Find us on Google+

Friday, 25 May 2007

Corruption Wars - Part 1 (Corruption & Growth)

I have watched with some amazement at the recent flurry of discussions on corruption following the London judgement on our ex President FTJ. The issue has been much debated on every Zambian blog, forum and newspaper. As always these discussions have been led from the frontline by the Post newspaper, whose daily editorials on “Chiluba the plunderer” has now fuelled unpleasant exchanges between two ex-Presidents : the post columnist KK and the accused FTJ. But is the nation now in danger of losing focus on the issue of corruption?

My concern here is not so much whether FTJ really stole more than KK (as the Post have been quick to say - KK is a saint says the post) or whether FTJ should not have been tried in London or whether FTJ is guilty at all or not. Neither is my concern on the “moral” stand on corruption – we all know it is morally wrong to practice any sort of corruption. Rather my concern as always is purely economic. The central issue is whether we have lost the plot in focusing too much on corruption as the cause for our slow progress in developing as a nation.

It may surprise the Post Newspaper editors to learn that the economic question of whether corruption is a major influence on Zambia’s economic growth is an open one. For one thing there’s no single Zambian paper that I am aware of that has addressed this issue at the macro or micro-economic level. Secondly, the cross country evidence is actually mixed. Yes, there’s some micro evidence that corruption can lead to low firm productive and misallocation of entrepreneural skills, but at the cross country level it’s been constantly found to be insignificant for growth. The last person to reach this conclusion was Svenson (2005) in his paper "Eight Questions on Corruption". He notes "most of the theoretical literature as well as case study and micro evidence suggest that corruption severely retards development. However, to the extent we can meausure corruption in a cross country setting, it does not affect growth". Svenson goes on to speculate that a plausable explanation for "the mismatch between micro and macro evidence is that corruption takes many forms and there is no reason to believe that all types of corruption are equally harmful for growth".

In fact some economists have suggested of late that China and India would not have experienced the kind of growth we see today on a strong anti-corruption policy. It seems fighting corruption does carry some costs as well, if it is done at the expense of other targets.

Does this mean that I think we should just ignore corruption? Absolutely not. However, my view is that we should address corruption as part of a wider debate on what we think are the key obstacles for Zambia’s economic growth. And one of them is definitely a "poor institutional framework" – but an institutional framework goes beyond simply tackling corruption, it is about introducing stronger governance and accountability structures. Participatory democracy and general decentralisation is one of those things that have been empirically verified to work in increasing growth. And we know that Zambia has not made strides in this area as recently noted by the OECD report.

Another crucial area is poor infrastructure. We know that our educational infrastructure is need of revamping, especially in conjunction with stronger agricultural policies. We also know that tourism infrastructure requires more investment as also recently cited in the OECD report. Another area we have been discussing on this blog is access to credit in the context of agricultural sector. We need to develop local financial markets to encourage the poor to have access to credit. Encouraging more micro lending would seem to be a good first step in that direction.

So as we debate the issue of corruption, in terms of who stole what, what penalty and so forth, let us not forget that corruption is just part of a broader debate on moving forward as a nation. It is germane to development, but perhaps much more important are broader areas like institutional reform, improvement in local financial markets, and most importantly improved infrastructure that supports agricultural, educational, mining and tourism policies.

26 comments:

  1. Cho,

    On corruption. The problem with corruption is that it only benefits a few, and disadvantages everyone else. I agree that sometimes relationships, gifts, etc. can make things go smoother.

    However, the type of corruption we are talking about in the case of Chiluba is the selling out of the national interest.

    Not only did Chiluba oversee the selling of the mines to the point where neither the Zambian state or people are seeing any of the real benefits of the massive profits that are made from them, but most recently, he cost the Zambian taxpayer $12 million, when he facilitated the vulture fund with information, to scoop up a $3 million debt to Romania, and force the government to settle and pay $15 million to the fund instead. Even when he has been out of office for years, his corruption is still costing the country.

    Everyone would look the other way if this kind of thing would have resulted in huge economic development - instead, it resulted in economic delapidation.

    And of course it doesn't stop with Chiluba. Only recently, an incredible $250 million of government money was found idling in domestic banks - and I'm sure collecting a nice amount of interest. It is check kiting to the 10th degree.

    What I couldn't do with $250 million. I could make Zambia the food exporter of the continent. Probably with less than that.

    On KK - his problem was not corruption. His problem were the political/economic decisions he made. And yet, his policies created far more positive results than the neoliberalist dogmas of the MMD/IMF.

