How Government Corruption Hurts Economic Growth
Government corruption of any magnitude is a problem. It erodes citizens' trust in government, fosters animosity between voters and public officials, and hinders economic activity.
One study that looks at country-level corruption finds that a 1% increase in the level of corruption reduces the rate of economic growth by 0.72%. The authors attribute most of the negative impact corruption has on growth to the political instability corruption causes, which generates uncertainty for businesses. Another study finds that countries with more corruption receive less foreign direct investment and experience higher inflation, both of which reduce growth.
There is evidence that corruption reduces economic growth in America, too. One study finds that more state-level corruption reduces investment and the growth of output per worker. Another study finds that states with more corruption convictions from 1976 to 1980 experienced slower income growth over the next 20 years. This study also finds that states with more educated populations are less corrupt on average. To explain this finding, the authors suggest that educated voters are more inclined and better able to monitor public officials which reduces opportunities for corruption.
In a recent analysis, Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute examines corruption in the United States by federal judicial district. To measure the level of government corruption in America, Edwards' examines Department of Justice data on public corruption convictions across the country's 94 federal judicial districts. He orders the districts by the average annual number of convictions per 100,000 people from 2004 to 2023. Washington, D.C. has the highest conviction rate, and three U.S. territories are in the top five. In the contiguous United States, districts in Louisiana, Montana, Oklahoma, Kentucky, South Dakota, and Tennessee have the highest conviction rates. The least corrupt areas according to this measure are the state of New Hampshire and the Middle District of North Carolina, where Greensboro is located. Both have annual conviction rates of only 0.05.
Closer inspection of the economic data in places with the most convictions reveals the adverse economic effects corruption can have on local economies. Take Louisiana and Illinois: Both states have reputations for being corrupt that are supported by the convictions data and recent stories. In Louisiana, federal officials recently arrested and indicted several former Louisiana law enforcement officials and businessmen allegedly involved in a U-visa scam. In Illinois, the corruption case around former Illinois House Speaker Michael Madigan is still playing out. A former CEO of Illinois utility company ComEd was sentenced just this week.
In addition to high levels of corruption, both Illinois and Louisiana had personal income growth below the national average over the last year according to the most recent data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). Income growth was 5.4% in Illinois, 5.9% in Louisiana, and 6.7% for the entire country. In the two states with the least corruption, New Hampshire and Utah, income growth was 6.6% and 7.2%, respectively. These are just a few observations, of course, but they are consistent with the studies discussed earlier.
While government corruption in the United States is far below the levels of autocratic countries, it is still a problem that needs to be addressed. There are plenty of ideas, including strengthening the Inspectors General who oversee audits and investigations in government agencies. One recent study that examines political corruption in Brazil finds that strengthening government audits can reduce corruption. Other policies include better enforcement of anti-corruption laws already on the books; more investigative journalism to uncover corruption; and greater protection and rewards for whistleblowers that reveal corruption.
None of these are a silver bullet, but in combination they would help reduce corruption. Voters should also emphasize character when evaluating political candidates to reduce the number of dishonest people elected to office.
Monitoring public corruption is important since we cannot address a problem we do not know about. The Cato Institute analysis is a reminder that government corruption is alive and well in America. Reducing it will improve local economies and cultivate more trust between voters and elected officials.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why you might one day use stablecoins in place of credit cards or bank accounts
If you're buying a new laptop or pair of shoes today, you may encounter a host of payment options: a credit or debit card, PayPal, Apple Pay, or buy now, pay later plans. Soon, you could see another option at checkout: stablecoins. President Trump recently signed the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act, or GENIUS Act, establishing federal regulations for stablecoins. Many observers believe that by establishing clear rules, lawmakers have paved the way for cryptocurrency to go mainstream as a means of payment. Even if you've never dabbled in crypto, the new law could change the way you shop, send money, get paid, and bank. What is a stablecoin? Stablecoin is a form of crypto, meaning it's digital money that runs on a blockchain network. But it's a bit different from many mainstream cryptocurrencies. Many popular cryptos like bitcoin and ethereum are notorious for their wild price swings. That volatility makes them popular with investors seeking to profit from those ups and downs. But it also makes them impractical to use as currency. As the name implies, stablecoins are intended to have a stable value. Their value is pegged to the value of another asset, usually the US dollar. For example, one token of tether or USDC (two of the most popular stablecoins) is worth exactly $1. Because its value doesn't have the dramatic highs and lows associated with most cryptos, it's a viable way to pay for goods and services or transfer funds. At the same time, it also avoids a lot of the headaches associated with traditional banking. 