Camels and Corruption: Two Things Bill Gates Doesn't Get

When you use an analogy to show the contrast between two things, it helps if the analogized items are as different as the items they're supposed to describe. “That's like comparing apples and oranges,” you say – not “comparing oranges and navel oranges.”

But in the 2014 edition of his foundation's annual letter, Bill Gates compares the difference between worldwide income distribution in 1960 with that in 2012 using the example of a “camel world” (with two humps representing the income in the then-developing world and wealthier countries) contrasted to a “dromedary world” (representing the gradual convergence in income levels between the “West and the rest”). Given that a dromedary is a kind of camel, Gates' classification doesn't make a lot of sense if he's trying to set up a contrast between these two curves.

...OK, fine, so it's hair-splitting. (Maybe with an element of glee derived from the fact that your humble blogger can call out a billionaire techie philanthropist extraordinaire on his camel taxonomy [even one responsible for Windows 8].) That's one view; another is that it actually provides a neat illustration of how Gates misunderstands one of the largest obstacles to development in a considerable number of countries, i.e. corruption.

The Gates letter posits that the main problem with corruption is how often it's trotted out to oppose calls for increased foreign aid. His letter limits the discussion of the problem to the “small scale,” citing two examples in support – “a” hypothetical government official claiming non-existent travel expenses, and six-figure payments from contractors to Cambodian officials in the provision of anti-malarial bed nets. He continues on to decry the calls for cutting off foreign aid where corruption is found and, in essence, paints those who oppose funding corrupt governments as looking for an excuse to turn their backs on the bottom billion.

But just as he sets up a non-existent distinction between dromedaries and camels, Gates' perception of corruption creates a false distinction between corruption and governmental dysfunction. In doing so, he does a huge disservice to his audience in underestimating (under-describing?) the extent of corruption, its pervasiveness, and its damage.

When he implies that the extent of corruption is petty bureaucrats inflating their hotel expenses by an extra 2%, Gates distracts from instances such as the theft of $5 billion from Zaire (DRC) by its president from 1965-1997 and the fact that a recent report by the EU Commission placed the annual cost of corruption to the EU economy at €120 billion. 

When he limits his understanding of corruption to financial abuses, Gates ignores findings like the “specific misuses of power” that define corruption at the grass roots, the fact that some aspect of corruption amounts to an everyday occurrence for men and women across societies in going about their daily lives, and that corruption impacts not only on businesses and employment but also in engagement with public agencies generally. For example, a 2012 report produced jointly by UNDP and the Huairou Commission, covering corruption across three continents, indicated that

16 percent of grassroots women respondents said one of the most bribery-prone service areas was in regards to the processing and acquisition of personal and official documents. These documents range from birth, death, caste and marriage certificates, to ration cards, licenses, passports and proof of income. Many of these documents are essential for everyday life. For example, proof of identity and address documents are required for grassroots women to access any type of basic public services for themselves, their children, and their families (as well as to exercise their rights). Interruptions or delays in the processing of documents can have serious impacts on the quality of life of poor women. Not only do most depend on formal documentation to access public and social entitlements, but they also need certain documents to exercise their right to political participation.

With respect to the police and local government, the two service areas/agencies found to be corrupt most often, the report stated that

Women are entitled to security, justice, and mechanisms to redress grievances. If a woman experiences theft, harassment, domestic violence, or any criminal offence, she needs to be able to approach a law enforcement agency that can guarantee her justice. Instead, study findings show that women experience precisely the opposite as they are routinely expected to pay a bribe to even file a police complaint (as reflected in the fact that 12 percent of women surveyed selected “law enforcement” as one of the service areas in which bribery is the most extensive). Often, perpetrators are able to pay larger sums of money to avoid penalty, thus denying women’s access to justice.

Legal entitlements to land, property and housing, and exercising of inheritance rights are areas where grassroots women experience corruption and extortion of much higher monetary value. Ten percent of survey respondents selected this service area as one in which bribery is especially common. Considering that globally women continue to face discrimination in owning, controlling and accessing land, these biases compounded with frequent bribery make accessing land that much more difficult for women.

This is not a matter of “small scale corruption,” and Gates' blithe oversight of these issues in a letter designed to educate the general public is insulting and dangerous.

When he claims that “technology will help in the fight against corruption,” Gates offers only a sliver of a solution. Sure, monitoring is important, but who cares, when there are no democratic mechanisms in place to throw the bums out? Who cares, when there's a well-paid army preventing citizens from acting on their information? Or when police are collecting payments from both victims and perpetrators, or you need your right to housing or food rations today? Who cares, when the foreign donors don't provide any incentive for the acts of corruption to stop?

Even on Gates' own business-focused terms, the problems resulting from his conclusions are rampant. What about the social trust and security of rule of law that are prerequisites to a thriving entrepreneurial culture? How about preventing corruption before it becomes embedded in business practices? What about the discouragement of women business owners resulting from the unique burdens of corruption they face? And the cost that results from an inability to enroll a kid in school because there's no money for the bribe – where does that fall in Gates' concern for economic growth? How can you build an environment conducive to growth without first tearing out the rot?

In the end, you can't really say, like Gates does, that “this is a dromedary, which is completely separate and apart from that camel over there.” And you can't really say, like Gates does, that “this is foreign aid, which is completely separate and apart from yonder corruption.” Whether to advise him on development or nomenclature, he might want to get some new consultants.