Corruption, development, and inequality edited by P. M. Ward Routledge, London and New York. 1989, 191 pp. + index
| Date | 01 October 1990 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1002/pad.4230100413 |
| Published date | 01 October 1990 |
| Author | L. Palmier |
Book
Reviews
415
strategy. The farmer-first approach requires a reorientation in concepts, values, and behaviour
that amounts to a new paradigm of agricultural research. All those concerned by the persistence
of poverty and growing ecological deterioration in developing countries should be interested
in the promising advances described in this volume.
L.
D.
STIFEL
International Institute
of
Tropical Agriculture, Ibadan, Nigeria
CORRUPTION, DEVELOPMENT, AND INEQUALITY
Edited
by
P.
M.
Ward
Routledge, London and New York. 1989,191 pp.
+
index
This collection of eight papers is the product of a special session at the 1987 conference
of the Institute of British Geographers. The contributions are more varied than the book’s
title would suggest. Four are concerned with corruption, the others with drugs, nepotism,
and illegality. In this brief review all that can be attempted
is
to draw out points of general
interest.
From several of the contributions, it is clear that corruption does not always meet with
social condemnation, even in western countries. A telephone survey conducted by Michael
Johnston
in
Britain and the United States found that only those of higher status were rejudged
severely in this respect;(34) that is to say we are kinder to ourselves and our friends. In
India, Robert Wade’s study
of
corruption in the public service asserts that, ‘Most voters
do not see an issue
in
corruption; rather
.
.
.
that they themselves have not been successful
enough
in
corrupting.’( 104) In the Soviet Union, Yochanan Altman’s respondents thought
that ‘to take from public property is not really a crime. After all, no one is harmed.’(60)
In developing countries generally, Peter Ward found that residents in community development
programmes saw the illicit gains of their leaders as justified ‘perks’.( 154)
Neither, it would appear, are corruption and other illegal activities invariably harmful
to the poor. Hans Schenk finds that in urban India they benefit from patron-client relations,
and their dependency is a protective umbrella.( 121) Stella Lowder, studying Cuenca in
Ecuador, asserts that nepotism and patron-client relationships provided the poor (of the town
itself, though not elsewhere) with employment. Peter Ward in a survey
of
local leadership
in developing countries, comes to the conclusion that the urban poor benefit from the illegal
involvement of local leaders
in
the development process.(l50) Colin Sage argues that the
(quite unlawful) production of cocaine
in
Bolivia is a lifeline for the rural and urban poor,
and also provides new opportunities for intermediaries.(54)
Not surprisingly, Hans Schenk asks, pointedly,
if
moral judgements are to be made, on
which code should they be based?( 121) Other contributors are less reticent. Michael Johnston,
having made the valuable point that corruption is good
or
bad only in context, then proceeds
to a discussion, speculative rather than empirical, to the effect that corruption reinforces
or widens existing inequalities.( 18) Since corruption (but not extortion) usually means the
transfer of resources from richer merchants to poorer officials, it is difficult to follow his
reasoning. Indeed, Peter Ward suggests that corruption ‘may smooth over the pressure-points
that
. . .
might take the lid
off
existing structures and lead ultimately to the emergence of
more egalitarian ones’.(
1)
On the other hand, he need not have worried. Though the totalitarian
societies
of
Eastern Europe were riddled with corruption, this did not prevent their peoples
from overthrowing the regimes as soon as Mr Gorbachov denied the jailors his assistance.
On the other hand, however, the quotation seems to reveal a ‘greener grass elsewhere’
attitude which may be responsible for a certain weakness in the volume, given its concern
for inequality, namely the failure adequately to distinguish between traditional corruption,
and that arising from the state controls which, as Rousseau pointed out a long time ago,
are necessary for any attempt to effect equality.
Happily, two articles document the corruptions
of
control. The first
is
concerned with
India, whose constitution is explicitly socialist and egalitarian in character, implemented by
To continue reading
Request your trial