'Many traditional cards charge merchants 2% to 3% in fees, a cost that is ultimately passed on to consumers,' said Himal Makwana, senior vice president and head of strategy and new initiatives at Fidelity National Information Services Inc. 'Stablecoin transactions, on the other hand, can cost just pennies regardless of transaction size. For consumers, this means no more waiting days for funds to clear, no more exorbitant fees for sending money abroad, and no more banking hours limiting when you can move your money.' Even before the passage of the GENIUS Act, stablecoins were surging in popularity. Circulation has doubled to about $30 billion in daily transactions over the past 18 months, according to a July 2025 McKinsey & Co. report. But stablecoins still aren't a fixture in consumer payments and spending. They've largely been used for trading into and out of other types of crypto and, to a lesser extent, sending payments across international borders. Read more: Stablecoins go mainstream after Circle's blockbuster IPO. Here's what they do. What's changing under the GENIUS Act? The GENIUS Act is the first major federal law regulating crypto. The CLARITY Act, a second crypto regulation bill, recently won approval from the US House of Representatives. Upon signing the act into law, Trump — whose family owns a stake in World Liberty Financial, which recently launched a stablecoin of its own — said the GENIUS Act 'creates a clear and simple regulatory framework to establish and unleash the immense promise of dollar-backed stablecoins.' The law establishes who can issue stablecoins and requires a 1:1 reserve backing with cash or short-term US Treasury securities. In other words, if you buy $1 of stablecoin, the issuer must keep $1 in cash or cash equivalents in reserve. It also establishes various marketing rules, like prohibiting issuers from advertising that their stablecoins are federally backed or insured, as well as anti-money laundering regulations. 'The GENIUS Act is a major step toward making stablecoins safer and more widely used,' said Erick McAfee, director of growth at pay-as-you-go app Supertab. 'With clear rules in place, people will start to see faster, simpler ways to pay and get paid, especially online. Over time, this could change how we think about everyday payments, making them feel more like messaging: quick, easy, and reliable.' How the GENIUS Act could affect you The specifics of the GENIUS Act may sound wonky at first blush. But if the law does end up propelling stablecoins into the mainstream, here are a few things you can expect. More merchant acceptance… but what's in it for you? Credit card processing fees can run as high as 3.5%, plus merchants pay a flat fee for each transaction. Meanwhile, traditional payment methods can often take several days to settle. By comparison, stablecoin transactions typically cost less than $0.1 and offer near-instant settlement. Not surprisingly, many businesses are expected to embrace stablecoins and the potential cost and time savings. As a customer, you may not reap many benefits by paying with stablecoin instead of your credit card right away. 'In the short term, there aren't that many advantages to paying with a stablecoin compared to a traditional payment card,' said Mike Hudack, CEO of Sling Money, a fintech company that uses stablecoins to facilitate payment transfers. 'Traditional payment cards have consumer protections that stablecoins don't. This will change over time. There's lots of work going on to address this gap.' It's possible that merchants will find ways to incentivize stablecoin payments. For example, a merchant could pass on a portion of their savings from processing fees by giving you a discount when you pay with stablecoins instead of a credit card. In the long term, you could see retailers issuing their own stablecoins. Both Amazon and Walmart have reportedly toyed with the idea. Doing so would keep customers spending within their ecosystems while also saving retailers money. But the wider benefit to customers isn't entirely clear. Investment banking giant Morgan Stanley compared the prospect to digital prepaid gift cards in a recent report to clients. Essentially, you're giving money to a retailer to hold on to so that you can spend it at a later date. Greater acceptance of micro-payments Credit card processing fees make it prohibitively expensive for businesses to accept micro-payments of a few cents to a few dollars. But micro-payments could gain acceptance if stablecoin usage takes off. 'Before, sending someone a few cents wasn't worth it because the fees were higher than the payment itself,' McAfee said. 'With stablecoin, you can support creators, pay per article or feature, or tip someone instantly, without worrying about cost or delays. It supports entirely new monetization models that reward engagement, not just big purchases.' Faster, cheaper international transfers If you've ever sent funds to loved ones in another country, you're no doubt familiar with the pain points of making international transfers. The World Bank estimates that remittances cost the sender about 6.62% of each transfer, which amounts to about $31 of a $500 transfer. International wire transfers can also take anywhere from one to five days to complete. Wider adoption of stablecoins could be a game-changer for international transfers, given the low costs and speed. Cross-border stablecoin foreign transaction fees are minimal, and transfers can be executed immediately. 