Corruption is not a uniquely African phenomenon, Africans simply took it to a higher level

Anup Shah.

Corruption is both a major cause and a result of poverty around the world. It occurs at all levels of society, from local and national governments, civil society, judiciary functions, large and small businesses, military and other services and so on. Corruption affects the poorest the most, in rich or poor nations, though all elements of society are affected in some way as corruption undermines political development, democracy, economic development, the environment, people’s health and more.

The issue of corruption is very much inter-related with other issues. At a global level, the “international” (Washington Consensus-influenced) economic system that has shaped the current form of globalization in the past decades requires further scrutiny for it has also created conditions whereby corruption can flourish and exacerbate the conditions of people around the world who already have little say about their own destiny. At a national level, people’s effective participation and representation in society can be undermined by corruption, while at local levels, corruption can make day to day lives more painful for all affected.
A difficult thing to measure or compare, however, is the impact of corruption on poverty versus the effects of inequalities that are structured into law, such as unequal trade agreements, structural adjustment policies, so-called “free” trade agreements and so on. It is easier to see corruption. It is harder to see these other more formal, even legal forms of “corruption.” It is easy to assume that these are not even issues because they are part of the laws and institutions that govern national and international communities and many of us will be accustomed to it—it is how it works, so to speak. That is not to belittle the issue of corruption, however, for its impacts are enormous too.

Rich Countries Involved In Corruption Abroad
When asking why poor countries are poor, it is quite common to hear, especially in wealthier countries that are perceived to have minimal corruption (at least domestically) that other countries are poor because of corruption. Yet, corruption is not something limited to third world despots. Rich countries too have been involved in corrupt practices around the world.
As Professor Robert Neild from Trinity College, Cambridge University writes in Public Corruption; The Dark Side of Social Evolution (London: Anthem Press, 2002), “Rich countries and their agencies … commonly have been and are accomplices in corruption abroad, encouraging it by their actions rather than impeding it….” (p.209). Specific problems he highlights include:
• The impact of Cold War corruption (supporting dictatorships, destabilizing democracies, funding opposition, etc);
• Firms from rich countries bribing rulers and officials from developing countries to gain export contracts, particularly in the arms trade and in construction (even justifying it by suggesting bribery is “customary” in those countries, so they need to do it to, in order to compete);
• The “corruption-inducing effects of the purchase, by the rich countries and their international corporations, of concessions in Third World countries to exploit natural deposits of oil, copper, gold, diamonds and the like.” Payments made to rulers often violate local (and Western) rules, keeping corrupt rulers in power, who also embezzle a lot of money away.
• The drug trade. Neild suggests that international law and national laws in rich countries that prohibit drugs may serve to “produce a scarcity value irresistible to producers, smugglers and dealers.” Governments and civil society in the third world are often “undermined, sometimes destroyed” by the violence and corruption that goes with the drug trade. “This is probably the most important way in which the policies of rich countries foster corruption and violence. Yet the effect on the Third World seems scarcely to enter discussion of alternative drug policies in the rich countries.” Legalizing drugs, a system of taxation and regulation, comparable to that applied to tobacco and alcohol might do more to reduce corruption in the world than any other measure rich countries could take, he suggests. (See this site’s section on illicit drugs for more on that aspect.)
Rich countries have been used to it, too:
Bribery may be pervasive, but it is difficult to detect. Many Western companies do not dirty their own hands, but instead pay local agents, who get a 10 per cent or so “success fee” if a contract goes through and who have access to the necessary “slush funds” to ensure that it does. Bribery is also increasingly subtle.… Until recently, bribery was seen as a normal business practice. Many countries including France, Germany and the UK treated bribes as legitimate business expenses which could be claimed for tax deduction purposes.

A Cold War Legacy: The Curse Of Natural Resources; Inviting Corruption
Professor Neild is worth quoting at extensive length on the impacts the Cold War had in terms of encouraging or exacerbating corruption in the developing countries:
Many Western covert and overt military operation were motivated, in part at least, by the view, which may have been fearfully exaggerated, that the West’s supplies of raw materials and oil were threatened by communist intrusion into Third World countries. A feeling of vulnerability was understandable. The Soviet Union … was largely self-sufficient …; the West, in need of increasing supplies for its growing industrial production, depended heavily on imports from Third World countries…. Western governments used diplomacy plus overt and covert military operations to counter the Communists. Meanwhile western firms paid rulers to obtain concessions to extract oil and minerals.

