SECTIONS

What is anti-corruption?

What is corruption?

How to counter-corruption

What is anti-corruption?

The term anti-corruption describes a evolving field of policy and practice that seeks to reduce the incidence and harm of corruption in all its manifestations.

Despite decades of efforts aimed to reduce corruption around the world, the challenge persists and calls for continued learning and fine-tuning of approaches. Even countries that have been successful in controlling corruption continue to refine their institutions and methods. Corruption is countered through multiple reinforcing vectors of engagement involving both state institutions and members and groups in society. U4 conceptualises anti-corruption as a continuous process by which different actors work through various means to minimise the impact of corruption in society, politics, and the economy.

Why counter corruption?

Corruption exacerbates some of the most pressing challenges societies face today. For example, it:

• Undermines human rights, justice, and social cohesion.
• Erodes trust in public institutions and democracy.
• Enables environmental degradation and organised crime.
• Hampers economic development, deepening poverty and inequality.

The harm inflicted by corruption is globally recognised, including by the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development where one of the targets for Goal 16is for states to ‘substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms.’

Corruption undermines development

When public officials pillage state budgets, divert public revenues from extractive industries into private pockets, or distort public spending toward investments that yield large bribes like major public works, less money is left for essential services such as health or education. When politicians appoint unqualified family members and political cronies to run public enterprises, the firms underperform. And as international companies tend to avoid environments where demands for bribes will increase their operating costs, the potential benefits of foreign investment may be lost.

Corruption costs lives

Without access to quality healthcare and clean water, or when buildings collapse because developers have bribed their way out of complying with safety standards, people’s lives are at risk.

Corruption harms the vulnerable and perpetuates inequality

When officials in public institutions compel citizens to pay for services that should be free, the poorest and most vulnerable members of society suffer disproportionately. In low-income households, small bribes to get health care can cut deep into a family’s disposable income.Vulnerability however reflects broader patterns of exclusion of groups like women and girls or gender-diverse people, national minorities, people from rural or less developed regions, people with disabilities. Recent research show that young people are also more exposed to corruption than the general population.

Corruption undercuts human rights

Corruption most obviously undermines the fundamental human rights to education and health care, but also political and civil rights when special interests constrain electoral competition they limit citizens’ ability to choose their leaders and shape public policy. Courts violate the fundamental right of access to justice when they only hear cases if parties bribe court staff and judges, or when they rule unfairly to protect the wealthy and the politically-connected.

Corruption damages democracy

Daily experience of corruption reduces public trust in state institutions and citizens’ willingness to participate in democratic processes. Citizens who perceive politicians as corrupt may not bother to pay taxes; vote in elections; or defend assaults on democratic norms and institutions.

Corruption damages the environment

Action against climate change and environmental degradation, and efforts to promote responsible management of natural resources, suffer when powerful industry representatives bribe policy-makers or political parties to vote down necessary regulations.

Corruption fuels crime and conflict

Organised crime networks rely on corrupt officials to circumvent the rule of law in times of peace, and to supply illicit goods and service in times of conflict. High levels of corruption can exacerbate inequalities and distrust between groups, making prolonged conflict more likely, or pushing post-conflict societies back into war.

The economic and human costs of corruption are immense even if we struggle to measure them. Measuring corruption is a considerable challenge discussed in context of Planning and supporting anti-corruption reform and explored in U4 Topic page Measurement and evaluation.

What is corruption?

For most people, the word corruption invokes the image of a government minister secretly accepting millions from a company in exchange for a public contract, or a motorist paying off traffic police to avoid a speeding ticket. Bribes, large or small, are the most well-recognised form of corruption, but other practices also exist.

Other examples include:

• When officials extend preferential treatment to family, friends, and associates to access public resources such as
  1. Public sector jobs
  2. Government contracts
  3. Health services that are normally subject to long waiting times
     
• When officials fail to enforce rules impartially, eg overlooking a traffic violation or violations of health and safety

(Please see box 1 below for a list of such practices and other useful terms).

A definition popularised by the leading global non-governmental anti-corruption movement,Transparency International is that Corruption is abuse of entrusted power for private gain.

This definition is widely used because it encapsulates three core elements of corruption:

1. Abuse
   Corruption involves a violation of norms of conduct or professional obligations – explicit or implicit – arising from formal or other entrusted duties. The notion implies decision-making without due impartiality; counter to public policies; or more broadly against the public interest.
   
