> The size and scope of a government is not what makes bad performers perform badly. It's bad people combined with bad policies. How bad is a different topic (there is no absolute 'badness', but there are definitely differences).

The larger the size and scope, the more opportunity there is for bad actors. More cracks to slip through. More tills to dip into.

It’s not the factor that makes a person corrupt, but the bigger the government, the more room there is for more corrupt people.

As you increase the number of samples, you reduce the variance. So a small government of, say, 1 person, can either be 100% corrupt or 100% pure, but a larger government would approach the population level of corruption in expectation. Why is a larger governance with each individual holding less power less desirable than fewer individuals holding more power?

By the same token, bigger government allows more room for oversight and principled actors to dilute the effects of the unscrupulous ones.

As others here have alluded to, our problem is quality, not quantity.

But you're ignoring other variable affected by the size of government.

I also want to point out the various dictatorship that have bankrupted countries. Sadam Hussain, various kings and queens over time , etc

So you can't prove that a smaller government would be less corrupt