The current imbroglio around the PNC-led APNU/AFC coalition government’s decision to increase salary for its ministers, and the blitzkrieg of protest following this decision saw government officials scrambling to defend the decision. Two things seem clear. One, this was a conscious and collective decision made by the Granger Cabinet, with full support from the AFC. Two, President Granger, our learned historian, has come out in strong support of the salary increase. The buck stops with Granger. If Granger feels that objections are being raised by disgruntled members of the opposition, then he surely does not have his fingers on even his supporters. If the reactions in Guyana are not loud enough, then one simply has to look at social media responses and the negative reactions to this surprising move. Clearly, the honeymoon period for the new regime is over. The PPP, while in office, may have contributed in several ways to make corruption seem normal after they did not move to extirpate the endemic corruption under the PNC regime and secondly in their own practices. Granger seems to be gambling that because the perception of corruption was so strongly associated with the PPP government, it will not stick to his regime. However, as neutral voices have rightly queried, what authoritative body is monitoring Ministerial workload, how was this pay scale determined and how is it justified by cost of living adjustment? If we follow the logic, Granger is telling us that PPP ministers before May 11 were underpaid, while the new government seems hard-pressed to prove widespread corruption cases under the previous regime. Clearly, like most Third World countries, corruption does have a toll on the Guyanese economy, though it is difficult to quantify the extent, even with longitudinal studies over many years. To make sense of this, the Corruption Perceptions Index produced by Transparency International (TI) in 2014 ranked Guyana at 124, Haiti at 115, Suriname at 100 and the US at 17, all out of 175 countries and territories. It is interesting to note that some of the fastest growing economies of the world, such as Indonesia, India, Brazil and China, are also deemed the most corrupt in the world, according to TI. But how does Granger defend this untimely and unexpected move to allocate a large 50% increase in salary for ministers, with a mere 5% given to civil servants. According to Granger, the pay increase will promote “good governance”. Since we cannot read his mind, Granger is probably thinking that if ministers are paid handsomely, the tendency for public officials to engage in malfeasance and graft and accept bribes from citizens will be minimized because they [ministers] will not be tempted to steal from the cookie jar. On the surface, this seems plausible. But is this really true? Does a high paying job deter corruption and the temptation to engage in corrupt practices? Corruption exists in society because moral values have collapsed. Rich or poor, people are always tempted to steal. Measures of corruption and poor governance are more correlated with per capita income and with the United Nations Human Development Index (HDI). Richer countries, on average, have less reported corruption and better functioning governments. The same holds true for countries with high levels of HDI, a measure that includes levels of health and educational attainment as well as a logarithmic measure of income. In other words, very high levels of human development are associated with low levels of corruption. According to the World Bank, governance refers to “the manner in which power is exercised in the management of a country’s economic and social resources for development.” In broad terms, governance is about the institutional environment in which citizens interact among themselves and with government agencies/officials. A number of multilateral organizations including the United Nations Development Programme and the World Bank have conducted studies that have reflected on the elements of good governance, and on their relation to development.

In its report, Governance for Sustainable Human Development, the UNDP, as well as the World Bank have identified some key factors that contribute to good governance, namely respect for the rule of law, transparency in government, government responsiveness and accountability, consensus-building, and, effectiveness and efficiency. A central feature of transparency in government requires that government officials publicly declare their asset before they take office. Increase in salary not based on desired experience or ministerial performance (we are told that APNU/AFC ministers have more responsibility and the salary structure is out of touch with reality) is frowned upon and smacks of Burnhamite arrogance.

The conclusion is clear. Salary increases may have little or no influence on good governance. Corruption is a common barrier to economic development. Instead of allowing funds to flow safely and efficiently between groups, corruption adds overhead costs to projects and usually demands bribes for bypassing bureaucratic red tape. In effect, Granger claims to be using the public coffer to combat corruption. There is no guarantee that this will work because the correlation is difficult to establish. What the Granger government should be focusing on is realistic measures that have a more direct impact on corruption, such as, improving the rule of law, transparency, creating an effective Ombudsman, and better mechanisms for detecting and punishing corruption.

Another conclusion can be drawn: The problem of corruption in the developing countries like Guyana cannot be solved simply by applying anti-corruption structures that work in OECD countries or those with high HDI. The experience the latter countries have acquired in terms of legislation, public procurement codes, institutionalized procedures, multiple check points, and control procedures, for example, is valuable, but may take generations to develop in Guyana.

A reduction in corruption is tied to economic development – which this government is ignoring. However, arguing that a salary increase can lead to good governance without creating institutional changes in the way we are being governed is like building house without its foundations.