Why ask this question, and many more like it?
Control Fraud and White Collar Crime, as coined by sociologists and criminologists, are useful yet neglected concepts.
What if there are diverse concepts from many other systemic disciplines that are of equal or greater value, yet even more neglected?
If all citizens periodically hear a bit more of what all other citizens know, we'd never have to worry about our democracy?
To get that benefit which history has promised, we first have to condition ourselves to want to know what more of our co-citizens know.
So in case YOU want to know, let's compare some views across disciplines, and see what pops out.
For non-criminologists, what is White Collar Crime ... especially "Control Fraud?"
It's useful to google both terms, and see the variety of illuminating examples illustrating both terms.
"The persons who control a seemingly legitimate entity (private, non-profit, or governmental) can cause unique damage [to the aggregate] if they engage in fraud because the CEO can direct the corporation and cause it to make the firm’s internal and external environment vastly more criminogenic."
"... the CEO’s interests are frequently contrary to the interests of the corporation"
"The elegant solution for the fraudulent CEO is not to defeat controls but rather to suborn them and pervert them into the most valuable fraud allies. This explains why sophisticated frauds almost invariably retain top tier auditors to “bless” the financial statements."
These quotes are taken from Bill Black's essay,
So, what might all this mean, systemically, to all 315million members of our democracy? Is this cross-discipline sharing of terms and concepts useful for all?
These concept of White Collar and Control Fraud crimes are not only a rehash of ancient tyrant/civil conflict, and not just a review of Marxist/aristocracy conflicts.
To biologists, these concepts are also the real-time noise of host/parasite interactions, where some of the emerging elements in a deeply nested system are always harming rather than helping the system that spawns them. Yes, in the course of spawning their own diversity, biological systems spawn internal parasites, and must constantly invent completely novel methods to regulate and/or cull the mal-adaptive processes, as part of selecting the adaptive fraction.
In short, to any system scientist, "parasitic" members of an internal characteristic-spectrum are those system components NOT YET REGULATED or tuned to adaptive system purpose.
When citizens and criminologists discuss fraud & crime in specific industries, they're talking about diverse expression of similar, not-yet-regulated behavioral excesses. Those behavioral excesses are just applied in different segments of our vast, cultural INTERACTOME, precisely because more adaptive tolerance limits are not yet hemmed in by more evolved regulatory interactions.
How are optimal tolerance limits developed sooner rather than later? By practice at sampling all available feedback and getting good at adaptive_signal/system_noise discrimination. We know that no system ever knows best/worst utilization of emerging resources beforehand, since that utilization is always entirely context-specific. So how does a growing human culture figure that out, as it simultaneously spawns new components capable of harnessing new resources?
Not just by totally naive trial and error, but by applying BEST PRACTICES to the timeless methods for parsing adaptive_signal from context_noise.
Best practices are historically shaped by the rule of system extension, i.e., species, culture or national survival.
In species evolution, we call name such self-motivation tricks as "play behavior" among the so-called, more advanced species. Advanced cultures need cultural-play-behavior too, not just personal play behavior.
This train of thought suggests that we can actually confirm Joshua Chamberlain's thesis, and generalize from it. Yes, we cannot predict specific challenges, but we can determine what kind of adaptive rate our culture can spawn when the challenge strikes, by maintaining a high level of play & practice at both spawning diversity and then regulating it upon demand. Chamberlain didn't say how, but we can. By being prepared, through initially playful and then serious practice.
How to be prepared? By being practiced at assessing & optimizing our net adaptive potential (DOF/HAP; degrees of freedom = highest Adaptive Potential).
How to optimize & fine-tune adaptive potential (DOF/HAP)? History mandates optimal quality of distributed decision-making as the key to system extension or survival. That, in turn, mandates optimally distributed degrees of freedom, which mandates optimal distribution of BOTH static and dynamic assets.
Optimal distribution of both static and dynamic assets is rarely discussed, but historically boils down to "force-readiness." Translation: a median living wage AND mandatory requirements for lifelong education, training and industry, including regular practice at system perspective, not just component practice? In the end, culture is a dynamic asset which, like everything else, is something we either use or lose. It cannot be physically hoarded, only maintained through practice.
What is the fastest way for supra-tribal populations to re-constitute the extreme agility & adaptive rate of tribal pass-through, tribal economies? Simply mandate it. Then practice it's features, by keeping ourselves prepared, by challenging ourselves with a steady spectrum of cultural-play behaviors. Some of those play behaviors will always transition to serious work options. Self-challenge keeps us on our toes, while waiting for unpredictable outside challenges.
Pursuit of adaptation is a selected conditioning bias, not an inescapable certainty. Every new level of system expansion must not only be spawned, it must start from scratch and thereafter develop yet another set of tools and methods which instil a bias to pursue further adaptation (optimizing DOF/HAP). Such a bias can occur ONLY from the statistics of selection bias! There is no other way to discriminate best/worst resource allocation models.
No wonder systems ONLY advance during crisis, and always decline systemically without systemic selection pressure - reverting to component competition rather than coordinated cooperation.
What does that say about how our electorate orients to our present context?
The quick answer is "horribly" or "barely at all." So let's apply a bandage to our fractured, cultural orientation process.
Making a jump, let's put it this way, and start from scratch.
Tribal systems evolved to the point of running out of room to operate independently, and are still adjusting to all the resulting inter-dependencies. The former, tribal functions, however, maintained a highly selected system of distributed decision-making, which preserved & maximized net degrees of freedom. You can say that a "social" species is one that practices "pass-through" economics to optimize system maneuverability.
Where did "capitalism" come from? One view is that it arose from the onset of supra-tribal politics, where permanent inter-tribal frictions gradually transitioned "temporary" tribal war chiefs into "permanent" aristocracy with the habit of acquiring static assets across formerly tribal boundaries, instead of optimizing tribal capabilities.
From that perspective, capitalism is simply an off shoot of an arbitrary approach to acquiring static assets ACROSS system boundaries, while newly supra-tribal aggregates try to figure out how to organize dynamic assets on a new scale. For an aggregate, organizing dynamic assets as fast as it acquires static assets is the key to Adaptive Rate. Only by co-organizing static/dynamic assets can aggregates better discriminate best/worst options for aggregate resource allocation.
Capitalists are routinely taught that adaptation is merely static asset allocation, or simply distributed hoarding. Optimal adaptive "use" of resources is considered separately and transiently, if at all. It is typically viewed by most avowed capitalists as too difficult to do, and is therefore considered both presumptuous and something to be neglected. Unless absolutely necessary. The frequency of war indicates how frequently absolute necessity actually occurs.
We're looking at 2 settings for humans, long familiar to ecologists.
1) Overgrowth of one species, waiting for some new sub-clone to out-compete all the rest ... simply because it can.
2) Climax ecology, where a stable mix of species co-exist, until unpredictable events clear fractions of the environment & allow a cascade of marginally preserved elements to build toward a new climax "cover crop" mix.
Our only challenge is to more quickly determine how prepared we are to respond, to whatever is going to happen next, no matter when it occurs. The only way to assess our national force readiness, is to practice on invented or "cultural-play" processes. Call them Public Works if you will, but whatever you call them, please just practice?