2. Entrusted power
   Corruption arises when a person misuses the authority derived from all kinds of formal or professional roles, but also informal or traditional ones.
   
   This phrasing covers not only public officials, but also individuals working in the private sector, media, civil society actors, religious leaders. It also covers people such as community elders who hold customary authority.
   
   A company employee selling commercial secrets to a competitor is an example of private sector corruption.
   
3. Private gain
   The gain realised through corruption is private because it does not benefit the entity or the collective that the official is entrusted to represent or serve. In the public sector, the notion of private gain is useful to distinguish it from public good or public interest.
   
   The gain need not go directly to the official in question: it may also benefit a family member, friend, associate, or even a political party. It may not even be transacted immediately, but rather ‘stored’ as an obligation to reciprocate at some future point in time.
   
   Anything of value can constitute a benefit: it’s not only money and material goods, but also power and influence, and other advantages – even sexual favours.

The definition abuse of entrusted power for private gain is useful in many ways.

It helps us to distinguish corrupt practices from other kinds of objectionable conduct. It refers to actions in professional life, rather than one’s private life. This excludes everyday informal uses of the term to designate socially-unacceptable practices such as gambling, adultery, cheating, and criminal activity more broadly. It concerns behaviour in professional capacity – or rather, in context of formal or entrusted duty. It generally excludes other kinds of work-related misconduct like discrimination or negligence.

The definition also helps to explain related concepts such as conflict of interest. Such a conflict arises when an individual confronts a choice between a private interest, on the one hand, and obligations arising from entrusted duty, on the other. (Corruption always involves a conflict of interest, but not every conflict of interest results in an act of corruption: the person may decide to steer clear of the private interest and act as duty requires.)

Yet the definition is not without critique.

For instance, some analysts point out that power is not always entrusted. It can be obtained by force or maintained by coercion in authoritarian settings.

A more relevant drawback may be the framing of corruption as individual conduct. Characterising corruption in individualistic terms obscures broader dynamics that can be far more important in grasping the problem. Seldom is the challenge one of controlling a few unethical individuals. More often, it involves system: a network of actors functioning according to informal rules and practices, where corruption facilitates a broader objective, like winning elections.

Definitions shape our understanding of the problem, and consequently our responses. Other contemporary definitions of corruption therefore endeavour to highlight the ‘framework conditions’ that enable and sustain corrupt practices. Such an understanding encourages better targeted anti-corruption responses.

Varieties of corruption

Corruption always involves these the elements of abuse, authority, and private benefit. However, this framework is only the contour that needs elaboration. Corruption is more than bribes. Other forms include nepotism and cronyism, embezzlement, and trading in influence. Relevant terms are also noted in Box 1 below.

But it is the specificities of a transaction that really matter. Further details can reveal stark distinctions between outwardly similar practices.

Let’s consider a public official with entrusted duty…

The official can indeed be an unethical government minister motivated by greed. Such a person accepts a bribe from a company against the public interest for their personal benefit.

But officials can also be coerced into making such decisions. They may be under pressure from a superior, under threat of dismissal, while a family depends on their income. There may be no trusted institution to report the incident. In this case, corruption arises not because of a lack of ethics, but due to a lack of options.

As for ‘private gain’: the transaction may benefit the superior, whose spouse owns the company in question. Or, it may benefit the political party they support – this is sometimes a way to reward a major campaign donor. Or, the transaction may be part of a broader, regularised informal system of exchanges. As noted earlier, in such a case, to conceptualise corruption as individual conduct is to miss the crux of the problem.

Similar variations exist from the perspective of the person who is paying the bribe. In some cases, the bribe-giver is a proactive party seeking undue advantage. But in other instances – not unlike the official acting under threat from superiors – the person may have no alternative. Sometimes, a bribe is the only way to access public services like health or education.

In practice, even an act as (seemingly) clear and simple as a bribe can obscure rather complex circumstances.

Other types of motivation also exist.

Nepotism – where an official extends undue advantage to a family member – is often driven by social obligations related to kinship. Custom may dictate giving favours at work to reciprocate for help received in private life. Social norms can drive corruption because they impose responsibilities (a ‘social duty’) that can eclipse entrusted duty and even personal attitudes. There can be powerful social sanctions when social norms are violated. These broader circumstances explain corruption far better than definitions and technical or legal terms. To learn more about this, see this introductory overview of Corruption, informality, and social norms.

