腐专家瑞吉(Alexandra Wrage)说，印度的腐败，好的一面在于它是金字塔型的，即主要由最基层的大量小额钱款往来构成，但更高级别的政府官员不（太）愿意收受贿赂。虽然不是全部，但有部分官员在官僚系统里往上爬的时候已经“金盆洗手”。
瑞吉是美国非营利组织Trace International的创始人和总裁，这家组织为公司提供守法咨询和培训。她上周来新德里开会，我们一起喝茶。瑞吉常来新德里，我问她，和她去的其他国家比起来，她是怎么看待印度的腐败问题的。
她说，金字塔型的腐败结构使印度比其他国家更有希望。像在中国，基层官员很担心受到惩罚，而更高级别的官员则是大把捞钱（倒金字塔结构）。俄罗斯的腐败是一个巨大的矩型，从最基层一直到最高层的腐败模式没有任何区别，并且都伴随着威胁与恐惧。
她还指出，在印度，如果一家公司在投标过程中遇上官员索贿，那么他们有时候可以（肯定不是总能）找到索贿者的某个痛恨贿赂的上级，让他来干预。而在中国，更高级别官员的索贿金额只多不少。
但在中国，一旦某个官员受贿，他就信守承诺，这笔贿赂肯定会有“回报”。而在印度，当某个人受贿之后，你不能保证会看到立竿见影的效果，也不能保证他不会马上再次索贿。就事论事地讲，这可能会起到遏制人们行贿的作用，只是它也构成了一种非常复杂的经商环境。
但印度人不要因为上面说的这些情况而沾沾自喜。瑞吉觉得，印度的腐败模式也有让人心灰意冷的地方。
主要来讲，就是商人对腐败问题的认真态度，以及美国作为国际商业交易首席反腐警察的全球地位，似乎都在下降。瑞吉说，现在人们很容易地把美国描绘成全球金融危机的祸首，而不是一个能让全世界都效仿其在银行业务和守规等各方面标准的国家。
她说，10年前她遇到的态度是，虽然行贿受贿根据法律来讲是属于犯罪，但它没有损害任何其他人的利益。
五年前，商界觉得现金行贿已经过时了，赠送昂贵的礼品或许更为合适。这说明他们或多或少地承认，明目张胆的腐败行为已经不合时宜。
她说，现在感觉这种认真态度已经有所懈怠。虽然印度的经济放缓相比世界其他地方较为温和，但在摆脱放缓的过程中，有人的想法就是，“让我们先把眼前问题解决清楚了，然后再来认真对待贿赂问题吧”。
The Good and Bad of Indian Corruption
The good news, says Alexandra Wrage, a specialist in combating corruption, is that the pattern of Indian graft is pyramid-shaped: It chiefly comprises of vast numbers of small payments changing hands at the lowest levels but there is (some) aversion to bribe-taking among government officials higher up the chain. Some, though by no means all, officials 'grow out of' corruption as they climb the bureaucracy.
Ms. Wrage, the founder and president of Trace International, a U.S. nonprofit that provides compliance advice and training for companies, was in New Delhi last week for meetings and we met over tea. She is a frequent visitor here and I ask her how she sees the issue of corruption in India compared with other countries she visits.
India, with its pyramid of corruption, offers more reason to hope than, say, China, where low-level officials are fearful of the punishment they might receive while higher-ups rake in the big money (the inverted pyramid), she says. Or Russia, which she describes as a giant square of corruption: It starts at the bottom and goes straight to the top with no change in pattern in between--and it is surrounded by menace and fear.
She also notes that, in India, if a company in a bidding process encounters a demand for a bribe then sometimes, though by no means always, they can find someone above the bribe demander who is fed up with graft and will intervene. In China, that higher-up would just ask for more money.
In China, however, once an official is bribed, he stays bribed and the 'reward' for the bribe will be given. In India, when one bribe is paid, it is no guarantee that the reward will be forthcoming or that another demand won't be right around the corner. Technically that might act as a deterrent to some who are otherwise willing to pay bribes though it also makes for a very complex environment in which to do business.
Lest anyone in India take too much solace from any of this, Ms. Wrage sees reasons to be dispirited, too.
Chiefly, the seriousness with which businessmen regard the issue of corruption, and the U.S.'s global role as chief corruption cop for international business deals, appears to be lessening. It is now easy, she says, for the U.S. to be portrayed as the country that brought the world the financial crisis rather than as the country whose standards on everything from banking to compliance should be emulated throughout the world.
Ten years ago, she says, she encountered the attitude, 'Isn't this really a victimless crime?'
Five years ago, there was a realization among businessmen that cash handovers were out and maybe an expensive gift would be more appropriate--an acknowledgement, in a way, that blatant corruption was passe.
'Now I feel they've lost a little ground,' she says. There is a sense, as India comes out of a slowdown, albeit a mild one compared to the rest of the world that, 'Let's get things sorted out first and then lets turn our attention to bribery.'