Corruption without borders… is there any difference around the world?

Some people still believe that corruption is a development “disease” experienced only by developing countries.  Actually, for some of us who lived for many years in low or middle income countries, we can tell that among the population there is a general perception that governments, politicians and citizens in the developed world do good and are exempt from corruption.

This perception might not prove wrong if we think in comparative or relative terms.  However, it doesn’t mean that developed countries are corruption-free.  Dani Kaufmann has blogged about this myth and specific cases, such as Hotel Baranoff in Alaska.  Recent events in the US and Europe bring again this debate into light.  For instance, earlier this week Senator Ted Stevens was convicted of receiving bribes from an oil company based in Alaska.  A few weeks ago, the OECD claimed that the UK was lacking the will to tackle corrupt firms –this issue was also raised during the 2008 Corruption Perception Index release by Transparency International. 

Thus, if corruption is everywhere, regardless of the level of development, is there a difference between these cases and allegations and corruption happenings in developing countries?

My first answer is that corruption in developed countries does not prevent people from receiving public services and goods of fair quality such as education, water, security or health services, among many others.  In developing countries, especially the poor are the most affected, either because corruption increases the cost of public services and goods or because it simply prevents at all their delivery.  Another difference is the rule of law, which is more likely to prevail in developed nations, as it happened with Sen. Stevens.  Conversely, in developing countries the "rule of impunity" and “selective justice” reign.

These and other differences do not smooth the issue of corruption in wealthy countries, but they are a good way to show (i) that corruption is not a cultural problem or an exclusive “disease” of developing countries, and (ii) that it is possible to control corruption when the appropriate institutions are in place.  The specific ways to do it will depend on each case.