Main points
- This Helpdesk Answer reviews the literature on the effectiveness of anti-corruption interventions published between 2021 and 2025, highlighting findings from 55 publications and categorising them into 18 different forms of intervention.
- Strong evidence (multiple studies with findings of effectiveness) was found for technology, social accountability and budget transparency, at least under certain conditions. Significant effects are also found for audits, improved access to justice, codes of conduct and interventions based on integrity and ethical values, but with fewer publications providing evidence.
- Medium evidence (multiple studies with findings of effectiveness but subject to limited conditions) was found for media exposure, political finance reforms, sanctions, human resources management and institutions, albeit to varying extents.
- Weak evidence (multiple studies but findings pointing to insignificant effectiveness) was found for anti-corruption messaging.
- Gaps in evidence (where no recent studies were identified) include anti-money laundering (of corruption proceeds), asset registers, beneficial ownership and due diligence studies.
- The generalisability of findings depends not only on the methodology used in a study but how it was implemented and the robustness of the checks included.
- Academics have employed a variety of methods for measuring effectiveness, a choice often influenced by the specific intervention studied and the availability of data. Quasi-experimental studies and randomised experiments appear to be more popular recently than other methods such as single case approaches and literature reviews.
- The effectiveness of anti-corruption interventions continues to be understudied relative to investments in such interventions, particularly when it comes to project evaluations and grey literature.
