Why on earth would we have to run a regression on that? Is it all not sort of self evident? I mean much restrictive regulation is designed precisely to defend existing interests, which is already a corruption in favor of the status quo? Is the breaking of these regulations any more corrupt than the regulations themselves? Also much restrictive regulation often comprises ex-ante corruption and that sometimes the regulators are even totally unaware of. For instance the current financial regulation for banks have imbedded in them the favoring of government lending and that of those that are deemed as less risky by the regulators, those with AAA ratings, when compared to bank lending to ordinary citizens, small businesses and entrepreneurs… is this not a de-facto corruption? A fait accompli corruption?