UNODC

UNODC: Anti-Corruption Tool Kit

The UNODC Anti-Corruption Toolkit covers the following areas:

Introduction

Assessment of Corruption levels

Institution building

Situational Prevention

Social Prevention

Enforcement

Anti-Corruption Legislation

Monitoring and Evaluation

International legal Cooperation

Recovery and Return of Proceeds of Corruption

CHAPTER I: WHAT IS CORRUPTION? THE MEANING OF "CORRUPTION" AND A SURVEY OF ITS MOST COMMON FORMS

There is no single, comprehensive, universally accepted definition of corruption. Attempts to develop such a definition invariably encounter legal, criminological and, in many countries, political problems.

When the negotiations of the United Nations Convention against Corruption began in early 2002, one option under consideration was not to define corruption at all but to list specific types or acts of corruption. Moreover, proposals to require countries to criminalize corruption mainly covered specific offences or groups of offences that depended on what type of conduct was involved, whether those implicated were public officials, whether cross-border conduct or foreign officials were involved, and if the cases related to unlawful or improper enrichment. 3

Issues relating to attempts to define corruption for purposes such as policy development and legislative drafting are discussed in more detail in the United Nations Manual on Anti-Corruption Policy, Part II.

Many specific forms of corruption are clearly defined and understood, and are the subject of numerous legal or academic definitions. Many are also criminal offences, although in some cases Governments consider that specific forms of corruption are better dealt with by regulatory or civil law controls. Some of the more commonly encountered forms of corruption are considered below.

“GRAND” AND “PETTY” CORRUPTION

Grand corruption is corruption that pervades the highest levels of a national Government, leading to a broad erosion of confidence in good governance, the rule of law and economic stability.4 Petty corruption can involve the exchange of very small amounts of money, the granting of minor favours by those seeking preferential treatment or the employment of friends and relatives in minor positions.

The most critical difference between grand corruption and petty corruption is that the former involves the distortion or corruption of the central functions of Government, while the latter develops and exists within the context of established governance and social frameworks.

“ACTIVE” AND “PASSIVE” CORRUPTION

In discussions of transactional offences such as bribery, "active bribery" usually refers to the offering or paying of the bribe, while "passive bribery” refers to the receiving of the bribe.5 This, the commonest usage, will be used in the Toolkit.

In criminal law terminology, the terms may be used to distinguish between a particular corrupt action and an attempted or incomplete offence. For example, "active" corruption would include all cases where payment and/or acceptance of a bribe had taken place. It would not include cases where a bribe was offered but not accepted, or solicited but not paid. In the formulation of comprehensive national anti-corruption strategies that combine criminal justice with other elements, such distinctions are less critical. Nevertheless, care should be taken to avoid confusion between the two concepts.

BRIBERY

Bribery is the bestowing of a benefit in order to unduly influence an action or decision. It can be initiated by a person who seeks or solicits bribes or by a person who offers and then pays bribes. Bribery is probably the most common form of corruption known. Definitions or descriptions appear in several international instruments, in the domestic laws of most countries and in academic publications.6

The "benefit" in bribery can be virtually any inducement: money and valuables, company shares, inside information, sexual or other favours, entertainment, employment or, indeed, the mere promise of incentives. The benefit may be passed directly or indirectly to the person bribed, or to a third party, such as a friend, relative, associate, favourite charity, private business, political party or election campaign. The conduct for which the bribe is paid can be active: the exertion of administrative or political influence, or it can be passive: the overlooking of some offence or obligation. Bribes can be paid individually on a case-by-case basis or as part of a continuing relationship in which officials receive regular benefits in exchange for regular favors.

*Article 15: Bribery of national public officials

Each State Party shall adopt such legislative and other measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences, when committed intentionally:

(a) The promise, offering or giving, to a public official, directly or indirectly, of an undue

advantage, for the official himself or herself or another person or entity, in order that the

official act or refrain from acting in the exercise of his or her official duties;

(b) The solicitation or acceptance by a public official, directly or indirectly, of an undue

advantage, for the official himself or herself or another person or entity, in order that the

official act or refrain from acting in the exercise of his or her official duties.

Once bribery has occurred, it can lead to other forms of corruption. By accepting a bribe, an official becomes much more susceptible to blackmail. Most international and national legal definitions seek to criminalize bribery. Some definitions seek to limit criminalization to situations where the recipient is a public official or where the public interest is affected, leaving other cases of bribery to be resolved by non-criminal or non-judicial means. In jurisdictions where criminal bribery necessarily involves a public official, the offence is often defined broadly to extend to private individuals offered bribes to influence their conduct in a public function, such as exercising electoral functions or carrying out jury duty. Public sector bribery can target any individual who has the power to make a decision or take an action affecting others and is willing to resort to bribery to influence the outcome. Politicians, regulators, law enforcement officials, judges, prosecutors and inspectors are all potential targets for public sector bribery.

