If there is corruption in the process (and there is), it is not caused by the act of private entities participating in the process. Ask yourself, if the process was 100% government would there still be corruption? Yes. Frankly, you use corruption as a red herring.
Furthermore, if you want to reduce the level of corruption in government, you need to increase the participation of the private sector. Ask yourself again, if you want to build a bridge, will there be more fraud/waste if the government's role is increased or decreased? Meaning that, would you rather have the steel produced in a government-owned mill and shipped on government trucks to be assembled by government workers, or the other way around?
Ronald Reagan (and Margaret Thatcher before him) had the right idea about privatizing certain functions that governments need not perform. You are arguing that (in order to avoid corruption, etc.) we cannot afford to have any functions performed by anyone (or anything) but the government.
Corruption is a red herring? LOL that statement takes the cake!
As a “free trader” you defend PPPs, and promoe trade with and empower communists who run slave labor factories. Apparently here is nothing corrupt that you WON’T defend.