GLOBAL PROGRAMME AGAINST CORRUPTION CONFERENCES Vienna, May 2001 Centre for International Crime Prevention Prevention: An Effective Tool to Reduce Corru p tion Vienna, December 1999 CICP-2 This paper has not been officially edited The views ex p ressed herein are not necessaril y those of the United Nations. Prevention: An Effective Tool to Reduce Corruption ∗ _/ ∗ _/ Prepared by Petter Langseth, Ph. D, Programme Manager, Global Programme against Corruption, Centre for International Crime Prevention, Office of Drug Control and Crime Prevention, United Nations Office at Vienna. Former Senior Public Sector Management Specialist, World Bank, Paper presented at the ISPAC conference on Responding to the Challenge of Corruption, 19 November 1999, Milan Abstract This paper outlines the basis and set of tools required to advance anti-corruption reform. Economic and social progress, the rule of law under good governance, democratic values, and strong civil societ y are discussed as some of the basic pre- requisites to building the national integr ity system to sustain a fight against corruption in various forms and at various levels. The concomitant values, institutions and comprehensive, integrative, inclusive and coordinated approach within this framework are also discussed in this paper. Prevention: An Effective T ool to Reduce Corruption 3 Fourth, the public needs to be educated on the advantages of good governance and participate in promoting it. The public itse lf bears a large share of responsibility for insisting on honesty and integrity in gover nment and business. The public needs to learn: (a) not to let anybody buy their vote; (b) not to pay bribes themselves; (c) to report incidents of corruption to the author ities; and (d) to teach their children the right values; e.g. that integrity is good and corruption is bad. 3 Broad-based partic ipation is central to sustainable development. Only programs that manage to become locally owne d and valued finally flourish. The broader the ownership the better. This is particularly true in many developing societies where for so long so much has been forced from the top for the benefit of a few that trust, or what is being called “social capital,” is negligible. By all logic, therefore, anti-corruption strategies should work to greatly enhance participation in the design, implement ation and evaluation of programs to improve accountability. Rather than economists or proc urement experts imparting their knowledge via a few high placed government clients or “champions,” the key e ffort should involve international task managers w ho develop, train and coach local stakeholders to facilitate the broadening of circles of participation. These par ticipants, then can approach experts to devise technically competent but also locally devel oped, adapted and owned solutions. Systematic mechanisms to ensure access to information and checks and balances can be developed by the task managers and local owners, to suit the local needs. In such a manner, the participatory process would anchor the technical substance while working to balance the competing interests by opening access. The wider implications of broa d participation are even more promising as a means of prevention—giving teeth to citizenship, genera ting broader consensus and even producing a workable social contract upon which to base re form and development pr iorities and programs. This type of empowerment combined with other practical tools constitutes best practice in preventing corruption. The use of common sense indicators generated by user groups among the citizens of the South and the taxpayers of the North can be utilised to clear the smoke. Through the specification of clear criteria for success publicised by stakeholders on interactive web pages, much can be accomplished to improve transpar ency. Once the citizens of the North, whose taxes assist those of the South, and the user s in the developing world can evaluate the effectiveness of programs and approaches much will change. The debate will be animated but rather than institutional rhetoric, actions whose impact can be independently monitored will do the talking A. The Meaning of Corruption Corruption is defined by the World Bank and Tran sparency International (TI) as “the misuse of public office for private gain.” 4 As such, it involves the imp roper and unlawful behaviour of public-service officials, both politicians and civil servants, whose positions create opportunities for the diversion of money and assets from governme nt to themselves and their accomplices. Corruption distorts resource allocation and government pe rformance. The causes of its development are many and vary from one country to the next. Among the contributing factors are policies, programs and activities that are poorly c onceived and managed, failing Statement of Mr. Pino Arlacchi at the Opening session of ISPAC Conference on “Responding to the Challenge of Corruption”, Milan o November 19, 1999. 