THIS HOUSE BELIEVES IN A NATIONAL MINIMU M WAGE A minimum wage is the minimum price at which firms may hire

workers, and conversely at which individuals can sell their labor. The government usually sets the minimum wage level at a point that will increase the wages of the lowest earners. New Zealand was the first country to set any kind of minimum wage law when it established arbitration boards in the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act of 1894. There is now some kind of minimum wage or collective bargaining legislation over the minimum wage in more than 90% of countries. There are however large differences in terms of the level of the minimum and how it is set. The United Kingdom for example has a National Minimum Wage set at 5.93 per hour for workers over 21 years old with lower rates for younger people.[1]There is another group of countries that do not have national minimum wages but do have collectively agreed minimum wages. These are usually decided per sector, countries that use this form of collective bargaining to set minimum wages include German and Italy.[2] A few countries such as Macedonia have no minimum wage at all.[3] Opponents of the minimum wage argue that everything should be left to the free market and use supply and demand theory to argue that unemployment will be the result of a minimum, as firms will be unwilling to pay the extra price for workers. Proponents however instead focus on social justice and the exploitation of workers, particularly the most vulnerable.

GOV: the minimum wage aids in the propagation of social justice and the fair treatment of workers

POINT
Businesses operating in a free market are concerned principally with their bottom lines. In order to increase profits, firms will seek to exploit workers, to lower wages as far as possible. This exploitation will continue indefinitely, unless the state intervenes. The state does so by implementing a minimum wage. The lowest paid workers tend to be less educated, less skilled, and less organized than higher-paid employees. This makes them the easiest to manipulate and the easiest to replace.[1] In order to stop this outright exploitation of the most vulnerable members of society, the power of wage setting must fall to some extent within the purview of the state. Certainly, it is far better for state, which has

citizens best interest at heart, to weigh in on the issue of setting wages than businesses, which tend not to care about their workers welfare or have competing interests. Furthermore, a minimum wage sends a social signal of valuation; it affirms that all people have worth, cannot be exploited, and are owed by dint of their humanity a certain level of treatment in the workforce, i.e. a minimum wage. This is important as a means to assist the self-empowerment of the poorest members of society, by encouraging them to value themselves. Also, the minimum wage aids in promoting social justice and equality by lowering wage disparities.[2] Citizens of more equal societies tend to have more in common and can share more in the construction of societal goals and aims. This form of social justice is certainly preferable to the class divisions propagated in the absence of a minimum wage, in which a part of society is relegated to permanent wage slavery.

COUNTERPOINT
There is no social justice in denying people the ability to work. The minimum wage serves to benefit insiders who are employed and harm outsiders who do not have jobs and cannot get them due to the dearth of jobs created by the wage laws.[1] The state may have the best interests of its citizens at heart when it institutes a minimum wage, but it accomplishes little when it leaves more of its citizens without work, and thus dependent upon the state for survival.

the minimum wage provides a baseline minimum allowing people to embark freely in the pursuit of happiness

supply, when an individual makes the choice to work for less than anyone else, he necessarily lowers the wage that others can ask, leading to a downward spiral of wages as workers undercut one another, each competing to prove he is worth the least. A minimum wage ensures workers do not harm each other through selfdestructive wage competition.[2] What the minimum wage does to alleviate these problems is that it gives individuals the ability to pursue the good life, something that has become a global ideal. People want to be happy, and find that only way to obtain the resources necessary to attain comfort and security is through employment. Fundamentally, the minimum wage grants the freedom not to be exploited, giving individuals the freedom to control their own destinies.

COUNTERPOINT
While it is of course socially desirable that everyone be able to find gainful employment and pursue happiness, this is not accomplished even remotely by the existence of a minimum wage. In fact, it denies more people the ability to pursue happiness because the minimum wage forces unemployment up as it becomes more expensive to hire workers. The choice to work should belong to the individual, whether his decisions have an effect on the wages of others or not. Individuals can only have control of their destinies when they are not limited in the range of their potential actions, which must include the right to sell their labor at whatever rate they find acceptable, be it at some arbitrary minimum or lower.

