The huge humanitarian crisis posed by the outbreak of Covid-19 has seen governments taking a broad range of fiscal and monetary policy measures to save lives and safeguard the economy. A number of economic stimulus packages have been suggested and rolled out by governments to mitigate the pandemic’s vast socioeconomic consequences — such as interest rate cuts, loans and asset purchases (quantitative easing), the establishment of specific lines of credit for financial institutions, grants, unemployment benefits, and tax relief arrangements.
While governments are scrambling to disburse funds quickly to achieve these goals, some seem to have found an opportunity to siphon funds off for private gain. Human greed is such that these well-intentioned efforts by governments have, for some, opened a bonanza of opportunities for corruption. African governments routinely promise to deal with this scourge, but as the recent blanket and food parcel scandals show, the challenge remains as daunting as ever.
According to Transparency International, health care is a sector highly susceptible to corruption, with an estimated $500bn in annual losses globally even in a normal year. Regrettably, if the pandemic has forced governments to increase their emergency health spending several-fold, so has the amount of money lost to corruption.
A wave of corruption-related incidents has been reported since governments started gearing up their responses to the outbreak, making the responses less effective than they could be. That governments are forced to take decisions with considerations of urgency to save lives and livelihoods is being exploited by those driven by greed to line their pockets with less scrutiny than usual. Now, more than ever, these incidents highlight the need to put sound processes and accountability measures in place to mitigate the risk of increasing corruption in emergency procurement.
A study conducted by the UN Office on Drugs and Crime indicated that even in normal times, about 10%-25% of all money spent on procurement globally is lost to corruption. In the EU, 28% of health corruption cases are related specifically to the procurement of medical equipment.
Emergency responses invariably require relaxation of normal regulatory safeguards and oversight mechanisms in areas such as government procurement, opening the door for corruption. In SA, Corruption Watch has raised concerns over the increased room for looting of public funds due to relaxed procurement measures that were otherwise designed to expedite quick availability of life-saving equipment and other medical supplies.
The depth of depravity of the practice of petty corruption has descended to situations where law enforcement officials have reportedly allowed people to leave quarantine facilities and join communities in exchange for small bribes. Needless to say, bribery and corruption are damaging to the economic wellbeing of any society, even at the best of times; the price for bribery and corruption during emergencies such is paid in lives lost and livelihoods destroyed. It is the worst combination that can befall any society at any time.
Without a doubt, the response to a pandemic should primarily focus on saving lives and livelihoods. It is also understandable that governments would do everything to expedite their responses to such emergencies. After all, during such emergencies every passing minute can make the difference between saving a life or sacrificing it.
However, what the evidence from this crisis shows — as well as that from previous disease outbreaks such as Ebola and swine flu in recent times — is that even during such emergencies, the principles of transparency, accountability and good governance must remain at the core of decision-making in all circumstances. Indeed, more than at any other time, one can argue that decisions taken in times of emergency must be guided by these principles. The cost of failure is too heavy, and its moral impact is too corrosive, for any society to overcome.
The injection of large amounts of emergency funding into the economy has proved to be a fertile ground for corruption to flourish. Strengthening and reviewing the traditional anti-corruption policies to suit situations such as the outbreak response will minimise the dire implications of corruption in emergency responses.
If it is supported by adequate auditing, oversight, accountability and reporting mechanisms, it will go a long way in ensuring those in need receive the designated resources. The government’s emergency response plans should also be continuously updated in line with the fundamental principles of transparency and good governance to reduce opportunities for irregular and corrupt procurement.
• Tefera is an economist working with the African Peer Review Mechanism in Johannesburg.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.