4 The World Bank, Helping Countries Combat Corruption: The Role of the World Bank, Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Network, September 1997. See pages 19-20 on definitions of corruption. Prevention: An effective T ool to Reduce Corruption 20 (Bosnia and Ukraine), South Asia (Nepal and Pakistan), and Latin America (Nicaragua and Bolivia). Over the next four years, UNICRI in close collaboration with CICP, intends to deepen and expand this product line by undertakin g more survey work and capacity building, as part of a monitoring and evaluation pro cess in other pilot countries (Hungary, Lebanon, Uganda, Nicaragua, South Africa, Nige ria, Benin, Bolivia and others). B. Integrity Surveys Since 1997, client countries have found it usef ul to complement the extensive Service Delivery Surveys, which examine many aspects of service delivery and identify multiple reasons for inefficient and ineffective delivery, with smaller surveys focused specifically on corruption. The “integrity surveys” or “corruption surveys” are used to identify those areas in the public service where corruption is a problem and to raise awareness of the extent of corruption. They can also be used as part of an anti-corruption enforcement strategy. For most reformers and governments committed to change, enforcement remains one of their biggest challenges. New laws, ru les and regulations serve little purpose without an adequately funded and staffed enforcement strategy. NGOs such as TI, with donor support, can play an important role in helping reformers to monitor the effectiveness of enforcement measures. One way of doing this is to conduct an annua l bribery survey similar to the TI Index. In addition to the formal integrity surveys, informal participant surveys are sometimes included as part of an integrity workshop or symposium to draw atte ntion to a particular corruption issue. For example, the government of Mauritius in collaboration with TI- Mauritius and TI Tanzania, used an integrity wo rkshop in to test a survey instrument that captured participants’ perceptions of bribery practised by thei r country’s trading partners. Because of the instrument’s potential it is test ed in other countries in Latin America and Africa. To date, formal integrity surveys of house holds and businesses ha ve been conducted in Nicaragua, Bolivia, Uganda, West Bank Gaza, Ukraine and Mauritius. Discussions are under way to conduct others in Bang ladesh, West Africa, the form er Soviet Union, and Eastern Europe. C. National Integrity Workshops (NIWs) The completion of an SDS or an Integrity Survey generally involves a workshop where different stakeholders discuss the causes of inefficiency and corruption and seek to form a consensus about possible solutions. The objectiv e of an NIW is to promote better public- service delivery by facilitating actions and promoting reforms that increase accountability and transparency in institutions and among stakeholder groups. The NIW assembles representatives of all the major stakeholders or integrity pillars in society: the executive branch of government, parliament , the judiciary, media, civil society, watchdog agencies, and others. These workshops, which have been conducted in Malawi, Mauritius, Tanzania, Uganda, Ukraine, Nicaragua and Venezuela and ar e planned to be held in Bolivia, Bulgaria and West Bank-Gaza. A series of workshops, one to be held every year or two, are envisaged for each country. As mentioned earlier, the NIW may be an activity of the National Integrity Steering Committee, drawing together representa tives of the same stakeholder groups. Or it may replace the NISC as the primary national instrument for building a National Integrity System. The workshop can start with a presentation of the SDS and Integrity Survey data, papers written by representatives of each of the “int egrity pillars” describing how corruption is present in various stakeholder groups, and inte rnational experiences and best practices in Prevention: An effective T ool to Reduce Corruption 22 • establish ownership and commitment of the participants to the conclusions and an action plan. The integrity workshop model marshals the id eas and resources of key stakeholders by inviting them to contribute to the proceedings as equal partners. It also emphasises the production of tangible outputs: (a ) an Integrity Pledge that expresses the consensus of the workshop on the issue of corruption; (b) a Nati onal Integrity Action Plan by the end of the workshop; or (c) a review of prog ress made on an ear lier Action Plan. D. Municipal and Sub-national Integrity Workshops Conscientious mayors and municipal managers are generally concerne d about the quality of municipal services and how to improve munici pal efficiency, effectiveness, transparency, accountability, and value for money. They want to know residents’ opinions of the services provided, find out where corruption may be si phoning resources, install a Local Integrity System to improve service delivery, and enhance the image of the municipality. Municipal and other sub- national workshops are part of a four-phase program to introduce a Municipal (or sub-national) Integrity System. Phase I is intended to help build a coalition in support of reform by focusing on discussions with local stakeholders and deciding on the modalities for a program. This is done throug h a Municipal Integrity Workshop. The specific objectives of this first workshop are to: (a) de termine the views of the workshop participants regarding the provision of municipal services by conducting an informal opinion poll; (b) seek agreement on the importance of an improved service delivery system to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of delivery; and (c) introduce the idea of a Local Integrity System to enhance accountability and transparency. Phase II focuses on carrying out an SDS directed at specific areas of concern. In Phase III, the results of the SDS are presented at a sec ond Municipal Integrity Workshop