Innovation is the antidote to corruption

So in 2011,

someone broke into my sister's office

at the university
where she teaches in Nigeria.

Now thankfully, the person was caught,
arrested, and charged to court.

When I get into court,

the clerks who were assigned
to my sister's case

informed her that they wouldn't
be able to process the paperwork

unless she paid a bribe.

Now, at first she thought
it was part of a practical joke,

but then she realized they were serious,

and then she became furious.

I mean, think about it:

here she was, the recent victim of a crime

with the very people
who were supposed to help her,

and they were demanding a bribe from her.

That's just one of the many ways

that corruption impacts
millions of people in my country.

You know, growing up in Nigeria,

corruption permeated
virtually every element of the society.

Reports of politicians embezzling
millions of dollars were common.

Police officers stealing money

or extorting money
from everyday hardworking citizens

was routing practice.

I felt that development
could never actually happen

so long as corruption persisted.

But over the past several years,

in my research on
innovation and prosperity,

I've learned that corruption is actually
not the problem hindering our development.

In fact, conventional thinking

on corruption

and its relationship to development

is not only wrong, but it's holding
many poor countries backwards.

So the thinking goes like this:

in a society that is poor and corrupt,

our best shot at reducing corruption
is to create good laws,

enforce them well,

and this will make way for development
and innovation to flourish.

Now, it make sense on paper,

which is why many governments
and development organizations

invest billions of dollars annually

on institutional reform
and anticorruption programs.

But many of these programs
fail to reduce corruption

because we have the equation backwards.

You see, societies don't develop
because they've reduced corruption,

they're able to reduce corruption
because they've developed.

And societies develop
through investments in innovation.

Now at first, I thought
this was impossible.

Why would anyone in their right mind

invest in a society where,
at least on the surface,

it seems a terrible place to do business?

You know, a society where
politicians are corrupt

and consumers are poor?

But then the more I learned
about the relationship

between innovation and corruption,

the more I started
to see things differently.

Here's how this played out
in sub-Saharan Africa

as the region developed
its telecommunications industry.

In the late 1990s,

fewer than five percent of people
in sub-Saharan Africa had phones.

In Nigeria, for example, the country
had more than 110 million people

but fewer than half a million phones
in the whole nation.

Now, this scarcity fueled
widespread corruption in the industry.

I mean, public officials who worked
for the state-owned phone companies

demanded bribes from people
who wanted phones,

and because most people
couldn't afford to pay the bribes,

phones were only available
to those who were wealthy.

Then an entrepreneur named Mo Ibrahim

decided that he would set up
a telecommunications company

on the continent.

Now, when he told his colleagues
about his idea, they just laughed at him.

But Mo Ibrahim was undeterred,

and so in 1998 he set up Celtel.

The company provided affordable
mobile phones and cell service

to millions of Africans
in some of the poorest

and most corrupt countries in the region,

I mean countries such as Congo, Malawi,

Sierra Leone, and Uganda.

You see, in our research,
we call what Mo Ibrahim built

a market-creating innovation.

Market-creating innovations transform
complicated and expensive products

into products that
are simple and affordable

so that many more people in society
could access them.

Now in this case, phones were expensive

before Celtel made them
much more affordable.

Now as other investors,

some of his colleagues, actually,

saw that it was possible to create
a successful mobile phone company

on the continent,

they flooded in with billions
of dollars of investments,

and this led to significant
growth in the industry.

From barely nothing in 2000,

today virtually every African country

now has a vibrant mobile
telecommunications industry.

The sector now supports
close to one billion phone connections,

it has created nearly four million jobs,

and generates billions of dollars
in taxes every year.

Now these are taxes that governments
can now reinvest into the economy

to build their institutions.

And here's the thing:

because most people no longer
have to bribe public officials

just to get a phone,

corruption,

at least within this industry,

has reduced.

Now, if Mo Ibrahim had waited
for corruption to be fixed

in all of sub-Saharan Africa
before he invested,

he would still be waiting today.

You know, most people who engage
in corruption know they shouldn't.