POINT
Without a minimum wage, the lowest paid members of society are relegated to effective serfdom, and their decisions of these members often force others to follow suit, accepting similarly low wages. There is no real freedom of choice for people at this lowest level of the social structure, since they must accept whatever wage is offered in order to feed themselves and their families. Their poverty and desperation for work makes it much more difficult for them to act collectively to bargain for better wages. The minimum wage frees people from this bondage and guarantees them resources with which to make meaningful choices.[1] Without resources there can be no true choice, as all choices would be coerced by necessity. Because peoples choices are intrinsically interconnected, and wages tend to reflect the prevailing pressures of demand and

higher wages boost economic growth

POINT
Employees work harder when they are paid more, but employers can often be more concerned with the short-term bottom line and will not treat workers in the lowest echelons of their firms with much consideration, viewing them instead as disposable and replaceable economic units.[1] Mandating a minimum wage can thus benefit firms, even if they do not recognize it, by making workers more productive and also fostering a general work ethic.[2] As workers feel more valued in the economic system, the more likely they are to work loyally and diligently for their employers. Furthermore, better pay means more disposable income in the hands of employees, which leads to greater demand by them for goods and services. This demand-induced economic growth is a very important part of economic growth. The more people are able to spend, the more money flows into the economy, leading to more business and higher employment. Without the minimum wage, a downward spiral of spending can ensue, proving deleterious to firms and the economy generally. Additionally, the minimum wage decreases expensive social welfare payments, since workers no longer need as many supplements to their wages from the state in order to make up for the shortfall created by too-low wages.

pay workers competitive wages. Furthermore, social welfare payments will not decrease with the advent of a minimum wage since while some workers will not require income supplements from the state, the higher numbers of unemployed workers will look to the state exclusively as their source of income, raising the cost to the state and the taxpayer.

the minimum wage encourages people to join the workforce rather than pursuing income through illegal channels

POINT
When wages are extremely low the incentive to enter alternative markets is increased. This is particularly harmful in the case of illegal markets, such as those for drugs or prostitution.[1] When there is little to be gained from obtaining a legitimate job, no matter how plentiful they might be in the absence of a minimum wage, they would be undesirable by comparison to potentially highly lucrative black market opportunities. The minimum wage is essential for keeping the opportunity cost of entering the black market sufficiently high that people opt always to enter the mainstream, legal market. Furthermore, when the possibility of work in the legitimate market exists, even if work is harder to find due to a minimum wage, the very possibility of getting such a job will serve as a disincentive to pursuing illegal employment.

COUNTERPOINT
Employers are not stupid. Many do see the value of higher paid workers and appreciate their harder work and dedication. That is exactly why a minimum wage is unnecessary; firms in pursuit of their own self-interest will

COUNTERPOINT
The incentive to enter the illicit market is actually higher when there is a minimum wage. While the relative advantage of entering the black market might be diminished for some who

can enter the legitimate workforce and find employment, the higher numbers of people now unemployed would find it necessary either to seek welfare payments from the government or find alternative employment. Such employment could be readily found in the illegal market.

COUNTERPOINT
The state has an obligation to protect people from making bad decisions. Just as it tries to protect people from the harms of drugs by making them illegal, the state protects people from exploitation by setting wages at a baseline minimum. Everyone deserves a living wage, but they will not get this if there is no minimum wage. Businesses ruthlessly seeking to increase profit margins will always seek to reduce wages. This behavior is particularly harmful to those who receive the lowest wages. Upholding the right to work for any wage does not give people on the lowest wages a real choice, since it means people must work for what they are given, resulting in terrible exploitation.[1] Clearly, the minimum wage is a necessary safeguard for the protection of the weak and the vulnerable, and to guard people from unconscionable choices that an absolute right to work would force. Furthermore, the right to work does not mean much if an individual can only find employment in jobs which pay so lowly that they cannot support themselves. Thus, there is little difference between being employed below the minimum wage and being unemployed at the minimum wage. When employed, a person is no longer on unemployment statistics and the government has less pressure to act. When unemployed, they have the incentive and time to campaign for government action.