    And that goes back to the difference between corruption and results. The Japanese and Korean governments were corrupt too - and they were barely democratic, if at all. However, the difference in results was in their policies - protecting domestic markets, stimulating whatever assets they had (in their case, manufacturing of electronic goods and cars); about not expecting foreign companies to do the work for them, but empowering their own nationals; and in fact not allowing foreign companies to set up shop in their countries at all. They would never have allowed an Equinox corporation to make hundreds of millions of dollars in profit, from their own resources.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "However, the type of corruption we are talking about in the case of Chiluba is the selling out of the national interest".

    Yes I agree Chiluba's actions were unpatriotic [if proven to have stolen under Zambian law].

    "Everyone would look the other way if this kind of thing would have resulted in huge economic development - instead, it resulted in economic delapidation."

    I think this is my point.
    Its quite difficult to prove that Chiluba's supposed corruption was the reason the country fell to pieces. Its quite possible that our policy of liberalisation was solely to blame!! This was a period of great change. I have read how his agricultural liberalisation policies nearly brought our nation to its knees. Chiluba may have stolen but there were bigger mistakes he made I think that were responsible for the state we were in. Infact in most cases, its not what he did, its what he didn't do!! My point is that it is only too easy for the people like the Post Newspaper to generalise without empirical facts.


    "And of course it doesn't stop with Chiluba. Only recently, an incredible $250 million of government money was found idling in domestic banks - and I'm sure collecting a nice amount of interest. It is check kiting to the 10th degree."

    But here is a vital point. Chiluba's corruption was probably systemic. And infact here is my concern. If Chiluba's corruption was systemic doesn't that just illustrates that what is wrong is poor institutional framework, not corruption per se? It is weak checks and balances and general lack of accountability that is to blame.

    Corruption infact is just probably a sympton of the real disease. My point therefore is that focusing on it is possibly counter productivity. We must treat the cause and not the symptom.

    "And that goes back to the difference between corruption and results. The Japanese and Korean governments were corrupt too - and they were barely democratic, if at all.However, the difference in results was in their policies - protecting domestic markets, stimulating whatever assets they had (in their case, manufacturing of electronic goods and cars)"

    And there you have hit the nail on the head. You see Chiluba failed on this issue, and this in the end is his greatest crime. So if we are to fix Zambia today, we need to ask ourselves what is missing? Answer : proper institutional, infrastructural and Zambian based policies that supports agricultural, tourism and mining.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Argh! Just lost 30 min careful construction of a commentary on this issue due to "Blogspot maintenance", however I am grateful for the service and cannot in good conscience fault them for their needs. It is however after 2am here so I have not the energy to reconstruct, just this plaintive cry of frustration, no knowing if I will have similar clarity of purpose or mind on the morrow to reconstruct. I will save offline in future prior to attempting to post.

    Peace Fellows, More Power to You!

    ReplyDelete
  4. But here is a vital point. Chiluba's corruption was probably systemic. And infact here is my concern. If Chiluba's corruption was systemic doesn't that just illustrates that what is wrong is poor institutional framework, not corruption per se? It is weak checks and balances and general lack of accountability that is to blame.

    As long as there are inefficient systems in place, the corrupt will be able to benefit from the confusion. Which is why they don't want to see these systems reformed.

    It is like Mwanawasa doing everything to stall implementing a constitution with (among other things) runoff elections. As long as he can get by with 1/3 of the vote, he can win from a divided opposition.

    Corruption infact is just probably a sympton of the real disease. My point therefore is that focusing on it is possibly counter productivity. We must treat the cause and not the symptom.

    It is the effect of a lack of electronic banking, legal confusion about powers, over reliance on central government, too much red tape which leads to 'petty power' in the hands of badly paid officials, etc. In other words, an absense of an up to date infrastructure.


    And there you have hit the nail on the head. You see Chiluba failed on this issue, and this in the end is his greatest crime. So if we are to fix Zambia today, we need to ask ourselves what is missing? Answer : proper institutional, infrastructural and Zambian based policies that supports agricultural, tourism and mining.

    I completely agree that Chiluba was a neoliberal, but to what extent was that because he really believed in the theory, and to what extent because he just wanted to go along to get along with the IMF. Other than 'free markets', what is the economic philosophy of the MMD?

    You are right that there is a huge absence of policies that protect Zambian business and producers.

