First of all they used game theory.
Second of all they say corruption is necessary because "law enforcers often need a little extra incentive to devote their time to holding society together, and that takes the form of mild noncooperation."
Instead of corruption we could simply integrate that "extra incentive" into the system so it wouldn't even BE corruption
Third, the article is making clear cynical assumptions about human society. Namely that humans cannot hold it together. That it takes some elite group of people entitled to certain privileges to hold things together. It's very reminiscent of Animal Farm when the pigs made the argument they should receive more since they hold everything together and such I suppose.
I might be a little fuzzy in my explanation, if so just ask for elaboration.