Opp:
the minimum wage restricts an individuals fundamental right to work

POINT
Individuals are autonomous beings, capable of making decisions for themselves. This includes the ability to make a value judgment about the value of ones time and ability. If an individual wishes to sell his labor for a certain price, then he should not be restricted from doing so by the state. A minimum wage is in effect the government saying it can place an appropriate value on an individual, but an individual cannot value himself, which is an absurdity as the individual, who knows himself better than the state ever could, has a better grasp of the value of his own labor. At the most basic level, people should have their right to choice maximized, not circumscribed by arbitrary government impositions. When the state denies individuals the right to choose to work for low wages, it fails in its duty of protection, taking from individuals the right to work while giving them nothing in return other than the chimerical gift of a decent wage, should they ever be able to find a job.[1] Clearly, the minimum wage is an assault on the right to free choice.

individuals gain a sense of dignity from employment, as well as develop human capital, that can be denied them by a minimum wage

POINT
The ability to provide for oneself, to not be dependent on handouts, either from the state in the form of welfare or from citizens charity, provides individuals with a sense of psychological fulfillment. Having a job is key to many peoples self worth, and most capitalistbased societies place great store in an individuals employment. Because the minimum wage denies some people the right to work, it necessarily leaves some people unable to gain that sense of fulfillment.[1] When people are unemployed for long stretches of time, they often become discouraged, leaving the workforce entirely. When this happens in communities, people often lose understanding of work entirely. This has occurred in parts of the United States, for example, where a cycle of poverty created by a lack of job opportunities has generated a culture of dependence on the state for welfare handouts. This occurrence, particularly in inner cities has a seriously corrosive effect on society. People who do not work and are not motivated to work have no buy-in with society. This results in crime and social disorder. Furthermore, the minimum wage harms new entrants to the workforce who do not have work experience and thus may be willing to work for less than the prevailing rate. This was once prevalent in many countries, often taking the form of apprenticeship systems. When a minimum wage is enforced, it becomes more difficult for young and inexperienced workers to find employment, as they are comparatively less desirable than more

experienced workers who could be employed for the same wage.[2] The result is that young people do not have the opportunity to develop their human capital for the future, permanently disadvantaging them in the workforce. The minimum wage takes workers dignity and denies them valuable development for the future.

COUNTERPOINT
An individual can maintain little dignity when he is subjected to outright exploitation from employers who are unconcerned about their welfare and who have no incentive to pay them anything but the lowest possible wages. A minimum wage ensures that people who find employment can feel real self-worth. Furthermore, if people do indeed only feel selffulfilled when they are employed, people will be all the more likely to accept poor working conditions and low wages for sake of their selfimage. Also, young workers do have means of gaining experience, such as through unpaid internship programs. The minimum wage serves to protect workers of all ages and skill-levels, as no one deserves to be exploited.

the minimum wage is little more than a political tool that ultimately harms the overall economy by raising the unemployment rate and driving businesses elsewhere

POINT
Politicians have transformed the minimum wage into an indicator of social development. Governments often cite their raising of the minimum wage as an example of their commitment to fostering social justice and equality. This is all nonsense. The minimum

wage is nothing more than a useful, simple tool that politicians can exploit without addressing underlying social and economic ills in society.[1] During times of economic expansion wages are generally rising as new businesses are formed and existing firms take on more capacity and workers. During such times, raising the minimum wage has no effect other than being a useful political move. In times of economic contraction, firms close and lay off workers and unemployment rates rise. In such times, the minimum wage hampers the market from clearing, keeping more people out of work than necessary. For markets to function efficiently, wages must be allowed to fluctuate freely, equilibrating with demand for labor and reflecting the macroeconomic situation. Minimum wages tend to lock in wages at prerecession levels making countries less competitive and less quick to recover when economic downturns occur. Furthermore, minimum wages can often make countries unattractive for businesses to invest in, as the cost of hiring workers can serve as a serious disincentive. For this reason, businesses tend to locate in countries with no minimum wage laws, such as Germany, or where they are comparably low. In order to stay competitive, to bolster economic dynamism and gain global competitiveness, countries should treat labor like the commodity it is and allow the labor market to self-correct, and not institute minimum wage laws.

minimum wage is particularly important to uphold in times of recession, since increased unemployment encourages employers to slash wages unmercifully. Such reductions can severely harm individuals and families that often suffer from reductions in real wealth as a result of recessions. Furthermore, in the case of competitiveness, companies do not make their decisions of where to locate based solely on prevailing wage rates. Rather, they value educated, socially stable populations. A minimum wage ensures that working individuals have the resources to provide for the necessities of their families and tends to promote social stability and contentment by engendering feelings of social buy-in that are absent in the presence of exploitation and meager wages.[1] Furthermore, it is not clear that the minimum wage has a significantly detrimental impact on employment.[2]