    Have you checked out the documentary 'Life And Debt' by Stephanie Black, about the impact of the IMF ideas on the economy of Jamaica? (Free on Youtube while it lasts.)


    href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsUXQhxb2to">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsUXQhxb2to


    The similarities with Zambia's experiences is astonishing, from structural adjustment to 'free enterprise zones' and Chinese migrants.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Argh! Just lost 30 min careful construction of a commentary on this issue due to "Blogspot maintenance" - Yakima

    How unfortunate!!
    Look forward to reading your thoughts as always.

    ReplyDelete
  6. “Which is why they don't want to see these systems reformed……It is like Mwanawasa doing everything to stall implementing a constitution with (among other things) runoff elections. As long as he can get by with 1/3 of the vote, he can win from a divided opposition.” - Mrk.

    I once had a discussion with someone on whether it was in the incumbent Government’s interest to see a constitution in place. I remarked then that it wasn’t and the chap being an affiliate of the current Government argued strongly that it was the opposite. Am glad to report that eventually he cam3 round to accept that there’s no strong incentive for a person who holds power to give it back. The only time that happens is if the pressure on them is strong enough or when they know that doing so does not change the balance of power. And this is the paradox, in the absence of stronger external pressure, the people most likely to give power back to the people are those who are embolden by it. Do they give or do they hold? now that is the question..lol!!


    “It is the effect of a lack of electronic banking, legal confusion about powers, over reliance on central government, too much red tape which leads to 'petty power' in the hands of badly paid officials, etc. In other words, an absense of an up to date infrastructure” - Mrk.

    Its actually an interesting question on whether corruption is only a “political issue” in a society with limited resources. I mean obviously from an economic stand point we may have concerns that it is a misallocation of resources in some way, but from a political stand point, it may not matter if in effect everyone had “enough” on their plate :)

    ”I completely agree that Chiluba was a neoliberal, but to what extent was that because he really believed in the theory, and to what extent because he just wanted to go along to get along with the IMF. Other than 'free markets', what is the economic philosophy of the MMD?”Mrk.

    Its both.
    I think Chiluba really did believe in free markets.
    And he wasn’t alone. I believed in free markets then and welcomed his approach – I still do now :) The problem was poor execution and not being discriminatory enough where free markets distorts development and where they move society towards better welfare. He was not able to see beyond “free markets”. He did not look at other countries and see serious questions- how did they develop. It certainly wasn’t the Washington Consensus way. Too much of a “yes, Master” approach probably. But may be is easier to say that from where am sitting :)

    ”Have you checked out the documentary 'Life And Debt' by Stephanie Black, about the impact of the IMF ideas on the economy of Jamaica? (Free on Youtube while it lasts.)” - Mrk

    Watching it right now….
    Thanks for the you tube link…feedback later…

    ReplyDelete
  7. I have now embedded the URL in the post for the interesting Svenson paper "Eight Questions on Corruption".

    Worth a read in its own right.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Fitty_Ngwee-01128 May 2007 22:59

    I have been for the fight against corruption, but I am deeply concerned with the draconian measures those in power are using to coerce convictions. Lack of a civil tone on either side of the fence is a major concern too. It appears the fight against corruption has lost it's clearly defined goals, if it had any in the first place. Is it a message we are only sending that corruption is bad? At what monetary cost? Are we out to recover all th looted resources? I hope we are not spending a dollar to recover a quarter. It is imperative that we spend more time putting in place measures that would prevent corruption than chasing after the alleged criminals. Heck, how do we know Levy himself and his intelligence officials are not making untraceable deals?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mrk,

    Thanks for bring the Life and Debt film to our attendtion. Its a very good video. It is certaintly illuminating and the parallels with Zambia are obvious - well pre the debt relief as we now debt free - so to speak.

    I think the key point is that institutions like the IMF and the World Bank were set up there for a purpose - which is to serve interests of western nations.

    However, I think we have not been clever enough ourselves to develop our own idea of development. We were not forced to take up these IMF policies. We did it because we "trusted" these institutions. And unfortunately "trust" in this instance represented intellectual cowardice.

    It gets even worse now because we are now "trusting" the Chinese. We are putting all of our economic plans in their hands. Really we should know better. David Landes is right - perhaps it is our culture that explains our inability to develop, for we are too quick to look outside for help and not from within.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Fitty_Ngwee-01129 May 2007 03:20

    Chao said ...It gets even worse now because we are now "trusting" the Chinese.