The business of obtaining oil and mineral concessions has aways been conducive to the use of bribes, omissions, gifts, and favors, and remains so since there are huge “rents” (i.e. windfall profits) to be shared by the parties to a deal…. Third World governments rarely use auctions [for concession, which, when done honestly, removes the opportunity for buyers to bribe sellers]. They commonly sell concessions by negotiation. For which there are some good reasons. It is often necessary for the foreign company that buys a concession to build infrastructure, such as ports, pipelines, roads and dormitory towns for their staff; to make this worthwhile, a whole oil field or major mineral deposit has to be given to one foreign company, rather than split between many competitors; and that one company, which will become the source of a significant, perhaps dominant, part of the nation’s revenue, will acquire substantial economic power vis-à-vis the government. Hence strategic and diplomatic consideration enter the calculation: the government will want to give the concession to a company backed by a government which it believes will be helpful to it in its international relations—and in supplying it with arms and mercenaries. But …. there is [also] the prospect of bribes. Those who run a government that has a concession to sell will know that negotiation creates a strong incentive to the potential buyers to offer them bribes: they will know this from the point of view of the buyers, a sum that will only add a small percentage to, say, a billion dollar deal, will be worth paying in order to win the concession. Once negotiation is adopted as the means of allocating concessions, the dominant incentive is for bidders to engage competitively in the bribery of local rulers and fixers.

But Neild feels that this same attitude has affected rich countries’ domestic political behavior, too. Of particular concern to Neild in this is
the apparent tendency for bribery, which is intense in the business of seeking resource concession and selling arms, to become a secret habit of western firms and politicians that infects their domestic political behavior. Of this there has been considerable evidence in scandals that have occurred recently in Britain, France and Germany…. Le Monde published an outspoken editorial commenting on the [French company, Elf Aquitaine, corruption] affair:
For too long French policy in Africa has been neither moral nor effective.
… It would be wrong to deny that corruption is indispensable in the obtaining of drilling concession, though that does not mean that one should not try to stop it. M. Tarallo [a senior Elf Manager] is unfortunately right when he says that all petrol companies use it… But the sins of others do not absolve Elf. Added to which … Elf has used its money to keep in power dictators whose principle aim has been not the development of their country but their personal enrichment. In exchange, Paris could count on their support in its diplomatic battles and could offer captive markets to French firms…
This “neo-colonialism” was put in place during the presidency of General de Gaulle and has been maintained by subsequent governments regardless of party…
Looked at today the picture is not glorious. A former colonial power has taught corruption to its African clients—who were willing pupils—and there is nothing to persuade us that they have not rewarded their friends in Paris…
… In one case at least, lack of natural resources has apparently been an incentive to anticorruption policies: the tough ruler of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, is reported to have said that he came down hard on the corrupt because his tiny country with no natural resources has to rely on its good name to remain a center of banking and technology.