COUNTERPOINT
While economies may bounce back somewhat less quickly from downturns if wages are prevented from falling beneath a set minimum, it is a worthwhile sacrifice for the sake of preventing the exploitation of workers. The

THIS HOUSE BELIEVES IN GLOBAL FREE TRADE. Free trade's virtues have been praised for three hundred years. By allowing every country equal access to all markets, the theory says, you guarantee the most efficient allocation of resources and the cheapest prices for consumers. This means reducing tariffs, and quotas, and other forms of protectionism that prevent countries from trading goods freely. Can such a theory work in practice? Specifically, can it help the world's least developed countries provide themselves with a better quality of life? Western liberal rhetoric says it can, and points to international institutions such as the World Trade Organization to promote free trade of goods, and the World Bank to provide credit for development projects. However, so long as the West continues to protect its own agriculture and industries from the international market such as through the European Unions Common Agricultural Policy, or the United States of Americas bailout of its steel industries its position is arguably hypocritical, which jeopardizes a full embrace of free trade around the world. This debate centers on the benefits, detriments, and practicality of free trade.

Gov:
Free trade creates substantial cooperative relationships between trading partners.
POINT There has long been a debate as to whether aid or trade is more effective in promoting development and cooperative relationships. Being interlocked through trading relationships decreases the likelihood of war. If you are engaged in a mutually beneficial relationship with other countries, then there is no incentive to jeopardize this relationship through aggression. It leads to more cooperative relationships because trading partners have incentives to consider the concerns of their trade partners since their economic health is at stake. This promotes peace, which is universal good. In 1996, Thomas Friedman famously pointed out that no two countries with a McDonaldsa sign of western liberal

economic policieshave ever gone to war together.1 Academic studies have shown that this is specifically a result of free trade. In 2006 Solomon Polachek of SUNY Binghamton and Carlos Seiglie of Rutgers found that the last 30 years have shown that economic freedom is 50 times more likely to reduce violence between countries than democracy2. Erik Gartzke of Columbia University rated countries economic freedom on a scale of 1 (least free) to 10 (most free). He analyzed military conflicts between 1816 and 2000 and found that countries with a 2 or less on the economic freedom scale were 14 times more likely to be involved in armed conflicts than those with an 8 or higher2. Aside from war, free trade also solidifies countries alliances. For example, the US wants to begin a free trade relationship with South Korea to create a concrete partnership that will ultimately lead to greater cooperation3. Free trade promotes global connections and peace and therefore is a beneficial force.

COUNTERPOINT Free trade is the economic policy that many liberal countrieswho are less likely to go to war with each otherhave chosen. Its not the policy that makes them liberal. These studies show such a strong correlation, because the countries that have chosen free trade are largely a huge block of countries that already get along, particularly the EU countries and the US. These countries already have the productive relationships necessary for peace. And history has shown that those relationships can be fostered without resorting to free trade. For example, for many years after World War II, Japan protected many national industries, but it was a peaceful country with a productive relationship with the West. Therefore, the costs of free trade are not necessary to achieve that benefit since it can be fostered under different conditions.

Free trade promotes global efficiency through specialization.

POINT Operating at maximum productivity is one of the most important aspects of an efficient economy. The right resources and technology must be combined to produce the right amount of goods to be sold for the right price. Therefore all markets should strive for highest efficiency. In order to maximize efficiency in the international economy, countries need to utilize their comparative advantage. This means producing what you are best at making, compared to other countries. If Mary is the best carpenter and lawyer in the US, but makes

more money being a lawyer, she should devote more of her time to law and pay someone for her carpentry needs. Mary has an absolute advantage in law and carpentry, but someone else has a comparative advantage in carpentry1. Comparatively it makes more sense for someone else to do the carpentry, and for Mary to be the lawyer. It is the same in the international economy. Countries can be more efficient and productive if they produce what they are best at based on their domestic resources and populations, and trade for other goods. This promotes efficiency and lower prices. Free trade enhances this. The Doha round that is currently being debated in the World Trade Organization would reduce trade barriers and promote free trade, economies of scale, and efficient production of goods. It is estimated that the Doha round would increase the global GDP by $150 billion alone just by promoting free trade2. Free trade leads to specialization and efficient production, which ultimately would increase the size of the global economy and the individual economies in it. COUNTER For countries that are dependent on their resources and lack developed industries, free trade does not promote efficiency. Free trade makes them overly dependent on their resources, which other countries are coming in and buying. This is because their domestic industries cannot compete with those of the developed world, so they have difficulty fostering sectors besides raw goods. They are forced to rely on supplying materials, rather than being able to build innovative industries. That does not offer efficiency, it just suppresses economies

Free trade reduces poverty. Free trade promotes growth in all countries.