    Cho, sometimes you say things as though you got inside my brain and captured my thought before I choose the right words to express them. I am very 'scared' of the whole Chinese frenzy. Looking at Zambian 'tuntembas' we have become huge consumers of Chinese products which only benefits the Chinese economy and not ours.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Fitty

    Money is being spend alright...

    I think I can excuse spending money in the first term of the LPM presidency on this fight. He was learning on the job. And most importantly, I think it was a necessary unnecessary charade. We probably needed it. I mean LPM probably saw that the fighting corruption had reputational benefits for Zambia. We don't achieve anything, but we look tough :) Infact if I was LPM adviser I would probably tell him to point to to the reduction in external debt i:) Its a tough question whether we would have got the debt relief without the circus. But as you say now is the time for him to sit down and do a proper cost benefit analysis. We have got the debt relief and the Chinese have got out back (uncomfortably), now let us do a proper appraisal:

    1. Are we going to pursue corruption at all costs - and what are those costs?

    2. What are the benefits do we get from it? A mere pursuit of corruption as I have argued adds little to overall economic growth - methinks because the evidence constantly shows it is insignificant for growth.

    If he finds the benefit cost ratio is less than 1 - then perhaps he should try and do what he can to alter the cost element. As I have suggested in my article from hereon in we must look at things that really makes a difference on the ground "institutional reform, financial development and infrastructural investment". Cho's "big three".

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Looking at Zambian 'tuntembas' we have become huge consumers of Chinese products which only benefits the Chinese economy and not ours" - Fitty

    It gets worse than that my brother. I walked into Arcades in Lusaka over Xmas looking for Zambian made biscuits. We searched and searched and we found it in a little corner - "Have Some More" by Sun Life. The only Zambian made biscuit in the whole shop!

    ReplyDelete
  13. " However, I think we have not been clever enough ourselves to develop our own idea of development. We were not forced to take up these IMF policies. We did it because we "trusted" these institutions. And unfortunately "trust" in this instance represented intellectual cowardice. "

    I think it is more serious than that. The IMF is a very corrupt organisation, with no democratic accountability or transparancy, which has been pushing a ideological, neoliberal agenda on any country it could.

    It isn't just that the government 'trusted' the IMF (maybe they did), but that in case of non-compliance, sanctions were inflicted on the country. KK wrote about this happening to Zambia in some detail.

    This of course has also happened to other countries, but right now Zimbabwe is suffering the most from it.

    The near total cutoff of foreign exchange would cripple any economy. And that is how the IMF operates. They tell countries to implement policies that are extremely unpopular, and in real democracies, cause the governments to be turfed out of office.

    Dipak Patel has called the IMF policy prescriptions 'recessionary measures'. They are not about growth, they are about creating a global market without government, just corporations. And they do this under the guise of bringing inflation down to single digits.

    But preconditions are the complete sellloff of state assets; stopping funding for education, healthcare and infrastructure.

    The results are very predictable.

    If you haven't come them already, check out 50years.org. They have a lot of articles critical of the IMF, World Bank, etc.

    http://www.50years.org/issues/sap.html

    ReplyDelete
  14. Fitty_Ngwee-01129 May 2007 11:17

    I agree with you Cho,

    The cost-benefit ratio has gotta be less than 1, even in public relations persuits: tasks that make us seem tough and serious to the international community. If our zeal outweigh our know how in this fight against corruption, we may violate a lot of human rights, which may make the fight against corruption backfire on us. Investors will see how an all-powerful government is willing to violate even it's own constitution to achieve one man's goals. We need to get back to the drawing board and sober up a little.

    ReplyDelete
  15. A strict cost/benfit analysis comparing the cost
    of recovering stolen funds to the amount of stolen
    funds does not take into account the full range
    of the effects of corruption.

    Cleaning up the systems used for gross corruption
    by institutional reform will have many benefits -
    for instance, i read brief references that international
    investors are now purchasing government bonds,
    that would only be possible if they have confidence
    in the governmental financial systems.

    Nor does it consider petty corruption and how that
    affects the majority of the population - the extra
    costs that may be involved in everyday life.

    ReplyDelete
  16. touque,

    Agreed. Any formal cost benefit analysis would have consider the wider effects. In reality of course these benefits are uncertain and difficult to quantify.

    The benefits are uncertain but the costs are always more certain - you can see the monetary costs. That has an important implication.

