Corruption and corporate accountability

My take

Corruption rarely happens in the dark. It thrives where oversight is weak, fragmented or quietly pulled back. That's why I worry when the institutions meant to hold companies to account are cut back or stretched thin. Indiscriminate cuts to regulators don't make markets freer. Disruption at the SEC and other US agencies leaves room for serious gaps to open, and the least scrupulous players are always quickest to exploit them. It also tilts the field towards the biggest, best-connected firms, at the expense of honest competitors who play by the rules. Good enforcement isn't a burden on business. It's what keeps competition fair.

Why I see it this way

I've spent years on the oversight side of the table, on the boards of a central bank and a financial markets regulator, and in government through the 2008 financial crisis. That work showed me what good oversight looks like, and how easily it can be eroded. Regulators do their best work quietly, so the cost of weakening them stays invisible until something fails. By then it's usually ordinary customers, honest competitors and smaller institutions who pay. Strong, independent oversight is what keeps the rules working for everyone, not just for those with the most influence.

What I'm watching

I'm watching how far the US pulls back from enforcement, at its financial regulators and in its approach to foreign bribery, and who stands to gain as it does. I'm watching whether companies keep strong compliance and speak-up cultures in place as enforcement pressure eases, or quietly let them slide. And I'm watching whether the global anti-corruption effort, now spread across too many bodies, can be brought together into something that prevents scandals rather than just responding to them.