Assessment of
Anti-Corruption Reform
Entry Points
AU CORRUPTION AND GOVERNANCE PRACTICUM
PRESENTING TO THE WORLD BANK GROUP
MAY 2015
Agenda
• Project Overview…………………………………………………………………………….….3
• Methodology……………………………………………………………………….…………….5
• Key Takeaways……………………………………………………………………………….…..6
• Country Sample……………………………………………………………………………….…7
• Country Case Studies………………………………………………………………………..10
• Case Study Comparison.……………………………………………………………………15
• Framework for Practitioners to Evaluate Entry Points……………………....18
• Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………….....23
• Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………..24
Project Overview: Objectives
Purpose
Develop a framework to
identify anti-corruption
reform entry points.
Question
When the World Bank AntiCorruption Thematic Group
(or a similar practitioner)
engages with
representatives from a
country interested in anticorruption reform, what
information is required in
order to identify
appropriate entry points for
the design and
implementation of an anticorruption project?
Deliverables
1. 10 country case studies
2. Project comparison
matrix
3. Framework for
practitioners to
evaluate entry points
Project Overview: Definitions
• Entry Point Actors:
◦ Government
◦ Civil Society
◦ Private Sector
• Process of Entry:
◦ Motivating Factor
◦ Authorizing Agent
◦ Targeted Actor/Agency
• Political Will: Commitment of actors to undertake a set of objectives
and sustain the cost of these actions over time (U4).
Selection Criteria
Sample varies on several indicators:
◦
◦
◦
◦
Methodology
Typology of Corruption
Reform Scope
Partners
Available Funding
Case Study Structure
Sociopolitical Context:
◦ Government
◦ Economy and Level of Development
◦ Civil Society
Reform Projects
Entry Point Evaluation and Conclusions
◦ Measureable progress toward objective
◦ Suitability of entry point
◦ Appropriateness of objective
Indicators Appendix
Key Takeaways
1
The most promising entry point for anti-corruption reform is highly context
dependent. A framework for evaluating anti-corruption reform should assess:
•
•
•
2
Public Sector Capacity
Civil Society Capacity
Private Sector Capacity
•
•
•
Motive for reform
Authorizing Agent
Targeted Actor/Agency
•
Political Will
Taking context into account prior to designing reforms will allow for more
intentional reform design and improved reform monitoring and evaluation.
Evaluations will allow reform modification and will build a body of research to
inform future anti-corruption reforms.
Country Case Studies
Countries
Ukraine
Slovenia
Jordan
Vietnam
Mexico
India
Ghana
Botswana
Chile
Malaysia
Country Comparison
The country sample includes a broad array of countries representing
every region and various levels of wealth, size and civil society robustness.
Country
GDP per
Capita (USD)
GDP (billions,
USD)
Population
(millions)
BTI Civil Society
Participation (1-10)
BTI Anti-Corruption
Policy (1-10)
Botswana
7,358
15
2
7
8
Chile
15,732
277
18
7
9
Ghana
1,858
48
26
7
6
India
1,584
1,876
1,263
8
5
Jordan
5,214
34
8
3
5
Malaysia
10,538
313
30
5
6
Mexico
10,307
1,260
122
5
4
Slovenia
23,289
38
2
8
7
Ukraine
3,900
176
45
4
3
Vietnam
1,911
171
90
3
4
*All data from most recent
year available, 2013/2014
Ukraine: Project against
Corruption (UPAC) (2006-2010)
Objective(s)
Improve strategic and institutional framework against corruption in Ukraine; enhance capacity for the
prevention of corruption; strengthen anti-corruption legal framework and enforcement
Reform Type
Legislative
Funding
€1,750,000 provided by the Council of Europe
Partner(s)
Ministry of Justice, the Council for National Security and Defense, and the Secretariat of the President
Actions
Passing of the anti-corruption package of law; workshops; open tables; expert discussion
Measurable Impact
Creation of the Government Agent for Anti-Corruption Policy, as well as Ukrainian Anti-Corruption
