ShareThis Page
Featured Commentary

A recipe to fight corruption in Latin America?

| Saturday, June 13, 2015, 9:00 p.m.
caglecartoons.com

An old joke about Latin America's corruption that is making the rounds on the Internet says government officials from several countries were asked the same question: “Honestly, what's your opinion about hunger in the rest of the world?”

The Swiss official, bewildered, responded: “Hunger? What's hunger?”

The Cuban official, equally puzzled, said, “Opinion? What's opinion?”

The U.S. official said, “Rest of the world? What's rest of the world?”

The Argentine official said, “Honestly? What's honestly?”

The joke came to mind as I was reading a new book, “The Public Wealth of Nations,” by Swedish authors Dag Detter and Stefan Folster, which proposes a bold way to fight corruption across the world — creating “national wealth funds,” such as those that exist in Singapore and Austria, to prevent the discretionary use of state assets by government officials.

It's an idea that would be worth exploring in Latin America, where corruption scandals involving state-owned companies are making headlines almost everywhere.

In Brazil, the scandal over kickbacks paid by the state-run Petrobras oil company to key members of the ruling party is shaking the country. In Argentina, Mexico, Peru, Honduras, Guatemala, Panama and even Chile, the latter long considered the cleanest country in the region, government corruption scandals are the talk of the day.

In Venezuela, public officials and the military have enriched themselves so much that many refer to the ruling “revolutionary” elite as a “kleptocracy.” Venezuela has been ranked by the Transparency International anti-corruption advocacy group as the most corrupt country in Latin America and one of the most corrupt of the 175 nations it measures.

The conventional wisdom among anti-corruption advocates is that the separation of the executive, legislative and judicial powers, alongside an independent press, is essential to effectively fight government graft.

But the authors of “The Public Wealth of Nations” go one step further, saying that in addition to a functioning democracy, countries need to create “national wealth funds,” independent holding companies run by professionals to manage public assets ranging from state-owned corporations, to buildings, to historical monuments.

The old left vs. right debate over whether governments should nationalize or privatize misses the point, the authors argue. What really matters is the quality of the management of public assets and insulating these assets from the hands of politicians.

Rather than focusing on ownership, the debate should focus on maximizing returns, so that profits can be used to build schools and hospitals, they say.

“Public wealth can be a curse if it is left as an open cookie jar, tempting its overseers into corruption and clientelism,” they say. “This does not mean that all wealth needs to be privatized. The process of privatization itself offers tempting opportunities for quick enrichment, thus risking crony capitalism, outright corruption, or dysfunctional regulation.”

In Singapore, Temasek, that country's version of a national wealth fund, has had average annual returns of 16 percent since it was created in 1974. That has allowed the government to take a percentage of these profits as dividends and use them for education, health and infrastructure, he said.

“This could work very well in Latin America,” Dag Detter told me. “That's the best way to fight corruption.”

Andres Oppenheimer is a Latin America correspondent for The Miami Herald.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me