The Latin American experience as a case study within a broader global pattern of crony capitalism and kleptocracy
Ideology often functions as a disguise for organized systems of appropriation.
Ideology has been defined as a structured set of ideas reflecting a rigid worldview, codified into a doctrinal body designed to establish channels of influence and legitimize the interests of the group that sustains it.
Such doctrinal frameworks can subordinate individuals to strict mental schemes, leading them to act beyond legal, ethical, or moral boundaries, justified solely by the higher purpose proclaimed by those who define the rules.
Throughout modern history, ideological constructions have been used to subdue societies, divert national assets, exploit privileged information, collude with politically connected business actors, undermine national interests, and distribute public positions based on loyalty rather than merit. These practices collectively represent a systematic violation of private and public resources.
This analysis does not examine ideology as an open intellectual process aimed at discerning truth from error. Instead, it focuses on a phenomenon political science and economics describe as State Capture and Crony Capitalism, where ideology becomes an end in itself, operating as a narrative shield of “social sensitivity” that conceals the extraction of public resources.
Several major thinkers have examined how power structures use idealized narratives as masks for institutional degradation.
Susan Rose-Ackerman has demonstrated how regulatory frameworks can be captured by elites who design them to generate private rents.
Carlos Nino, in Un país al margen de la ley, explored the concept of “anomic compliance” and how the systematic disregard of norms—often justified through ideological rhetoric—undermines economic efficiency.
Robert Klitgaard formulated the well-known equation Corruption equals Monopoly plus Discretion minus Accountability, highlighting how opacity and unchecked discretion foster institutional abuse.
Moises Naím, in Illicit, described how modern kleptocracies exploit sovereign narratives and border structures to conceal capital flight and illicit enrichment.
Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson, Nobel laureates, argued in Why Nations Fail that extractive institutions frequently present themselves as popular or national movements while concentrating benefits within narrow elites.
Countries affected by ideological cover for corruption demonstrate recurring institutional patterns. Transparency International and international financial institutions have identified cases in Latin America and Africa where ideological narratives accompanied prolonged economic deterioration, hyperinflation, loss of public trust, and large-scale capital erosion.
Globally, corruption represents an estimated annual cost equivalent to roughly five percent of world GDP. In systems characterized by high institutional opacity, losses in essential sectors such as health and education tend to exceed those observed in consolidated democracies.
The architecture of systemic appropriation often involves an interdependent network.
Political elites dismantle oversight mechanisms.
Business actors aligned with power secure protected contracts rather than compete in open markets.
Militant bureaucracies embed loyalists in strategic positions to guarantee continuity and impunity.
Intellectual actors construct moral narratives that frame discretionary use of public funds as historical justice, even when outcomes disproportionately harm the most vulnerable.
International financial estimates indicate that less corrupt governments collect significantly higher tax revenues as a share of GDP, reflecting the central role of trust in economic productivity. Where ideological narratives legitimize extraction, both wealth creation and institutional credibility deteriorate.
Hannah Arendt’s reflections remain relevant in understanding how ideological systems can replace factual reality with internally coherent but detached logical structures. In such contexts, participation in institutional wrongdoing becomes normalized, a process she famously described as the banality of evil.