Anti-Corruption Policies and Programs : A Framework for Evaluation
The anti-corruption strategy the World Bank announced in September 1997 defined corruption as the "use of public office for private gain" and called for the Bank to address corruption along four dimensions: 1) Preventing fraud and corrupt...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Language: | English en_US |
| Published: |
World Bank, Washington, DC
2014
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2000/12/748708/anti-corruption-policies-programs-framework-evaluation http://hdl.handle.net/10986/19753 |
| Summary: | The anti-corruption strategy the World
Bank announced in September 1997 defined corruption as the
"use of public office for private gain" and called
for the Bank to address corruption along four dimensions: 1)
Preventing fraud and corruption in Bank projects; 2) Helping
countries that request Bank assistance for fighting
corruption; 3) Mainstreaming a concern about corruption in
Bank work; and 4) Lending active support to international
efforts to address corruption. The menu of possible actions
to contain corruption (in both countries and Bank projects)
is very large, so the authors develop a framework to help
assign priorities, depending on views of what does and does
not work in specific countries. Their framework, based on
public officials' incentives for opportunistic
behavior, distinguishes between highly corrupt and largely
corruption-free societies. Certain conditions encourage
public officials to seek or accept corruption: a) The
expected gains from undertaking a corrupt act exceed the
expected costs. b) Little weight is placed on the cost that
corruption imposes on others. In a country with heavy
corruption and poor governance, the priorities in
anti-corruption efforts would then be to establish rule of
law, strengthen institutions of participation and
accountability, and limit government interventions to focus
on core mandates. In a country with moderate corruption and
fair governance, the priorities would be decentralization
and economic reform, results-oriented management and
evaluation, and the introduction of incentives for
competitive delivery of public services. In a country with
little corruption and strong governance, the priorities
might be explicit anti-corruption agencies and programs,
stronger financial management, increased public and
government awareness, no-bribery pledges, efforts to fry the
"big fish," and so on. |
|---|