pkpatriotic
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2008
- Messages
- 2,317
- Reaction score
- 0
Worries about corruption in Africa | Growing more corrupt
Oct 17th 2008
From the Economist Intelligence Unit ViewsWire
Although Africa's economies are growing, they appear to be getting more corrupt, too
Africas economy has grown much faster since 2000, but fears regarding corruption have risen too. Africas average score on Transparency Internationals Corruptions Perceptions Index has fallen steadily since 2000, reaching a new low of 2.75out of a possible tenin 2008. Of the 47 Sub-Saharan countries ranked in the 2008 survey, 64% score less than three out of ten, a level that, according to Transparency International, indicates "rampant corruption". Another 14 scored between three and five, indicating that corruption is perceived as a "serious challenge by country experts and businessmen". Just three statesBotswana, Cape Verde and Mauritiusscore above the index's mid-point.
Where available, country comparisons for the past five years give a differentand betterimpression. In 13 of the 22 states for which five-year comparable figures are available, corruption perceptions have improved. In one, Malawi, they are unchanged, while in eight countries in the bottom half of the table, the situation has deteriorated.
The biggest gain by far is registered by Nigeria, whose score has risen by 93%, albeit from a very low base. It has moved up 11 places in the world league table to 121 from 132. Only one other African country, Madagascar, has improved its standing, and then only by three places.
The main losers in terms of rankings are Sudan (down 67 places), The Gambia (66 places) and Zimbabwe (60), followed by Congo (Brazzaville) and Sierra Leone, both down 45 places, Ethiopia (down 34), Côte dIvoire (33) and Malawi (32). Generally, however, the declines have more to do with the sharp increase in the number of countries ranked, from 132 to 180, than any marked deterioration in perceptions of corruption (not least because many of the states concerned have long been deemed very corrupt).
Southern African states such as Botswana, Mauritius, South Africa and Namibia top the table, while resource-rich nations, especially oil exporters (Sudan, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola, Congo and Nigeria), cluster around the bottom. What this means is that, in recent years especially, economic growth has not been correlated with low levels of corruption.
A comparison of growth in incomes per head since 2003 shows that countries with scores of less than threedefined as "rampant corruption"have an average annual growth rate of 4.8%. In comparison, the six countries with scores in excess of three achieved growth averaging 4.2% annually over the five years, implying that high levels of corruption are not necessarily bad for economic expansion. This, however, is simplistic, since the high-corruption countries are mostly resource-rich nations, growing rapidly despite graft, not because of it. More importantly, just as most though not all resource-rich countries have been reluctant and slow reformers generally, so too they are more prone to corruption because the rewards are so much greater than in poor, low-income states.
The China factor
It is also significant that China has concentrated its aid and investment in nations such as Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Nigeria and Sudan, where corruption is (or has been) high. This means that it is no longer possible to argue that corruption deters foreign direct investment. All of which is bad news for reform-minded agencies like the OECD, IMF and World Bank. They will probably seize on Nigeriaan apparently startling example of reduced corruption in Africato justify their arguments that low corruption is good for growth and investment, but the regional figures suggest otherwise.
Oct 17th 2008
From the Economist Intelligence Unit ViewsWire
Although Africa's economies are growing, they appear to be getting more corrupt, too
Africas economy has grown much faster since 2000, but fears regarding corruption have risen too. Africas average score on Transparency Internationals Corruptions Perceptions Index has fallen steadily since 2000, reaching a new low of 2.75out of a possible tenin 2008. Of the 47 Sub-Saharan countries ranked in the 2008 survey, 64% score less than three out of ten, a level that, according to Transparency International, indicates "rampant corruption". Another 14 scored between three and five, indicating that corruption is perceived as a "serious challenge by country experts and businessmen". Just three statesBotswana, Cape Verde and Mauritiusscore above the index's mid-point.
Where available, country comparisons for the past five years give a differentand betterimpression. In 13 of the 22 states for which five-year comparable figures are available, corruption perceptions have improved. In one, Malawi, they are unchanged, while in eight countries in the bottom half of the table, the situation has deteriorated.
The biggest gain by far is registered by Nigeria, whose score has risen by 93%, albeit from a very low base. It has moved up 11 places in the world league table to 121 from 132. Only one other African country, Madagascar, has improved its standing, and then only by three places.
The main losers in terms of rankings are Sudan (down 67 places), The Gambia (66 places) and Zimbabwe (60), followed by Congo (Brazzaville) and Sierra Leone, both down 45 places, Ethiopia (down 34), Côte dIvoire (33) and Malawi (32). Generally, however, the declines have more to do with the sharp increase in the number of countries ranked, from 132 to 180, than any marked deterioration in perceptions of corruption (not least because many of the states concerned have long been deemed very corrupt).
Southern African states such as Botswana, Mauritius, South Africa and Namibia top the table, while resource-rich nations, especially oil exporters (Sudan, Chad, Equatorial Guinea, Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola, Congo and Nigeria), cluster around the bottom. What this means is that, in recent years especially, economic growth has not been correlated with low levels of corruption.
A comparison of growth in incomes per head since 2003 shows that countries with scores of less than threedefined as "rampant corruption"have an average annual growth rate of 4.8%. In comparison, the six countries with scores in excess of three achieved growth averaging 4.2% annually over the five years, implying that high levels of corruption are not necessarily bad for economic expansion. This, however, is simplistic, since the high-corruption countries are mostly resource-rich nations, growing rapidly despite graft, not because of it. More importantly, just as most though not all resource-rich countries have been reluctant and slow reformers generally, so too they are more prone to corruption because the rewards are so much greater than in poor, low-income states.
The China factor
It is also significant that China has concentrated its aid and investment in nations such as Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Nigeria and Sudan, where corruption is (or has been) high. This means that it is no longer possible to argue that corruption deters foreign direct investment. All of which is bad news for reform-minded agencies like the OECD, IMF and World Bank. They will probably seize on Nigeriaan apparently startling example of reduced corruption in Africato justify their arguments that low corruption is good for growth and investment, but the regional figures suggest otherwise.
