Positive corruption can lead to growth

A trader counts money. Several countries in Asia have continued to grow rapidly at a time when corruption was rife and cronyism common. FILE 

By MARVIN SISSEY

In Summary

• What discourages investment is not so much graft as uncertainty and unpredictability.

• Positive corruption can lead to growth

A story is told of an African governor who visited his American counterpart and was amazed at the host’s high class residence.

“How did you manage to construct such a high-end property with such a pittance of a salary?” he asked. The US governor smiled and invited him to his balcony and pointed to a bridge across a river near his house.

“You see that bridge?” The African governor nodded in affirmative. “Five per cent.” No more was said and they sat down to proceed with their meeting.

A few years later and it was the African governor playing reverse hospitality. The US governor was taken aback to learn that his African counterpart’s abode was even more splendid than his own.

“How did you manage to put up such a beautiful mansion on your equally small salary?” It was his turn to pose the question. His host held his hand and walked him to the balcony besides an Olympic sized swimming pool.

Greed

He then asked him, “You see that bridge on that river?” The US governor saw the river alright, but no bridge. “No, I can’t see any bridge,” he responded. “Yes, I know. 100 per cent!”

I use this story to demonstrate that probably corruption in itself is not inherently damaging if the trappings of greed are better managed.

By all means, a five per cent intake and 95 per cent delivery of the project should be viewed as a more pragmatic view compared to a 100 per cent misappropriation and no deliverables to show for it.

In a way, this was seen as the sole differentiating factor between corruption in past regimes. While both eras were corrupt, one was more mild than the predecessor’s.

While we can use a Chinese made bridge constructed (95 per cent delivery), no gold can be traced in the infamous Goldenberg scandal (zero per cent delivery); and while at that, no bridge either.

One can thus argue that those eating in one regime probably did so more out of need (maybe because they had been out of government for quite a while) while those doing so during the other era were simply plain greedy — eating beyond their needs.

That economic growth climaxed at seven per cent just before the 2008 post election violence is evidence that with some level of contained corruption growth is feasible. Indeed development took place despite corruption.

Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index 2013 best summarises our shared negative feelings about the vice.

‘‘Bribes and backroom deals don’t just steal resources from the most vulnerable — they undermine justice and economic development and destroy public trust in leaders.’’