Economists generally recognize that corruption and bribery not only distort the allocation of economic resources, but also embezzle the resources needed for economic development by bribed officials as their personal property. Therefore, if a country's government is highly corrupt, the country's economic development will be adversely affected. But the situation in China provides a counter-example. Corruption in China is very common and the amount is huge. Nonetheless, China's economy has been growing rapidly for more than 30 years, and corruption does not seem to have an impact on it. Why is this? The impact of corruption on economic efficiency is related to the development of a society's "relationship network". In a society with a developed relationship network,
the degree of trust between people is improved due to the existence of the relationship network, and this high degree of trust enables corruption and bribery to relatively promote the efficiency of business, or in other words, it affects the efficiency of business. However, if the social network is weak and it is difficult to establish trust between people, then the corrupt behavior is closer to a pure plundering behavior, which is a burden for business operations and has only a wedding photo retouching services negative impact on economic development. Corruption and bribery are illegal in any society. One of the important factors affecting officials' acceptance of bribes is the risk of being caught. Another difficulty is the bribery process, which is seldom a "one-handed, first-hand delivery" approach. This is often the case with small-scale bribes, such as bribing a traffic police officer to cancel a ticket. For large-scale corruption and bribery,
such as obtaining government contracts or hundreds of billions of projects, there is usually a time gap and geographic separation between the payment behavior of the briber and the delivery of services by the bribed officials. In this case of separation of business, should the bribe payer pay first? Or is the service provided by officials first? When there is a strong trust relationship between the bribe giver and the official, the timing factor is relatively less important. If the two parties do not have a high level of trust, in the absence of legal protection for the bribery/acceptance relationship, the bribery transaction will not be implemented. What's more, without mutual trust, officials who receive bribes will face the risk of extor