Free trade hurts the world's poor.

POINT
Free trade creates demand for extremely cheap products produced by poor people in terrible conditions in third world countries. In Indonesia, there are people working in sweatshops for 60 cents an hour1. It is estimated that there are 158 million child workers around the world2. Free trade creates demand for the products produced by this modern day form of child and adult slavery. The governments of the countries where this takes place do nothing to improve the working conditions. Sweatshops are produced by free trade and demand for cheap goods, and the way that workers are treated is inherently wrong. Therefore free trade is not a force for global betterment, but instead hurts the cause of the poor and their standard of living.

OPP:
POINT
If a country goes to war with one of its trading partners, it needs to have the capacity to produce all of the necessary tools for war domestically, and not depend on other countries for supplies and parts. Additionally there is fear that disease-causing agents and bioterrorism can enter countries through the trade of poorly inspected food1. For reasons of national security it makes sense to retain the capacity to produce what is necessary to win a war and to protect the domestic population. This is one of the reasons why countriessuch as the US1like to protect their agricultural industry. Free trade is a threat to global security. For countries to stay safe, they need to retain some protectionism in their international trade policy.

COUNTERPOINT
Sweatshops are unfortunate, but free trade can benefit from cheap labor without relying on exploiting workers. Economically, cheap labor is a step in the right direction for poor countries and their people. Making 60 cents an hour in a factory that exports goods is better than 30 cents an hour working in the field, trying to feed a family in Indonesia1. Paul Krugman explains that sweatshops allow the poor to get jobs, and manufacturing development has a ripple effect on the rest of the economy and its development. Taiwan and South Korea, and even the US, went through this type of industrial development and it is better than the alternative, which is failed farming or dependence on aid1. If workers are being exploitedwhich is different from being paid low wages that are actually good by the standards of the countrythen that should be

COUNTERPOINT
Marian Tupy of the Center for Global Liberty and Propensity states, "In the history of the world, no country has ever suffered military defeat, or capitulated to sanctions, due to the inability to produce a domestically producible product"1. Globalization also means there are many partners to trade with, so even if a country is at war there are plenty of options of other countries from which to buy necessary products.

regulated by governments, but that in no way infringes upon free trade.

It is just to protect industry and jobs.

POINT
When countries dump their products in other markets without barriers, they undercut the ability for local industries to compete. If those local industries try to compete, large foreign or multinational companies can use extremely low predatory pricing to make it impossible for the smaller industries to break into the market. The fully developed industries in rich countries are almost impossible for poorer, still developing economies to compete with. If they are not given the chance and have to compete with large international industries from the beginning, domestic industry in poor countries will have a hard time. The overall economic development of the country will thus be inhibited1. Additionally, competition can cost jobs, as industries become less profitable and labor is outsourced, so there is reason to retain protectionism as countries put their economic health first. For example, America has long protected its steel industry, as in 2002 when it adopted a controversial 40% tariff, because it was thought that competition put 600,000 jobs at risk2. Since 1977, 350,000 steel jobs have been shed, so these tariffs are justified3. Countries should put their economies and jobs first and therefore protectionism is warranted. COUNTERPOINT Even with tariffs the steel industry in losing jobs. Nothing can save steel. It simply does not operate as effectively as other global steel industries. Further, protectionism helps a small

group of workers, the rest of American industry that is dependent on steel for their operation is hurt by high prices and inefficient production1. Protectionism puts the good of the few above the rest. Additionally, the WTO was created to ensure that dumping does not happen. The problem with infant industry is it's hard to determine when to start the transition away from protectionism, and often it never develops fully. For example, Brazil protected its computer industry and it never was able to compete even past the infant industry stage2.

