Third World Corruption & New World Morality
by
H. Kent Craig
©1998




It's a fact of life as well as an anchor of reality that a lot if not most business done in Third World countries, especially regarding any aspect of imports/exports, is "lubricated" by baksheesh, by small bribes to various Custom Agents, Inspectors, and other Government officials. It doesn't matter that these bribes payed to allow the more or less free flow of goods are payed on perfectly legal goods, goods that normally have all the correct paperwork and documentation necessary attached with them, goods which are borne by honest businesspeople that don't want to cheat any Government on either side of a given transaction out of a single nickle, bribes in almost all cases must usually be offered and/or extracted.


Among the many factors which hinder economic growth and development in Third World countries, especially on the African continent where it's virtually universal, "nod-and-a-wink" corruption on imports/exports, on getting official permits to do business in a given country, on obtaining the most basic services for a business office in a given country like telephone, sewer, water, etc. services, is so stifling, is so against the grain from a gut-level point of view that many businesses take, that many US and European businesspeople simply decide not to bother with Third World nation smaller markets. These decisions by those who control the capital and the business expertise not to invest in smaller national markets because they feel it's simply not worth the hassle for what potential ROI might be there continues to keep Africa and other Third World markets in an economic ghetto which shows no sign of gentrification.


It's important for US and other New World capitalists to invest in Africa in particular, in the 3rd World in general, for a whole host of economic, political, and social reasons. When a US business sets up a branch office in, say, Tanzania, they normally bring in a core staff of expats from the States to set up beachhead operations and begin the process of establishing a business presence. This core management then hires locals and begins to train them in their particular corporate culture, and more importantly, infuses the local office with a capital base of salaries, new equipment purchases, and expenditures for local services. As this is happening, a melding of cultures, a climate of (hopefully) cross-continent understanding is shaping up. As monies are spent, as markets for a company's products are developed, profits are reinvested back into the community, creating wealth for the local and regional and national economy of the host country, helping to create a higher standard of living for all that country's citizens, helping to ensure a stable but progressing towards democratic ideal political climate where there's an equal measure of economic and political freedom, one being unable to coexist without the other. Yes, wealth is also being created for the business and/or individuals that took the risk to initially invest, but that's the capitalist system. Most of the wealth created by such local investment stays in the community, in the country it was created in, giving jobs and opportunity a widening net of individuals and peripheral resident businesses; just look at how the Japanese and Germans work their investments in the US, for a similar model.


Into this machinery of hope of 3rd World prosperity and growth, though, almost always is thrown the monkey wrench of corruption. Other than the fact that it's illegal (US businesspeople have gone to prison for paying more-or-less officially sanctioned if not legal bribes to Government officials in certain 3rd World countries), New World capitalists don't like the climate and culture that fosters official or unofficial but tolerated corruption for two main reasons: unfamiliarity and uncertainty.


Unfamiliarity because, outside of certain pockets of more or less tolerated official corruption in a less-than-handful of certain building and other departments of certain major metropolitan municipalities, the average US businessperson doesn't encounter anything that even hints of corruption, let alone have to deal with it on a daily basis. Sure, official taxes and permits and fees might seem like official corruption, but everyone knows that monies raised go into a collective political coffer to support a given governmental entity, not into a private pocket to support some official's vacation home. Living in a society virtually free of having to slip a few dollars here and a few dollars there to get your phone service installed, your newspaper delivered regularly, your stuff delivered from Eddie Bauer through your UPS man to your home without routine possibility of theft, to have police come when you call them in an emergency, to have your mail delivered intact without the contents being rifled, when you live in a society where a high level of expectation of ethicism and morality from public servants and private service contractors is the norm, having to deal in a polarly-opposite culture where those aren't given facts of life and business, is often more than many New World businesspeople are willing to put up with.


Uncertainty because businesspeople need and like to know the facts, the facts on how much something's going to cost, whether that's overhead, raw product cost, R&D, service cost, or corruption. Because corruption even when legal and/or unofficially tolerated is not a fixed-fee item like an official Government levy, that uncertainty of how much to figure in a company's Third World branch office core overhead cost for the actual dollars involved in paying bribes just gives a typical Branch Manager for that expatriate division fits. Whether it violates or doesn't the laws of the country where the primary business is located aside, how does one figure a reasonable percentage of gross expenses as part of 3rd World branch office overhead for the needed baksheesh that will enable one to operate said branch office? Unless one has had prior experience in that or a similar cultural and political environment, then really, one can't, one doesn't, which is a core reason for the genuflective hesitancy of many US and New World businesses to invest in Africa and the Third World.


The solution? There is but one, and it's common sense; if the Third World wants New World money, business expertise, and venture capital, then each individual country in the Third World will have to clean up its act. I'm not saying any country has to change its political system, its cultural heritage, or its overall official government structure as it relates to regulating domestic and foreign business enterprises within its borders. All I'm saying is that our instinctive human morality tells each one of us that corruption is wrong, no matter what religious or political belief system we hold, and that the political collective of a given country needs to enforce that basic human tenet of shared ethic. Those countries that do rein in at least the worst and most penurious cases of official or unofficially tolerated corruption the quickest will be the ones to reap the benefits of the New Global Economic Expansion the soonest. In you don't believe me, look at what's happened with Singapore, as compared with say, its neighbor Indonesia.




Example Addenda


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
East African Business News Headlines Service 14 September, 1998
mail to, or (un)subscribe: news@newbizage.com


KENYA
The Finance Minister said that the World Bank intended to reduce its commitments to Kenya, from the current USD 200-250m to USD 75-150m per annum, unless there was a successful implementation of the medium-term expenditure framework and a sustained political commitment to reforms. The World Bank alleged that misappropriation of funds and the poor state of the economy reduced the country's capacity to absorb aid.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
East African Business News Headlines Service 20 August, 1998
mail to, or (un)subscribe: news@newbizage.com


UGANDA
MIRDOC, the Ethiopian company which had won the bid to buy 80 per cent stake in the Sheraton Hotel, and subsequently failed to pay for it, defended its actions on the grounds that it was being pressured to pay bribes to 'third parties'. It urged the government to apprehend the corrupt parties. However, the government maintained that the deal remained cancelled and stated that it was considering other options to achieve the divestiture of the hotel.





    {Back To Deeply Personal & Misc. Page}     {To Main Personal Page}    

{Feedback}