'What used to take days and cost $30-plus now takes seconds and costs less than a penny,' Hudack said. Your bank will want in on the action Given the potential disruption to traditional payment rails, major financial institutions are exploring whether to issue their own stablecoins. Bank of America, JPMorgan & Chase, Wells Fargo, and Citigroup have explored the possibility of issuing stablecoins, both independently or by teaming up. But the impact on you and your bank account has yet to be seen. Under the GENIUS Act, stablecoin issuers are banned from paying interest on stablecoins held in reserve. Unlike money you might park in a high-yield savings account and earn 3% or 4% interest on, funds held in stablecoins aren't earning interest. Also, funds held in stablecoins aren't insured by the Federal Insurance Deposit Corp. or the National Credit Union Association. You may not even notice you're using stablecoins If the idea of converting your dollars to stablecoins gives you a headache, rest assured: A lot of the changes you could see as the result of broader stablecoin usage won't require you to understand how stablecoin works. 'At first, stablecoins will just be implemented in the background. Instead of routing through banking rails, your payment might move over a stablecoin network and settle instantly,' Hudack said. 'You won't need to think about 'converting' into stablecoins any more than you think about how Netflix streams video through fiber.' He points to his own platform, Sling Money, as an example: It uses stablecoins to facilitate transfers, but users move money in the same way they would with other platforms. 'The only difference for the end-consumer is that the transaction is near-instant and near-free,' Hudack said. 'But the fundamental physics of stablecoins are different than fiat money and enable a lot of new experiences that aren't otherwise possible.' Sign up for the Mind Your Money newsletter Sign in to access your portfolio
Time Magazine
14 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Trump's Battle With Sanctuary Cities Dealt Major Blow
Donald Trump has been dealt a significant setback in his ongoing battle over sanctuary cities, after a U.S. federal judge threw out the Administration's lawsuit which looked to block legislation in Illinois that limits local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities. The Trump Administration argued that existing so-called 'sanctuary laws' in the state run counter to federal laws because they restrict local officials from sharing information with federal agents, stopping immigration officials from identifying people who 'may be subject to removal.' But those concerns were dismissed by Judge Lindsay C. Jenkins, who said finding sanctuary policies as 'impermissible regulation'would run counter to the Tenth Amendment. 'It would allow the federal government to commandeer States under the guise of intergovernmental immunity—the exact type of direct regulation of states barred by the Tenth Amendment,' said the judge. Jenkins, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, added: 'Because the Tenth Amendment protects defendants' sanctuary policies, those policies cannot be found to discriminate against or regulate the federal government.' Trump's war with sanctuary cities began on day one in office, with an Executive Order, titled 'Protecting the American People Against Invasion.' In the Executive Order, Trump argues that sanctuary jurisdictions 'seek to interfere with the lawful exercise of Federal law enforcement operations,' and calls on the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to withhold federal funding from these cities. In April, Trump then signed an Executive Order asking Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) identify cities and states that don't sufficiently comply with Trump's federal immigration laws within a month. It is a continuation of Trump's first term, during which he also signed an Executive Order that looked to ensure sanctuary jurisdictions did not receive federal funding. At the time, though, multiple cities sued Trump, and the courts subsequently upheld the legality of such provisions. Read More: What Are Sanctuary Cities and Why Is Trump Targeting Them? Though Trump's battle might be lost in Illinois, his Administration continues to fight across the country. The day before the lawsuit in Illinois failed, Thursday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced new legal action against New York City for its sanctuary laws. Earlier this week, Louisville, Kentucky chose to acquiesce to the administration's immigration policies and cease its designation as a sanctuary city. As human rights organizations argue for the importance of sanctuary and some cities push back against what they view as federal government overreach, the question remains which cities are fighting back against the crackdown. Chicago's and Illinois leadership was very clear in its desire to challenge Trump's immigration policies. Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker celebrated the ruling on X, saying that, 'Illinois just beat the Trump Administration in federal court.' 'This ruling affirms what we have long known: that Chicago's Welcoming City Ordinance is lawful and supports public safety,' Chicago's Mayor Brandon Johnson said in a statement responding to the ruling, saying he was 'pleased' with the decision. 