The increasing popularity of integrity interventions

Encourage good behaviour instead of punishing bad behaviour: that is is the concept behind what we call ‘integrity-based interventions’ in anti-corruption. Integrity-based interventions represent a parallel agenda to more direct anti-corruption policies that focus on compliance, controls and enforcement to deter and punish the bad. They rely on ‘soft’ tools such as persuasion, socialisation, culture and communication. They have become increasingly common in anti-corruption efforts, partly because they may be less contentious and therefore easier to implement than more direct anti-corruption measures. But do they work?

Like many in the anti-corruption world, we are intrigued by the potential of integrity-based approaches (see Anti-corruption through a social norms lens and this blog on the role of social norms in Burundi, for example). However, questions remain about their impact. This is why we surveyed the evidence in a new U4 Helpdesk Answer to gauge whether integrity-based efforts are effective in reducing corruption – and what, if anything, we can learn about how to improve them.

Do integrity-based interventions reduce corruption?

The findings from our review of the literature were mixed. Ethical leadership and behavioural nudges can reduce corrupt practices – under certain conditions. But the evidence for the impact of other integrity-based approaches on corruption is either limited (not enough studies) or contested (the studies do not show a clear-cut positive effect, or evidence points both ways). For example, while a limited number of studies suggest that codes of conduct can reduce corruption, there is no evidence that they can work across all contexts, or that they work in isolation. There also seems to be no causal link, or even correlation, between anti-corruption training and reduced levels of corruption. Given how common such training is, this should give us pause for thought.

Of course, finding ‘limited evidence of effectiveness’ does not necessarily mean that integrity-based interventions do not work. Integrity is a relatively new research area and the volume of research evidence might still be small.

With this limited evidence base, we should be cautious about making definitive conclusions. It also means that integrity-based measures require very careful thought around design choices. As documented with regards to integrity awards and anti-corruption public information campaigns, poorly conceived interventions could even backfire, resulting in a backlash against ‘integrity champions’ or increasing citizen apathy about corruption.

With this in mind, we seek below to draw out cross-cutting lessons that can help practitioners develop more impactful interventions, while a final table summarises the key findings of our literature review.

Integrity-based interventions are less effective in highly corrupt contexts

People are more likely to have entrenched attitudes and behaviours towards corruption in contexts where they encounter it more frequently. In certain contexts, people have few alternatives to corruption, for example as a way to access public services.

Accordingly, it seems reasonable to assume that in countries where progress in curbing corruption is most needed, integrity-centric campaigns are likely to be less effective. For example, in Burundi, only the ‘least experienced participants’ in a recent study exhibited any positive response to messages appealing to their professional integrity. Also studies of both nudging campaigns and integrity oaths suggest that individuals with ingrained habits and attitudes are resistant to interventions that aim to shift their behaviour.

Similarly, approaches that focus primarily on trying to reward integrity while neglecting material aspects (eg, salaries, access to jobs, market advantages, etc.) are unlikely to succeed. For example, in Chile, pro-integrity nudging campaigns had little impact on participants with a low level of ‘public service motivation’. Understanding context, such as the drivers of corruption and power structures, is important before launching integrity promotion campaigns.

Messaging and framing matters

Most integrity-based interventions seek to persuade through messages, and some messages are more successful than others. For example, behavioural science suggests that ‘all colleagues in the team behave ethically’ is likely to be a more effective message than ‘accepting gifts is immoral’. The first reinforces a perception that ethical practices are the norm in the surrounding social environment, and people will often align their behaviour to a norm. Accordingly, instead of reiterating an abstract situation detached from people's reality – that corruption is rampant and immoral – effective messages should consider how to challenge perceptions of expected behaviours.

It is also effective to align anti-corruption messages with people’s interests. For example, evidence from Papua New Guinea indicates that anti-corruption messages are most effective when they highlight the social cost of corruption to the local community. Conversely, integrity interventions that are incongruent with people’s lived reality are unlikely to be effective. Accordingly, participatory and inclusive approaches are likely to make integrity promotion more effective by engaging with people’s real experience and concerns.

The messenger also matters

When leaders are seen to be acting in a consistently ethical manner, studies show that other people are more aware of their ethical obligations and more willing to report wrongdoing. Setting the ‘tone from the top’ means that leaders trying to promote integrity must also demonstrate themselves a public, personal commitment to integrity.

Integrity is a complementary rather than a standalone approach

Our review suggests that integrity-based interventions do not work as standalone interventions. For instance, codes of conduct and codes of ethics (guidelines that appeal to the nature of employees) cannot reduce the perception of malpractice on their own, but must be combined with disciplinary codes to have a greater effect.

Integrity interventions can complement direct anti-corruption policies that seek to increase the cost of unethical behaviour, or they can be integrated into the existing regulatory and compliance frameworks, combining carrot and stick. For example, the literature recommends introducing integrity training into employee performance appraisals and adding integrity criteria into recruitment processes. Likewise, integrity campaigns that raise awareness of the material rewards available to whistleblowers can go hand in hand with mandatory reporting regulations.

In fact, the relatively low cost of integrity-based interventions makes them suited to being deployed as an ‘additional component’ of anti-corruption programmes targeting compliance and enforcement. Linking anti-corruption policies to employee well-being and job satisfaction is also a way to generate a more positive and compliance-friendly environment.

The need for patience … and more research!

Finally, it’s important to recognise that some interventions will need long-term engagement. Studies have shown that the positive effects of integrity-based anti-corruptions interventions fell away sharply after the intervention ended.

The table below provides further detail on conditions for the effectiveness of integrity interventions. Ethical leadership and behavioural nudges are the interventions with the most evidence, yet other types of interventions should not be entirely disregarded until further research builds the evidence base.

At the risk of being researchers recommending more research – we need more research!