I’ll be writing at more length about the New York Times’s story on Wal-Mart de Mexico’s payments to local officials, and the apparent sense of some in Bentonville that the issue would rest quietly if only they didn’t investigate it too hard. In the mean time, I’ve got a new post up at Cato at Liberty pointing to some reactions to the case from observers like Mike Koehler, Peter Henning, Stephen Bainbridge and Paul MacAvoy (interviewed by Dan Fisher at Forbes).
P.S.: Discussions of Mexico’s lamentable national institution of la mordida — literally, “the bite” — here, here, and here.
6 Comments
“But if Wal-Mart didn’t pay the bribes then there’d be no way they could open any stores in Mexico!”
Some people would say that’s a good thing. (I am not one of those people.)
I’m shocked that bribery would be required in Mexico…
What next, required bribes in China?
Walmart had the best currency exchange rates in Puerto Vallarta.
The obvious answer is that Wal-mart should have made more campaign contributions to the right legislators here in the good old USA to avoid the problem of being investigated for giving money to government officials. It’s only prostitution if it’s done in private; if you do it in public you can call it performance art.
Olson on Wal-Mart bribery allegations and the FCPA…
Walter Olson tackles well the controversy over Wal-Mart’s Mexico problem and the Washington Post’s misguided coverage. [Daily Caller; Cato; OL]……
[…] was surely not the victim of the Mexican bribe-paying, if victims there were.” Earlier here, here and (at Cato) here; and link thanks to Scott Greenfield (a must-read), Point of Law, and […]