b1854
Corruption, Good Governance and Economic Development: Contemporary Analysis and Case Studies
Andrew Williams
33
Table 3.3 Comparison of selected countries, Release of Information scores and GDP per capita, 2005
RI score, 2005
GDP per capita in 2000 (PPP in 2005 US$)
Qatar
0.39
70,715.83
Libya
0.40
10,882.96
Oman
0.49
20,350.21
Angola
0.49
3,728.70
Saudi Arabia
0.54
21,219.71
Kenya
0.54
1,375.30
Kuwait
0.57
21,574.30
Côte d′Ivoire
0.57
1,613.61
in Table 3.3, which highlights the comparison between four Middle Eastern countries (Qatar, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait) and four other countries that received the same or similar score as these countries in the year 2005 (Libya, Angola, Kenya and Cote d’Ivoire respectively). In each of these examples, the Middle East countries show a level of per capita income many multiples greater than their chosen counterpart. It may be argued that these Middle East countries are ‘exceptional’ cases because their per capita incomes are boosted due to their energy exports. But that is not the point. Irrespective of how they came to have higher levels of income, the fact remains that they could have chosen to spend far more resources on gathering and, importantly, releasing information if they had so chosen. The fact that they haven’t, therefore, begs the question of why they have chosen not to. One possibility is that information is deliberately held back from the broader community because the lack of information helps the government to distribute patronage without overt scrutiny. There is another compelling reason for thinking that these scores do not simply reflect the level of development by looking at some of the transition countries of Eastern Europe. Although these transition countries may prove to be the exception to the rule, they are particularly useful in this context because there is a clear distinction between their pre- and post-transition situation. Back in 1960 three of these countries
b1854_Ch-03.indd 33
12/2/2014 11:39:41 AM