and an Action Plan is drafted. Phase IV involves implemen ting the action plan according to the agreed timetable, monitoring and evaluation. Drawing on the SDS findings, the content of the second workshop includes the following topics: • Define the nature and magnitude of corruption in the municipality • Define the detrimental effects of corruption • Define a Local Integrity System to fight corruption • Raise public awareness and emphasise the role of the civil society • Emphasise public par ticipation and the democratic process • Discuss anti-corruption strategies • Discuss watchdog agencies • Discuss the judicial process • Discuss role of the media • Discuss role of the private sector Like the National Integrity Workshops, the m unicipal or other sub-national workshop should produce tangible outputs, including: (a) an Integr ity Pledge, which expresses the consensus of the workshop about corruption, and (b) a Local In tegrity Action Plan wh ich established a time frame for specific actions to a ddress priority areas and iden tifies a group (probably an NGO) that will be responsible for monitoring the achie vement of the plan’s goals and tasks. Being held accountable for decisions made at the workshop makes pa rticipants role models for accountability throughout the country. Prevention: An effective T ool to Reduce Corruption 23 Sub-national or municipal inte grity workshops have been conducted in Uganda, Bolivia, Venezuela, Ukraine and Nicaragua. Results Indicators The results of the Local Integrity Action Plan can be measured in terms of progress made in building a Local Integrity System. Of particular importance is the extent to which the plan has been implemented. Each stakeholder should be encouraged to self-assess the outputs and outcomes achieved by the organisation. Regu larly repeated SDS will provide outside confirmation of changes in public-sector perform ance and of the factors that are responsible for these changes. Integrity surveys can provide additional information on the extent to which the public perceives that corruption has been curbed. Other indicators of progress can be established at the Municipal Integrity Works hop (e.g. media coverage of corruption, changes in revenue collection, changes in foreign di rect investment, or evidence of successful prosecutions for corrupt practices). Measuring results may show progress in term s of “outputs” (e.g., introducing a Code of Conduct and periodic appraisals of the performance of municipa l employees) and the desired “outcomes” of these changes such as a dec line in requests for bribes. The sustainable “impacts” of these changes in terms of less corruption and improvements in public services overall will be influenced, however, by factors (such as wage scales and offers of bribes from the private sector) beyond the contro l of a particular municipality. E. Special Integrit y Workshops for Each Integrity Pillar Special workshops have been held for peer groups, which focus on corruption as seen from their perspective and what it means for them in carrying out their public roles and responsibilities. For example, a workshop for pa rliamentarians include s discussion on how to prevent or curb corrupt practices among the parliamentarians themselves and seeks to strengthen Parliament as a watchdog agen cy. Workshops for ministers have similar objectives. Occurrences of ministe rial indiscretions being vagu ely defined and being defended as being “in the public interest” are all too common. To give one example, this kind of reasoning has been used by an Attorney Genera l to justify the action taken by a Minister of Finance who exempted his own car from import duties. The overall objective of these workshops is to cr eate a pool of trainers in the region equipped with skills to assist local authorities in developing and setting up a Local Integrity System to fight corruption. More specifically, these workshops aim at: • Making participants appreciate the detrimental effects of corruption; • Fostering discussion of what will be needed to set up a Local Integrity System with all integrity pillars; • Assisting/facilitating local authorities in setting up Local Integrity Systems; and • Defining the roles of relevant actors ( donors, NGOs, and other integrity pillars). F. Action Plans Translating dialogue into action is a critical step in the process of building a National Integrity System. Figure 4 shows a simple model of a framework that might be employed by an integrity workshop to develop an action plan. The same principles apply to all action plans, whether they be a National Integrity Action Plans, municipal or other sub-national action plans: First, to be successful, the effort must be who lly owned and driven by the subject country. In particular, the country’s political leader and hi s/her deputy play a central role in setting the Prevention: An effective T ool to Reduce Corruption 24 tone and asserting moral aut hority. The action plan should be endorsed or issued by an executive commission. Second, a major effort must be made to draw ci vil society into the process in imaginative and constructive ways. Public opinion surveys, whic h proved successful in the Hong Kong reform efforts, can be used. As a third principle, any action plan should ca ll for major initiatives in four separate areas: awareness-raising, both top-down and bottom-up; institution building; prevention of corruption, by minimising opportunities and increas ing risks of detection; and enforcement . Expectations must be managed carefully to ensure that promises are realistic, that some changes are made quickly and that they are communicated to the public to maintain their confidence in the process. Fourth, a high level of co-ordination within the government will be needed as actors and stakeholders execute the program. Implementing the national action plan, for example, will typically involve the auditor-gen eral’s office, the ombudsman’s office, prosecution agencies, the civil service, public procurement agencies , government departme nts, and professional associations among other groups. Donors will also need to co-ordinate their actions as the undertaking will be too all-embracing to a llow for the luxury of ad hoc assistance. The process of devising a National or Local Integrity Action Plan is event-driven. A timetable with benchmarks, staggered events, and monitori ng schedules is necessary but there should be some room for flexibility. Stakeholders shoul d be help accountable for achieving results. Donors can help organisations achieve reform by providing resources, space and protection. Most action plans developed so far have had concrete action items for each of the pillars represented at the integrity workshop. See, belo w the example of the national plan developed for Mauritius. At a recent district integrity workshop in Luwero district in Uganda, the IGG staff facilitating the workshop emphasised the importance of: Agree on a focused and realistic ac tion plan (no more than 5 items) - Select actions where the participants have authority to change things - Pick areas that are visibl e and important to the public - Pick action items that you can afford to implement - Agree on who is responsible for the implementation and a time frame Prevention: An effective T ool to Reduce Corruption 25 Mauritius National In tegrity Action Plan Civil Society - Conduct a national public awareness campaign - Conduct a media campaign against corruption - Conduct a public awareness campaign in secondary schools - Conduct further research, monitoring and ev aluation (e.g. annual integrity surveys) - Introduce Code of Conduct for teachers - Co-ordinate the corruption campaign with the me dia and educational and religious organisations Private Sector - Strengthen Code of Ethics for mana gers of private-sector companies - Increase transparency of political party financing - Implement declaration and monitoring of assets for private-sector managers - Increase public accountability fo r private-sector managers - Increase protection of shareholders interests - Increase control of monopolies and quasi-monopolies - Improve monitoring of financial services, banking, and insurance Watchdog Agencies and Ombudsman - Review the role of the ombudsman - Reappraise institutions assigned to combat corruption - Strengthen anti-corruption legislation and institutions Executive Branch - National Transport Authority: “Clean up” vehicle fitness test through privatization and improved enforcement - Introduce and enforce Code of Ethics in the public service - Create a Human Resource Division and job appraisal review - Implement declaration and monitoring of assets for top civil servants - Introduce more realistic ceiling on funding of political parties - Demand registration with Electoral Supervisory Commission Judiciary - Introduce Code of Conduct for all sectors within Judiciary - Conduct speedy investigations into allegation of misconduct made against judicial staff according to existing regulations - Entrust responsibility of recruitment and disc ipline to the judicial and legal service - Commission for administrative staff as well - Introduce Code of Conduct for administrative staff in the judiciary Police and Prosecution - Set up of an independent police complaints board with its own investigators - Have complaints go to media, DPP, or ombudsman - Introduce an independent group within the police fo rce to investigate corruption within the police - Implement a declaration and monitoring of assets for police officers - Implement and monitor Code of Ethics for police Box 3: Example of a National Integrity Action Program (1 of 2) Prevention: An effective T ool to Reduce Corruption 26 Mauritius National Integrity Action Plan (continued) Media - Legislate liberalisation of broadcasting - Legislate more access to information in ministries - Demand more balanced reporting - Implement Code of Conduct for journalists - Introduce more specialised training (e.g. investigative journalism) - Demand more balanced coverage between privat e-sector and public-sector on corruption issues - Have media engage in public awareness campaign on corruption issues Parliamen t - Shorten parliamentary holidays for MPs - Increase number of weekly sessions - Demand annual report of Ministries to Parliament - Introduce live broadcast of parliamentary proceedings - Introduce more regular meetings of Public Accounts Committee (PAC) - Improve staffing and resources of PAC - Have the PAC’s report debated in asse mbly, open to the media and the public - Sanction parastatal bodies for late s ubmission of annual report to Parliament - Introduce more parliamentary committees to discuss corruption reforms - Introduce regulation of political funding before the next general election - Introduce written answers to PQs communicated in advance - Introduce annual returns of assets for MPs published in the media - Amend legislation to deal with corruption Customs - Review customs procedures - Various