    Economic intuition would suggest that if a formal test was done, it may discount the benefits heavily since those benefits would have to be multiplied by some less probability of realisation (given their greater uncertainty) to get the expected value of benefits - just a thought.

    overall I think the fight against is probably beneficial in its own right, but does warrant a second look on whether it deserves the priority that it currently maintains in a positively growing national economy, and a post debt relief world...

    30 May 2007 23

    ReplyDelete
  17. It has been so interesting to read everyone's contributions to this discussion that I no longer regret my earlier 'maintenance mishap'. I would especially like to thank MrK for linking to the "Life and Debt" documentary, I have been urging it on anyone I can get to listen.

    I see an underlying thread throughout the commentary which points to corruption as a concept that only becomes tangible when distinguished from the theoretical absolute, Corruption, and modified by application to circumstance. Without the addition of words like moral, systemic, petty, institutional, ideological, symptomatic, ad infinitum the fight against corruption sounds more like a slogan than a policy. I think that is a part of what Cho meant by focus.

    "The central issue is whether we have lost the plot in focusing too much on corruption as the cause for our slow progress in developing as a nation." -Cho [original post]

    I will venture to suggest that the arbiters of national focus are not elected politicians, but journalists and their editors. Certainly the consumers ultimately decide which media (and advertisers) they will pay attention to just as they decide which party to vote for or contribute time and/or money to, however the range of choices available is finite and one cannot choose what is not offered.

    For news media it is easier (and importantly much cheaper) to report than to investigate. Easier not only in the sense of time and effort, but especially for editors it is an easier path to service of core constituencies. Challenging the information provided by political sources can lead to lack of access, while verbatim quotes without commentary can be a path to preferential, even exclusive access. Investigations which question the truth behind the spin provided by public relations professionals can lead to withdrawal of advertisers. Journalism which requires the audience to absorb too many new facts or nuances can alienate consumers and drive them toward less demanding competitors.

    All this is makes it understandable that media would seek the easier way of the reporter over the more difficult and often thankless task of journalist, but it also appears rather like another shade of corruption.

    I will close with a paraphrase of Cho's original question: Has media sought to focus our attention on particular instances of past corruption in order to distract attention from their own failure to fully investigate the causes for our slow progress in developing as a nation?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Fitty_Ngwee-01131 May 2007 12:20

    AfroChol,

    In the recent past, there has been cries in the media, getting louder by the day, regarding the need for GRZ to renegotiate the contracts they entered in with international mining companies. In as much as a positive outcome would have to be more money for Zambia, I have been deeply concerned with what image that would give to the international community about our ability to keep legal promises as a nation. Moreover, the GRZ has always had a choice to go it alone. I fear we would become a very unattractive place to invest if we start playing victim after entering into an agreement. Why make an agreement with other parties and them cry foul after seeing the best case scenario. Would we still want to renegotiate the contracts had hard rock minerals fetched low on the world market? Are we gold 'diggers'? I think as a nation, we would be more honorable and attaract more investment if we did not look back. The best is yet to come. What say you?

    ReplyDelete
  19. "I will close with a paraphrase of Cho's original question: Has media sought to focus our attention on particular instances of past corruption in order to distract attention from their own failure to fully investigate the causes for our slow progress in developing as a nation?" - Yakima

    Indeed that is the key question - perfectly paraphrased.

    The way I see it, in a "democracy" such as ours policy development emerges from a number of areas - pressure groups (e.g. NGOs, interest groups), think tanks (independent specialist groups bringing rational thought to the table), academia, Government and political parties, and of course the media (creating and informing public opinion).

    Now in Zambia pressure groups are relatively undeveloped. We have a couple like "truckers", business groups, etc, but they are much undeveloped as separate entities from Government itself . A possible exception might be farmers. I am occasionally reminded that nearly every Minister in Government is a farmer so they do wield quiet a lot of influence - but not in a formal way as one would expect (incidentally it might be argued that their cartel like behaviour could explain their failure to develop agriculture policies - I hope not).

    Thinks tanks in Zambia appear non-existent. ZIPPA is one of the few that are trying to make a difference - I know they are doing a splendid job, not just because I am full paid member. The JCTR also is also trying - their monthly food basket assessment provides an independent picture of what is happening on the ground - incidentally they have now launched a rural cost of living survey which will be extremely useful down the line. But by and large we have few think tanks. No one is really doing much to advance the sort of independent thought that is needed to help Government and opposition parties develop sound policy proposals. In western democracies, all major political parties rely on think tanks to develop their thinking for them.

