A Research Report on How Japanese Companies Deal with the Issue of Facilitation Payments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A small payment usually made to speed up customs clearance or the issuance of a license, a practice widely seen in some of developing countries, is called a facilitation payment (FP). Opinions differ over the permissibility of FPs: some say they are a kind of bribe, and so should be eradicated, while others, especially businesses operating in developing countries, argue that they are so prevalent that they find it difficult to resist the practice without damaging their normal business operations. Although the parties to the OECD Anti-bribery Convention have now legislated to regulate foreign bribery, state practices on how to deal with FPs also vary: some parties, including the US, Canada, and Australia, put FPs outside of the scope of regulation, while other parties regulate them. With these issues in mind, the author conducted two separate surveys on FPs in 2007 and 2008 to get a rough picture of how Japanese companies and their overseas subsidiaries try to handle the issue, and how pervasive the practice of FPs are in some Asian countries, This paper mainly reports the findings of the first survey targeting 950 Japanese companies doing business abroad, The survey aims to discover to what extent Japanese companies have incorporated measures to prevent their employees from engaging in foreign bribery, as well as providing a rough picture of how they try to address any FP problems they might face. One of the findings is that more than 40 percent of respondents do not prohibit foreign bribery in their code of conduct, and only a handful of companies have a clear policy on how to handle FPs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".