legislation to strengthen compliance - Have regular meetings with various stakeholders - Establish Complaints Bureau (report to outsider) - Code of Ethics for all officers - Raise public awareness - Increased transparency about where you get what service in customs - Implement the declaration and monitoring of assets for customs officers Box 4: Example of a National Integrity Action Program (2 of 2) G. The Integrity Pledge Another tool used is an “integrity pledge” that participants sign at the end of integrity workshops. These pledges are not legally bindi ng, but participants commit themselves with their signatures to take certain actions against corruption. Pledges have included the following: launching a local chapter of Transparency International; committing to act honestly and openly in all aspects of their lives ; putting the well-being of the people ahead of their personal and party interest s; uniting to fight corruption by using all opportunities both in their place of work and in thei r private lives; and sensitising the public to the effects of corruption on the development of their countries. These pledge s are given wide publicity at the end of the workshops by both print and broa dcast media, and the names and signatures of participants are printed in newspapers in most cases. Such public commitment by participants, who include parliamentarians, jour nalists, educators, civil servants, ordinary citizens, non-governmental organi sations, etc., puts added pressure on the participants to take the fight against corruption seriously. Prevention: An effective T ool to Reduce Corruption 27 H. Islands of Integrity The “Island of Integrity” or “enclave” approach was developed by Transp arency International as one way of guaranteeing a transparent proce ss in procurement. The approach fences off an area of government activity to address corruption in a manner is olated from other influences. For example, in the area of procurement, the a pproach is based on pledges by bidders not to pay bribes to win government contracts. Sizeab le bonds are subject to forfeiture in the event of non-compliance. Other consequences c ould include, disqualification from further involvement in the project or other publicly -funded projects (blacklisting) for all private- sector parties who violate the pledge and immedi ate dismissal of those in the public sector who are found guilty of violation. This approach as been tried in countries like Ecuador, Argentina, and Panama, sends a definitive message that private industry is no longer a party to defraud the government and the public. Key donors have been including this approach as one of the integrity tools in the fight agai nst corruption. Although it is too early to pass judgement on its successes, the challenge of this approach is to introduce integrity into the process before any irregular ity takes place and to obtain a credible commitment by all stakeholders involved, to ensu re the rules are not broken. I. The National Integrity Steering Committee A first practical step in strengthen a National Integrity System is to establish a National Integrity Steering Committee (NISC) which brings together all stakeholders. Within government this would include representatives of the nation’s executive, judiciary, cabinet, electoral governing body, and civil servants in key departments such as customs, procurement, revenue collec tion, and local government. Re presentatives from outside government would include leaders from religi ous groups, business, the media and special interest groups. In Africa, political leaders ha ve accepted that partic ipants of the annual National Integrity Symposium or Workshop (N IW), described below, act as a NISC. In Latin America, on the other hand, there is more w illingness to establish a separate National Integrity Steering Committee appointed by the President. The committee’s task is to analyse the framework, identify and prioritise areas for reform, and develop a plan that includes short-term, medium-term, and long-term goals along with a public awareness-raising program. It should assign subcommittees to follow up action and receive reports on the progress toward stated goals. The working group should publish the names of its members, its ove rall plan, and regular status reports. Input from the general public should be solicited from the beginning a nd regularly throughout the national integrity working group’s existence. The endorsement of the working group and its plan by political leaders and the public is essential and must be solicited for the duration of the committee’s existence. The group should pay particular atte ntion to achieving several “quick wins” to build public confidence early in the process. In doing their work, the NISC members should be guided by certain key pr inciples, summarised in Box 4. A controversial issue that must be resolved is how to include opponents to the party in power in the NISC. It is critical that they be involve d in order that corrupti on will be to criminalised instead of politicised . This issue arose, for example, in Mauritius, Bolivia and Nicaragua. Faced with the argument that the National Integr ity System would lack credibility in the eyes of the public if the opposition were not included, Mauritius agreed to include the Leader of the Opposition at the NIW, and Nicaragua and Bolivia accepted the inclusion of the opposition within the NISC. Facilitators successfu lly argued that its client had to choose between “control over the process versus the credibility of the process” and that a National Integrity System without credibility probably w ould not be worth controlling. In order to Prevention: An effective T ool to Reduce Corruption 28 avoid a politicisation of the process, the st eering committee should be as broad-based as possible. Despite external facilitators urging the same in Ukraine, the political leadership to failed invite leaders of the opposition to attend the NIW in Kiev in November 1997. Key Principles • Local Ownership • Increase accountability through increased transparency • Enforce access to information to all • Balancing of powers across executive, legislative and judiciary • Broad-based capacity building • Public empowered to monitor the state • Administration based on rules • Rule of law • Focus on corruption initiated both from the “North and South” • Overall objective is improved service delivery and high quality growth Box 4: Key Principles Guiding the Integrated Reform Efforts Prevention: An effective T ool to Reduce Corruption 29 V. M ORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS Despite the work done over the past few years, its intensity and the involvement of both academics and activists, reformer s and development agencies, th ere are still more questions than answers. We have found very clearly that what outsiders ha ve to offer is process: substance has to be provided by the internal actors. Outsiders can facilitate and provide information, but they cannot diagnose and they cannot prescribe. On ly the local people are in a position to do either. However, together, the facilitators and the facilitated, there can be potentially powerful impact emerging from informed discussion, partic ularly through the creation of action plans. We have found, too, that the concept of the single “national integrity system” is an extraordinarily useful one and one which helps put the various components into a coherent perspective. It also can throw short-comings into sharp relief, especially where discourse takes place in the setting of a national integrity workshop. A classic example is provided by experience in Uganda. There a stakeholder innocently asked of the Inspector General of G overnment how it was that alt hough many cases of corruption were unearthed by him, few if any people appeared in court. The IGG said that his was not the job to prosecute, simply investigate, and so the files were sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions for action. The DPP said that his o ffice did not receive the files. Why not, asked the questioner, have the IGG prosecute, as this would eliminate the gap through which the files appeared to be leaking and make it plain where accountability lay? The DPP agreed to a recommendation that the constitution be amended to provide for this, and the amendment was made several weeks later. One of the morals of the story is that the DPP and the IGG might well never meet in a work environment, a nd so the workshop provided a unique opportunity for pillars of the integrity system to discuss their difficulties in ways that otherwise would not have eventuated. It has also appeared very clearly that an effective anti-corruption strategy must be integrated and holistic. Ad hoc, stand alone re forms are unlikely to achieve much progress, at least in the short term. It matters little, for example, to tidy up a judicial system is the prosecution and investigation “pillars” are left to crumble. There can be longer term advantages—the re forms in Kenya which have strengthened the office of the Auditor-General have resulted in much more transparency and greater awareness of the extent of corruption in that country, but because of an enf eebled parliament and a dominant executive, despite the media discharging its role and getting the messages out, the levels of corruption do not appear to have abated. A clear lesson—and a widely accepted appro ach—is that prevention is better than prosecution. The move to clean up a system through prosecution depends on having a working judiciary and good prosecution service in place and numbers of people being charged who can be accommodated within the system, and the available resources, both human and material, to conduct the necessary investigations. It thus lends itself more for tidying up a strong integrity system which has hit a bumpy patch, rather than resolving problems of systemic corruption. Enforcement is certainly essential if the co rruption equation of “Corruption = High Profit, Low Risk’ is to be converted into a deterrent which says “Corruption = High Risk, Low Profit”. But it can seldom be the major tool. Enforcement is retrospective, and what matters most is to stop the leakages at once, not chase after the leakages after they have taken place. This in turn points to the need to address “the system” rather than the individual. There is little point in indulging in indiscriminate w itch-hunts (though some s calps may well assist raise public confidence in the credibility of the reform process). Prevention: An effective T ool to Reduce Corruption 33 These may seem small victories, but across rura l India small development projects have been undertaken in the name of the poor only to ha ve the funds looted for private gain by contractors and officials. The looted money then helps pay for the buying of votes and so distorts democracy as well as development. Aside from being a creative exercise in government for the people by the people, these