I tend to disagree completely with your premise, but it may be that we define “corruption” in different ways.
I think, for example, that a lot of our systems are skewed to produce results of a kind that are detrimental to our own and our companies’ long term survival and best interest. For example, a CEO whose bonus is based upon short term increases in stock price will naturally seek to increase the value / price of his stock in the short term. That may not be a good long-term measure of company success, however, especially if the executive feels his job to be in jeopardy in the shorter term, so he may jettison long term spending and investment plans to boost stock price “now” at the expense of future earnings.
There are a lot of “perverse incentives” like this built into our society. Many police departments obtain increased federal funding for increases in “drug-related” arrests and convictions, so it should be no surprise that “drug crime” increases (as evidenced by increased numbers in arrest and conviction records), asset forfeitures to police departments increase, enabling additional hiring and perpetuation of the cycle.
As for bankers, when the federal rules that prevented them from “red-lining” localities that gave them poor experience with lending intersected with additional federal guarantees of loan repayment, and lenders are already rewarded with “origination fees” and regular interest payments, is it any wonder that lending increased past the point of sanity? “Perverse incentive” is a “corruption equivalent”.