Globalization, Multinational Corporations, And Corruption
Corruption scandals that sometimes make headline news in Western media can often be worse in developing countries. This is especially the case (as the previous link argues) when it is multinational companies going into poorer countries to do business. The international business environment, encouraged by a form of globalization that is heavily influenced by the wealthier and more powerful countries in the world makes it easier for multinationals to make profit and even for a few countries to benefit. However, some policies behind globalization appear to encourage and exacerbate corruption as accountability of governments and companies have been reduced along the way. For example,
For multinationals, bribery enables companies to gain contracts (particularly for public works and military equipment) or concessions which they would not otherwise have won, or to do so on more favorable terms. Every year, Western businesses pay huge amounts of money in bribes to win friends, influence and contracts. These bribes are conservatively estimated to run to US$80 billion a year—roughly the amount that the UN believes is needed to eradicate global poverty.
Dr Hawley also lists a number of impacts that multinationals’ corrupt practices have on the “South” (another term for Third World, or developing countries), including:
• They undermine development and exacerbate inequality and poverty.
• They disadvantage smaller domestic firms.
• They transfer money that could be put towards poverty eradication into the hands of the rich.
• They distort decision-making in favor of projects that benefit the few rather than the many.
• They also
◦ Increase debt;
◦ Benefit the company, not the country;
◦ Bypass local democratic processes;
◦ Damage the environment;
◦ Circumvent legislation; and
◦ Promote weapons sales.
(See the previous report for detailed explanation on all these aspects.)
Back to top
IMF And World Bank Policies That Encourage Corruption
At a deeper level are the policies that form the backbone to globalization. These policies are often prescribed by international institutions such as the World Bank and IMF. For years, they have received sharp criticism for exacerbating poverty through policies such as Structural Adjustment, rapid deregulation and opening barriers to trade before poorer countries are economic ready to do so. This has also created situations ripe for corruption to flourish:
As Western governments and the World Bank and IMF shout ever more loudly about corruption, their own policies are making it worse in both North and South. Particularly at fault are deregulation, privatization, and structural adjustment policies requiring civil service reform and economic liberalization. In 1997, the World Bank asserted that:
any reform that increases the competitiveness of the economy will reduce incentives for corrupt behavior. Thus policies that lower controls on foreign trade, remove entry barriers to private industry, and privatize state firms in a way that ensure competition will all support the fight.
The Bank has so far shown no signs of taking back this view. It continues to claim that corruption can be battled through deregulation of the economy; public sector reform in areas such as customs, tax administration and civil service; strengthening of anti-corruption and audit bodies; and decentralization.
Yet the empirical evidence, much of it from the World Bank itself, suggests that, far from reducing corruption, such policies, and the manner in which they have been implemented, have in some circumstances increased it.
Jubilee Research (formerly the prominent Jubilee 2000 debt relief campaign organization) has similar criticisms, and is also worth quoting at length:

Rich country politicians and bank officials argue that because dictators like Marcos, Suharto, and Mobutu were kept in power with western arms and were given loans to squander on ill-judged and repressive schemes, that the people of those countries—who often fought valiantly against those dictators—cannot be trusted not to waste the money released by debt cancellation. This may seem confusing to people not familiar with the logic of the IMF and World Bank. In summary:
• Creditors colluded with, and gave loans to dictators they knew were corrupt and who would squander the money.
• Creditors gave military and political aid to those dictators—knowing arms might be used to suppress popular opposition
• Therefore, successor democratic governments and their supporters, who may have been victims of corruption and oppression, cannot be trusted.
To many people in the South, this seems irrational and illogical—the logic of blaming the victim. It is the logic of power rather than of integrity, and is used to benefit the rich rather than the poor in developing countries.
A similar logic argues that if the World Bank and government export credit agencies promoted inappropriate and unprofitable projects, then southern governments proved their inability to control money because they accepted the ill-advised projects in the first place. Thus, if money is released by debt cancellation, it must be controlled by agencies which promoted those failed projects.
This is the logic that says if people were stupid enough to believe cigarette advertising, then they are too stupid to take care of themselves and the “reformed” cigarette companies should be put in charge of their health care.
The same institutions who made the corrupt loans to Zaire and lent for projects in Africa that failed repeatedly are still in charge, but their role has been enhanced because of their success in pushing loans. Can we trust these institutions to suddenly only lend wisely; to not give loans when the money might be wasted?
Preventing new wasted loans and new debt crises, and ensuring that there is not another debt crisis, means that the people who pushed the loans and caused this crisis cannot be left in charge.
The creditors or loan pushers cannot be left in charge, no matter how heartfelt their protestations that they have changed. Pushers and addicts need to work together, to bring to an end the entire reckless and corrupt lending and borrowing habit.

And in terms of how lack of transparency by the international institutions contributes to so much corruption structured into the system, Hanlon and Pettifor continue in the same report as cited above:
Structural adjustment programs cover most of a country’s economic governance.
… The most striking aspect of IMF/World Bank conditionality [for aid, debt relief, etc] is that the civil servants of these institutions, the staff members, have virtual dictatorial powers to impose their whims on recipient countries. This comes about because poor countries must have IMF and World Bank programs, but staff can decline to submit programs to the boards of those institutions until the poor country accepts conditions demanded by IMF civil servants.

