Let consider such a statement:

The world is paying the price of corrupted governments.

Do you think it is consistent?

I ask because it seems as there is something missing there, as, for example, 'actions' or 'policy' after 'governments' — in the lack of them that statement appears improperly broken.

  • Can you include the source of the sentence? Did you write it yourself? We have to know full context to see whether it is consistent with anything.
    – user24743
    Jan 6, 2016 at 16:01
  • 1
    First of all, there is no harm in saying that you wrote the sentence yourself or found it somewhere i.e. in a newspaper/internet article or book. . Second, corrupted government is not idiomatic compared with corrupt government, third paying the price of is not idiomatic compared with paying the price for if government (action or policy) is the cause of the price.
    – user24743
    Jan 6, 2016 at 16:36
  • 1
    Both paying the price of and paying the price for are in common usage, although as a native speaker I think paying the price for sounds better.
    – stangdon
    Jan 6, 2016 at 16:50
  • 1
    @stangdon If you contrast "He paid the price of his life" with "He paid the price for his life", the meaning is different.
    – user24743
    Jan 6, 2016 at 16:59
  • 2
    Either can be used in the sense of "We have corrupt government, and now we are paying the price." For example, "...they paid the price of not doing the right thing" and "They paid the price for their lack of trust in God".
    – stangdon
    Jan 6, 2016 at 17:14

2 Answers 2


Presumably a corrupt government imposes costs on people. There are literal financial costs, money lost to bribery and cronyism. And there are costs in freedom, justice, and so on.

Yes, you could say "the actions of corrupt governments" or "the policies of corrupt governments. But it's not necessary, and wouldn't really change the meaning of the sentence. The government is corrupt, and this corruption causes problems that the world must deal with.

As others have noted, it is more idiomatic to say "corrupt governments" than "corrupted governments". It is possible that the writer is making some distinction in context. "Corrupt" means that it is corrupt now, with no indication of past state. "Corrupted" implies that at one time it was not corrupt, but now it has become corrupt. This may or may not be a significant distinction, depending on the overall context.


I think you are trying to say that corrupted governments exact a burden upon society:

The world is paying for the price of corrupted governments
The world is paying for corrupted governments
The world is paying a heavy price by having corrupt governments

all have the same meaning of a toll on the world

The world is paying the price of corrupted governments.

Does not sound quite right, though would be understandable.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .