EVER since President Xi Jinping announced his anti-corruption drive in 2013, there has been a steady flow of anecdotal evidence indicating that fighting corruption in China is having a real economic impact on the country.
In December 2014, while outlining the progress made so far on weeding out corruption, the Chinese state media, said that President Xi Jinping’s anti-corruption efforts are no longer a campaign, but a ‘protracted war’.
Xinhua used the expulsion of Zhou Yongkang from the Chinese Communist Party as proof of an intensified anti-corruption push.
However, it was quick to point out that the anti-corruption drive, “has moved beyond setting warning examples to deter others”.
Instead, the scale of the campaign and the new focus on legal reform to institutionalise anti-corruption efforts, “indicate that the country intends to fight a protracted war”.
Back in August 2014, Chinese media quoted unusually frank remarks by President Xi Jinping, reportedly made during a closed-door Politburo meeting. “The two armies of corruption and anti-corruption are at a stalemate,” President Xi was quoted as saying.
“In my struggle against corruption, I don’t care about life or death, or ruining my reputation.”
According to Xinhua, anti-corruption efforts have resulted in 50 investigations into officials at the provincial level or above — so-called ‘tigers’.
The ‘flies’ have been even more numerous, with 84 000 officials disciplined for various violations in the first six months of 2014.
And the campaign is far from over, particularly within the military ranks.
Despite these efforts, many Western analysts argue that China cannot truly solve its corruption problem without instituting key political reforms that will enable public supervision of government officials — including a free press and independent courts.
While there’s been no movement on the former, 2014’s high-profile emphasis on the ‘rule of law’ could help institutionalise anti-corruption procedures by strengthening the legal mechanisms required to investigate and prosecute officials.
It comes as no surprise that the Chinese anti-corruption drive has been criticised by the West.
Chinese fighting corruption puts pressure on Western governments to act on the blatant corruption in their corridors.
The Beijing News reports that America, Canada and Australia are favoured by corrupt former Chinese officials who have fled to these countries and transferred assets worth billions of dollars as the fight against corruption in China hots up.
The anti-corruption watchdog Transparency International (TI), in its Corruption Perceptions Index of 2014 found that China had tumbled further down the list by 20 places.
It now occupies 100th place on the list, out of 175 countries surveyed.
The TI’s rankings draw on data from 12 different sources, including the World Bank, Freedom House and the World Economic Forum’s Executive Opinion Survey. 
One possible reason for this drop, according to TI’s Rukshana Nanayakkara, is that China has embarked on a top-down campaign that is focused more on punishing people rather than systemic fixes.
In a 2009 report for the Council on Foreign Relations on Corruption in Sub-Saharan Africa, it was noted that Africa is widely considered among the world’s most corrupt places, a factor seen as contributing to the stunted development and impoverishment of many African states.
Of the 10 countries considered most corrupt in the world, six are in sub-Saharan Africa, according to TI.
A 2002 African Union study estimated that corruption cost the continent roughly US$150 billion a year.
The developed countries gave US$22,5 billion in aid to sub-Saharan Africa in 2008.
Economists argue that if African governments fought away corruption, there would be no need for foreign aid.
However, anti-corruption efforts on the continent have shown mixed results in recent years, and analysts fear that major international partners are unwilling to exert leverage over African governments.
Corruption in Africa ranges from high-level political graft on the scale of millions of dollars to low-level bribes to police officers or customs officials.
While political graft imposes the largest direct financial cost on a country, petty bribes have a corrosive effect on basic institutions and undermine public trust in the government. 
The prevalence of corruption also warps the political process.
Experts say many public officials in Africa seek re-election because holding office gives them access to the state’s coffers, as well as immunity from prosecution. 
Many countries, including Nigeria, Kenya, and South Africa, have made little progress on fighting graft.
All three countries established anti-corruption agencies that sought to prevent, investigate, and prosecute corruption, but a 2008 paper from the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa says such commissions have been largely inefficient and ineffective due to their uncertain political footing.
Often funded and overseen by the executive branch, anti-corruption agencies can be eliminated (as in South Africa, where the Scorpions investigating unit was disbanded in 2009), and their leaders can be sidelined or forced out of the country (as in Nigeria and Kenya).
There are mixed views on how much influence outside actors can exert over African governments.
Some analysts believe the America and other Western governments have the power to force greater transparency, particularly in countries that receive significant levels of foreign aid. 
Some Western donors have expressed concern about the rise in Chinese investment in Africa, suggesting that China’s no-strings-attached approach to aid is undermining anti-corruption efforts. 
China is Africa’s largest trading partner, surpassing the United States in 2009.
China’s engagement with Africa is growing.
The system will adapt and adopt easy fixes for some problems, for instance, by increasing spending on training African human resources or by enhancing corporate social responsibility programs for local African communities, China can become a champion in the fight against corruption on the continent.