Forgive me for assuming someone with such odd views could only have come by them through lack of experience. Obviously highly biased experience works just as well.
Opportunity makes thieves, as the Germans say. You’re using an organisation with close to zero effective oversight, that is without exaggeration a law to itself, and which for political reasons has many staff from really corrupt countries as an example of corruption. The UN is not clean and no one who knows anything about it thinks it’s clean.
For similar reasons aid organisations are also not paragons of probity. They work in poor, corrupt countries and they have access to both budgets and people who are willing and eager to get some of that money by helping them defraud their employers.
What does this prove about corruption in more developed countries? Either very little or that systems are important.
In Sweden your political career can end for putting hundreds of dollars of private expenses on a ministerial card.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1995-11-11-951111...
In Ireland you can die rich through corruption after having been prime minister, never having been charged with anything.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/dec/20/ireland
And petty corruption in either country is much less than anything aid workers deal with regularly, basically absent. Living in China has made me far more cynical and accepting of the fact that corruption happens all the time but I know perfectly well that petty corruption is very limited in Ireland, my home country.
Interference in civil service exams or school leaving exams is unremarkable in China and would bring down a government in Ireland.
The difference in corruption between developed, developing and undeveloped countries is so large that it’s not just a difference in quantity but in kind.