There is much talk of transparency and participation, but the crunch comes in final negotiations between ministers and World Bank and IMF civil servants The country manager can say to the Prime Minister, “unless you accept condition X, I will not submit this program to the board”. No agreed program means a sudden halt to essential aid and no debt relief, so few ministers are prepared to hold out. Instead Prime Ministers and presidents bow to the diktat of foreign civil servants. Joseph Stiglitz also notes that “reforms often bring advantages to some groups while disadvantaging others,” and one of the problems with policies agreed in secret is that a governing elite may accept an imposed policy which does not harm the elite but harms others. An example is the elimination of food subsidies.

As further detailed by Hanlon and Pettifor, Christian Aid partners (a coalition of development organizations), argued that top-down “conditionality has undermined democracy by making elected governments accountable to Washington-based institutions instead of to their own people.” The potential for unaccountability and corruption therefore increases as well.

Corruption Everywhere; Rich And Poor Countries, International Institutions
It goes without saying, almost, that corruption is everywhere. Corruption in poor countries is well commented on (sometimes used dismissively to explain away problems caused by other issues, too). It would be futile to provide examples here (see also the sources of information at the end of this document for more on this).
Rich countries, also suffer from corruption. Examples are also numerous and beyond the scope of this page to list them here. However, a few recent examples are worth mentioning because they are varied on the type of corruption involved, and are very recent, implying this is a massive problem in rich countries as well as poor.
The first example is the US government, accused of outsourcing many contracts without an open bid process. Jim Hightower notes that “An analysis by the Times found that more than half of their outsourcing contracts are not open to competition. In essence, the Bushites choose the company and award the money without getting other bids. Prior to Bush, only 21% of federal contracts were awarded on a no-bid basis.”
Another example is Italy, where former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and some of his close associates were held on trial for various crimes and corruption cases (though Berlusconi himself has not, to date, been found guilty of any charges). Many key teams in the massive Italian soccer league, Serie A were also found to be involved in a massive corruption ring.

In the United Kingdom, the arms manufacturer, BAE was being investigated for bribing Saudi officials to buy fighter planes, but the government intervened in the investigation citing national interests. The Guardian also reported that BAE gave a Saudi prince a £75 airliner ($150m approx) as part of a British arms deal, with the arms firm paying the expenses of flying it. This seemingly large figure is small compared to the overall deal, but very enticing for the deal makers, and it is easy to see how corruption is so possible when large sums are involved.
International institutions, such as the United Nations and World Bank have also recently come under criticism for corruption, ironically while presenting themselves in the forefront fighting against corruption.
The recent example with the UN has been the oil for food scandal, where the headlines were about the corruption in the UN. In reality, the figures of $21 billion or so of illicit funds blamed on the UN were exaggerations; it was $2 billion; it was the UN Security Council (primarily US and UK) responsible for much of the monitoring; US kickbacks for corrupt oil sales were higher, for example. (This is discussed in more detail on this site’s Iraq sanctions, oil for food scandal section.)
At the World Bank, headlines were made when its recent president, Paul Wolfowitz, was forced to resign after it was revealed he had moved his girlfriend to a new government post with an extremely high salary without review by its ethics committee.

Paul Wolfowitz’s appointment was also controversial, due to his influential role in architecting the US invasion of Iraq. A former member of staff at the World Bank also noted concerns of cronyism related to Wolfowitz’s appointment way before the scandal that forced him to resign.
The US nominee for the next president is the former US Trade Representative and currently an executive at Goldman Sachs, Robert Zoellick. His nomination is also coming under criticism. Bush supports it, saying Zoellick “is the right man to succeed Paul in this vital work.” Former World Bank chief economist, and Nobel Prize winner for economics, Joseph Stiglitz feels that instead of a political appointee, it would be better to get an economist who understands development.
As also reported by the BBC, Paul Zeitz, executive director of the Global AIDS Alliance, said that he thought Mr Zoellick was a terrible choice because “Zoellick has no significant experience in economic development in poor countries,” and that “he has been a close friend to the brand-name pharmaceutical industry, and the bilateral trade agreements he has negotiated [for the US] effectively block access to generic medication for millions of people.”

While the US typically gets its preferred nomination to head the World Bank, Europe has typically got its preferred person to head the IMF. Critics have long argued that this lacks transparency and is not democratic. While not illegal as such, it does feel like a form of corruption.

