Two of the readings this week focus specifically on whether incremental or radical change is more effective for expelling corruption. On one hand, Rothstein argues for the “big bang” procedure of eliminating corruption. According to him, most corruption stems from people’s perceptions of others’ levels of corruption. In other words, he argues that if everyone believes everyone else is corrupt, they will also lean into corrupt tendencies, even if they believe it is morally wrong. As a result, he argues that slow incremental changes will be ineffective in changing this workplace culture because they will not adequately prove that corruption has been reformed for everyone, and people may still operate under the assumption that everyone is still crooked. On the other hand, Bersch argues that slow incremental changes are the only way to create lasting change. According to her, these small adjustments allow for a greater learning curve, and therefore an increased ability to develop comprehensive changes. Additionally, small changes allow bureaucrats to maintain autonomy and integrate new practices into already existing systems. Her argument is based on the idea that small incremental changes will stem from people with the greatest understanding of their specific sphere, rather than from one figure who tries force similar reforms onto dissimilar issues. I’m inclined to agree more with Bersch’s analysis of incremental changes. To me, Rothstein’s article seems to be a slight oversimplification of the multifaceted issue of corruption. I do believe that workplace culture is extremely important in curbing corruption and should be considered in reform. However, if we are talking about creating more lasting changes, I agree with Bersch that integrating reforms into existing and accepted institutions will make the most sense.