Anti-corruption in Bolivia: fighting greed - or attitudes?

29th June 2015

Unsurprisingly, when people are asked about corruption, they say they are against it. But that doesn’t tell us what they really think about it, or what they do when confronted with it.   

While minds can’t be read, there are certain social and political indicators that suggest a significant level of tolerance towards corruption. The re-election of governments that are known to be corrupt, for instance. The continued paying of bribes, despite the widely accepted credo that the person who pays up is as corrupt as the person who demands cash. In some countries bribery is so widespread, it has come to be seen as a natural and normal practice. Bolivian life offers a good example of this everyday reality.

'... popular perceptions of corruption may be based not on fact, but on a set of beliefs and values that shape social attitudes towards corruption'

Bolivians do not generally think that their president, Evo Morales, is corrupt. Yet, according to the Latin American Public Opinion Project, they do say that there is now more corruption than before and also that the government is to blame for it. Despite this, and criticisms that the government has broken its promises, annexed state power, lacks transparency, and fails to respect laws, Morales and the Movement towards Socialism (MAS) was re-elected in October 2014 for a third term. Although the integrity of the elections has been questioned, MAS was well ahead of its nearest rival, the National Front (UN), taking 62% of the vote against UN’s 24%.  

But, beyond the result, what really suggests a certain tolerance towards corruption is the argument often used to justify it. During anti-corruption fieldwork in Bolivia, we've heard people say: "Yes, we know the government steals. But they also do things like build roads, provide a funicular in La Paz, and other good things."  

So, what do Bolivians really value about their society? And why, despite highly publicised government efforts to fight corruption, do people think that now there is more corruption than before?

Intriguingly the Latin American Public Opinion Project reveals a mismatch between people’s direct experience of bribery and their perceptions of corruption. So while reported experience declined from 51% in 2000 to 33% in 2010, perceptions that corruption is a problem went up from 63% in 1998 to 74% in 2010. It seems popular perceptions of corruption may be based not on fact, but on a set of beliefs and values that shape social attitudes towards corruption.  

Money and material goods are highly valued in Bolivia, as reflected in the local witticism: ‘he who steals 10 bolivianos [about £1] is a thief; he who steals millions is a millionaire’. The fieldwork we conducted in late 2014 as part of the EU’s ANTICORRP project revealed a clear sense of satisfaction among Bolivians about the perceived prosperity of their country today.

This perception comes from policies such as the nationalisation of the hydrocarbon industry, and a general policy of ‘giving away money’ – paying double wages at Christmas and bonuses to pregnant women, children, and the elderly. Experts predict future economic problems, since such populist measures can hardly guarantee long-term economic growth. Nevertheless, the ‘policy of giving’ plays very well with the majority, for whom "all that matters is to have money today". One interviewee told us that government stealing is forgiven in Bolivia, so long as the people get something in return.

'There is a widespread belief that even public officials who have the best of intentions will find the context in which they work more powerful than any personal commitment to integrity'

Another popular Bolivian saying has it that society is divided between clever people who know how to take advantage of any situation and idiots who do not. This implies an acceptance of a ‘natural’ link between power and the opportunity to become wealthy. Evo Morales’ discourse turns on the principle that now it is the turn of the indigenous peoples and the marginalised to govern; one interviewee suggested that this translates as ‘it is now our turn to enjoy the benefits of power, as others did before’. 

There is a widespread belief that even public officials who have the best of intentions will find the context in which they work more powerful than any personal commitment to integrity. Guillermo Pou, founder of Transparencia Bolivia, says Bolivians feel that belonging to a group is more important than thinking for themselves. This makes it hard for anyone to stand up for what they believe in if their personal values conflict with the views of those around them. This situation is similar to that facing citizens in the former Soviet Union as described by Grodeland, Koshechkina and Miller in the late 1990s: ‘Foolish to give, and yet more foolish not to take’.

This all suggests that values and beliefs, seen in context, may hold the key not only to our understanding of attitudes towards corruption, but also to what we can do about it.  

Transparency, accountability and more efficient bureaucracies are obviously part of the solution. However, Bolivia shows us that reducing tolerance of corruption is also a critical factor that goes to the very heart of the problem. Anti-corruption policies are usually wholly focused on regulating behaviour by punishing infractions of ethical codes. Clearly they also need to proactively develop integrity programmes that can promote and embed best practice.

