In the Middle Ages, the term “bribe” was used to describe a piece
of bread or similar simple alms given to an itinerant beggar. There was, of
course, no idea of dishonesty in the procedure, which was looked upon as one
of the works of charity expected of a responsible and sensitive Christian in
those enlightened times. Later on, the same term was applied to a gift made
with the object of perverting justice or corrupting the receiver of the bribe,
or to the product of a theft or a deception.
At about the same period in history another term, “incentive’’,
was adopted to describe provocation or spurring to encourage someone to undertake
a certain action. Yet a third word current at the time was “subsidy”,
which meant a payment made to an authority or public body for promoting a course
of action which might not otherwise be performed.
By the 20th century an “incentive” had become to mean a gift made
to encourage an individual to perform more work or do different work than hitherto.
And it is interesting to note that the word “ subsidy’’ is derived
from the subsidii, a section of the imperial Roman army which was held in reserve
when the enemy was engaged, and was so called because the men sat down while
awaiting the call to action.
In the light of some modern political and business practices, I am sorely tempted
to wonder exactly how we are expected to draw dividing lines between these three
phenomena. If we differentiate, we must fit them into our code of morality and
ethics, and pronounce upon them accordingly. There is an old proverb, which
runs: “A bribe will enter without knocking.” Is the same true of incentives
and inducements? Plato probably had ideas about it, but I have been unable to
track them down.