States still matter enormously nowadays, however, particularly for the well-being of their citizens, which in large measure depends on whether their state exhibits good or poor governance standards.

Therefore, assessing governance at the national level is still relevant, without losing perspective on the importance of governance at many other levels as well: at the personal level, or for a multinational or a bank, a community or village, in large cities, and for international institutions.

The quality of governance at many of these levels should also be assessed and rated where possible. In many cases that is done in fact. Transparency International (TI), for instance, in addition to rating countries according to their extent of domestic corruption, also rate countries depending on their multinationals propensity to bribe abroad. The World Bank, in its website, publishes a list of companies and individuals that have been sanctioned by the Bank due to engagement in corruption or other such related illegal activities.

Further, keep in mind that the higher the extent of corruption within a country, the higher in general is the likelihood that their multinationals will bribe abroad as well.

In that context, the blog entry I uploaded yesterday on alleged corruption in Alaska (with the video in the Baranoff hotel), illustrates. You can find it @ http://thekaufmannpost.net/oil-state-capture-and-corruption-in-alaska-hotel-baranoff-suite-604/. High level undue political influence, colluding with powerful private interests, is prevalent in many countries, rich and poor.

Rightly so, David Hoffman emphasizes the paramount importance of transparency and media. He is pushing me for these to be key issues for this blog. This is duly noted. I will do my best, since they are central to improve governance. He is also asking probing questions on the World Bank’s (and its shareholders’) approach to supporting a free media and investigative journalism, as well as the Bank’s approach to lending in countries where there is corruption. These are complex and important topics, open to debate, which deserve fuller discussion. Thus, we will be addressing them in the near future — including in the upcoming World Bank blog on Governance and Anticorruption.

Stay tuned.

Without that acknowledgement, efforts to reduce corruption in the developing world will appear sanctimonious and hypocritical. For example, in my travels around the world I am often asked what the difference is between a direct cash bribe for a government representative in, say, a former Soviet Republic, or the use of lobbyists in the US to deliver travel junkets, gifts, campaign funds and votes to elected leaders. This is a hard question to answer.

The ultimate antidote for corruption, in both the developing and developed world, is transparency. The single most important way to ensure transparency is to create an enabling environment for a free, open and pluralistic media.

Kaufmann would be smart to make this a dedicated section of his website.
Judging from his many speeches on the subject, he certainly understands the importance of the media in ending corruption, yet far more attention should be paid to this issue.

One other point worth noting is the role of some of the developed countries in blocking reform. Attempts by the previous World Bank President, Paul Wolfowitz, to suspend loans to countries violating anti-corruption policies, led to a backlash. It’s understandable why some non-democratic countries might have led this revolt, but when is someone going to explain a certain European country’s role in blocking enforcement of World Bank rules prohibiting corruption, as happened in India, Kenya and elsewhere? And why has at least one European country that publically supports free media and anti-corruption campaigns quietly ended its support for investigative journalism programs around the world? The developed, industrialized world needs to be consistent in the implementation of its anti-corruption policies, if they are to have any hope of success.