medicine. Law and accounting firms spend large sums of money providing prospective and established clients with tickets to the best sporting and cultural activities available. A seemingly endless food and drink budget are normally an incident of this - not to mention the company of representatives of the firm. On an even grander scale are the pharmaceutical companies that wine, dine and entertain the medical profession. Treating in this context often goes beyond the best corporate box in the house and extends to a weekend (or longer) ‘conference’ at a suitable beach or ski resort. Once again, plenty of company representatives provided.
In terms of the nature of the entertainment involved, it quite often involves a sporting activity, such as a corporate box at the tennis or football, or cultural activity, such as tickets to the ballet or opera. Ultimately, however, the type of entertainment is limited only by the tastes of the prospective client.
In order to evaluate the moral status of this practice a starting point is to ascertain the objective behind it. Why do businesses wine and dine prospective and established clients? In relation to established clients one reason is, no doubt, to thank clients for their custom - an act of gratitude. In respect of prospective clients it provides an opportunity to meet and develop a relationship with the person who makes decisions about the purchase of services or goods, to get to better know their business and to develop a relationship based on trust. It is a form of payment in exchange or compensation for the person giving up his or her time to meet with the hopeful new supplier.
However, another (maybe predominant) reason must be to attempt to influence the future business decisions of clients. Let us suppose that following extensive qualitative studies on the effects of networking that it was established that expenditure networking had absolutely no bearing on client's purchasing decisions. How many businesses would still engage in the practice? The answer is probably about zero. This response admittedly involves a degree of speculation, but we take a fair degree of confidence in it from the absence of social workers, public school teachers, trolley boys (and girls) and philosophers gracing the inside of corporate boxes - no matter how sparking their personalities. Unless marketing directors have been able to pull the wool over the eyes of corporate decision makers, one is entitled to assume that expenditure networking occurs because there is a return on the investment in the form of business from those in receipt of the entertainment.
If networking was abolished, surely some business people would still wish to pursue existing relationships with clients due to the fact that something akin to a friendship has formed. However, in such circumstances the relationship would not be so one-sided as is the case with networking. Human relationships do not operate on the basis that one party is always treating the other. Most relationships involve some degree of reciprocity - that is, your shout today, mine tomorrow - or at least that is how it roughly works. As a general rule, relationships are only one-sided for one reason: where the party (always) treating wants something from the other party.
Most businesses are normally on the look out for a wider client base. Consequently, attempting to influence another business to purchase your services or goods is not necessarily undesirable. In fact, all business should seek to influence the purchase of their goods or services through the provision of accurate information to the market about price and quality so that the allocation of resources (through purchasing decisions) in any particular market can occur efficiently. There are, however, limits to the means that can be legitimately employed to secure more work. The principal means adopted in our economic system for expanding the scope of a business is advertising. Personal referrals, especially in the professions, is also a valuable tool. Direct approaches (`cold calling') to prospective clients is another common marketing tool.
These are all part of a robust economic system which encourages competition. These marketing tools allow businesses to provide information to the market as to why their product should be preferred to that of their competitor. However, expenditure networking is an attempt to influence the market on the basis of an economically irrelevant consideration - the ability of the business to wine, dine and entertain other people. The size and position on the ground of a law firm's corporate box has nothing to do with the firm's capacity to provide accurate, sound and timely legal advice.
Thus, expenditure networking is an attempt to gain a market advantage on the basis of criteria which has nothing to do with the merits of the business. This is bad for the same reason as bribery - it distorts the efficient operation of the relevant market and in turn the economy. Contracts for the provision of goods and services should be directed towards the organisation which can most efficiently and effectively discharge the contracts.
Expenditure marketing is more subtle than bribery. The consideration or benefit conferred to the other party is not as obvious and the exact favour being sought is not as defined. However, this is a distinction in degree, not nature. Further, moral norms, unlike many legal ones, cannot be circumvented by use of technicalities.
It follows that on the basis of a strictly economic analysis, expenditure networking is wrong. However, on a normative analysis this conclusion does not necessarily follow. Morality and economics are not necessarily harmonious. Moreover, moral principle trumps business practice.[25] Economic principles are important in guiding human behaviour, but moral principle is applicable to all human conduct, whether public or private, and provides the ultimate evaluative framework by which our behaviour is judged.
