The wicked problem of corruption in travel in India

Corruption in India

1. The title of the case needs revision. First, it should not contain a value judgment (\"wicked\"), and second it should not be a simple restating of the problem. Give the reader a reason to read the paper – the title is the one element of marketing that the writer must do.

2. I have no idea what a wicked problem is. This term contains a value judgment – the word \"problem\" would suffice – and lacks definition. Even the actual problem, corruption, is illustrated via anecdote rather than with a referenced definition. Something like the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index could be used to provide a definition with broad acceptance. https://www.transparency.org/what-is-corruption

3. That corruption is a problem is self-evident. The author should evaluate the actual economic costs of corruption in order to illustrate why it is important for India to tackle corruption, and why it is important specifically in the transportation industry. The title of the article references travel, yet there is no outline of broader economic costs either to industry or tourism, or even just the general public. This should have been the focal point of the literature review.

4. Over the course of the paper, there was discussion, much of it anecdotal, about stakeholders. However, the paper should have specifically outlined the major stakeholders, with an appropriate subheading for easy reference. The costs of corruption to each stakeholder should have been outlined in a subsequent section, with its own subheading.

5. The case study was not effectively organized using subheadings. Most of the paper was simply organized as \"Literature Review and Background\". There is an opportunity to organize this section much better, starting with a description and overview of corruption in India, then Stakeholders, Stakeholder Impact, another heading about the political element, etc. The lack of subheadings made this section come across as disorganized; the author might have found subheadings allowed for better focus on key points, instead of repeating the same stuff over and over. There are several mentions of Modi\'s reputation, for example, and they come at all points in the paper – there\'s really only 3-4 pages of original material in here, and the rest is pointless repetition to fill space. This shows insufficient organization prior to research. Better organization from the outside would have made clear to the writer that more research needed to be conducted in order to build out an effective argument.

6. I do not believe that the case study sufficiently addressed the recommendations. The recommendations contained are generic and thing. They consist of a single paragraph. They are not referenced, and do not particularly follow from the rest of the material presented. Even though the recommendations are logical, they need to be supported by either literature or statistical analysis, and they need to be tied specifically to the problem as identified. There also needs to be an analysis of what impact these proposed solutions will have – so starting with the figures presented for the costs of corruption the analysis should then determine the economic impact of the solution (which will not eliminate corruption 100%).

The author did not consider that people who have specifically taken a position to earn via corruption will seek other ways when one way is cut off. Further, what if they bribe the person installing the camera to \"make a mistake when installing\" – corrupting the corruption detection system. There was no analysis whatsoever of what impacts might come from the proposed solution.