A new agreement to combat bribery of public officials in international business dealings has made its own fight more difficult, according to a UC Davis professor who studies white-collar crime. Michael W. Maher, an associate dean of the Graduate School of Management, says the convention's failure to define a bribe will confuse companies trying to comply and will help others practicing bribery to avoid detection. The agreement, signed by the 29 member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and five others, depends on the participating countries to define a bribe as they write their own laws. It took effect Monday. Maher says the crime is difficult to detect, especially when intermediaries are used. "A lot of corruption cases are brought to light by whistle-blowers," he says. "But without a definition, how do you even know what constitutes a bribe?" For example, does hosting an influential official at a resort constitute a bribe? Does making a $5,000 payment to an official's campaign fund or favorite charity? What about paying $1,000 to a customs official to expedite a shipment? Except in clearly specified cases, Maher says, any payment to any government official to influence action should be illegal. He says the United States' Foreign Corrupt Practices Act also lacks an explicit definition of bribery. The U.S. Department of Justice has prosecuted only a handful of companies under the 1977 act, he adds. Maher has published on the economics of bribery, the effect of the U.S. bribery act on U.S. exports, and changes to companies' internal controls implemented following bribery scandals in the 1970s.