What corruption is cannot be understood independently of why it’s taking place. Corrupt practices may be motivated by a simple lack of ethics or by far more complex dynamics. Social, economic, and political pressures commonly drive corruption. Pressures can be formal or informal, local or transnational. In today’s inter-connected world, much corruption is fuelled by the global demand for natural resources and facilitated by the international financial architecture.

Understanding its many dimensions is indispensable in finding effective responses to corruption.

How to counter corruption

A remarkable variety of measures and strategies can be used to counter corruption nationally and internationally.

Practice has evolved over time, reflecting lessons from experience and innovation. Early emphasis on law enforcement – criminalising corrupt practices and punishing perpetrators – has expanded. Prevention measures to strengthen institutions and governance processes now receive commensurate attention. Civil society and other non-governmental actors’ engagement is recognised as a necessary complement to state-based initiatives. U4’s topic pages contain deeper analysis of many such measures.

When developed and implemented properly, the different measures – and different actors – interact and reinforce each other. At the country level, countering corruption may be best described as a process of constructing, refining and animating whole-of-society systems.

U4 proposes such framing to emphasise that:

• State mechanisms alone are insufficient,
• Many different individuals and groups in society play equally vital roles, and
• Systems and structures hinge on empowered actors who can fulfil their respective roles.

Whole-of-society systems

State-based measures

While insufficient, state-based measures are certainly indispensable. After all, much corruption occurs in the management of public resources or delivery of public services. The state therefore needs rules and procedures to prevent corrupt practices, and the mechanisms to detect and sanction them when they do occur.

A global consensus on most important state anti-corruption measures is reflected in international anti-corruption conventions.

The international instruments in the box above call for several categories of measures. Most readily-recognised may be those that explicitly aim to counter corruption, for instance, specialised units within the police, prosecution, and courts to process corruption cases. Explicit prevention measures include protocols to manage conflicts of interest; or the obligation for public officials to disclose their private assets and interests, so that their wealth can be monitored and unexplained variations investigated. Many countries have established specialised anti-corruption agencies to implement anti-corruption policies.

International conventions also promote broader state-based approaches to advance transparency, promote efficiency and encourage participation of society. While their primary aim is to meet citizen needs and improve public services, such mechanisms also curb corruption indirectly or ‘implicitly’. More efficient and transparent governance processes reduce opportunities to divert public resources. They also minimise incentives to use bribery or other corrupt transactions to access them. Indeed, a large segment of anti-corruption approaches coincides with a broader good governance reform agenda, including gender-equality objectives. Importantly, a foundation of basic freedoms and democratic checks and balances underpins the effectiveness of all these mechanisms.

U4 research and topic pages explore several high-interest areas for state-based reform, such as:

• Anti-corruption agencies
• Anti-corruption courts
• Auditing and financial control
• Budget process
• Health
• Justice sector
• Procurement
• Public financial management
• Public sector accounting
• Public service delivery
• Tax and revenue collection

Non-governmental initiatives

Non-state actors complement state-based measures. Working separately or joining forces through collective multi-stakeholder initiatives, they help build whole-of-society anti-corruption systems in myriad ways. A few examples among many include:

• Investigative journalists exposing malfeasance, including corruption
• Grassroots civic groups monitor government bodies’ performance to ensure that public services are delivered as planned
• Private sector associations promote ethical conduct among their affiliates
• Independent research initiatives like U4 promote learning and lend their expertise to designing anti-corruption policies

Non-governmental actors can also catalyse governmental anti-corruption action through advocacy and public mobilisation around citizens’ demands for a ‘cleaner’ public sector.

U4 topics Civil society and Private sector contain more information on some non-governmental anti-corruption approaches.

Empowering actors

Decades of anti-corruption practice have shown that simply creating better rules and procedures rarely reduces corruption. Reforms stall when government officials lack the authority, autonomy, or resources to enforce the new rules. Political resistance, sabotage, or conflicting social norms also often undermine reformers’ efforts.

Individuals and groups in society may be disempowered, too. They may distrust institutions, or lack information and opportunities to get involved. They may not reject corruption due to a lack of alternatives: sometimes, corruption is the only way to access scarce resources or solve other everyday problems.

