Buying peace or fuelling war: the role of corruption in armed conflict

This paper challenges the assumption that corruption is a primary cause of under-development and conflict. On the contrary, the author argues that:

• corruption is often a response to, rather than the cause of, underdevelopment and instability
• in some instances corruption can actually contribute to stability by serving as a means to cope with uncertainty, scarcity and disorder, and in some forms may also exist alongside economic growth
• in some societies, certain types and patterns of corruption may be accorded a degree of legitimacy within the population
• there are various patterns of corruption, some of which are more likely to induce instability and conflict than others.

Consequently, conflict may be engendered more by changes in the pattern of corruption than by the existence of corruption itself, by upsetting the existing power structures and making way for new struggles over power and resources. The author warns that reforms targeting corruption which do not recognise these complexities can potentially result in worse forms of corruption with even more deleterious effects on society. For example, reform programmes such as civil service reforms, deregulation and privatisation may have the effect of weakening and fragmenting governments and creating a highly unstable predatory regime, creating a situation which is more likely to degenerate into large-scale violence. The paper also observes that failure to recognise the role of corruption in fuelling and perpetuating conflict can result in inadequate conflict resolution and peace-building responses.

Efforts to achieve peace and address corruption therefore need to differentiate between various the types of corruption, and to understand and respond to the factors shaping the motivations of key players and power brokers involved in corrupt activities.