If a really large, obscenely wealthy and vastly powerful corporation wanted to invest in a given African country, they would have a wonderful opportunity to do good, by paying the country's corrupt leader enough to guarantee he won't make things worse for his people and will in fact try to improve their lot.

Companies could do this, by simple bribery, with a threat to withdraw their money if these goals weren't accomplished.

Corporations won't do that of course, because it would cost them an extra nickel, but it's possible. Since corporations own most governments as it is, their benevolent dictatorship might actually do some good for the people of Africa. (and I can hear them laughing in the boardrooms as I type.)

THat is actually an interesting approach, DAx.

We could save enormous sums on foreign aid, both military and economic. Instead of providing such aid directly, we could instead bribe leaders in the 3rd World to set the conditions for the improvement of their own ountries. We could offer our own corporations various tax breaks, either directly in the US or indirectly in the 3rd World countries invovled, to not only provide for economic development but also provide "charitable" social programs.

I would have to see a more detailed cost-benefit analysis before I fully endorsed it but at first glance it looks promising...I just wonder how long it would be before the dictators demanded more and then more and then even more...

Well Law, it was merely a first thought and I haven't worked out the actual economics of it, but if dictators start getting dictatorial, the money-company has the cards. It can always pull up stakes and leave, or deal with their adversary in any number of ways which would probably not be legal here in the U.S.

Of course, given the military power held by most African dictators, they might just nationalize the company. But all the American expertise would be gone, so it would just drop into its own sinkhole.