Research yields important insights about how informal norms and power structures, expectations, or the ‘functionality’ of corruption undermine traditional anti-corruption approaches. In response, reformers are bolstering conventional ‘technical’ interventions with complementary strategies to empower actors – to observe and enforce rules, maintain autonomy, challenge countervailing social norms, and demand accountability. The following resources highlight some recent approaches.

Navigating opposition

When corruption occurs in patterns, rather than as isolated opportunistic acts, it may be serving a broader purpose – often a political one. For instance, ruling parties subvert clean recruitment and procurement rules to unfairly reward supporters with government jobs and public contracts.

Leaders fail to embrace anti-corruption reform for other reasons, too. Politicians may fear voter backlash when needed reforms imply high social costs – for instance, when ‘cleaning’ an institution demands widespread dismissals of unethical officials. Short-term public interest objectives, like economic investments that provide jobs, may eclipse concerns about the integrity of the investor.

While the notion of ‘political will’ for anti-corruption reform is typically cast in binary terms – it either exists, or it doesn’t – the reality is more nuanced. Pursuing anti-corruption objectives almost inevitably involves trade-offs. Aspiring reformers need politically-informed interventions to respond to this reality, and navigate stakeholders’ manifold incentives and constraints.

For more on this issue, check out the U4 topic Politics of anti-corruption and these resources:

• Thinking and working politically GSDRC
• Thinking and working politically community of practice
• Topic guide: Building political will to fight corruption Transparency International

Transnational challenges and resources

Most anti-corruption reform approaches contribute to national whole-of-society systems. Yet country borders do not confine corrupt practices, nor do they block external impetus for corruption.

The problem of bribery in international business transactions was addressed already by the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in 1977, followed by the international OECD Anti-Bribery Convention in 1999. However, the global demand for scarce commodities drives corruption in the extraction and management of natural resources. Corruption aids the international narcotics trade and smuggling operations along the supply chain. The international financial system assists corrupt officials to divert public funds for personal benefit and to conceal the proceeds of corruption and other illicit gains.

These challenges require coordinated national and international responses. Relevant initiatives include global efforts to improve transparency and scrutiny of high-risk processes, and cross-border law enforcement cooperation to pursue wrongdoers and recover stolen assets. U4 topic pages on Illicit financial flows, Natural resources and energy, Oil, gas, and mining, and Renewable resources cover these issues in depth.

International initiatives also assist national anti-corruption efforts. Like-minded organisations can be allies who share knowledge and experiences, and offer opportunities for joint actions. Donor agencies provide financial and technical support to both governments and civil society organisations. The international anti-corruption conventions themselves can legitimise national activists’ demands for reforms, while providing platforms for dialogue between state and non-governmental actors.

Planning and supporting anti-corruption reform

Both state officials and non-governmental actors contribute to countering corruption, as do international partners who support their efforts politically, financially, and with expertise.

Most states already have anti-corruption and good governance measures in place, but further improvements may be needed to expand or invigorate national whole-of-society systems. The most appropriate pathways for pursuing these objectives will differ vastly from one setting to another, however.

There is no single model for how societies transition towards less corruption, nor can strategies and ‘good practices’ applied elsewhere produce the same results unless they are sufficiently adapted to context. Context above all dictates the appropriateness, potential effectiveness, and sustainability of various measures and approaches.

Engagement starts with analysis

Analysing contextual complexities may appear daunting, but it is essential. Fortunately, there are many tools to support the inquiry – both existing data and methodologies that can be applied as needed.

The resources to measure and analyse corruption vary in their aim. Different ones may:

• Measure the scale of corrupt practices
• Determine corruption risks in specific institutions or sectors
• Identify system shortcomings that permit corruption to take place
• Describe the political economy and social dynamics that drive corruption and impact the prospects for reform

A combination of diagnostic approaches can render an in-depth picture of the scope and character of corruption, the factors that perpetuate it, and obstacles to reform. Such analyses can reveal allies and opponents, opportunities and constraints, facilitating a strategic and feasible intervention.

Implementation monitoring and evaluation

Diagnostic data that describe the challenge also provides a baseline for measuring the performance of interventions. Countering corruption is difficult: the effectiveness of attempted reforms should not simply be assumed. Performance monitoring allows reformers to assess whether their efforts are delivering expected results, so they can adjust the approach if needed.

Please see U4’s topic page Evaluation and measurement, a blog series on measurement tools, and the U4 course Analysing corruption for further guidance on measurement and assessment tools.