meetings are small but significant steps towards a transition from representative to participatory democracy. This points to access to information being a powerful tool if creatively used by civil society and suggests that more work needs to be done in this are, if necessary at the expense of some of the work that has been going on in more traditional governance research areas. Overall, there is a Gordian knot that needs to be cut if it cannot be untangled. We know where we are. We know where we want to be. Just how do we get there? The answers are coming, but not just yet. Prevention: An effective T ool to Reduce Corruption 35 There are many lessons to learn, and the final one is information sharing. The task countries confront is daunting and everyone needs access to as much experience and information as possible. This is not an area in which “expe rts” should develop sta nd-alone and discreet information bases. This is why TI are joining with the Vienna-based UN Crime Prevention Programme and the Commonwealth Secretariat in London to bu ild a web site which will contain as much best practice as possible. This will be added to, and pruned from, as experience grows. And we would conclude with an invitation to others to join in this project as being one from which all can benefit through sharing. Prevention: An effective T ool to Reduce Corruption 37 Prevention: An effective T ool to Reduce Corruption 39 Kpundeh, Sahr, and Petter Langseth (eds.) 1997. Good Governance for Sustainable Development: Proceedings of a Workshop for Parliamentarians in Kampala , Uganda . Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Langseth, Petter. 1995. Civil Service Reform: Lessons from Uganda . Washington, D.C.: EDI Working Papers, No. 95-05. Langseth, Petter, Rick Stap enhurst and Jeremy Pope. 1997. National Integrity Systems: Fighting Corruption . Washington, D.C.: EDI Working Papers. Langseth, Petter, Rick Stap enhurst, and Jeremy Pope. 1997. The Role of a National Integrity System in Fighting Corruption . Washington, D.C.: EDI Working Papers Series, World Bank. Langseth, Petter et al, 1998; Building Integrity to Fight Corruption in Uganda; Fountain Publishing House, Kampala, Uganda Mauro, P. 1995. “Corrup tion and Growth.” Quarterly Journal of Economics ; 110:681-712. August. Mauro, P. 1997. Why Worry about Corruption? Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund. Miller, M. and T. Miller. Citizen Surveys: How to Do Them, How to Use Them, and What They Mean . Boulder, CO: ICMA. National Performance Review Office, Office of the Vice President of the United States . Putting Customers First: Standards for Serving the American People (Report of the National Performance Review). Washington, D.C., Sept. 1994. Nunberg, B. 1997. Re-Thinking Civil Service Re form: An Agenda for Smart Government. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Unprocessed. Pope, Jeremy, ed. 1996. The TI Source Book . Berlin: Transparency International. Pope, Jeremy (ed.). 1997. National Integrity System s: The TI Source Book (second edition). EDI. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. Presidential Commission of I nquiry Against Corruption. 1996. Report on the Commission on Corruption . Dar-es-Salaam. Presidential Commission of I nquiry Against Corruption. 1996. Service Delivery Survey: Corruption in the Police, Judiciary, Revenue, and Lands Services. Dar es Salaam. Rose-Ackerman, S. 1997. Corruption and Development . Paper prepared for the Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics. Washington, D.C., April 30 and May 1. Selener, D. 1997. Participatory Action Research and Social Change . Ithaca, New York: Cornell Participatory Action Research Network, Cornell University. Seligson, Mitchell. 1997. Nicaraguans Talk about Corruption . Unprocessed. Smith, S., D. Williams, and N. Johnson. 1997 . Nurtured by Knowledge: Le arning to Do Participatory Action-Research . New York: The Apex Press. Stone, Andrew. 1992. “Listening to Firms: How to Use Firm Level Surveys to Assess Constraints on Private Sector Development.” World Bank Working Paper Series 923, World Bank. Prevention: An effective T ool to Reduce Corruption 40 Urban Institute. 1998. Selected Urban Institute Staff Reports and Publications on Performance Measurement and Program Evaluation . Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press. Wei, S. 1997. How Taxing is International Corruption . NBER Working Papers. No 6030. May. Weisbord 1995. Future Search: An Action Guide to Finding Common Ground for Action in Organisations and Communities . San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Williamson, O. 1995. “The Institutions and Governance of Economic Development and Reform.” In Proceedings of the Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics: 1994 , edited by Michael Bruno and Boris Pleskovi c. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. World Bank. 1993. 1993 Research International Report . EDI. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. World Bank. 1994. Evaluation Capacity Development: Report of the Task Force . Washington, D.C., July 5. World Bank. 1997a. Helping Countries Com bat Corruption: The Role of the World Bank . Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Netw ork. Washington, D.C.: World Bank. World Bank. 1997b. World Development Repor t 1997. Washington, DC.: World Bank.
Posted on: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 10:39:26 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015