I mean, the public officials
who were demanding bribes from people

to get phones, and the people
who were paying the bribes,

they knew they were breaking the law,

but they did it anyways.

The question is, why?

The answer? Scarcity.

See, whenever people would benefit

from gaining access
to something that scarce,

this makes corruption attractive.

You know, in poor countries we complain
a lot about corrupt politicians

who embezzle state funds,
but in many of those countries,

economic opportunity is scarce,

and so corruption becomes
an attractive way to gain wealth.

We also complain about
civil servants like police officers

who extort money from everyday
hardworking citizens.

But most civil servants
are grossly underpaid

and are leading desperate lives,

and so for them extortion or corruption

is a good way to make a living.

You know, this phenomenon also plays
itself out in wealthy countries as well.

When rich parents
bribe university officials --

(Laughter)

When rich parents
bribe university officials

so their children can gain admission
into elite colleges,

the circumstance is different,

but the principle is the same.

I mean, admission
into elite colleges is scarce,

and so bribery becomes attractive.

The thing is,

I'm not trying to say there shouldn't
be things that are scarce in society

or things that are selective.

What I'm just trying to explain

is this relationship
between corruption and scarcity,

and in most poor countries,

way too many basic things are scarce,

I mean things like food,

education, health care,

economic opportunity, jobs.

This creates the perfect breeding ground
for corruption to thrive.

Now in no way does this
excuse corrupt behavior.

It just helps us
understand it a bit better.

Investing in businesses

that make things affordable

and accessible to so many more people

attacks this scarcity

and creates the revenues for governments
to reinvest in their economies.

Now when this happens
on a countrywide level,

it can revolutionize nations.

Consider the impact in South Korea.

Now, in the 1950s,

South Korea was a desperately poor country

and it was very corrupt.

The country was ruled
by an authoritarian government

and engaged in bribery and embezzlement.

In fact, economists at the time

said South Korea was trapped in poverty

and they referred to it
as an economic basket case.

When you looked
at South Korea's institutions,

even as late as the 1980s,

they were on par with some of the poorest
and most corrupt African countries

at the time.

But as companies like Samsung,

Kia, Hyundai

invested in innovations

that made things much more affordable
for so many more people,

South Korea ultimately became prosperous.

Now as the country grew prosperous,

it was able to transition from
an authoritarian government

to a democratic government

and has been able to reinvest
in building its institutions,

and this has paid off tremendously.

For instance, in 2018,

South Korea's president
was sentenced to 25 years in prison

on corruption-related charges.

This could never have happened decades ago

when the country was poor
and ruled by an authoritarian government.

In fact, as we looked at
most prosperous countries today,

what we found was they were able
to reduce corruption

as they became prosperous, not before.

And so where does that leave us?

I know it may sound like I'm saying
we should just ignore corruption.

That's not what I'm saying at all.

What I'm suggesting, though,

is that corruption, especially
for most people in poor countries,

is a workaround.

It's a utility in a place

where there are fewer better options
to solve a problem.

Investing in innovations that make
products much more affordable

for many people

not only attacks this scarcity

but it creates a sustainable
source of revenue

for governments to reinvest
into the economies

to strengthen their institutions.

This is the critical missing piece
in the economic development puzzle

that will ultimately
help us reduce corruption.

You know, I lost hope
in Nigeria when I was 16,

and in some ways the country
has actually gotten worse.

In addition to widespread poverty
and endemic corruption,

Nigeria now actually deals
with terrorist organizations

like Boko Haram.

But somehow, I am more hopeful
about Nigeria today

than I have ever been before.

When I see organizations

investing in innovations

that are creating jobs for people

and making things affordable,

I mean organizations
like LIfestores Pharmacy

making drugs and pharmaceuticals
more affordable for people,

or Metro Africa Xpress,

tackling the scarcity of distribution
and logistics for many small businesses,

or Andela, creating economic opportunity
for software developers,

and I am optimistic about the future.

I hope you will be too.

Thank you.

(Applause)