Thus, even though expenditure networking leads to some market inefficiencies this does not necessarily mean that it is morally wrong. It may yet be the case that the incidental good consequences outweigh the damage done to the market place. The incidental good consequences we refer to are the increased level of human contact that is inherent in all forms of networking.[26] Networking is a forum in which individuals who otherwise would not socialise are brought together. Obviously it is impossible to quantify the level of good that this causes. However, recent surveys tend to show that the most important things generating happiness are not centered upon financial concerns, but rather social interaction.
Contrary to economists' belief that income (together with leisure) is the source of all utility, evidence shows that companionship, which does not pass through the market, has higher utility and contributes more to well-being than does income.[27] Personal relationships, not money, are the key to happiness. The number of friends one has is a much better indicator of overall happiness than personal wealth. People are far more likely to achieve happiness by spending time with friends and family than by striving for higher income. Once one is beyond the poverty level, a larger income contributes almost nothing to happiness. It is suggested that our need for companionship is part of our biological endowment. All primates respond with pleasure to demonstrations of affection and with pain to loss of companionship. If we ignore our biological need for each other, we risk physical and mental distress.[28]
Thus, a strong argument can be made out that the inefficiencies stemming from expenditure networking are outweighed by the good in the form of the increased social interaction that stems from the practice. The persuasiveness of this argument depends on a number of assumptions and considerations. First, it assumes that if networking was prohibited then business people would not spend this time socialising in any event - probably a safe assumption given the ever increasing hours spent at work. Secondly, it is important to note that the more effective networking actually is the harder it will be to balance the other side of the utilitarian scales. Hence, we are left with the paradoxical view that the less effective networking actually is in securing contacts the more justifiable it is.
Bribery and expenditure networking have far more in common than has previously been observed. The objective of both practices is the same: to gain a market advantage by providing a `sweetener' to a person responsible for delegating the provision of goods or services. The effect of both practices is also the same: to distort the pure operation of a market economy by encouraging business decisions to be made on the basis of irrelevant criteria - either the size of the brown paper bag or the opulence of the corporate box.
Expenditure networking, however, has the incidental positive side effect of drawing people together in a congenial social setting. Bribery has no such redeeming feature. Socialising with others is integral to human flourishing. Hence, it may well be that this incidental good outweighs the harm caused to the market.
We will probably never know for sure. But enough doubt has been raised for us to unashamedly ask `anyone want to buy us a drink?'
[*] Senior Associate, Mallesons Stephen Jaques. The views expressed in this paper are the authors and are
not to be taken to represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, Mallesons Stephen Jaques.
[**] Associate Professor, School of Law, Deakin University.
[1] Richard Gesteland, Cross-Cultural Business Behavior (1996) 101.
[2] Niilanete Wallace-Bruce `Corruption and Competitiveness in Global Business — the dawn of a new
era' [2000] MelbULawRw 13; (2000) 24 Melbourne University Law Review 349, 351.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Other notable international developments are discussed by Wallace-Bruce, ibid.
[5] See Wallace-Bruce, above n 2, 368.
[6] For an argument along such lines, see C Hotchkiss, ‘The Sleeping Dog Stirs: New Signs of Life in
Efforts to End Corruption in International Business’ (1998) 17 Journal of Public Policy & Marketing
108.
[7] (1994) 71 A Crim R 537, 541-42.
[8] Michael Philips. Bribery (1985).
[9] Boston Deep Sea Fishing & Ice Co v Ansell [1888] UKLawRpCh 123; (1888) 39 Ch D 339.
[10] The fact that the agent being bribed must have official duties imposes one limitation on bribery in the
private business setting. The agent being bribed must not be the (only) principal of the business in
question.
[11] See T Campbell, The Legal Theory of Ethical Positivism (1996) 161-88, who discusses the near
universal trend towards Bills of Rights and constitutional rights as a focus for political choice. By ‘rights
talk’ we also included the abundance of declarations, charters, bills, and the like, such as the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (1948); the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (1966); and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms (1966), that seek to spell out certain rights. Granted, numerous examples of rights-based
language existed prior to the Second World War, such as the Declaration of Independence of the United
States (1776) and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizens (1789); however, it is only in
relatively modern times that such documents have gained widespread appeal, recognition and force.
[12] S I Benn, ‘Human rights - For Whom and For What?’, in E Kamenka and A E Tay (eds), Human
Rights ( 1978) 59, 61.