Specific types of bribery include:

• Influence-peddling in which public officials or political or Government insiders peddle privileges acquired exclusively through their public status that are usually unavailable to outsiders, for example access to or influence on Government decision-making. Influence-peddling is distinct from legitimate political advocacy or lobbying.

• Offering or receiving improper gifts, gratuities, favours or commissions. In some countries, public officials commonly accept tips or gratuities in exchange for their services. As links always develop between payments and results, such payments become difficult to distinguish from bribery or extortion.

• Bribery to avoid liability for taxes or other costs. Officials of revenue collecting agencies, such as tax authorities or customs, are susceptible to bribery. They may be asked to reduce or eliminate amounts of tax or other revenues due; to conceal or overlook evidence of wrongdoing, including tax infractions or other crimes. They may be called upon to ignore illegal imports or exports or to conceal, ignore or facilitate illicit transactions for purposes such as money-laundering. • Bribery in support of fraud. Payroll officials may be bribed to participate in abuses such as listing and paying non-existent employees ("ghost workers").

• Bribery to avoid criminal liability. Law enforcement officers, prosecutors, judges or other officials may be bribed to ensure that criminal activities are not investigated or prosecuted or, if they are prosecuted, to ensure a favourable outcome.

• Bribery in support of unfair competition for benefits or resources. Public or private sector employees responsible for making contracts for goods or services may be bribed to ensure that contracts are made with the party that is paying the bribe and on favourable terms. In some cases, where the bribe is paid out of the contract proceeds themselves, this may also be described as a "kickback" or secret commission.

• Private sector bribery. Corrupt banking and finance officials are bribed to approve loans that do not meet basic security criteria and cannot later be collected, causing widespread economic damage to individuals, institutions and economies.

• Bribery to obtain confidential or "inside" information. Employees in the public and private sectors are often bribed to disclose valuable confidential information, undermining national security and disclosing industrial secrets. Inside information is used to trade unfairly in stocks or securities, in trade secrets and other commercially valuable information.

EMBEZZLEMENT, THEFT AND FRAUD

In the context of corruption, embezzlement, theft and fraud all involve the taking or conversion of money, property or valuable items by an individual who is not entitled to them but, by virtue of his or her position or employment, has access to them.7 In the case of embezzlement and theft, the property is taken by someone to whom it was entrusted. Fraud, however, consists of the use of false or misleading information to induce the owner of the property to relinquish it voluntarily. For example, an official who takes and sells part of a relief donation or a shipment of food or medical supplies would be committing theft or embezzlement; an official who induces an aid agency to oversupply aid by misrepresenting the number of people in need of it is committing fraud. As with bribery and other forms of corruption, many domestic and international legal definitions are intended to form the basis of criminal offences. Thus, they include only those situations involving a public official or where the public interest is crucially affected. "Theft", per se, goes far beyond the scope of corruption, including the taking of any property by a person with no right to it. Using the same example of the relief donation, an ordinary bystander who steals aid packages from a truck is committing theft but not corruption. That is why the term “embezzlement”, which is essentially the theft of property by someone to whom it was entrusted, is commonly used in corruption cases. In some legal definitions "theft" is limited to the taking of tangible items, such as property or cash, but non-legal definitions tend to include the taking of anything of value, including intangibles such as valuable information. In the Toolkit, the broader meaning of "theft" is intended.

Examples of corrupt theft, fraud and embezzlement abound. Virtually anyone responsible for storing or handling cash, valuables or other tangible property is in a position to steal it or to assist others in stealing it, particularly if auditing or monitoring safeguards are inadequate or non-existent. Employees or officials with access to company or Government operating accounts can make unauthorized withdrawals or pass to others the information required to do so. Elements of fraud are more complex. Officials may create artificial expenses; "ghost workers" may be added to payrolls or false bills submitted for goods, services, or travel expenses. The purchase or improvement of private real estate may be billed against public funds. Employment-related equipment, such as motor vehicles, may be used for private purposes. In one case, World Bank-funded vehicles were used for taking the children of officials to school, consuming about 25 per cent of their total use.

EXTORTION

Whereas bribery involves the use of payments or other positive incentives, extortion relies on coercion, such as the use or threat of violence or the exposure of damaging information, to induce cooperation. As with other forms of corruption, the "victim" can be the public interest or individuals adversely affected by a corrupt act or decision. In extortion cases, however, a further "victim" is created, namely the person who is coerced into cooperation. While extortion can be committed by Government officials or insiders, such officials can also be victims of it. For example, an official can extort corrupt payments in exchange for a favour or a person seeking a favour can extort it from the official by making threats.

In some cases, extortion may differ from bribery only in the degree of coercion involved. A doctor may solicit a bribe for seeing a patient quickly but if an appointment is a matter of medical necessity, the "bribe" is more properly characterized as "extortion". In extreme cases, poor patients can suffer illness or even death if medical services are allocated through extortionate methods rather than legitimate medical prioritizing.

