Debarment as an anti-corruption means

This study into debarment was intended to focus on the effectiveness of a formal debarment (or blacklisting) process as a means to challenge corruption openly, and in particular debarment as a means of reducing levels of corruption in public procurement processes.

This page is based on the report by a team consisting of Jeremy Pope (TIRI), Alan Doig (University of Teeside), and Jon Moran, (University of Glamourgan).

Contents

Synthesis of study and summary of conclusions  Debarment as an Anti-Corruption Means - a Review Report (pdf)  Debarment report - Annexes

Synthesis of study and summary of conclusions

The anticipated questions included:

• Can we document the success of debarment policies?
• Can debarment strengthen transparent and open procurement procedures, ensure honest competitive bidding, and eliminate collusion?
• What are the legal and practical constraints to international and donor specific debarment?

The purpose is to assess the extent of debarment and examine issues concerning its use (or non-use). If it was thought that debarment has a value in its use to combat fraud and corruption in the public procurement process, the purpose is also to make suggestions that may guide its introduction or improve its effectiveness.

The study demonstrates that debarment can be effective as one of a number of means to deter and - if detected - sanction those involved in corruption during the public procurement process in early stages of use. It must be clearly stated that while a number of multilateral and bilateral agencies are now beginning to use debarment as a sanction, many developed countries have yet begun to introduce similar sanctions as part of their export credit support to their companies operating transnationally. Evidence-based analysis of the impact of debarment is thus almost non-existent.

One aspect of this study - the analysis of the Lesotho Highland Water Supply project - suggests that debarment could be a potent deterrent. Indeed three case studies at state (New York), national (Singapore) and international (World Bank) levels, confirm that agencies do consider that debarment has a role in the range of means intended to protect the integrity of the public procurement process.

However this study also clearly argues that debarment can only ever have a limited role in securing integrity in public procurement. To have an acceptable and effective role in such processes, the study notes a number of conditions which should be evident in order to expedite its use, and maintain the integrity of its purpose, both as deterrent and as sanction. The study also strongly notes the need for the role of debarment to be adopted uniformly and comprehensively across all those agencies engaged in the public procurement process at national and international levels.

Recommendations for any debarment policy

• The process should be administrative rather than judicial
  
• The administrative process should have some form of appeal
  
• Any investigative process needs to be properly resourced, have an effective system for the reporting of suspicions, and have 'threshold' rules for an investigation to commence
  
• In preparing a case for debarment, quality of evidence, opportunities to challenge the evidence, and procedures and criteria for establishing guilt, need to be considered
  
• If debarment is proved there should be strict penalties.
  
• If a redemption policy is to be available this should be credible
  
• The length and extent of debarment should reflect the seriousness of the offence, the seniority of the individuals involved, and the value of the contract
  
• Mitigating circumstances should be taken into account
  
• Debarment policies should be very clearly stated and integrated into all procurement documents
  
• Any policy leading to debarment must be properly resourced
  
• Debarment policies should take into account the position of the country where corruption has been identified