Understand Corruption and How to Curb It

               This post is a summary of the book with the title above published in 2021 at   https://www.u4.no/publications/understanding-corruption-and-how-to-curb-it.pdf

               The cost of corruption greatly exceeds the sum of bribes paid, funds misappropriated, and taxes avoided. Corruption hampers development. It increases inequality, impedes growth, undermines the legitimacy of governments, and weakens the public's trust in democracy. It impacts everything from learning outcomes in schools to climate change. Yet billions of people live in highly corrupt societies, with more than two-thirds of countries scoring below 50 points on Transparency International's 2020 Corruption Index. Over the past decades, the focus on corruption has steadily increased. Academic research on corruption has taken off as development actors have made tackling corruption an explicit policy objective. Protests and polls show that corruption is also a major concern for citizens. Yet significantly and sustainably reducing corruption has proved difficult. According to collective action theory, when corruption is widespread and accepted, the practice will persist due to lack of trust, misperceptions, and free riding. Individuals will continue to participate in corruption if they expect that others will do so as well. Collective action problems can also stop people from demanding change or holding powerful figures to account for acts of corruption. Unless individuals can trust that enough people will take a stand together and that genuine change is possible, they are unlikely to act. When a collective action problem is present, technical anti-corruption solutions will not be enough. People's expectations and levels of trust need to be altered. Coordination and cooperation will also be key. In some cases, corruption is not only widespread, but systemic. Systemic corruption is generally characterised by three dimensions: 1) Multi-actor organisation - Systems require coordination among multiple actors. In the case of corrupt systems, each corrupt act is perpetuated not only by two individuals but by a set of actors often connected in a network. The level of organisation can be loose or tight, and the scale of coordination will also vary. 2) Partial institutionalisation - The functioning of a system is not reinvented for each action but is underpinned by rules that can be explicit or implicit. Systemic corruption means that each act reflects informal rules that define how corrupt actors interact. 3) A broader rationale - A key quality of systems is that they tend to have some internal reinforcement mechanism that sustains them, or at least prevents quick disintegration. In corrupt systems the purpose of corruption may be, in part, to serve political functions rather than only private gains. Corruption becomes deeply rooted and self-reinforcing. In contexts of systemic corruption, all drivers of corruption will, to varying degrees, likely be present. Curbing corruption is immensely difficult. It also takes time. The instiutions, laws, practices, and norms of the world's least corrupt countries evolved over decades. An assessment of impact also needs to consider the context in which anti-corruption efforts are being implemented. It is far more difficult to reduce corruption in fragile states and in countries where corruption is not only high but systemic. Those who benefit from corruption have an incentive to both enhance their gains and undermine anti-corruption efforts. Quantitative and qualitative studies of countries, cities, ministries, and sectors that have achieved significant reductions in corruption have identified some potential pathways to success. The feasibility of reform is determined in part by whether there is an enabling environment. In many cases, the focus need to be on laying the groundwork for future anti-corruption efforts. In regimes where leaders are unwilling to address corruption, interventions that build demand for good governance, empower citizens, strengthen civil society and the private sector are potential entry points. When corruption is deeply entrenched or systemic, it has to be recognised and dealt with as such. Treating corruption as if it were individual bad acts will not work. The system underpinning corruption needs to be understood and either altered, co-opted, or countered. Changing from a high- to a low-corruption society takes time. The process is never complete. There is always a potential for backsliding and backlash. Maintaining the momentum is crucial. Momentum is essential for both simple and complex changes. The passage of a freedom of information law, for example, may lead to an increase in transparency. But over time there is a risk that bucreaucrats find ways to block unwanted inquiries. Citizen demand for good governance and a well-functioning judiciary are a necessary complement. Human agency and political will are essential factors for reform. Many of the contemporary anti-corruption success cases were spearheaded by top politicians, among others, the current president of Rwanda, Paul Kagane, the former prime minister of Estonia, Mart Laar, and the former mayor of La Paz, Ronald MacLean Abaroa. Committed groups inside and outside the government have an important role in pressing for change. They may pay a high price for their commitment, however. Reformists can be fired, transferred, arrested, threatened, and even in extreme cases, killed. A combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches to anti-corruption may be the most sustainable path to reform. Grassroots and civil society were behind the right to information legislation in India and the 'clean record' bill in Brazil. Quantitative studies indicate that anti-corruption tools such as party finance legislation, autonomous anti-corruption agencies, whistle-blower protection, supreme audit institutions, and laws criminalising corruption as a special offence have, on their own, little impact. Adequate law is the starting point, not the end. Top- down approaches are more likely to be effective when there is a commitment from those in power to address corruption. To tackle corruption, we need to understand it. The identification needs to be broad and deep, as well as context-specific and feasibility-sensitive. Such an inquiry involves exploring collective determinants of corrupt behaviour, the legal and institutional frameworks and practices. The identification should also identify possible entry points and map which stakeholders are for or against reform, why they hold those positions. An understanding of political will and power dynamics is also essential. Encouragingly, there is a trend towards more robust analysis of corruption. Political analyses may identify a lack of political will without digging more deeply into the many layers of incentives, rules and constraints that characterise the host country's institutional make-up. An anti-corruption intervention should: 1) be sufficient anchored and led by local stakeholders, including powerful individuals where possible. 2) Be based on a strong theory of change, including an understanding of the complexity of corruption and anti-corruption. 3) Be based on a deep, context-specific understanding of the drivers and enablers of corruption, as well as the wider political economy. 4) Draw on local knowledge, including marginalised voices. 5) Make use of the anti-corruption literature. 6) Employ a tailored, multi-faceted, multi-stakeholder approach. 6) Complement ongoing efforts and strategies. 7) Foster collaboration and coordination. 9) Contribute to addressing the underlying causes of corruption. 10) Employ a realistic time horizon and reslistic goal. 11) Anticipate unintended consequences and backlashes. 12) Allow for continuous adjustment while the intervention is underway. 13) Be implemented and funded by stakeholders genuinely committed to reform.