'Chicago cannot be compelled to cooperate with the Trump Administration's reckless and inhumane immigration agenda.' Chicago's status as a sanctuary city is just one iteration of the term—though the long-time Democratic city has been designated as such cities that limit information shared with federal immigration officers. Though there is no specific definition for a sanctuary city, the term refers to jurisdictions with a wide range of laws in place to limit their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. For Chicago in particular, their 'Welcoming City Ordinance,' argues that 'partnering with [Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE)] would go against our mission to make Chicago the most immigrant friendly city in the country and turn ours into a community of fear for immigrants.' The Trump Administration, though, also has ongoing suits against not just New York City but also Los Angeles, Denver, Rochester, and four cities in New Jersey. Tom Homan, President Trump's 'border czar,' also has laid out the administration's plans to continue combat sanctuary cities. Read More: Sanctuary Cities Are Not New 'Sanctuary cities are sanctuaries for criminals—hard stop,' Homan said. 'And President Trump made a commitment a couple weeks ago that we're going to prioritize sanctuary cities.' Simultaneously, certain cities designated 'sanctuary cities' have been less strong in their pushback against the federal Government. Louisville's Department of Corrections will now notify the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) at least 48 hours before an inmate with an immigration detainer is scheduled to be released from custody. The city's mayor, Craig Greenberg cited 'a terrifying increase in raids by ICE, including mass raids' on cities designated as sanctuary cities—claiming that by taking Louisville off the designated sanctuary city list, he prevents risking ' the safety of our broader immigrant community.' While New York City has remained the country's largest sanctuary city, its status as such and Mayor Eric Adams' desire to push back against the federal government has come into question. Even before the latest lawsuit issued by the Trump government, Adams' Administration had been embroiled in a battle with the New York City Council and court system to allow ICE agents into Rikers Island. Though he has said he will 'without a doubt' keep the city's sanctuary status. Adams has called for changes to the city's sanctuary laws after the Justice Department suit, saying that they 'go too far' in some places. 'I think we need to tweak the current laws to allow us to coordinate with the federal government when it comes down to removing those dangerous people from our streets," Adams told CBS New York. Back in February, Adams' cooperation with the federal government came under questioning after the Justice Department ordered federal prosecutors to drop corruption charges against the Mayor, stating that the case was interfering with the Democratic mayor's ability to follow through with the President's agenda to crack down on illegal immigration. The move pushed Gov. Kathy Hochul to consider removing Adams from office.
New York Post
14 minutes ago
- New York Post
Pakistan says it's ‘very close' to a trade deal with President Trump
Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar claimed his country is 'very close' to locking down a tariff deal with the US ahead of President Trump's fast-approaching Aug. 1 deadline for the 'Liberation Day' levies to take effect. Dar met with Secretary of State Marco Rubio and predicted a deal is just days away as the Trump administration scrambles to finalize agreements with countries before the deadline. 'I think we are very close to finalizing a deal with the U.S.,' Dar said during an appearance at the Atlantic Council think tank Friday. 'Our teams have been here in Washington, discussing, having virtual meetings and a committee has been tasked by the prime minister to fine-tune now.' 'It's not going to be months, not even weeks, I would say days.' Since Trump unveiled his 'Liberation Day' tariffs, a deluge of countries have been negotiating with his team to cut lightning deals. 3 Pakistani Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar met with Secretary of State Marco Rubio this week to discuss trade and other issues. Getty Images 3 President Trump has been trying to overhaul US trade policy during his second term. Ron Sachs/CNP / Trump repeatedly agreed to postpone the implementation rate for most of those tariffs, with the most recent deadline being Aug. 1 to give more time for negotiations to play out. So far, he has locked down tariff deals with the United Kingdom, Vietnam, Japan, Indonesia and the Philippines. The Trump administration also has a tariff truce with China, where there is an Aug. 12 deadline to ink a broader deal. At the moment, Trump has imposed a 10% baseline tariff rate on almost all imports, tariffs on Chinese imports, 25% tariffs on automobiles, aluminum, and steel, as well as 25% on imports from Canada and Mexico that don't comply with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. Total US trade with Pakistan clocked in at about $7.3 billion last year, according to the Office of the US Trade Representative. The State Department and Pakistan also confirmed the two sides held talks on trade issues, but didn't reveal a timeline for a deal getting finalized. The State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Earlier this year, fighting erupted between India and Pakistan after the Pahalgam terrorist attack near India's administered Jammu and Kashmir. The incident sparked a chain of events that led to India firing missiles into Pakistan. Pakistan responded in kind. The two countries, which have been mired in decades-long tensions over Kashmir, are both nuclear-armed, which has led to elevated concerns about the conflict spiraling out of control. 3 Pakistan revealed plans to nominate President Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize last month. REUTERS A ceasefire was announced between the two in May. Trump has since publicly taken credit for helping to mediate the differences between the two sides. Last month, Pakistan announced plans to nominate Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize over his 'decisive diplomatic intervention' during the conflict with India.
