Corruption is not a single phenomenon. Its taxonomy is complex. It is also true that it shades at one end of the spectrum into more or less acceptable politics. Since most political decisions involve money and all involve conflict between interest groups with unequal resources and access to power, the line separating the legitimate from the illegitimate can be hard to draw. Finally, there is an even more contentious question.
Countries have corrupt lives specific to their traditions.
In the United States, the main emphasis is on the corrupting effect of legal money, and the main thrust of reform to limit campaign spending. In Britain, corruption for personal gain has had the spotlight. There is a kind of corruption that has to do with the rising expenses of national election campaigns, which is particularly important in Anglo-Saxon countries. There is a kind that is to do with maintaining systems of patronage, as in the old days and still to some extent in Italy where parties controlled parastatal systems of work and welfare that ate up money. There is a variety common in Austria, Belgium and again Italy where there is, or was, a quota system for dividing up jobs and con tracts between parties and their followers.