Bribery in Broad Daylight: Are Developing Nations Really More Corrupt than the West?

The assumption that bribery and corruption are more prevalent in developing nations has been a longstanding tenet of both media narratives and compliance frameworks. Western governments and institutions often cast themselves as leaders in anti-corruption enforcement while characterising emerging economies as havens of graft. But how accurate is this portrayal? Does it reflect a genuine disparity in integrity, or simply a difference in how corruption manifests and is perceived? And crucially, is there a meaningful ethical distinction between overt bribes paid to customs officials and subtle inducements to politicians in suits?

This article interrogates these assumptions, drawing on empirical data from Transparency International and other authoritative sources. It explores whether the so-called 'clean' nations of the Global North are genuinely less corrupt or simply more sophisticated in disguising it.

Perception Versus Reality: What the Indices Show

Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) remains the most widely cited barometer of public sector corruption worldwide. In its 2024 report, Denmark, Finland, and New Zealand occupy the top rankings, while countries like Somalia, Venezuela, and Syria languish at the bottom. The UK ranks 20th, and the United States 28th. Sub-Saharan African nations dominate the lower third.

These rankings are based not on proven cases of corruption but on perceptions among businesspeople, analysts, and experts. The methodology is transparent and robust, but it reflects the views of largely Western observers who may carry biases. As such, the CPI often tells us more about how corruption is viewed than how it actually functions.

This distinction is crucial. In his book The Hidden Wealth of Nations, economist Gabriel Zucman points out that Western jurisdictions such as Switzerland, the UK, and the US are not just passive observers but active facilitators of global corruption. Shell companies, lax beneficial ownership regimes, and professional enablers like lawyers and accountants help kleptocrats launder money into supposedly clean economies.

Overt Bribery Versus Institutional Capture

In countries with weaker institutions, corruption tends to be more transactional and visible. Paying a port official to release cargo, slipping cash to a traffic officer, or securing a licence through under-the-table payments is often necessary for survival. These bribes are small, frequent, and unambiguously illegal.

By contrast, Western corruption is more likely to take the form of institutional capture. Campaign donations, lobbying, revolving doors between regulators and industry, and opaque public procurement practices create influence that is legal, but ethically questionable. In the UK, the Greensill scandal and PPE procurement controversies during the pandemic revealed the scale at which political access can be monetised without technically breaking the law.

Consider the difference in framing. A small business owner in Ghana who pays a customs bribe is branded corrupt. A UK financier who pays £50,000 to attend a fundraising dinner with government ministers is a philanthropist. One is criminalised; the other is lauded.

The Power of Euphemism

Western corruption often hides behind euphemisms: facilitation, lobbying, consultancy fees, or donor engagement. These sanitised terms deflect attention from the fact that influence can be bought. Transparency International has repeatedly criticised this double standard, noting in its 2023 Global Corruption Barometer that the UK’s political finance regime allows undue influence over public policy.

Historically, the United States has led the way in prosecuting overseas bribery through the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). However, this position has recently shifted. In February 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order pausing FCPA enforcement for 180 days, instructing the Department of Justice to halt new investigations and reassess enforcement guidelines in the name of American economic competitiveness and foreign policy alignment. Although the FCPA remains on the statute books and the Securities and Exchange Commission has not formally suspended civil enforcement, the move has cast a long shadow over the future of anti-bribery efforts in the United States. Transparency International has warned that this action "will empower wrongdoers and send a dangerous signal that bribery is back on the table”.

This pause reveals the fragility of anti-corruption frameworks, even in countries that portray themselves as global leaders in integrity.

Is One Type of Corruption Worse Than the Other?

It is tempting to view low-level bribery in developing countries as more corrosive because it directly affects ordinary citizens. But high-level corruption in developed countries arguably has wider systemic effects. When legislators pass laws favouring donors, or regulators are captured by the industries they oversee, the rule of law is undermined more insidiously. The damage may be less visible, but it is no less profound.

Moreover, corruption in the Global North often enables that of the Global South. Kleptocratic elites depend on Western banks, property markets, and service providers to obscure and preserve their illicit wealth. A 2022 report by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace described London, New York, and Dubai as “cleansing stations” for dirty money from developing nations.

Towards a More Honest Global Discourse

The question is not whether corruption is worse in one region than another, but whether we are honest about how it manifests. Western democracies often wear a veneer of integrity while operating systems that allow elite interests to flourish unchallenged. Developing countries, by contrast, may have less institutional capacity to obscure corruption, but are not inherently more dishonest.

There is also a danger in moral exceptionalism. When Western actors assume their own superiority, they risk alienating counterparts in emerging markets and undermining global cooperation. Anti-corruption efforts must therefore be grounded in humility, reciprocity, and introspection.

Transparency International has called for richer countries to not only clean up their own houses but to stop facilitating corruption elsewhere. This means tightening beneficial ownership rules, increasing transparency in political finance, and holding domestic actors to the same standards imposed on foreign ones.

Conclusion: A Global Problem Demands a Global Reckoning

It is time to reject the notion that corruption is a problem that afflicts 'them' and not 'us'. The difference lies less in integrity and more in visibility. Whether a bribe is paid to a customs officer in Lagos or a minister’s diary is sold to the highest bidder in London, the effect is the same: public trust eroded, fairness compromised, and democracy weakened.

Addressing global corruption requires recognising its many faces and acknowledging that some of the most polished ones are not the most innocent.

Is Your Organisation Truly Corruption-Resilient, or Just Compliant on Paper?

At OpusDatum, we help you go beyond box-ticking to confront the real, often hidden, risks of bribery and undue influence. Partner with OpusDatum and build a future where ethics are embedded, not outsourced. Reach out today to start the conversation.