Beyond Acton: Corruption Does Not Stem from Absolute Power, But from Ambiguous Boundaries — Deconstructing the Deep Logic of BRI’s Corruption Export
—— A Post-Totalitarian Correction to the “Power Corrupts” Theory and the Deep Logic of BRI’s Corruption Export
Correcting the “Absolute Corruption” Theory: Ambiguous Boundaries Are the Root of Corruption
Since Lord Acton declared that “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” the necessity of constraining power has become a political axiom. However, when observing the modern totalitarian system, specifically the current Chinese model, a fundamental correction is necessary:
The true source of corruption is not “absolute power,” but rather ambiguous boundaries of power, and a severe asymmetry between power and its scope of authority (事權). It is precisely because power is “not absolute” that it must resort to furtive theft through corruption. Because:
When power achieves a truly “absolute” status, it has already legalized its plunder and integrated it into the rules. The rules acknowledge its absolute position, allowing it to take possession of anything openly, without the need to steal via corruption.
Therefore, the threat posed by the totalitarian model is not merely derived from the “moral pathology” of power (corruption), but from its transformation of corruption into a “systemic strategy of Total Management.” This transformation begins with our clear recognition of the flaws in human nature:
Corruption is the universal opportunistic tendency deeply embedded in human nature. This tendency is evident in our daily lives: it is hidden in the extra coin a child keeps when running an errand for change; it lurks in the five extra minutes we steal by hitting the snooze button; it exists in the moment we illegally change lanes in an unsupervised corner, exploiting the gray areas of traffic rules to cut in front of ten cars. When given the opportunity, people instinctively seek convenience or benefit for themselves.
Acknowledging this is crucial. Because if corruption is the default state of human nature, then merely blaming individual morality or replacing a few leaders will never achieve the utopian goal of its “complete eradication.” The real key lies in whether our systems can build sufficient resilience to effectively define, limit, and absorb the leakage of this human tendency.
The Erosion of Endogenous Order: Corruption as the Totalitarian “Grammar of Management”
The core of this conflict, therefore, is never about moral purity, but about how the system utilizes and defines this leakage of human nature. This is the fundamental divergence between Endogenous Order Systems and Totalitarian Societies—specifically, the contemporary Chinese model.
In the logic of an Endogenous Order System (whether traditional customary order or modern rule of law), the source of order is organic and resilient. Corruption is seen as a “leakage” in the system; while it violates the rule of law, the diffusion of power often confines the leakage to specific boundaries, reflecting the resistance of local relationships and customs to complete central penetration. This order is not unlimited freedom, but internal resilience established through customs, local relations, and legal boundaries. Although it cannot be entirely eliminated, corruption is defined as a pathological phenomenon—a side effect of governance failure—limited by law, public opinion, and social pressure.
However, in the Totalitarian Model exported by the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the role of corruption undergoes a qualitative change.
In China’s governance logic, corruption is no longer a system flaw but the “grammar” through which the system operates. It internalizes plunder and patronage as a Total Management Strategy: the function of this mechanism is not only to manufacture loyalty but also to systematically erase and replace all spontaneous, traditional orders and intermediary groups within the host country. This is not loss of control; it is a carefully designed Total Control Mechanism.
When this mechanism is exported overseas with capital, it brings more than just power-for-money exchanges; it initiates a structural invasion of artificial, externally imposed order upon endogenous, traditional order.
When “Leakage” Becomes a Tool of “Control”: The Weaponization of Efficiency Narratives
In an Endogenous Order System, corruption as a system “leakage” is dispersed, individual, and limited by existing boundaries. In the Totalitarian Model, this “leakage” is given a new, active, and strategic function: leakage becomes a tool of control.
We must fundamentally question the narrative that “measures government by efficiency.”
The true value of government is not in producing “efficiency,” but in producing order, defining boundaries, and maintaining the stability of the rule of law. Efficiency should be the byproduct generated by spontaneous cooperation among the market and society within those clear, stable, and predictable boundaries.
Therefore, the totalitarian model’s “performance legitimacy” is fundamentally a flawed political formula. It substitutes the state’s proper rule-of-law responsibility with a state-level managerial efficiency (rapid project delivery). This is more than just governance failure; it is a subversion of political philosophy itself.
This model achieves political control over the elite by allowing a targeted openness to “leakage,” ensuring that only those who are politically loyal can benefit. Corruption is no longer the manifestation of decentralized boundaries but the loyalty bond of the centralized regime. Furthermore, BRI capital and projects serve as vehicles for exporting this “targeted leakage” model, deliberately bypassing the host country’s rule-of-law and local order boundaries.
Structural Invasion: Blurring Boundaries to Manufacture Dependency
The most alarming characteristic of this model is its ability to self-replicate and structurally export, designed to blur all spontaneous boundaries of order and manufacture dependency on external Total Management.
When a country becomes accustomed to bypassing regulatory bodies, accustomed to replacing “governance by rules” with “order driven by projects,” its immune system is destroyed.
- Financial Obscurity and Boundary Erosion: Opaque loan terms create massive information asymmetry, transforming corruption from individual “theft” into systemic “financial transfer.” This is not just a loss of funds, but a structural erosion of the boundary of national fiscal sovereignty.
- Sovereignty Ceded via Technology: Dependency on external contractors for key infrastructure (such as dam control systems and grid hubs) means the host country, while gaining short-term efficiency, substantially cedes long-term operational sovereignty. This is a perfect closed loop that converts economic pressure into political control, completely breaking the country’s technological independence boundary.
