Why aren't all MPs crooks?

Another Sunday brings another allegation about MPs' corruption. This invokes two extreme reactions, both of which, I think, are wrong.
One is “they’ve all got their snouts in the trough.” This runs into a simple factual problem - that only a minority stand accused of this. As Paul says, for all the abuse levelled at him, no-one accuses Gordon Brown of being on the take.
The second reaction is that the vast majority of MPs go into politics for the right reasons. This too is implausible. Altruists are only a minority of the general population. And you’d expect MPs to be a smaller minority, because many rational altruists would decide that it is harder to know the right thing to do in policy-making than in more narrowly defined walks of life.
Instead, I suspect the truth is that MPs are selfish, but that there are powerful selfish reasons for them not to, ahem, maximize their expenses.
One mechanism is simple cost-benefit analysis. An MP who attracts bad publicity risks being overlooked for promotion, being deselected or not re-elected, or merely having his name tarnished and so less likely to attract well-paid work after leaving politics. Ambitious MPs would, therefore, want to appear honest. It’s no accident that the MPs accused of greed - Smith, McNulty, Conway, Hoon - are those with poor job prospects anyway.
A second mechanism is peer effects. We do things because our peers do. So if an MP’s close colleagues happen not to be on the take, he won’t be.
A third set of mechanisms arises from a fact which crude cynics often ignore - that, for many people of reasonable affluence, the marginal utility of wealth is low (the Blairs are perhaps a prominent exception here). Once you’ve paid off the mortgage and got a half-decent motor, there’s not much point having a lot more money. This creates room for other motives.
One of these is simple laziness. The thing about fraud is that it’s so bloody difficult. You have to think up a story, remember it and cover your tracks. And then you live with the fear of being uncovered, the daily dread of the knock on the door.  Honesty might not be the best policy. But it’s certainly the easiest.
The same is true for maximizing one’s expenses. I wouldn’t have claimed 88p for a bathplug simply because doing so is more trouble than it’s worth.
Another motive is the desire to protect one’s self-image. In many cases, this is a self-love which causes one to think of oneself as decent and honest. Having one’s snout in the trough undermines this self-regard. This, perhaps, is why the likes of Brown, Field or Widdecombe, to name but three, haven’t been on the take.
What I’m saying here is really trivial. Self-interest and self-regard can keep most people honest; this is true of  MPs and the rest of us.  MPs are neither crooks - that’s a bastardization of public choice economics - nor angels.

Comments

[Frank H Little]

that the vast majority of MPs go into politics for the right reasons [...] is implausible. Altruists are only a minority of the general population. And you’d expect MPs to be a smaller minority, because many rational altruists would decide that it is harder to know the right thing to do in policy-making than in more narrowly defined walks of life.
The key words are "rational" and "altruism". Someone with a burning sense of injustice, which is what drives many into politics, is not necessarily rational. Nor does "unselfish" necessarily mean "altruistic". I suggest that at least half of parliamentary candidates stand because they have a cause, which may or may not be a good one, but which does not entail direct personal gain.

[Anthony Zacharzewski]

You omit the possibility that MPs are selfish, but selfish for non-monetary gains (a sense of having changed the world, chance to brag at parties, desire for personal recognition).

[Bob B]

In a recent thread here, S&M recommended that book: Economics 2.0 by Norbert Häring and Olaf Storbeck who report, on the basis of many experiments, that not all folks maximise self-interest to the limits. Many are also motivated to maintain a sense of fairness in what they do and I suspect that goes for some MPs to. But whatever else, among the professionals there's evidently no reluctance to maximise the economic benefits of Parliamentary allowances:

"Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper, the Cabinet's 'golden couple,' claimed almost £310,000 in expenses and allowances, the figures disclosed."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk:80/news/newstopics/politics/5078587/Ed-Balls-and-Yvette-Cooper-claim-more-than-300000-in-allowances.html

[Phil]

What you seem to be saying is that Geoff Hoon and Jacqui Smith are, as MPs go, quite unusually greedy, amoral and thick-skinned.

[dearieme]

Ha! He may not have been caught yet, but Brown is the sort of chap who bounced a cheque when he was young. Pah!

[Serf]

As Paul says, for all the abuse levelled at him, no-one accuses Gordon Brown of being on the take.

I don't know what you would call claiming for a second house whilst being supplied with #10 Downing Street & Chequers, but it does sound like on the take to me.

[Andy Nicholas]

2 free houses and We pay for his own house!
Thieving Liebour scumbag!

[Zorro]

Brown claims for a second home when he has a very nice grace&favour place at no10. He also claims his movies and sports package from Sky.

I'm sure both of those are within the rules but it's hardly within the spirit of the rules, unless the spirit of the rules was for MPs to enrich themselves.

I was under the impression the second home allowance and associated expenses were to allow MPs to do their job, nothing more. How does Sky movies and sport enable Gordon to run the country better?

[reason]

Isn't this an argument for party politics and against non-party politics or (see USA in the past) loose party discipline. The last thing a PARTY wants is to be associated with corruption. So the first line of defence is the party whip system.

[John K Lund]

Some people are driven by a desire for power and some are driven by a desire for acievement.
Power orientated people are focussed on the approval of others. It gives them a " high" to know that others like, envy and admire them, or must in some way submit to them.
People motivated by achievement, however, care about what is required to make something right, efficient, or effective. It's all about getting the job done as expertly and honestly as possible.

[david mcveigh]

there a bunch of thief's........lost for words.......feel very let down