Tackling Corruption
What can be done to tackle this problem?
Strengthen Democracy’s Transparency Pillar
One of the pillars of democracy is transparency; knowing what goes on in society and being able to make informed decisions should improve participation and also check unaccountability.
The above-cited report by Hanlon and Pettifor also highlights a broader way to try and tackle corruption by attempting to provide a more just, democratic and transparent process in terms of relations between donor nations and their creditors:
Campaigners from around the world, but particularly the South, have called for a more just, independent, accountable and transparent process for managing relations between sovereign debtors and their public and private creditors.
An independent process would have five goals:
• to restore some justice to a system in which international creditors play the role of plaintiff, judge and jury, in their own court of international finance.
• to introduce discipline into sovereign lending and borrowing arrangements—and thereby prevent future crises.
• to counter corruption in borrowing and lending, by introducing accountability through a free press and greater transparency to civil society in both the creditor and debtor nations.
• to strengthen local democratic institutions, by empowering them to challenge and influence elites.
• to encourage greater understanding and economic literacy among citizens, and thereby empower them to question, challenge and hold their elites to account.

Address Weaknesses In The Global System
The Bretton Woods Project organization notes that the World Bank, under pressure of late, has suspended a number of loans due to concerns of corruption. These include loans to Chad, Kenya, Congo, India, Bangladesh, Uzbekistan, Yemen, and Argentina. The Bank has also started internal investigations of Bank corruption. However, “despite high-profile moves by president Paul Wolfowitz, the root causes of corruption—underpaid civil servants, an acceptance of bribery by big business, and dirty money—remain largely unaddressed.”
The Bretton Woods Project adds that the “normalization of petty corruption in developing countries has in part been driven by”
• IFI conditions;
• The aid industry for “overpaying consultants” and turning a blind eye to corruption in some regimes; and
• The “World Bank’s ‘pressure to lend’ culture where staff are rewarded for the volume of the portfolio they manage;”
• The World Bank’s slow pace in investigating and disbarring companies found guilty of corrupt practices such as bribery, fraud or malpractice;
• Failing to increase transparency of some of its own procedures;
• The IFI’s “central part of an international financial system which has both actively and tacitly supported the global proliferation of dirty money flows” including, for example, the financing of various despotic rulers that have siphoned off a lot of money to personal offshore accounts.
To help address these problems, the Bretton Woods Project suggests a few steps:
• Greater transparency of World Bank processes, allowing greater visibility for elected officials and civil society in recipient countries;
• Strengthening internal mechanisms within the Bank itself, to monitor integrity of Bank functions, and allow truly independent audits of Bank operations;
• Minimum standards in governance, transparency and human rights that must be fulfilled before approving oil, gas and mining projects in institutionally weak countries.
• Not always tying loans with economic policy conditions in such a way that some governments surrender their policy-making space.
During the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development, the BBC broadcast a mini debate on globalization, poverty, and related issues, and had a panel of around 30 experts, from both the developing and rich countries. One person on that panel was Vandana Shiva, a vocal critic of the current form of globalization and its impact on the environment and people in the third world. She was asked why people should listen to concerns from the third world when they cannot sort out the rampant corruption first. Her answer was simple: rich countries need to stop dictating policies that encourage corruption in the first place.
Like Shiva, Professor Neild feels that the solution is philosophically simple. However, as Neild acknowledges, in reality it is far harder to do, due to the power interests involved:

It is hard to see how the international economic agencies and their member governments can introduce incentives that would cause corrupt rulers to [attack corruption]… Not only are the rich countries and their agencies in this respect impotent, they commonly have been and are accomplices in corruption abroad, encouraging it by their action rather than impeding it.
… It is hard to see any solution other than transparency and criticism. It would take an unprecedented degree of united dedication to the checking of corruption for the international community to agree that the oil and mining companies of the world should boycott corrupt regimes, somehow defined, let alone manage to enforce an agreement.
Improve Government Budget Transparency
A trusted government is more likely to result in a positive political and economic environment, which is crucial for developing countries, as well as already industrialized ones.