Strategy and Action Plan
Process of Entry Points
Motive for Initiation
Desire for European integration
Authorizing Agency
Verkhovna Rada
Targeted Actor/Agency
The legal system, the Government Agent for Anti-Corruption Policy
Malaysia: National Integrity Plan
(2004-2008)
Objective(s)
Promote a “culture of integrity” in Malaysia as a whole
Reform Type
Anti-Corruption and Good Governance
Funding
Allocated from budget of Prime Minister’s Office
Partner(s)
Federal government, private sector and Malaysian citizens (limited engagement)
Actions
Creation of Malaysian Institute of Integrity (IIM), Anti-Corruption Academy (MACA), and Anti-Corruption
Commission (MACC)
Measurable Impact
Various domestic initiatives launched by IIM and MACC, with MACA initiating partnerships with
international organizations
Process of Entry Points
Motive for Initiation
Election of Abdullah Ahmad Badawi as new prime minister in 2003; identifying corruption as a societal ill
Authorizing Agency
Federal Government (Prime Minister)
Targeted Actor/Agency
New anti-corruption agencies
Mexico: Judicial Reform
(2008-2014)
Objective(s)
Reduce use of bribery and influence in court proceedings
Reform Type
Judicial
Funding
Federal Government, State Governments, USAID
Partner(s)
Mexican Government (SETEC, SEGOB, judicial branch), USAID and its contractors (CIDAC, MSI),
professional organizations (Bar Association), Mexican law schools and CSOs (education and advocacy)
Actions
Updating laws and procedures, establishing implementing agency, providing training
Measurable Impact
Implementation limited. Where implemented, a decrease in crime rates, an increase in investigation of
reported crimes, and a decrease in acquittal rates and time to resolve cases has been observed.
Process of Entry Points
Motive for Initiation
Corresponded with Merida Initiative with the United States to reduce drug-related violence
Authorizing Agency
Federal Government (Executive and Legislature)
Targeted Actor/Agency
Local and state level courts
Botswana: Judicial Case
Management (2008-Present)
Objective(s)
Improve judicial services delivery
Reform Type
Judicial
Funding
Department of Justice and Government of Botswana
Partner(s)
The Executive, Judiciary (Directorate of Public Prosecutions-DPP)
Actions
Immediate assignment of judges to cases
Measurable Impact
Improvement in the pace of litigation since 2008
Process of Entry Points
Motive for Initiation
Expedite litigation period and eliminate court case backlog
Authorizing Agency
National Government, Judiciary (Judges)
Targeted Actor/Agency
Judiciary
India: Increasing Access to Justice for
Marginalized People (2008-2017)
Objective(s)
Educating citizens of their legal rights, especially in marginalized communities
Reform Type
Judicial; Good Governance
Funding
$6,676,537 from UN Development Programme (UNDP)
Partner(s)
UNDP, Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, and Government of India
Actions
Education of legal rights in 6 Indian states and conducting the first ever needs assessments of several State
Legal Services Authorities
Measurable Impact
2 million Indians educated on legal rights and 7,000 new paralegals trained
Process of Entry Points
Motive for Initiation
Marginalized and impoverished communities have the least access to legal recourse and limited
understanding of civil rights
Authorizing Agency
Federal Government (Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice)
Targeted Actor/Agency
Lower (subordinate) courts
Case Study Comparison
Project Comparison Matrix
Project
Reform Type
Objective
Point(s) of Entry
Project Specified Metrics for Evaluation
(Baseline)
Legislative
Improve strategic and
institutional
framework against
corruption in Ukraine
Federal Government
(Legislature)
Passage of anti-corruption laws package.
