“Over 35 percent of companies operating in various sectors across India are engaged in corporate espionage to gain advantage over their competitors and are even spying on their employees via social networking Web sites,” Assocham said in its report.
While checking out people’s activity on social media sites like LinkedIn or Twitter didn’t sound too alarming, Assocham made a stronger claim that about 900 respondents said that they plant a mole in other companies, usually as receptionists, photo-copiers and other low-end jobs.
Upper level managers trust clericals with lots more information about business strategy than the individual engineers see sitting in their cubicles. So the use of clericals as spies is an astute tactic. They do not get paid much. So to, say, offer them double would not cost much to the spying company.
What I wonder: how much of this spying ends up being against international firms with offices in India or who are using outsourcing firms in India. Are Western firms losing more secrets in India or China?
What I also wonder: how much corporate spying is done in the United States by using imported knowledge workers who were recruited into spying even before they came to the US. Are US firms asleep in the face of serious loss to spies? Also, which firms are most targeted by corporate spies?
Think Barack Obama's big infrastructure spend is going to make America a better place? Maybe. But that huge influx of money for building stuff bears some resemblance to disaster relief spending for rebuilding. Disaster relief funds cause corruption conviction rates to skyrocket.
Where natural disasters strike, political corruption is soon to follow, say the authors of a study in the Journal of Law and Economics. But it's not the wind and rain that turns good folks bad; it's the money that floods in afterwards from the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
I think the $100 here is supposed to be $100 million. So the billions of dollars that flow in after a big hurricane hit causes the rate of corruption to go up by multiples.
"We find each $100 [million] of FEMA-provided disaster relief increases the average state's corruption by nearly 102 percent," write Peter Leeson (George Mason) and Russell Sobel (West Virginia U.). "Our findings suggest that notoriously corrupt regions of the United States, such as the Gulf Coast, are in part notoriously corrupt because natural disasters frequently strike them. They attract more disaster relief, which makes them more corrupt."
Leeson and Sobel base their conclusions on a statistical model that measured the relationship between FEMA allocations and corruption in each U.S. state. The researchers quantified corruption as the number of per capita convictions of public officials for crimes such as embezzlement, accepting bribes or kickbacks, extortion and unlawful dealings with private vendors or contractors.
Hurricane-prone states like Florida, Mississippi and Louisiana, which receive large amounts of FEMA money, tend to have more corruption convictions per capita. States like Nebraska and Colorado, which receive almost no FEMA dollars, have least corruption.
Leeson and Sobel also found notable spikes in corruption convictions in the year following influxes of FEMA money in a given area. For example, in 1997 Minnesota received around $300 million from FEMA after the Red River Flood. In 1998, corruption convictions in Minnesota spiked to 14 per 100,000 citizens from less than two per 100,000 the year before.
Will we see a boost in corruption due to more infrastructure spending?