Budget transparency rankings 2010, IBP. (Click for larger view)
The International Budget Partnership (IBP) is an organization that looks at public budgets by governments around the world. Why is this important? Produced every 2 years, in October 2010, they released their 3rd Open Budget Survey report. These reports assess how transparent and accountable the budgetary process for a number of countries around the world (currently just under 100) and ranks them accordingly.
Their introduction (p.2) explained the growing importance of budget transparency:
• Experts have increasingly concluded that making budgets transparent and building adequate checks and balances into the budget process can enhance the credibility and prioritization of policy decisions, limit corrupt and wasteful spending, and facilitate access to international financial markets.
• Budget transparency has become central to a number of international development discourses, ranging from the financing of climate change mitigation, to country-level actions to meet international development commitments like the Millennium Development Goals, to accounting for the revenues from the sale of natural resources, and to examining the amount of international aid given to developing countries and how it is spent.
Of the 94 countries assessed, they had the following findings:
1 The overall state of budget transparency is poor. Only a modest minority of countries can be considered to have open budgets while a large number of countries provide grossly insufficient budget information.
2 The general trend toward open budgets is nonetheless favorable. Budget transparency is improving substantially, especially among countries that provided little information in the past.
3 Budget engagement by the audit institutions and the legislature is typically weak and is strongly correlated to the lack of budget information made available to these institutions and the public.
4 There are many simple steps to opening up budgets that governments are failing to undertake. Such steps can be taken by the executive branch, the legislature, and the supreme audit institutions alike.

In many cases, where budget documents were made public, essential information was often absent, or some of the documents remained internal. Those that performed poorly on their index were also low income, low democracy, and/or dependent on aid or oil revenues. On the plus side, the IBP found that some countries that fared very poorly in their earlier analysis fared much better this time, sometimes through the simple and cheap step of simply making their budget documents available on their web sites.
As such, the IBP recommended that all key budget documents which are already produced should be made available to the public, for free, while the authority, independence, and capacity of budget oversight institutions should be strengthened. The IBP also recommends strengthening the voice of the public as a complementary check and balance. They even called for a global norm on budget transparency to be established.
Make It Harder To Embezzle Billions
For years, stories of people embezzling millions — even billions — away to tax havens and other financial centers, have caused uproar, but little ever seems to have been done about it despite some various organizations and campaigns trying to highlight these deeper causes and potential solutions for many years. A lot of powerful interests of course are what has always made corruption so difficult to address.
In the wake of the global financial crisis that started in 2008, this issue has caught attention in the mainstream more than usual.

This site’s section on tax havens looks at this further, with links to other sites and organizations that are highlighting the issues further.
Lessons From The Past: Us’s New Deal In The 1930S
Another strategy for tackling corruption may come from history and seeing how the US “New Deal” in the 1930s help remove a lot of corruption.
Before 1932, the administration of public relief in the US was widely regarded as politically corrupt. Political opponents of the New Deal often complained about the use of relief for political purposes, but by 1940, these criticisms of corruption and political manipulation had diminished considerably.
How this happened was detailed in a paper titled Politics, Relief, and Reform; Roosevelt’s Efforts to Control Corruption and Political Manipulation during the New Deal by John Joseph Wallis of the University of Maryland, Price V. Fishback of the University of Arizona, and Shawn Kantor of the University of California at Merced.
The authors of the paper asked “New Deal reforms is often castigated as bureaucratic, but rarely corrupt. What changed? How did the country enter the Depression with a public welfare system riddled with political manipulation and emerge with one that was not?”
Our answer is straightforward. The president, Franklin Roosevelt, and other members of the executive branch gained little or nothing from the kinds of local corruption involved in public relief. But they stood to incur enormous losses if the New Deal relief program was perceived as politically manipulative and corrupt by the voting public. Roosevelt and the Democrats brought relief to millions of families every month, and the gratitude of relief recipients was Roosevelt’s political payoff.

Other politicians—senators, representatives, governors, and mayors—wanted to control relief and use it for political gain. They “maneuvered, manipulated, and cajoled to get their hands on a share of the billions spent each year on relief.” So what did Roosevelt do?
Although Roosevelt made substantial concessions to Congress and to state and local governments in the administration of relief, he sought to curb corruption at the state and local level by his influence over the discretionary allocation of relief funds, by establishing offices to investigate complaints of corruption, and, in the long run, by bureaucratizing the administration of public welfare.
During the New Deal, when the relief programs were reorganized to give the Roosevelt administration more control over the distribution of funds within states, it used that control to limit state and local political manipulation and increased the responsiveness of the allocation of funds within states to the high-minded goals of relief, recovery, and reform.