THIS HOUSE WOULD GRANT AN AMNESTY TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

An Amnesty can be defined as a general pardon, esp for offences against a government.[1] In the case of illegal immigrants this would be for the offence of entering and remaining in a country illegally and would in most cases not apply to those who have committed other crimes so there is usually an emphasis that an amnesty would only be for those who are law abiding except for being in the country illegally. Amnesties may be granted by the executive or the legislature for a country, in the case of a general amnesty for migrants this would probably need both and would likely be a highly controversial move in any country. Politics about illegal immigrants are likely to be more highly charged in countries that already have a lot of migrants (whether legal or illegal) which means that migration is considered an social and economic issue that affects much of the electorate. Despite their potential for controversy amnesties for illegal immigrants are not uncommon. Poland granted an amnesty for illegal immigrants in 2011,[2] Newt Gingrich has made some kind of amnesty part of his campaign for the republican nomination for the Presidency in the United States[3] and it was also a campaign pledge in the in the UK general election by the Liberal Democrats in 2010.[4]While the UK has never granted a general amnesty and the United States has only had one in some countries they are quite common; France and Portugal have offered two each, Italy five and Spain six amnesties.[5] The proposition in the debate would have to give some idea of what conditions they are attaching to the amnesty and whether there are any limitations on it. Often more there are proposals for more limited amnesties rather than a general amnesty in order to reduce the political backlash that could result from a more indiscriminate policy. POINTS FOR Amnesties are the only long term solution Migrants benefit the economy Immigrants are needed to make up for aging populations POINTS AGAINST An amnesty rewards law breakers Amnesties are unpopular; governments need to get tougher if they want to be reelected. An amnesty would encourage rather than reduce immigration

THIS HOUSE BELIEVES THAT COUNTRIES WHICH SUFFER FROM NATURAL DISASTERS SHOULD RECEIVE DEBT RELIEF
Debt relief is often discussed as a possible solution to world poverty. Given the over 34% of the worlds population still live in poverty on less than $2 per day[1], the international community, and more specifically the G8 group consisting of the most powerful nations in the world, made poverty relief one of the main goals during the UNs millennium meeting in 2000. In looking for solutions for world poverty, debt relief is often seen as an important element and has thus sparked the creation of initiatives such as the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HIPC). This addresses some of the worlds poorest nations that face an unsustainable debt burden and seeks to provide debt relief or complete debt cancellation in exchange for economic and political reforms. 36 of the worlds poorest countr ies already benefit from this initiative.[2] In 2005, at the urging of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the G8 summit revisited the issue of debt relief as a way to rid the world from poverty. An agreement was reached to provide more aid as well as debt relief to poverty-stricken countries. The agreement erased the debt of 18 of the worlds poorest nations (mainly in Sub-Saharan Africa). 70% of this debt was owed to the World Bank and the remaining debt was owed to the IMF and the African Development Bank. Debt relief for countries affected by natural disasters - such as the Asian tsunami, the Kashmir Earthquake and the Mozambique floods is also being discussed as part of this larger debt relief initiative. The United Nations has been very supportive of debt relief.
POINTS FOR Developing Nations are trapped in a spiral of debt Debt relief for nations suffering natural disasters does not cause a moral hazard Disasters wreck attempts at responsible long-term debt management People who have no power over their government do not deserve to suffer for that governments corruption POINTS AGAINST Rich countries with debt suffer disasters as well Debt Relief creates a Moral Hazard Debt Relief treats a symptom, not the root problem

THIS HOUSE BELIEVES THAT BRIBERY IS SOMETIMES ACCEPTABLE

Corruption is operationally defined as the misuse of entrusted power for private gain. Facilitation payments, where a bribe is paid to receive preferential treatment for something that the receiver is required to do by law (e.g. an official processing a license application), constitute "according to rule" corruption. Corruption "against the rule", on the other hand, is a bribe paid to obtain services the receiver is prohibited from providing (e.g. a policeman ignoring a crime or favourable marking of a students examination paper). The phenomenon of corruption has complex reasons that include flaws in legal system, the lack of democratic traditions and political accountability, social and economic difficulties, and low pay for public officials. Corruption affects people's lives in a multitude of ways. In the worst cases, corruption costs peoples lives. In countless other cases, it costs their freedom, health, or money. It is becoming an international problem due to increasing level of globalisation and international trade. Transparency International (TI) the biggest organisation that fights corruption on a global level - believes that keeping corruption in check is only feasible if government, business and civil society work together and agree on a set of standards and procedures they all support.[1]