    Academia - the performance of Zambia's academics has been disappointing. I think either it is the much discussed "brain drain" or weak investment in centres of learning or simply lack of trying or at worst intellectual dishonesty. As a nation we have not reached the position of where academics are shaping debate. What even surprises me is the tendency for most academics to get involved in politics. I know that is bourne out of a serious passion to serve the nation and the growing frustration with the establishment, but I would like to see them remain outside politics and simply try and shape Zambia political and economic thought through think tanks or other academically focused mediums. There's much contribution scholars can make without engaging in politics!! The place is too crowded as it is [not to mention the "market for lemons" problem :) ]

    Government has "international advisers" - there's a joke in development economics circles which I'll adapt in our context - in the hills of Kawambwa in Luapula, there's a problem - children have no school facilities. What happens is that the IMF arrives by air with advice with their educational reforms, the world bank by road and the UN come by water across lake Mweru….followed closely by Bono on a bike….And then think tanks and Zambian academics come walking….Such is our predicament.

    Faced with such malaise, the media has enormous responsibility in helping steer the debate correctly. Unfortunately its current approach is too simplistic and uninformed. And therein lies our problem. Government will continue listening and getting advice from the men coming by air - whose there to really give them an alternative? When Vice President Banda says no one comes forward with solutions - I have some sympathy with the man :)

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Would we still want to renegotiate the contracts had hard rock minerals fetched low on the world market? Are we gold 'diggers'? I think as a nation, we would be more honorable and attaract more investment if we did not look back. The best is yet to come. What say you?" - Fitty

    There's no honour among thieves my friend :) That was a joke just in case someone wants to libel a poor Cho. I am just a blogger and a patriot :)

    On a serious note. Your point has some validity to it because credibility is very important in business. If Zambia is going to continue attracting investment we would need to let people know we are country of laws.

    But I think mining presents a few challenges that makes it difficult to be credible. I have exchanged some thoughts on this with Yakima on the blog below:

    http://zambian-economist.blogspot.com/2007/05/lumwana-mine-video-presentation.html

    The problem is one of asymmetric information.
    The mining company will always know more about the future prospects of the mine than Government. So it's inevitable that after the contract is signed Government may later find out we aren't making as much money and therefore choose to renege on its promise.

    There ways to get round this but they involve some financial and tax payer risks.

    See the blog above and let me know your thoughts on it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. " The problem is one of asymmetric information.
    The mining company will always know more about the future prospects of the mine than Government. So it's inevitable that after the contract is signed Government may later find out we aren't making as much money and therefore choose to renege on its promise. "

    Now if the government owned the minerals...

    The government could appoint different companies to conduct different business processes.

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Now if the government owned the minerals...
    The government could appoint different companies to conduct different business processes" - Mrk

    Of course ownership carries it's own risks.
    See how Equinox have it good here

    ReplyDelete
  23. (USA)

    ""Now if the government owned the minerals...
    The government could appoint different companies to conduct different business processes"Mr-K"-Cho.

    Weren't our mines run this way up till 1991 or there abouts? ZCMM, Mpelembe Properties, Ndola Lime, Power Division,Zal Holding, etc. Did we have great success??

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anonymous (USA)

    I believe I was quoting MrK there. I'll defer to MrK to answer that one :)

    On your general comment on ownership. I think there are myriads of ownership mechanism that Government could adopt if it wanted to. The question is whether there's a rationale for intervention in the first place, and then the correct "ownership" structure that would deliver the result. You can for example imagine the Government owning a "mine" but its actually run independently or outsourced. Or 50% of the board on it are directly elected by local people etc etc.

    ReplyDelete
  25. An interesting piece about corruption by Korean economist Ha-Joon Chang in the current issue of Africa report magazine.

    He makes some interesting points regarding corruption and the implication of neo-liberal policies on the development of poor countries.

    Reading it, I was struck by the similalities to some of the arguments that CHO has put forward on this matter.

    You can check it out at:
    www.theafricareport.com

    ReplyDelete
  26. Quite fair to curb and make public aware. How then do they impose to arrest three former presidents not pointing fingers at each other but accept blame for each others misdeeds? We havn't solved much for criminals in this arrival to corrupt officials.

    ReplyDelete

All contributors should follow the basic principles of a productive dialogue: communicate their perspective, ask, comment, respond,and share information and knowledge, but do all this with a positive approach.

This is a friendly website. However, if you feel compelled to comment 'anonymously', you are strongly encouraged to state your location / adopt a unique nick name so that other commentators/readers do not confuse your comments with other individuals also commenting anonymously.