This may be because their market is not dependant on purchases by the State. Firms in Group II are competitive when corruption does not bias the rules of competition, yet corruption plays a role in giving them access to or creating new markets. In order for these firms to compete in a public tender, for instance, they have to abide by the rules of corruption and provide payoffs. Yet without these practices, these firms would still be competitive. These two categories of firms, if they refuse corrupt practices, are likely to lose business.
Corruption manifests itself as extortion.
Group III companies owe their position in the market solely to privileges created by a corrupt system. Hence, they would clearly lose their competitive position should a change in the rules occur. These firms are typically run in close cooperation with actors in the public arena. In this case, corruption practices tend to be implicit arrangements among actors in the public and private sectors to exploit an economic opportunity. Corruption represents costs in terms of time and money, but it also creates an environment of uncertainty in the operations of firms.