The challenge of actively promoting integrity – not just fighting corruption – will determine whether there can be real change in both attitudes and outcomes in Bolivia.


Image: Views from the new cable car and its station in El Alto, La Paz, Bolivia (David Almeida, Flickr)


Leave a comment

The views expressed in Opinions posts are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of DLP, the Australian Government or DLP's partner organisations.



Nieves Zúñiga

Nieves Zúñiga

Dr Nieves Zúñiga is a Research Fellow in the School of Politics and International Relations, University of Nottingham. She has a special interest in the design and implementation of anti-corruption policies, with a particular focus on integrity management. She is currently working on the EU’s ANTICORRP project, seeking to identify factors that promote or hinder effective anti-corruption policy in Bolivia.

Read more


Paul M Heywood

Paul M Heywood

Paul M Heywood is Sir Francis Hill Professor of European Politics in the School of Politics and International Relations, University of Nottingham. His research focuses on political corruption, institutional design and state capacity in contemporary Europe. Current projects include an ESRC/Hong Kong Integrity Management study in the UK, HK and China, and the EU’s ANTICORRP project on anti-corruption policies.  

Read more

Related items

Parliamentary strengthening: the IDC report

Having presented evidence to the UK's International Development Committee, what of the final report?

Opinion by Tam O'Neil9th February 2015

Is education a magic bullet for addressing corruption? Insights from Papua New Guinea

This post for Devpolicy unpacks the findings of a new Development Policy Centre / DLP paper 

Opinion by Grant Walton17th June 2015

Politics shape services; and services shape politics

How governance and sector specialists can help each other understand the politics of service delivery

Opinion by Richard Batley19th June 2014

Corruption: do we target the servant or the paymaster?

Guest post for The Guardian on UK aid watchdog report

Opinion by Heather Marquette5th November 2014

Corruption: is the right message getting through?

The unintended consequences of raising awareness of corruption

Opinion by Caryn Peiffer12th August 2015
Opinion by Heather Marquette13th October 2015
Opinion by Susy Ndaruhutse11th September 2014

Neither 'good guys' nor 'bad guys': Positive engagement with armed groups

Final post in a series on 'Power, politics and positive deviance', theme of DLP's 2016 Annual Conference.

Opinion by Suda Perera5th February 2016

Masculinity and sexual violence in India

Will the shocking Nirbaya case shift attitudes?

Opinion by Martin Rew16th September 2015
Opinion by Heather Marquette9th March 2015
Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal26th April 2016
Opinion by Heather Marquette10th November 2014

International donors - aiding or abetting?

The 'donor's dilemma' is discussed in a new DLP paper.

Opinion by Niheer Dasandi10th September 2015

Does talking about corruption make it seem worse?

Guest post for The Guardian's Global Development Professionals Network

Indonesia and the political settlements trap

The challenges of 'resettling the settlement'

Opinion by Graham Teskey17th July 2015

Innovation: transactional or transformative?

Given the fascination with 'innovation' in the field of development, it's time to discuss what the word might mean.

Opinion by Chris Roche23rd March 2015

Inclusive political settlements: who and what gets included, and how?

First of six posts on political settlements by researchers, policymakers and practitioners.

Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal13th July 2015

Political analysis as the practical art of the possible

Bringing politics back into PEA - a new paper with Adrian Leftwich

Opinion by David Hudson24th July 2014

Developmental leaders, 'dirty hands', and the dark side of collaboration

The ambiguities of supporting 'developmental leadership'

Opinion by Niheer Dasandi11th December 2013

Identifying rebels with a cause (and effect)

'Power, politics and positive deviance' is the theme of DLP's 2016 annual conference.

Opinion by Chris Roche1st December 2015

Overcoming premature evaluation

Guest post in From Poverty to Power

Opinion by Chris Roche15th November 2016

‘Crows who come in search of dollars’: NGO legitimacy in conflict zones

Do political dynamics affect NGO legitimacy more than performance?

Opinion by Oliver Walton19th August 2014
Opinion by Caryn Peiffer5th February 2015