First, there may be monopolistic or oligopolistic situations, in which one or a handful of companies control a given market. The State may wish to engage private companies to perform specific tasks or public works or provide services. To the extent that only a very small number of companies can practically carry out the work, the ground is fertile for corrupt practices (such as overcharging, providing low-quality work or delivering the work late). Such a condition obtains, for example, in the field of defence pro jects. Indeed, with regard to defence projects oligopolistic conditions may be desired: no one wishes to see the proliferation of certain types of weaponry or technology that affect both national and international security. In this field, then, it is warranted to devote special attention to transactions and to have special bodies overseeing them. In other cases, oligopolies may be created by rules requiring specific conditions that companies must meet for eligibility or may be introduced by rules dictating preferential treatment for some companies (for example, domestic versus foreign. Analytically the same type of situation arises when a party or regime monopolizes power and decision-making for very long periods. Secondly, very wide discretionary powers in the hands of individuals or organizations can generate temptations and motives for corrupt practices. Whenever there are few or no mechanisms of checks and balances, people will have plenty of opportunities to take undue advantage of their power. Examples of this corrupt -inducing situation are found in authoritarian regimes where powers are concentrated in the hands of very few persons. Another example is the power conferred to people with extremely specialized skills and knowledge. By definition, there are not too many of them, and therefore their powers are to a large extent unchecked. Again, the defence industry may be a concrete illustration of this situation. Additional examples of such a risk can be found in the field of physics, medicine. etc Thirdly, lack of transparency reduces the ability to control those in positions of authority. The lack of transparency may be caused by factors ranging from the banking secrecy to dictatorial regimes disallowing the questioning of authority. The same problem arises as a result of rare and specialized skills and knowledge If a given public work or special warship entails such complex and incomprehensible details that only a few individuals can understand the whole pro ject, transparency i effectively lacking. Whenever regulations of a particular sector are unclear, ambiguous and technically complicated, reporters, the public and lay persons may be completely unable to exercise effective control.First, there may be monopolistic or oligopolistic situations, in which one or a handful of companies control a given market. The State may wish to engage private companies to perform specific tasks or public works or provide services. To the extent that only a very small number of companies can practically carry out the work, the ground is fertile for corrupt practices (such as overcharging, providing low-quality work or delivering the work late). Such a condition obtains, for example, in the field of defence projects. Indeed, with regard to defence projects, oligopolistic conditions may be desired: no one wishes to see the proliferation of certain types of weaponry or technology that affect both national and international security. In this field, then, it is warranted to devote special attention to transactions and to have special bodies overseeing them. In other cases, oligopolies may be created by rules requiring specific conditions that companies must meet for eligibility, or may be introduced by rules dictating preferential treatment for some companies (for example, domestic versus foreign). Analytically, the same type of situation arises when a party or regime monopolizes power and decision-making for very long periods. Secondly, very wide discretionary powers in the hands of individuals or organizations can generate temptations and motives for corrupt practices. Whenever there are few or no mechanisms of checks and balances, people will have plenty of opportunities to take undue advantage of their power. Examples of this corrupt-inducing situation are found in authoritarian regimes where powers are concentrated in the hands of very few persons. Another example is the power conferred to people with extremely specialized skills and knowledge. By definition, there are not too many of them, and therefore their powers are to a large extent unchecked. Again, the defence industry may be a concrete illustration of this situation. Additional examples of such a risk can be found in the field of physics, medicine, etc. Thirdly, lack of transparency reduces the ability to control those in positions of authority. The lack of transparency may be caused by factors ranging from the banking secrecy to dictatorial regimes disallowing the questioning of authority. The same problem arises as a result of rare and specialized skills and knowledge. If a given public work or special warship entails such complex and incomprehensible details that only a few individuals can understand the whole project, transparency is effectively lacking. Whenever regulations of a particular sector are unclear, ambiguous and technically complicated, reporters, the public and lay persons may be completely unable to exercise effective control