Why Is Latin America So Corrupt?
Written by Charles ParkinsonWednesday, 08 January 2014
The CPI map shows little joy for Latin America
The annual release of the global Corruption Perceptions Index is rarely good news for Latin America. Except for a handful of standout nations, the region consistently performspoorly, with all but six mainland Latin American countries appearing in the bottom half ofthe table this year. But what do the 18 years of the index tell us about the state of corruption in Latin America?
Political corruption is the use of powers by government officials for illegitimate private gain. An illegal act by an officeholder constitutes political corruption only if the act is directly related to their official duties, is done under law or involves trading in influence.
Forms of corruption vary, but include bribery, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, patronage, graft, and embezzlement. Corruption may facilitate criminal enterprise such as drug trafficking, money laundering, and human trafficking, though is not restricted to these activities. Misuse of government power for other purposes, such as repression of political opponents and general police brutality, is not considered political corruption. Neither are illegal acts by private persons or corporations not directly involved with the government.
Publishedevery year since 1995by Non-Governmental Agency (NGO) Transparency International, the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) compiles results from independent surveys by NGOs to estimate how corrupt the public sectors of different countries are. Over the years the CPI has grown in scope, originally ranking 41 nations butin 2013 including 177.
The accuracy of the CPI is outlined by the fact many of the trends match patterns seen in other studies, such as those of theGlobal Corruption Barometer, a study of whether or not citizens believe their country has corruption; this study is produced every two years by Transparency International.
Since 1995, Latin America's inclusion has risen from six nations to all mainland countries except Belize, as well as the most populated and some smaller Caribbean nations. For the purpose of this regional overview, InSight Crime compiled the historical results of all countries in North, South and Central America, as well as all Caribbean nations and territories with a population exceeding one million. For comparison, the rating system uses a maximum score of 100; the closer to 100, the less corrupt. The nations are then ranked out of 177, with the higher ranked countries being the most corrupt.
Overall the table highlights remarkable continuity throughout the region, which -- given the low scores -- essentially marks a failure to effectively address corruption over almost two decades.
One of the most notable changes is the rise ofUruguayfrom the middle of the region's pack when it first appeared in 1997, to Latin America's best performer, now on par with the United States. The country's rating leapt up in 2006 -- the year after the liberalFrenteAmpliocame to power -- and has continued to rise almost every year since. FrenteAmplio is generallyseen as a transparent political machine, gaining the trust of the people to the point that it has recently managed topush through policies and legislation the majority of citizens are opposed to, yet still remain the front runner for elections next year.
A similar, but less profound, shift is in Ecuador, which has registered yearly improvements since 2008 -- the year after incumbent President Rafael Correa came to power. While its current score of 35 still points to endemic corruption, Correa brought an end to a period of flux which saw seven presidents lead the country in just ten years.
When analyzing what sets apart the Latin American countries that have consistently sat atop the regional chart as the least corrupt -- namely Uruguay, Chile and Costa Rica -- a notable pattern is the relative absence of organized crime in these countries compared to other nations in the region. While there have been signs that dynamic is changing, particularly inChileandCosta Rica, none of them have traditionally been drug producing or exporting nations and only Costa Rica -- almost always the lowest of the three -- has historically witnessed significant drug trafficking, as products through Costa Rica from South America on its way towards the United States.
The relationship between organized crime and corruption is impossible to overstate and mostly explains why Latin America's corruption ratings have largely remained consistently high. Without corrupt officials facilitating its activities, organized crime would not be able to survive.
Due to its geographical location, Central America, home to some of the CPI's worst performers in the region, is a hub of drug trafficking and dominated by criminal groups. In the face of weak governments and economies, drug trafficking organizations have historically been able to easily transport contraband (drugs) through the region, buying the loyalty of underpaid officials along the way.
Even access to significant funding seemingly offers no remedy to corruption, as demonstrated by the cases ofMexicoandColombia-- Latin America's largest beneficiaries of US foreign aid. Despite receiving billions of dollars in assistance since the turn of the century, neither has seen a significant change in its corruption rating since the CPI began. With much of that aid directed at combatting the groups responsible for the drug flow, the failure to see a change in corruption is perhaps an illustration of what many commentators have begun to call the "failure of the 'war on drugs.'"
However, while organized crime undoubtedly plays a significant part, it would be naïve to ignore the role of history in the region's corruption landscape. Built on political systems skewed towards the needs of powerful oligarchies, which in many places continue to wield significant economic and political power today, corruption has permeated the region far longer than the drug trade and would likely persist even in the face of organized crime's demise.