Greg Forster thinks (at least I think he thinks) that the difference between rewards and bribes is purely semantic. But semantic distinctions are born to relate and describe real distinctions and degrees, no? Otherwise, we'd have but one word (briwards, maybe) for the concept in question. I argued that Michelle Rhee's KIPP-based justification of her plan to pay students to induce their good behavior overlooks several basic points, such as the real difference between KIPP Dollars and American dollars and that KIPP rewards its students for behavior it already expects while Rhee's plan bribes students to do that which they already should.
Forster doesn't understand the difference between KIPP's rewards and Rhee's bribes. I'll explain it again, but differently. Suppose: Iran refuses to cease its nuclear-weapons development despite the world's protestations. America therefore offers to give Iran $5 billion in annual aid and lift sanctions if the Islamic nation pulls the plug on nuclear dabbling. Behold--bribery! Now suppose Iran voluntarily ends nuclear-related nonsense and, for the most part, behaves itself. America then decides to lift sanctions and transfer funds to Tehran, but only so long as Tehran continues to play by the rules. Behold--a reward!
I could construct other analogies (e.g., the kid who gets $10 after he mows the lawn and the kid who only mows the lawn after he gets $10), but I think the difference is clear. Perhaps it isn't to economists, though, who often have a tough time fitting qualitative data into their charts. But there it is.
Update: Greg Forster writes me to say he is not an economist--he's a political scientist--and that he doesn't understand why so many mistake his profession. Perhaps he's just??so darn sensible that everyone who meets him??thinks, "That Forster must be an economist."??(One hopes he's not??so darn dismal as to induce a similar reaction!)