Do no harm

Countering corruption is not without risk or unintended consequences. The following caveats are perhaps the most important lessons about corruption and anti-corruption.

• NEVER pressure individuals or organisations to get in harm’s way. Anti-corruption activists, reformers, and their families may be harassed, fired, transferred, arrested, smeared, threatened and even – in extreme cases – killed.
• Support, assist and help protect partners who choose to engage in anti-corruption activities willingly and with full awareness of risks.
• Do not support corrupt people. Know your partners or beneficiaries – particularly in initiatives to promote economic development or investments. Doing business with corrupt actors will likely only further entrench vested interests who already enjoy privileged access to public resources.
• Do not legitimise individuals who do not genuinely embrace democratic norms. Beware of political actors who may be instrumentalising an anti-corruption agenda to suppress dissent. Anti-corruption is not an isolated policy objective: it is embedded in human rights and democracy.

Implications for development cooperation

Development partners can contribute to curbing corruption in several ways, including by:

• Preventing corruption in their own programmes and development aid
• Supporting national reformers in their efforts
• Proactively addressing corruption challenges in sectoral reform efforts (anti-corruption mainstreaming)
• Aligning policy streams to reinforce anti-corruption messaging and actions

Preventing corruption in donor programmes and development aid

Development partners’ first concern may be to safeguard their programmes and funds against leakage and corruption. They typically have robust corruption risk management systems (CRM) that include:

• Prevention measures at all stages of the programming
• Ongoing monitoring of implementation
• Hotlines for reporting misconduct
• Periodic evaluations and audits

For more information please see the U4 topic page and online course on corruption risk management.

Supporting anti-corruption reforms

Many development partners also support anti-corruption reforms in partner countries: strengthening ‘explicit’ anti-corruption mechanisms, promoting broader good governance reforms, and supporting groups in society in building whole-of-society anti-corruption systems.

U4 research and training supporting these efforts has been summarised above. For reflections on practice from a development partner perspective, see 2021 U4 Issue Reassessing donor performance in anti-corruption: Pathways to more effective practice.

Anti-corruption 'mainstreaming'

Development partners recognise that corruption often undermines their efforts in health, education, agriculture, or any other sector. They are increasingly incorporating anti-corruption measures to support primary development objectives across their portfolios. Identifying and responding to corruption is becoming a routine method to not only safeguard funds, but also to protect programme results.

Anti-corruption mainstreaming can be challenging because it requires additional technical capacities: anti-corruption expertise is integrated with sector-specific competencies. Much accumulated learning is already available to assist practitioners in their efforts. See for example the U4 Brief Mainstreaming anti-corruption into sectors: Practices in U4 partner agencies, or consult emerging sector-specific guidance on U4’s topic pages, in particular on the following sectors:

• Climate change
• Health
• Justice sector
• Migration
• Natural resources and energy
  1. Oil, gas, and mining
  2. Renewable resources

See also U4’s self-paced online courses:

1. Addressing corruption in health emergencies
2. Corruption and wildlife trafficking
3. Corruption in the forestry sector
4. Corruption in the extractive industries

Expert-led courses for U4 partner agencies offer thematic deep-dives:

1. Corruption in the justice sector
2. Addressing corruption in the natural resources sector
3. Addressing corruption in health emergencies

Guidance on how to mainstream gender considerations together with anti-corruption objectives is available in the U4 topic page and online course on Gender and corruption.

Harmonising policy streams

Countries have multiple, and sometimes conflicting foreign policy objectives. While development agencies may be promoting anti-corruption to improve development outcomes in partner countries, other ministries may be pursuing access to markets or natural resources, assistance with migration management, or security objectives. These other policies can eclipse the anti-corruption agenda.

The notion of working politically discussed earlier also implies attempting to align objectives across departments and agencies domestically. This strategy is commonly known as policy coherence or a whole-of-government approach.

The whole-of-government approach further implies examining how their domestic financial, real estate, fine art, or other markets may be used to transform illicit proceeds from corruption into legitimate assets. Domestic policies toward global financial structures used to conceal illicit wealth also require attention.

The following U4 topic pages provide advice on some entry points for engaging with these issues:

• Climate change
• Illicit financial flows
• Migration
• Natural resources and energy
• Oil, gas, and mining
• Renewable resources
• Private sector