, QUESTION 1 - Institutional Resilience, Corruption, and Development in South Africa and
Argentina
South Africa and Argentina share many similarities as middle-income democracies with histories of
inequality, political transitions, and economic volatility. Both countries have faced persistent
challenges with corruption that undermine governance, weaken institutions, and slow
development. Institutional resilience—the ability of political, legal, and economic systems to
withstand and recover from corruption—plays a crucial role in shaping their developmental paths.
This discussion examines how corruption has affected institutional strength and development in
South Africa and Argentina, and how each nation’s resilience influences their capacity to achieve
sustainable progress.
1.1. Comparative indicators: Fragility and political freedom
Using the Fragile States Index (FSI) and Freedom House scores reveals a clear contrast in measured
institutional resilience between South Africa and Argentina. South Africa’s FSI score in 2024 was
reported at about 69.6 (rank ≈ 80), indicating moderate fragility and deterioration in several
governance and service-delivery areas. Freedom House classifies South Africa as “Free” but with a
lower aggregate score than Argentina (Freedom House country score for South Africa: 81).
By contrast, Argentina’s 2024 FSI score is substantially lower (less fragile) at roughly 44.2 (rank ≈
142), and Freedom House records Argentina with a slightly higher aggregate freedom score (85),
also classified as “Free”. These indicator differences suggest that, on current composite measures,
Argentina exhibits greater institutional stability and stronger civil-political liberties than South
Africa, while South Africa faces more acute pressures in security, public services, and state capacity
that raise its fragility profile.
Political stability, rule of law and state legitimacy: effects on development paths
The divergence in these indicators matters because political stability, enforcement of the rule of
law, and perceived state legitimacy shape investment, human-capital formation, and long-term
policy consistency. In South Africa, recurrent service failures, high levels of crime, and episodes of
elite corruption have eroded trust in public institutions and produced policy uncertainty that raises
transaction costs for firms and dampens foreign and domestic investment—manifestations that the
FSI captures in its governance and public-service components.
In Argentina, while economic volatility (inflationary crises, sovereign debt cycles) has been a
persistent constraint, relatively stronger protections for civil liberties and political rights (as
reflected in Freedom House scores) and a lower FSI score have, at times, helped preserve
institutional channels for policy correction and social contestation without state
collapse—facilitating resilience to shocks even if growth remains uneven.
The empirical link between corruption, weak institutions and poorer development outcomes is well
established in the development literature: corruption undermines revenue mobilization, deters
investment, and reduces the effectiveness of public spending, thereby impairing long-run
development.
Argentina
South Africa and Argentina share many similarities as middle-income democracies with histories of
inequality, political transitions, and economic volatility. Both countries have faced persistent
challenges with corruption that undermine governance, weaken institutions, and slow
development. Institutional resilience—the ability of political, legal, and economic systems to
withstand and recover from corruption—plays a crucial role in shaping their developmental paths.
This discussion examines how corruption has affected institutional strength and development in
South Africa and Argentina, and how each nation’s resilience influences their capacity to achieve
sustainable progress.
1.1. Comparative indicators: Fragility and political freedom
Using the Fragile States Index (FSI) and Freedom House scores reveals a clear contrast in measured
institutional resilience between South Africa and Argentina. South Africa’s FSI score in 2024 was
reported at about 69.6 (rank ≈ 80), indicating moderate fragility and deterioration in several
governance and service-delivery areas. Freedom House classifies South Africa as “Free” but with a
lower aggregate score than Argentina (Freedom House country score for South Africa: 81).
By contrast, Argentina’s 2024 FSI score is substantially lower (less fragile) at roughly 44.2 (rank ≈
142), and Freedom House records Argentina with a slightly higher aggregate freedom score (85),
also classified as “Free”. These indicator differences suggest that, on current composite measures,
Argentina exhibits greater institutional stability and stronger civil-political liberties than South
Africa, while South Africa faces more acute pressures in security, public services, and state capacity
that raise its fragility profile.
Political stability, rule of law and state legitimacy: effects on development paths
The divergence in these indicators matters because political stability, enforcement of the rule of
law, and perceived state legitimacy shape investment, human-capital formation, and long-term
policy consistency. In South Africa, recurrent service failures, high levels of crime, and episodes of
elite corruption have eroded trust in public institutions and produced policy uncertainty that raises
transaction costs for firms and dampens foreign and domestic investment—manifestations that the
FSI captures in its governance and public-service components.
In Argentina, while economic volatility (inflationary crises, sovereign debt cycles) has been a
persistent constraint, relatively stronger protections for civil liberties and political rights (as
reflected in Freedom House scores) and a lower FSI score have, at times, helped preserve
institutional channels for policy correction and social contestation without state
collapse—facilitating resilience to shocks even if growth remains uneven.
The empirical link between corruption, weak institutions and poorer development outcomes is well
established in the development literature: corruption undermines revenue mobilization, deters
investment, and reduces the effectiveness of public spending, thereby impairing long-run
development.
