Countries are poor because governments are corrupt. Unless they ensure that public resources are not stolen and that public power is not used for private gain, they are set to remain poor, right?
It certainly is tempting to believe so. Here, after all, is a narrative that neatly aligns the promise of prosperity with the struggle against injustice. As Pope Francis said on his recent trip to Latin America: “Corruption is the moth, the gangrene of a people.”
The corrupt deserve to be “tied to a rock and cast into the sea,” he said.
Perhaps they do. However, that would not necessarily make their countries more prosperous.
Consider the data. Probably the best measure of corruption is the World Bank’s Control of Corruption Indicator, which has been published since 1996 for more than 180 countries. The indicator shows that while rich countries tend to be less corrupt than poor ones, countries that are relatively less corrupt, for their levels of development, such as Ghana, Costa Rica, or Denmark, do not grow any faster than others.
Nor do countries that improve their scores, such as Zambia, Macedonia, Uruguay or New Zealand, grow faster.
By contrast, the World Bank’s Government Effectiveness Indicator suggests that countries that given their income levels, have relatively effective governments or improve their performance, do tend to grow faster.
For some reason — probably related to the nature of what New York University professor Jonathan Haidt calls our “righteous minds” — our moral sentiments are strongly related to feelings of empathy in the face of harm and unfairness. It is easier to mobilize against injustice than for justice.
We are more enthusiastic to fight the bad — for example hunger and poverty — than to fight for, say, the kind of growth and development that makes food and sustainable livelihoods plentiful.
Sometimes switching from the “bad” to the corresponding “good” is simply a matter of semantics: To fight against racism is to fight for nondiscrimination. However, in the case of corruption, which is a bad that is caused by the absence of a good, attacking the bad is very different from creating the good.
The good is a capable state: A bureaucracy that can protect the country and its people, keep the peace, enforce rules and contracts, provide infrastructure and social services, regulate economic activity, credibly enter into intertemporal obligations and tax society to pay for it all.
It is the absence of a capable state that causes corruption — the inability to prevent public officials, often in collusion with other members of society, from subverting decision-making for private gain — as well as poverty and backwardness.
Some observers might argue that reducing corruption entails the creation of a capable state; the good is created out of the fight against the bad. However, is it?
Teachers and nurses often do not show up for work, but that does not mean that the institution’s performance would improve much if they did. Policemen might stop asking for bribes, but that would not make them any better at catching criminals or preventing crime. Curtailing side-payments does not imply the ability to manage concession contracts or collect taxes.
Apart from prosecuting some bad apples, measures to fight corruption typically involve reforming procurement rules, public financial-management systems and anti-corruption legislation. The underlying assumption is that the new rules, unlike the previous rules, would be enforced.
That has not been Uganda’s experience. In 2009, under pressure from the aid community, the government enacted what was billed at the time as the best anti-corruption legislation in the world and yet all corruption indicators have continued moving south.
Uganda is not an exception. My colleague at Harvard University, associate professor Matt Andrews, has documented the failure of public financial management reforms designed to prevent graft. In addition, the reasons for these failures are not specific to financial management.
All organizations need to be perceived as legitimate. They can create this perception by actually performing the function for which they were created, which is difficult. Alternatively, they can borrow from the natural world a strategy called isomorphic mimicry: Just as non-poisonous snakes evolve to resemble a poisonous species, organizations can make themselves look like institutions in other places that are perceived as legitimate.
This is what the anti-corruption agenda often ends up stimulating: the creation of organizations that are more obsessed with abiding by the new and burdensome processes than they are with achieving their stated goals.
As Harvard University academics Lant Pritchett, Michael Woolcock and Andrews have said, when inept organizations adopt “best practices,” such as financial management systems and procurement rules, they become too distracted by decision-distorting protocols to do what they were established to do.
As academic Francis Fukuyama has said, the development of a capable state that is accountable and ruled by law is one of the crowning achievements of human civilization. It involves the creation of a shared sense of “us,” an imagined community on whose behalf the state acts.
This is not an easy task when societies are deeply divided by ethnicity, religion, or social status. After all, who is the state for? All Iraqis or just the Shiites among them? All Kenyans or just the Kikuyu? What is to prevent the ethnic group currently in power from diverting resources to itself on the argument that “it is our turn to eat?”
Why should those currently in control of the state not transform it into their patrimony, as in Venezuela, where, more than two years after former president Hugo Chavez’s death, his daughters still occupy the presidential residence?
The fight against corruption mobilizes all of us because we want to do away with evil and injustice. However, we should remember that casting the bad into the sea does not imply the sudden appearance on our shores of the good that we need.
Ricardo Hausmann is a professor of economics at Harvard University, where he is also director of the Center for International Development.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.