In 2023, Turkey was hit by a devastating earthquake – one that claimed some 50,000 lives. More than 300,000 buildings collapsed, crushing entire families within seconds. For months, more than a million people were homeless, with little access to water or sanitation.
This was not simply a “natural” disaster. Instead, it reflected the corrupting influence the construction sector had long exerted over its supposed regulators. In the weeks after the earthquake, Turkish officials arrested nearly 200 contractors over alleged safety violations, which they said had led to building collapses. More broadly, construction magnates with close ties to the ruling party had for years benefitted from construction amnesties granted by the Turkish government—usually in advance of elections—to allow building code violations to be ignored in exchange for a fee. Construction companies remain among the leading donors to all major political parties in Turkey. Meanwhile, Turkish officials allegedly awarded infrastructure projects to a small circle of allies in the construction sector, without competitive bidding processes or proper safety oversight.
Turkey is not alone. In many countries, senior officials exploit their public power for personal or political gain. This stew of self-dealing can include steering public funds toward political allies or friends, soliciting bribes or investments in a family business in exchange for government contracts and licenses, and dropping investigations or offering pardons for key donors.
These actions – sometimes shrouded in secrecy and sometimes brazenly open – can seem far removed from the lives of ordinary people. Compared to the immediacy of healthcare or deportations, elite corruption may seem like an elite problem.
Yet in reality, high-level corruption has profound impacts on people’s daily lives. When core functions of the state, from law enforcement to service-delivery, become warped into tools of personal enrichment or political control—a phenomenon scholars refer to as state capture—ordinary people suffer: They eat tainted foods, their small businesses can’t compete, and, as in Turkey, they live in buildings that can’t survive earthquakes. And in a pay-to-play system, the poor and marginalized are hit hardest.
The Real-world Toll of Corruption
I saw this pattern first hand for the past 15 years. As an anti-corruption researcher and practitioner, I’ve worked around the world in non-profits, foundations, think tanks, the State Department, USAID, and most recently the White House – where I served as Director for Anti-Corruption at the National Security Council. Even in settings where more visible forms of corruption existed – shakedowns by traffic cops, bribes to access schooling – it was typically the high-level collusion of political, business, and criminal interests that proved the most dangerous.
Mobilizing citizens to address this type of systemic corruption requires illuminating the impacts it has on people’s lives.
Some of the most alarming damage occurs in the area of consumer safety. For example, in the week before and after the 2008 Beijing Olympics, more than 300,000 babies across China were rushed to the hospital – poisoned by contaminated infant formula. Several died. It was later revealed that the crisis had ballooned due to the bribery of food inspectors, high-level impunity, and the censorship of whistleblowers by officials wary of bad press around the Olympics. The incident reflects the broader risks that state capture poses to food and safety, including the potential for industry titans to exert undue influence over regulators, sometimes in exchange for campaign donations.
Corruption’s risks for public safety extend to pandemic preparedness and response. The UK’s early struggles to contain COVID-19 cost thousands of lives and more than 12 billion British pounds. Part of the failure was attributed to a weak test-and-trace system, which the government had assigned to be run by a horse-racing executive who had few qualifications – but plenty of political connections. Globally, nepotism, opaque contracting, and secretive campaign financing all pose risks to public health – as budget and personnel decisions are skewed to favor political donors or enrich the ruling family. Globally, a whopping 20-25% of public procurement is lost to corruption – resulting in far fewer services, especially for the poor.
Corruption can also impact affordability and quality of life for local communities. From London to Los Angeles, dirty money often flows into Western financial hubs via real estate purchases. All-cash transactions have historically faced little scrutiny, making them ripe targets for money-laundering by kleptocrats, terrorists, and drug traffickers. Such purchases drive up housing prices and hollow out downtown districts. They also contribute to the economic plight of rural communities. After sanctioned billionaire Ihor Kolomoisky and his associates allegedly embezzled billions of dollars from Ukraine’s largest bank, they laundered the funds, in part, by buying up commercial real estate across the United States. One such purchase was Warren Steel in rural Ohio, where the foreign landlords allegedly ran the factory into the ground – leaving behind a trail of environmental damage, injured workers, and job loss.
Businesses seeking to engage internationally can also be impacted by high-level graft. For instance, last year’s U.S. government report on foreign trade barriers noted that American firms have had “very little success” in bidding on public contracts in Kenya – East Africa’s largest economy – because top government officials frequently dole out contracts in exchange for bribes. The problem extends far beyond Kenya. In high-corruption settings, honest companies often lose out, while undeserving firms with cozy political ties win – and then frequently fail to deliver quality goods. Meanwhile, businesses that try to compete in such environments face increased compliance costs, a lack of predictability, and pricey shakedowns. At a macro scale, countries plagued with corruption are destined for slower growth and more inequality, while substantially improving governance translates to a tripling of income per capita and a two-thirds drop in infant mortality.
Finally, corruption’s impact on national security can be devastating. When policy decisions are auctioned off to the highest briber, foreign adversaries are the first in line. What better way to advance their geopolitical interests than to covertly bankroll candidates, sway public procurement, or pay off election officials in other countries? That’s why Russia has allegedly bribed its way across Eastern Europe in order to advance its territorial aims. And why China has reportedly used kickbacks to secure massive infrastructure projects and paid bribes to boost pro-Chinese electoral candidates, as in the Solomon Islands. Earlier this year, the Chinese firm Huawei was even charged with bribing members of the EU Parliament in an attempt to influence telecomms deliberations. By weaponizing corruption, adversaries are able to undercut other nations’ sovereignty, economic security, and democracy.
A Path Forward
Collective action – across parties, classes, and sectors – can be a formidable counterweight to systemic corruption. In the near term, court cases – brought by businesses or classes of citizens harmed by corruption – can check violations of legal standards, such as competitive procurement laws or restrictions on foreign gifts. Even when plaintiffs don’t prevail, court filings can provide an outlet for formally documenting corruption harms and raising public awareness. Parliamentary hearings can similarly focus public attention on corruption.
Across party lines, citizen groups can push back on corruption, especially through campaigns backed by faith leaders, veterans, and others with centrist credibility. Anti-corruption campaigns can be linked to broader pro-democracy movements, given kleptocrats typically rely on authoritarian tactics and authoritarians, in turn, rely on corruption to maintain the loyalty of political allies, business elites, and security services. In addition, businesses can engage, behind-the-scenes or publicly, on the importance of procurement transparency and judicial independence. Businesses should also sustain their own commitment to anti-bribery compliance, even in the absence of regulatory pressure, and consider collective action pacts to maintain a level playing field.
In the medium term, reversing systemic corruption typically requires an electoral U-turn, as seen recently in Poland, Guatemala, and Senegal. But sweeping corrupt leaders from power is a milestone, not an endpoint. Even when a “corruption-entrepreneur” is ousted, the new pathways for self-enrichment that he paved remain, and will be exploited by future leaders of any political party—unless systemic vulnerabilities are corrected. Strengthening these guardrails requires an enduring policy agenda – which anti-corruption candidates should commit to in advance – and continued outside pressure to implement it once in office.
Through it all, early action is key, before state capture has fully consolidated and civic fatalism sets in. As global lessons demonstrate, we all stand to benefit from governments that serve the people—or we will all pay the costs of corruption.
