For instance: "A study of research papers examining the side-effects of a class of heart drugs called calcium channel blockers found that 96% of the researchers who said they were safe had financial relationships with the manufacturers, as opposed to 37% of those who raised concerns. "
Although I was reading The Collapse of Complex Societies which pointed out that corruption occurs so frequently in complex societies, that for all intents it's part of the cost of complexity.
The author did point out a detail which I suspect is true. Free market ideologues love to point out the inefficiencies of government, but I had never heard of an actual evaluation of the efficiency of corporations. The theoretical efficiency of the market is provided as a justification with corporations are inherently more efficient.
However, in 1956 Bendix compiled efficiency measures for industry in several nations.
He was able to show that a pattern of increasing hierarchical specialization characterizes the private sector as strongly as Parkinson has demonstrated for the public. Clearly the private sector, where economic success depends on efficiency, this pattern cannot be attributed to self-serving inefficiency. The reason why complex organizations must allocate ever larger portions of their personnel and other resources to administration is because increased complexity requires greater quantities of information processing and greater integration of disparate parts.(The Collapse of Complex Societies</a>, pg 107)
As any organization gets larger, an increasingly large fraction of its resources are spent on administration instead of productive work.
It seems like eliminating government sponsored work in a capitalist society provides new opportunities for corruption to take root. Of course socialist countries also rife with opportunities for corruption. The ideal case seems to be some form of separation of powers where the different groups check each other.