AntiCorruption/
Good
Governance
Promote a “culture of
integrity”
Federal Government (Prime
Minister); Malaysian AntiCorruption Commission
None
Judicial
Reduce use of bribery
and influence in court
proceedings
Federal Government
(Executive, Legislative);
State Government (Judicial)
Initially, number of states implementing
reform. Now, collecting microdata on
organizational form, available resources,
competence of lawyers and judges, warrants,
and cases.
Judicial Case
Management
(Botswana)
Judicial
Improve judicial
services delivery
Federal Government
(Judicial)
None
Access/
Marginalized
People
(India)
Judicial/Good
Governance
Increase access to
justice and legal
literacy of
marginalized people
Federal Government (DOJ,
MLJ); Judicial (Subordinate
courts)
None. Qualitative goal of increased capacity
of justice service institutions and marginalized
groups.
UPAC
(Ukraine)
National
Integrity Plan
(Malaysia)
Judicial
Reform
(Mexico)
Thematic Comparisons Across
Projects and Countries
• Process of Entry
◦ Motive: Reactive vs. Proactive Reform
◦ Targeted Actor/Agency: Institutional vs. Targeted Projects
• Political Will for Resources: Domestic vs. International
Framework for
Practitioners to
Evaluate Entry Points
Information Required to
Evaluate Potential Entry Points
Authorizing
Agent
Targeted
Actor/Agency
Motive
Political Will
Political Will Indicators
Civil Society
Public Sector
Framework
for
Practitioners
Process of Entry
Private Sector
Entry Point
Sample Questions:
Political Will
Country
• I.H: Do you have resources dedicated to the reform? If so, what are
they? How much? Is there a medium-term commitment?
• III.D: Are gaps or exemptions (in enforcement of legislation) more
prevalent in certain sectors? Does it target specific groups of citizens?
Are there more gaps at the central or local level?
Actors
• I.F: Do the agencies identified as needing reform support this change?
• I.G: From whom do you expect opposition to the reform? Could they
block a reform effort?
Sample Questions:
Process of Entry
Motive
• I.D: Why do you want to undertake reform in this sector?
• II.B: Was the same president, government, or ruling party in power when that
reform was undertaken?
Authorizing Agent
• II.D: Who or which division of the public sector took the lead in that (past) anticorruption effort? Who did they partner with?
• II.F: Who provided funding and resources for this (past) reform?
Targeted Actor/Agency
• I.A: Do you have information about the extent and mechanisms of corruption within
the country of interest?
• I.C: What specific type of corruption are you trying to address? Are there other
types of corruption you’re willing to address?
Sample Questions:
Entry Point
Civil Society
• IV.B: Does civil society have the ability to mobilize? What are the legal constraints on
civil society activism?
• IV.E: Who owns the media? Is the media state-owned, privately owned, or mixed? Is
it able to monitor and comment on government activities? Are there defamation or
sedition laws that prevent the media from reporting on corruption?
Public Sector
• V.A: Does the government have the ability to enforce existing anti-corruption laws?
How could that ability be improved?
• V.E.5.c: For high-level public officials, are their assets placed in blind trusts while
they are in office?
Private Sector
• VI.F: Is there interest in the domestic private sector for reform, the foreign private
sector, or both? How has that interest been expressed?
• VI.H: Is there legislation or a code governing campaign finance? Are campaign
donations publicly disclosed? Are there laws regulating lobby activities?
Conclusion
The framework for evaluating entry points will enhance anti-corruption
reform by:
◦
◦
◦
◦
Providing insight into context of reform.
Clarifying reform goals.
Creating more intentional project designs.
Improving ability to evaluate progress/success.
Acknowledgements
• Professor Daniel Schneider, SIS
• Francesca Recanatini, World Bank Group
• Sarah Chayes, Carnegie Endowment
• Transparency International Practicum Group, SIS
• Global Financial Integrity Practicum Group, SIS
Discussion
Ukraine
Slovenia
Jordan
Vietnam
Mexico
India
Ghana
Botswana
Chile
Malaysia