[13] Almost to the point where it is feasible to propose that the ‘escalation of rights rhetoric is out of
control’: see L W Sumner, The Moral Foundation of Rights ( 1987) 1.
[14] Ibid.
[15] H L A Hart, Essays in Jurisprudence and Philosophy (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1983), 196-7.
[16] T Campbell, `Realizing Human Rights', in T Campbell et al (eds), Human Rights: From Rhetoric to
Reality (Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1996) 1, 13. Campbell also makes the important point that whether or
not human rights are intellectually defensible, they are still needed as a source of protection of important
human interests: T Campbell, above n 11, 165-6.
[17] For an argument that this theory should underpin all legal principles, see Mirko Bagaric, `A Utilitarian Argument: laying the foundation for a coherent system of law [2002] OtaLawRw 2; (2002) 10 Otago Law Review 163.
[18] See generally P Phongpaichit et al, Guns, Girls, Gambling, Ganja: Thailand’s Illegal Economy and Public Policy (1998).
[19] V Tanzi, ‘Corruption around the World: Causes, Consequences, Scope, and Cures’ (1998) 45 IMF Staff Papers 572-73 as cited in Wallace-Bruce, above n 2, 357.
[20] Wallace Bruce, above n 2, 359. She adds that ‘corruption has harmful effects on the social and administrative systems of a country ... and can also create serious social problems. When a perception is created that only some people are benefiting from the national wealth, because they are placed in ‘strategic positions’ in their jobs that provide them opportunities to accept corrupt payments, this no doubt leads to feelings of inequity and resentment....Closely related to this last point is the potential for corruption to undermine the democratic process. This is especially true of grand corruption, [of] senior government officials and ministers’ (references omitted). See also Thomas Carson, `Bribery, Extortion, and The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act' (1985) 14 Philosophy & Public Affairs 1.
[21] Commonwealth, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 3 June 1999, 6044 (Daryl Wi-
liams, Attorney-General).
[22] In the short term it may reduce the happiness of the networker, by taking him or her away from the
time that would have otherwise been spent with family and friends. However, this is no different to all
work activities. Presumably, as with other work activities, the networker believes that on balance the
time spent networking others is commensurate with the importance of work to his or her overall
happiness.
[23] For a good overview and critique of Kant's moral theory, see ONara O'Neil, `Kantian Ethics' in Peter Singer (ed) A Companion to Ethics (1990) 175.
[24] Thus to state that moral judgments are universal entails that whenever one judges a certain action or thing (situation) as having a particular moral status then one is logically committed to the same judgment about any relevantly similar action or situation. It has been suggested that numerical differences are irrelevant. This refers to specific descriptions of the person, relation or situation. Thus, the fact that the judgment relates to a particular person (such as John Smith), place (such as Melbourne), relation (John's mother) is irrelevant. Also irrelevant are generic differences; tastes, preferences, and desires: see John Mackie, Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong (1977) 83-102.
[25] Arguments that moral principle has no role or only a small role in business are rebutted in Wickrema
Weerasooria and Mirko Bagaric, `Greed versus Good: The Moral Obligations of Banks' (2001) 17
Australian Banking and Finance Law Bulletin 65.
[26] This is in contrast to bribery which by its nature is not a socially inclusive activity. However, it should
be noted that attempts have been made to spell out other good consequences of bribery. For example,
economic models have been developed which seem to demonstrate the efficiency benefits that could be
derived by companies giving bribes: Vito Tanzi, ‘Corruption around the World: Causes, Consequences,
Scope, and Cures’ (1998) 45 IMF Staff Papers 559, 578, 581–2 cited in Wallace-Bruce, above n 2, 350.
[27] Robert Lane, `Diminishing Returns to Income, Companionship – and Happiness' (2000) 1 Journal of
Happiness Studies 103. Other studies have shown a range of other factors that are relevant to happiness.
Bruno Frey, in `Happiness Prospers in Democracy' (2000) 1 Journal of Happiness Studies 79 notes that
the more developed the institutions of direct democracy, the happier the individuals are and that the
unemployed are much less happy than the employed, independent of income.
[28] See further, Robert Lane, Loss of Happiness in Market Democracies (Yale University Press, 2000).
But see Robert Cummins, `Personal Income and Subjective Well-being: A Review' (2002) Journal of
Happiness Studies 133 who argues that there is a stronger link between wealth and happiness.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/DeakinLawRw/2002/7.html