It also depends a lot on the type of corruption and how it works.
I recall an econ class from ages ago that compared two middle-income countries. In one, there was a strong central government, so the corruption was relatively organized and predictable. The economy was harmed by the corruption, but still functioned, grew, and helped to reduce poverty.
In the other country, the central and regional governments were weak, so nearly every interaction with government officials (police, judges, customs, etc.) resulted in some kind of bribe with highly variable costs. This dramatically slowed down and reduced economic activity and increased poverty.
I recall an econ class from ages ago that compared two middle-income countries. In one, there was a strong central government, so the corruption was relatively organized and predictable. The economy was harmed by the corruption, but still functioned, grew, and helped to reduce poverty.
In the other country, the central and regional governments were weak, so nearly every interaction with government officials (police, judges, customs, etc.) resulted in some kind of bribe with highly variable costs. This dramatically slowed down and reduced economic activity and increased poverty.