Political payments by multinational companies in foreign nations have long been a pervasive practice; but a cultural taboo against discussion of the … - Neil H. Jacoby

Expropriation and nationalization of private oil properties, and the growth of government oil companies, extended public ownership in oil. However, the primary result of postwar government petroleum policies was to enhance competition in the industry. Governments encouraged new entrants, which diffused the structure of the industry. The number of competing firms increased, and the market positions of the largest international oil companies declined, reducing concentration. As the entrants developed more concession areas, the growth of petroleum supply relative to demand accelerated, intensifying competition in both crude oil and product markets, and depressing prices and rates of return on investment.

The emerging censorship of political payments by U.S. business corporations is a potentially important, but little noted, aspect of the recent controversies about these payments. The operating behavior of American business overseas is becoming a new dimension of the public regulations of business. Until recent years, this regulation was concerned with such matters as healthy working conditions for employees, safe and reliable products, and enforcing competition. The disclosure of political payment abroad has led federal agencies to increase still further their role as arbiters of business behavior.

Lubrication payments are not subject to a going rate. They are usually determined by what the traffic will bear. The usual way for a government official to extract a payment is by threatening obstruction or delay in carrying out his official duties… Large political payments are rarely transferred directly by a principal to an upper echelon official; rather, a middleman is used. He may be a professional ‘fixer’ who is himself a low-level government functionary; more often he will be a member of the same family as the high-level recipient.