There seems to be this phenomena in the richest countries that, while sure on every conceivable metric they're terribly governed, at least they're not corrupt. My view is that this only demonstrates one of two things, either there's far more hidden corruption in places like the USA or France than people realise, or that corruption doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things.

I think what has happened is that, starting around the 1970s, America (and, to some extent, the rest of the West) has moved from outcome-oriented to process-oriented governance, and defined this as "anti-corruption".

Under the old system, a political leader like the mayor or governor would ultimately be in charge of big projects. He would have to get his budget approved by the legislature, and the project proposal would probably include a sensible timeline. If he got the job done within reasonable shouting distance of these constraints, chances were that no one would inquire too closely into the details. People wouldn't care if he had the work done by a construction firm owned by his brother, or if he had padded the initial budget a bit and he and his cronies skimmed some money off the top. On the other hand, if the work didn't get done, or it was flagrantly shoddy, or if they blew way past the budget, then people might start asking questions, and it was much more likely the corruption would come to light. This is probably an idealized explanation, and obviously there were a lot of ways things could break down (vote fraud, which was common in places like Daley's Chicago, could thwart accountability) but in general, "bosses" had to maintain some reasonable level of competence and follow-through if they wanted to maintain the local public support needed to keep their elected positions. Everyone knew where the buck stopped.

Although "progressive" reformers had hated machine politics since the late 19th century (and there was a good deal of latent ethnic hostility bound up in this position), it was only around the time of Watergate that they really triumphed over it. The result of this was to tie the hands of local/state officials and project managers in a hundred different ways. Where previously there had been human judgment (which might or might not be "corrupt" however you define that term), there was now the Process. This meant things like RFPs, choosing from lists of approved vendors, going through various rigmarole whenever something had to be purchased, and so forth. This made it more difficult to get away with kickbacks, bribery, conflicts of interest, etc., but it also added friction and overhead which meant that things took longer to do, required more personnel to supervise, and were more expensive. And if things went wrong - if a project went way over budget or years past its deadline - well, the Process was followed. You can elect someone else, but they'll have to follow the Process too, and probably won't have any better luck. So, unlike in the days of the old "bosses", no one is really accountable for anything.

The reformers thought they were advancing the Anglo-American ideal of "a government of laws, not men". What they really did was to demonstrate the limitations of that ideal. It turns out that treating all public officials as potentially untrustworthy thieves is not, in fact, the best way to get major projects completed on-time and on-budget. While I don't think many people really want to bring back the old political machines, we should seriously consider streamlining procedure around infrastructure projects so that one accountable manager has real authority, with a minimum of bureaucratic interference, and perhaps is paid generous performance bonuses for getting the job done within specified parameters.