Corruption from unbalanced research. I think it's a bad mechanic - What do you guys think?

I think it's both bad from a roleplay/realism and from a gameplay perspective.

First, unbalanced research is often the main source of corruption for me. While I like the idea of corruption being simulated, I think it isn't all that interesting in game. (Spending money to magically remove it is one issue I have with it. Yes, spending money should help, but just spending money?) Besides that it is very strange that a more efficient administration would suddenly cause that same administration to be corrupt. Why shouldn't Prussia for example have a really good military and efficient administration but less developed trade and navy (DIPL tech)? That sounds totally fine to me, but in game it causes everyone to be corrupt.

Second, being behind in tech should be bad in itself. Why am I being punished for not teching something I don't need? I like giving players choices, and there should be a tradeoff. If I want to neglect navy and trade and the other benefits of dipl tech for most of the game, why can't I?

These are just my thoughts, what do you guys think?