>Actually that's not exactly true. "Corruption" is one of the
>obsessions of the World Bank these days.
Yes, the politics of corruption should be taken with a pinch of salt.
I'm just reading a vile little book called 'The Criminalization of the African State' by some French third-worldists. Their thesis is that the African state is essentially criminal, a kleptocracy.
Of course, there is some truth in the proposition. Not just that all states are relatively corrupt, but, as has often been noted, the limited prospects for productive investment in third world states tend to create a decidedly unvirtuous circle of re-cycling aid into the personal consumption of political leaders. All of this, it should be understood, is a consequence of the economic subordination of African nations.
But most studies of third world corruption treat the 'kleptocratic' trend as primary, and only see the role of aid as secondary, the unfortunate collaboration between Western governments and third world despots. Rather, they should see it the other way around: perverse conditions of development foster a degree (much exaggerated for journalistic purposes) of corruption.
Now, the last step in this unlovely political argument is that evidence of corruption is cited by the West (that has engendered exactly this corruption) as a reason to de-legitimise the Africa state. The argument runs that Africa states should be cleaned up and reformed. Implicitly, aid is cited as a weapon for enacting reform. All of this sounds entirely disinterested, but of course its consequence is to reinforce exactly the condition of subordination that has given rise to corruption in the first place. -- Jim heartfield