Corruption in the education sector

Causes of corruption

[Back to education content page]

It is analytically useful to adopt an approach which draws on different perspectives, e.g. incentives, opportunities and risks.

Simply put, corruption is very likely to occur where teachers receive little or no pay, where officials exercise financial discretion and power over the public, and where the risk of detection and severe punishment is low. We use this kind of analysis to group the different causes:

Economic factors - higher incentives for corruption
Inadequate, irregular, or delayed salaries often force teachers to seek supplementary income. As Voices of the Poor reports from Moldova, teachers have left their position in large numbers because they cannot survive on their salary alone. Those who remain manage by relying on subsistence farming or working extra shifts. In rural areas, teachers accept payments from parents in food or labour, and they buy textbooks and manuals from publishing houses and resell them to pupils.

This indicates that poverty is the main driver of corruption in the sector, but it can be the other way around: insufficient funding for schools and salaries may result directly from corruption and leakage further up the line.

In higher education, shortage of funds places universities under great pressure to admit students, leading to overcrowded facilities. Institutions experiencing “permanent poverty” in societies that offer few options for the highly educated are more exposed to the lures of academic corruption.

Donor imprudence - higher incentives for corruption
Donors and lenders risk flooding the education system with funds that bureaucracies cannot absorb responsibly. It is also important to note the special dynamic that evolves when mid- and low-level officials are tasked with implementing anti-corruption measures which emanate from the Ministry or the donor community. In such cases personnel may attempt to cut corners, ignore rules, and bypass standard procedures in order to move activities forward. Thus, the pressure to get results may create an environment conducive to corruption. Hence, what some regard as corruption is merely seen as effective project management by others.

A related problem arises when donors agree to pay government officials in order to “get things done”. Likewise, donors may pay project managers to obtain data which in any case should be publicly available. A continuation of such practices often results in a vicious circle where donors are prone to extortion from the partners and institutions they are working to support.

Lack of transparent regulations and criteria - higher opportunities for corruption
Without clear standards and regulations, the line between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour becomes blurred. Inadequate accreditation mechanisms for schools and higher education institutions further exacerbate the problem.

Social factors - lower risk incurred
Some cultural practices can aggravate the problem of corruption in the education sector. For instance the tradition of giving token gifts has in some places evolved into a practice of widespread extortion. There are sometimes strong links between social corruption and corruption in academia. Societies with weak norms of meritocracy are often prone to academic corruption. An example is where a person can receive a degree or get promoted purely on the basis of belonging to a certain group or family, without provoking any protest.

Lack of infrastructure - lower risk incurred
Poor road, railway and telephone links often prevent inspectors from visiting schools, resulting in teachers’ misconduct and corrupt practices going unnoticed and unpunished.

Inadequate organisational structures and control mechanisms -
higher opportunities for corruption and lower risk incurred
An absence of incentives for improved performance can stimulate corruption, as may a lack of mechanisms for control and punishment. This is the case in many transition countries where authoritarian and centralised systems hinder opportunities for professional growth, and a generally weak system makes it easy for staff to take inappropriate advantage of their positions.

At management level every effort is often made to maintain both discretionary powers and a cumbersome system awash with red tape, thus allowing corrupt practices to persist.

Inadequate human resources - lower risk incurred
Most administrators in schools are teachers, and they often lack the knowledge to analyse audits and financial information. Skill deficiencies are often prevalent at district, provincial and national levels, too.

Lack of community involvement and access to information - lower risk incurred
Parents who are - deliberately or unintentionally - not given the opportunity to involve themselves in establishing, overseeing and supporting a school may lose a sense of ownership. This makes it less likely that they will hold school staff accountable for the expected educational outcomes. Where crucial information is not given freely to parents, the resulting discouragement of their involvement may hinder them from demanding their children’s rightful education.

Next page : What can be done?