obtain political power, or monetary gains, which could be a small amount of money to fund simple needs such as food, clothing and shelter; or, the money taken as bribe could be large amounts not at all out of need, but more so for luxury items or trips that one may just simply want. Is any one of these scenarios justified? While the quick and easy answer would be no, I would thoughtfully say, well that's a good question, and more so a debatable.
             First, I attempt to establish what I believe to be the hierarchy of corruption and then elaborate to support my thesis. I believe corruption takes place for reasons in the following order: economical, political and cultural.
             I shall entertain the short version of my theory why I believe economics come first. When people are motivated to receive good services or otherwise favors, there are those that we absolutely need to survive (food, clothing, shelter) and those that we could do without although we may not want to. When using corruption to obtain the things we needs, there isn't really a choice one could make. The choice is basically obtain what you need and survive or die.
             As humans, it is in our nature as basic instinct to survive. When acting on instinct reasonable thought is absent, which means that one will not even be considering the situation but just go for it to reach one's end, in this case obtaining what is a must to survive. The need for food, shelter and clothing, ties in with economics first before it does with political or cultural forces. Hence, economics toping the pyramid of corruption, generally as the major cause of corruption indirectly correlated. Just for the sake of argument I shall take it a step further to demonstrate.
             Looking back to my debatable questions, is corruption always bad or sometime are we thankful for its existence, perhaps the latest is true. Just simply by looking at statistic in the world, corruption is bay far higher in po...