The causes of corruption are, as the World Bank noted last week, rooted in a country's policies, traditions, political development and social history. Bribery can be traced to many factors, including levels of civil service pay, and different societies will take different attitudes to officials on the take or businessmen who carve up contracts.
All that does not mean that corruption should be passively accepted as an inescapable part of life in many countries. Apart from its social effects, corruption is a great obstacle to economic efficiency: if you can buy a contract, why bother about putting in a competitive bid or developing new industrial methods or making sure that you keep to your contract? It is, therefore, all to the good that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are stepping up their efforts to combat corruption. The effort is a matter for individual governments. But the Bank and IMF can play a powerful role in encouraging national authorities to take effective action, and in ensuring that the funds they provide are used in the most efficient manner.
If few would disagree with the worldwide nature of the need to fight corruption, there is a potentially major stumbling block in the form of national sensitivities. While in Hong Kong, World Bank president James Wolfensohn warned that if the Bank found corruption in projects it financed 'then that project is finished, people are blacklisted and they'd better watch out.' Though the Bank did not mention any names, Kenya is believed to have been one place where it has had to insist on greater transparency and accountability. But, yesterday, President Daniel Arap Moi of Kenya complained at conditions being imposed by the Bank and the IMF for assistance as unwarranted interference.
In their position as international organisations, the Bank and the IMF are uniquely well placed to push the anti-corruption message home. The danger is that their praiseworthy push will be seen either as a big stick being waved at poor countries or an extension of US policy to help American companies which face penalties at home if they bribe abroad. To avoid that may well require an adroit combination of firmness and argument. But it is important that the fight against corruption goes hand-in-hand with economic development for, in the end, the success of the latter is tied to the former.