- Reshaping Local Power: To facilitate project implementation, local administrative boundaries, land use rights, and even grassroots governance structures are redrawn. This means that a country’s internal administrative logic is being rewritten to accommodate the “Total Management demands” of external capital. The local order shields that protect individuals and communities are dismantled.
Conclusion: Maintain Vigilance
Therefore, all systems that value their endogenous order and sovereign boundaries must remain highly vigilant against the BRI. We are not facing a few isolated cases of graft, nor are we dealing with mere debt figures.
We are facing a mature, highly infectious Totalitarian Management Model. It attempts to tell the world: You can sacrifice oversight for efficiency; you can sacrifice procedure for development; you can accept total control for stability.
If this trend of “control replacing governance” is not identified and blocked, host countries will lose more than just money; they will lose the foundation of the rule of law and sovereign integrity upon which a modern state depends—the very boundaries protected by endogenous order. This is a battle for the soul of the system, and the line of defense is built on every instance of insisting on procedural justice.
About The Author
From Governance to Management: Why the Belt and Road Initiative Accompanies the Export of Corruption
Corruption is never a distant or abstract evil. It hides in the loose change a child pockets when picking up groceries for a parent; it lurks in the extra five minutes we steal from the alarm clock in the morning. These seemingly trivial daily choices reveal a brutal truth: corruption is not the exclusive patent of bureaucrats but a manifestation of the opportunistic tendencies deeply embedded in human nature. Given the opportunity, humans instinctively seek convenience or personal gain.
This acknowledgment is crucial. If corruption is the background color of human nature, then simply blaming individual morality—or reshuffling those in power—will never solve the problem. The real key lies in how a political system addresses this aspect of human nature.
This is precisely where the fundamental divide lies between the free world and authoritarian regimes—specifically, the current China Model.
The Clash of Two Orders: Leak or Syntax?
In the logic of a liberal democratic system, corruption is viewed as a “leak” within the system. The government’s task is to produce “order” and “rules” to patch these leaks. While leaks can never be entirely eliminated, they are contained through the rule of law, public opinion, and social pressure. In this context, corruption is defined as a pathology—a side effect of governance failure.
However, in the model exported by the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the role of corruption undergoes a qualitative inversion.
In the governance logic of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), corruption is no longer a bug (loophole) but a feature (syntax) of the system itself. It internalizes predation and co-optation as a ruling strategy: allowing elites within the system to engage in opaque interest distribution (predation) in exchange for their absolute obedience to the core of power (co-optation). This is not a loss of control; rather, it is a carefully designed mechanism for producing loyalty.
When this mechanism is exported overseas along with capital, it brings more than mere transactional bribery; it initiates a paradigm shift in how a state functions.
In the Name of “Efficiency”: When Management Displaces Governance
The core of this shift lies in the quiet displacement of “Governance” by “Control” and “Management.”
Traditional “Governance” emphasizes procedural justice, transparency, accountability, and multi-stakeholder participation. It is a path that is often slow and, at times, appears clumsy. Conversely, the China Model offers a seemingly seductive shortcut: elevating “economic performance” and “project progress” to the highest goals.
Under this narrative of “performance legitimacy,” necessary administrative scrutiny, environmental assessments, and indigenous consultations are no longer regarded as safeguards for the public interest but are instead redefined as “obstacles” to development.
Consequently, we see a dangerous phenomenon replicating across host countries: projects are deliberately segmented to evade high-level environmental impact assessments; private commercial projects and public infrastructure are inverted in administrative sequencing, causing public funds to foot the bill for private interests; and critical geological risk assessments are hollowed out by executive orders to “expedite special cases.”
This is not mere greed; this is the weaponization of efficiency. By emphasizing the rapid delivery of results (Management), it rationalizes the abandonment of statutory procedures (Governance). In this model, the state is no longer “governed” but “managed,” and citizens are no longer participants but passive recipients.
Structural Invasion: From Sovereignty to Dependency
The most alarming consequence of this model is its ability to self-replicate and structurally embed itself.
When a country becomes accustomed to bypassing regulators and replacing “rule-based governance” with a “project-driven order,” its institutional immune system is effectively destroyed.
- The Black Box of Finance: Opaque loan terms create massive information asymmetry, transforming corruption from individual “theft” into systemic “financial transfer.”
- The Surrender of Technological Sovereignty: Heavy reliance on external contractors for critical infrastructure (such as dam control systems or power grid hubs) means that while the host country gains short-term efficiency, it essentially surrenders long-term operational sovereignty. This creates a perfect loop, converting economic pressure into political control.
- The Reshaping of Local Power: To facilitate project implementation, local administrative boundaries, land use rights, and even grassroots governance structures are redrawn. This implies that a nation’s internal administrative logic is being rewritten to accommodate the “management needs” of external capital.
Conclusion: Seeing the Deep Game
Therefore, facing the Belt and Road Initiative, the free world must remain highly vigilant. We are not merely facing a few isolated cases of corruption or simple debt statistics.
We are facing a mature, highly contagious mode of political control. It attempts to tell the world: for development, you can sacrifice procedure; for efficiency, you can abandon oversight; for stability, you can accept control.
If this trend of replacing governance with control is not identified and interrupted, what host countries stand to lose is more than just funds—they risk losing the rule of law and sovereign integrity that underpin a modern state. This is a battle for the institutional soul, and the line of defense is built upon every single instance of insistence on procedural justice.
About The Author