The authors stress that it wasn’t necessarily a superior morality that drove out this New Deal:
Politics was paramount in the structure of New Deal relief programs; it just turned out that the best political outcome meant a reduction in corruption at the state and local level. This does not mean that Roosevelt did not use the administration of relief for his own political ends. There is ample evidence that presidential politics mattered in the distribution of relief funds. Corruption by others was curbed because it was in Roosevelt’s political interest to see it curbed.

Direct Grassroots Action
As the effects of the 2008 global financial crisis are felt more and more, as food prices around the world increase, and other inter-related conditions get worse for many around the world, some of the resulting public unrest and disquiet is being channeled into anti-corruption concerns.
India, it seems, has had so much persistent corruption, that many are often resigned to it as a sad part of life.
Inter Press Service noted the extent of corruption in India:
In November 2010, the Washington-based Centre for International Policy said in a study that since it gained independence in 1947, India may have lost 452 billion dollars in illegal transfers abroad and estimated the current annual loss to be close to 20 billion dollars.
Julian Assange, founder of the non-profit media group WikiLeaks that collects and publishes classified government documents, provided more evidence in an interview given to the Times Now news channel on April 26. “There is more Indian money in Swiss banks than any other nationality,” Assange said.

However, recently a number of high profile corruption cases, such as the illegal award of contracts for the 2010 Commonwealth Games, and many more have flooded Indian mainstream press, and this time citizens are less reluctant to just accept it.
A strong growing anti-corruption movement has emerged, with people such as Anna Hazare capturing the imagination of many. Hazare, a 74 year old man has vowed to fast to death to see corruption tackled.
His non-violent civil disobedience has created a mass of followers many of whom liken his approach and struggle to that of the iconic independence leader, Gandhi. Some of the public protests against the governments attempt to weaken proposed anti corruption bills have seen hundreds of thousands gather and rally.

Against such a force, the government seems to have responded quite poorly and there is great hope among many in the country that maybe corruption will start to be addressed like never before:
As people across Indian cities and towns and villages rallied in support of Hazare, it was a warning to not just the centrally ruling Congress party but the entire political class that India’s civil society was truly fed up with their corrupt ways.
The conflict between the government and civil society is taking place as Asia’s third largest economy grapples with unprecedented levels of corruption that is said to be undermining the liberalisation-led growth of this nation. With political parties of all shades losing credibility, the field opened up for civil society to move in and Hazare’s campaign for a strong ombudsman gained extra power.

Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, a prominent commentator on political and economic affairs] added that rising food prices may have added to public ire. “India has a huge food inflation on top of corruption scandals. So naturally there is popular discontent that we see surfacing as mass support for Hazare’s movement.”
Nepal has also seen mass demonstrations, inspired by Hazare’s protests in India. Diverse groups such as former ministers, womens’s groups and students have held public fasts against corruption and pressed the new government on post-monarchy reforms. The protests have not appeared as dramatic in their effect as has been in India, perhaps because Nepal is just coming out of a long civil war. However, the inspiration is there to continue the protests as some promising developments have occurred.
Various organizations across numerous African countries are trying to come together to tackle an emerging trend of various African countries considering setting up off-shore tax havens, supposedly to kick-start their own financial sectors and streamline red-tape. Tax-havens are a major problem that can hide corruption and undermine democracies and is discussed more on this site’s section on tax havens.
Brazil is also seeing a rise in action against corruption. It is thought that corruption, which is deeply rooted in politics and economics in Brazil, is costing the economy some $43 billion a year. Inspired by the rise in protests in Spain following the effects of the 2008 global financial crisis on the country, many movements in Brazil have seen the rise accompanied by an explosion in use of social networks and technology to help organize and by-pass the institutionalized mainstream media avenues closed off for most citizens.
As an extremely severe global economic and financial crisis takes hold, corruption is likely to increase. Many governments are considering New Deal or Keynesian style macroeconomic policies to help stimulate their economies. It is perhaps a critical — or at least opportune — moment to renew efforts to tackle corruption. Some politicians may have honest intentions, while others (many others, it may seem), may not. In either case, the rewards for stamping out corruption would be significant.