This column is either four months too late or three months too early, depending on if you are looking at last year’s general election or this year’s government budget announcement.

Nevertheless, it is always a fortuitous time to put the spotlight on the corrupt vein running through the heart of every democracy: bribing the public with its own money.

This was underscored recently in Hong Kong where Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun-wah announced the government would be opening its purse to splash out on a range of public-focused spending measures.

These are reliably believed to include a one-time tax rebate (capped at $NZ1700) and a waiver on property rates, while permanent relief included lifting the tax allowance for parents by 15% per child.

In all, the $3.5 billion in extra spending is aimed at boosting the sluggish Hong Kong economy.

But you don’t have to be a cynical observer to guess at another motive for the move, particularly in light of the protracted Occupy Central protests that paralysed sections of the city’s financial district late last year.

At their height, the protests saw tens of thousands of disaffected citizens take to the streets to protest Beijing’s decision not to allow Hong Kong citizens to elect their political leaders by popular vote.

The state’s initial response was to come down hard, a move that eventually wore the protestors down but only after weeks of bad publicity that severely bruised the city’s international reputation.

Now the city’s leaders, no doubt influenced by their masters in Beijing, are taking a leaf out of the book of Western democracies and choosing to bribe the populace.

Worse yet, it looks to be a poorly thought out bribe. The salary rebate is more likely to accrue to the wealthier side of the earnings scale, as are the property rates holiday and increased tax deductibility of children, since these are luxuries that only the well-off can afford.

Meanwhile, the measures do little for the general populace, which is struggling with increasing costs of living in one of the most expensive housing markets in the world. Perhaps it is a good thing for members of the political elite that there isn’t universal suffrage because they would soon be voted out.

New Zealand is not immune to the idea of bribing the populace.

The interest-free student loan scheme that was introduced in 2005 is a case in point, securing then Prime Minister Helen Clark a third term in office. Rumours still swirl around Wellington’s beltway as to how the policy came about but by any rational analysis it appears to be as thoroughly thought out as Hong Kong’s budgetary bribe.

As previously noted by the Initiative’s head of research, Dr Eric Crampton, this has put the government doubly on the hook for both public tuition costs (subsidies paid to universities) and private tuition costs (in the form of waived interest costs over the period between borrowing and repayment).

It has further hamstrung the ability of tertiary institutions to lift fees, since any increases would hit the government’s budget twice (the funding model has since been changed but this has invited its own set of problems). And let us not even mention the deluge of graduates that come out the other end, equipped with low-paying qualifications like a journalism degree* and $40,000 education loans.

Perhaps most diabolical of all, the Clark government has effectively hung a policy millstone around the neck of every future government because it is unlikely that any politician would ever be willing to spend the political capital necessary to end the interest-free student loan scam … I mean scheme.

It is in effect a bribe the taxpayer has to keep on paying even after the dividends have been reaped by policymakers long ago.

Labour’s 2013 policy to restructure the electricity market under a single buyer certainly seems to qualify as a bribe, particularly as it was pitched as a $300 yearly saving for everyday households.

It also had the benefit of pouring sand into National’s partial privatisation plans but it does not detract from the fact that it would have substantially disrupted a sector of the economy that is the envy of many parts of the world – another millstone that taxpayers would eventually have to wear. Thankfully, the scheme collapsed under its own complexity.

Prime Minister John Key’s commitment to returning the government’s books to surplus and pay down debt has restrained the National Party from dipping too deeply into the public purse in recent years but that does not mean his party is immune to the allure of bribery.

Ahead of the September election, Mr Key dangled a huge carrot in front of the public by introducing the KiwiSaver HomeStart grant. This allowed would-be buyers to increase their retirement savings drawdown to purchase a home and doubled a government grant to $20,000 if the home was newly built.

This policy fails to materially tackle the real issue in housing – the lack of supply – and could arguably make the situation worse by allowing even more money to chase a limited stock of houses, especially in Auckland.

Indeed, parties of all stripes can be expected to continue offering electoral bribes because they know the public will bite in a tragedy of the commons fashion (the theory that self-interested individuals behave contrary to the best interests of the whole group).

Furthermore, given the delay between promise and implementation, it is doubtful that many of the promisers will still be in office when the flaws in their policy become operationally obvious.

Is there anything that can be done? After all, what separates a real policy promise from a bribe and who is to judge the difference?

One way is to introduce mandatory sunset clauses; legislative provisions that set the conditions under which a policy to be repealed, either because conditions have changed or the stated aims have or have not been met.

Evidence of these clauses was most recently seen in the special housing areas legislation. The bill is either a means of providing some mechanism to speed home building while reforms occur elsewhere, or an exercise in applying a plaster to a gaping wound, depending on your view. Either way, the accords automatically get repealed after a period of time.

These devices ensure bad policy gets pruned out of the system, without the need for major reform, and good laws get regularly reviewed and updated. The bonus for the taxpayer is that they don’t have to keep paying a bribe for eternity.

This is something to consider as politicians polish up their promises every three years ahead of a general or local election. But it is also an important consideration in the May budget month, the traditional period when politicians swell with the spirit of generosity inspired by telling you how much of your money they’re going to spend (some of it potentially on you).