CORRUPTION Syndromes of Corruption

2 The international setting: power, consensus,
and policy
New life for an old issue
Corruption is back on the international agenda after a generation’s
absence because important economic and political interests put it there.
Policymakers have changed the ways we pursue international
development and reform, while international businesses and the
governments that increasingly have a stake in their success have extended
their reach both in the world economy and in policy debates. Scholars and
advocacy groups have produced important new theories and data that
have moved us beyond old conundrums regarding corruption. Many of
these activities reflect business- and trade-oriented worldviews,
organizational interests, and analytical outlooks advocating liberalized
markets and politics, in that order.
With respect to corruption this worldview and the power behind it have
at least three major implications. First, and most visible, is the general
trend toward liberalization and privatization of economic activity, along
with the withdrawal of the state into more limited and technical kinds of
functions, that has marked global development for a generation. Those
changes affect the ways people pursue, use, and exchange both wealth and
power and, as we shall see, shape corruption syndromes in critical ways.
Second, businesses based in affluent countries play major roles in the
corruption that occurs in developing societies, often with the blessings of
their home governments: until recently some affluent societies allowed
their international businesses to deduct foreign bribe payments from their
tax bills. Third, a new consensus has emerged over corruption’s origins,
consequences, and remedies. Many who share in the consensus are driven
by a genuine desire to improve the lives of people in developing societies,
and have done much to pursue that goal. Still, despite the power of its
backers and scope of its claims the consensus remains a partial vision –
one that imposes a common diagnosis and reform strategy upon diverse
cases. Consensus approaches work well at a high level of generality but
tell us much less about the societies where the problem is worst.
16