Just another perspective about Corruption: Past, Now and Future (Part 2)
On the other side, John Perkins and Berkman have completely different view about corruption. Their different view regarding this issue may be caused by the situation and condition that they have to face. Their opinions are occurred 40 years after Huntington’s theory; moreover, both of them were basically the practitioners or were part of organization conducting corruption itself. Their opinions regarding corruption are developed based on the concern about the failure of international aid to the developing countries for the last of 50 years. Their experiences as practitioners of international aid program have given them more additional information about the practice of corruption in various developing countries.
Unlike Huntington, John Perkins and Steve Berkman strongly condemn corruption activities exercised blatantly by not only the top leaders (elites) of government institutions but also various lower positions of civil servants in developing countries receiving international aids. Their books show us clearly the detail description of corruption activities from various developing countries of Asia and Africa.
It is interesting to note Berkman’s arguments in his article, The World Bank and the $100 Billion Question, stating that approximately 20% of total aid provided by The World Bank in last 50 years. $100 billion had been corrupted by some elites and government officers responsible for The World Bank funded projects. Moreover, he also describes several reasons that make this condition possible to be done. Those are fake or over optimistic forecasting of economic development reports created by “The Economic Hit Man”, the culture of lending fostered by the World Bank itself, The management of The World Bank who more concern about the amount of loan rather than the result of the project, Working attitude of the World Bank employee which is combined with the working mentality of civil servants of Aid’s receiver countries, Low supervision of ongoing projects, and the last but not least, the low law enforcement or punishment for those who committed corruption.
It is important to underline their opinions regarding corruption since both of those shows USA’s intervention in many international projects which eventually flourish corruption culture in developing countries. In other word, USA also must responsible for letting such condition happen. The basic question is how could it be possible that a huge organization as big as the World Bank did not know or deny about large amount of total money (loans) corrupted by leaders or officials of developing countries? Moreover, how can USA having the biggest share in the World Bank let this thing happen over and over again? Then, the answer will lead us to the same point; it is because of USA’s interest in those countries.
There is a possibility that the culture of corruption by purpose is fostered by the World Bank which is mostly supported by the USA. A culture making all of these developing countries will be heavily in great debt which may not be able to be paid in the very long time. A condition making them continuously depend on the World Bank aka USA. It is interesting to quote confession written by John Perkins in his journal, later also published in his best seller book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.
Is anyone in the U.S innocent? Although those at very pinnacle of economic pyramid gain the most, millions of us depend-either directly or indirectly-on the exploitation of LDCs for our livelihoods. The resources and cheap labor that feed nearly all of our businesses come from places like Indonesia, and very little ever makes its way back. The loans of foreign aid ensure that today’s children and their grandchildren will be held hostage. They will have to allow our corporations to ravage their natural resources and will have to forego education, health, and other social services merely to pay us back. The fact that our own companies already received most of this money to build the power plants, airports, and industrial parks does not factor into this formula. Does the excuse that most Americans are unaware of this constitute innocence? Uninformed and intentionally misinformed, yes—but innocent? (Perkins, 2005, pp.48-49)
(To be continued)
Leave a Reply