Officials in a position to initiate or conduct criminal prosecution or punishment often use the threat of prosecution or punishment as a basis for extortion. In many countries, people involved in minor incidents, such as traffic accidents, may be threatened with more serious charges unless they “pay up”. Alternatively, officials who have committed acts of corruption or other wrongdoings may be threatened with exposure unless they themselves pay up. Low-level extortion, such as the payment of "speed money" to ensure timely consideration and decision-making of minor matters by officials, is widespread in many countries.

ABUSE OF DISCRETION

In some cases, corruption can involve the abuse of a discretion, vested in an individual, for personal gain. For example, an official responsible for Government contracting may exercise the discretion to purchase goods or services from a company in which he or she holds a personal interest or propose real estate developments that will increase the value of personal property. Such abuse is often associated with bureaucracies where there is broad individual discretion and few oversight or accountability structures, or where decision making rules are so complex that they neutralize the effectiveness of any accountability structures that do exist.

FAVOURITISM, NEPOTISM AND CLIENTELISM

Generally, favouritism, nepotism and clientelism involve abuses of discretion. Such abuses, however, are governed not by the self-interest of an official but the interests of someone linked to him or her through membership of a family, political party, tribe, religious or other group. If an individual bribes an official to hire him or her, the official acts in self-interest. If a corrupt official hires a relative, he or she acts in exchange for the less tangible benefit of advancing the interests of family or the specific relative involved (nepotism). The favouring of, or discriminating against, individuals can be based on a wide range of group characteristics: race, religion, geographical factors, political or other affiliation, as well as personal or organizational relationships, such as friendship or membership of clubs or associations.

CONDUCT CREATING OR EXPLOITING CONFLICTING INTERESTS

As noted in the United Nations Manual on Anti-corruption Policy, most forms of corruption involve the creation or exploitation of some conflict between the professional responsibilities of a corrupt individual and his or her private interests. The acceptance of a bribe creates such a conflict of interest. Most cases of embezzlement, theft or fraud involve an individual yielding to temptation and taking undue advantage of a conflict of interest that already exists. In both the public and private sector, employees and officials are routinely confronted with circumstances in which their personal interests conflict with those of their responsibility to act in the best interests of the State or their employer.

IMPROPER POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

One of the most difficult challenges in developing anti-corruption measures is to make the distinction between legitimate contributions to political organizations and payments made in an attempt to unduly influence present or future activities by a party or its members once they are in power. A donation made because the donor supports the party and wishes to increase its chances of being elected is not corrupt; it may be an important part of the political system and, in some countries, is a basic right of expression or political activity protected by the constitution. A donation made with the intention or expectation that the party will, once in office, favour the interests of the donor over the interests of the public is tantamount to the payment of a bribe.

Regulating political contributions has proved difficult in practice. Donations may take the form of direct cash payments, low-interest loans, the giving of goods or services or intangible contributions that favour the interests of the political party involved. One common approach to combating the problem is to introduce measures that seek to ensure transparency by requiring disclosure of contributions, thus ensuring that both the donor and recipient are politically accountable. Another is to limit the size of contributions to prevent any one donor from having too much influence.

LESSONS LEARNED

It has been suggested that the most significant achievement in governance during the 1990s was the shattering of the taboo that barred discussion of corruption, particularly in diplomatic circles and intergovernmental institutions (6). The topic is now out in the open, and the recognition that Governments alone cannot contain corruption has led to new and powerful coalitions of interest groups and other stakeholders. The Toolkit is based largely on what has been learned by the international community in its efforts against corruption during well over a decade. Perhaps the most important lesson is that corruption is a widespread and diverse phenomenon, and that anticorruption measures must be carefully considered and tailored to the forms encountered and the societies and cultures within which they are expected to function.

Viable anti-corruption strategies have been constructed with varying degrees of success around the world. There is much to be learned both from success and failure. For the sake of clarity and brevity, the most important of those lessons are synopsized below[8].

NEGATIVE IMPACT OF CORRUPTION

1. Corruption tends to concentrate wealth, not only increasing the gap between rich and poor but providing the wealthy with illicit means to protect their positions and interests. That, in turn, can contribute to social conditions that foster other forms of crime, social and political instability and even terrorism.

CONDITIONS FACILITATING CORRUPTION

2. Without proper vigilance and effective countermeasures, corruption can occur anywhere. Recent corruption cases exposed in the World Bank, the United Nations and other multilateral and bilateral organizations have shown that any society or organization is susceptible, even where well established checks and balances are in place.

3. Combating corruption, building integrity and establishing credibility require time, determination and consistency. When anti-corruption strategies are first instituted, a long-term process begins, during which corrupt values and practices are gradually identified and eliminated. In most cases, a complex process of interrelated elements is involved: reforms to individual institutions take place in stages as problems are identified; countermeasures are developed and implemented; personnel are reoriented and retrained.

Often, progress at one stage or in one area cannot be achieved until other elements of the strategy have come into effect. Generally speaking, training personnel to place the long-term interests of integrity before the more immediate benefits of corruption, is a longer, more gradual process than direct measures such as criminal prosecutions or specific administrative reforms. Similarly, the establishment of a popular expectation that favours integrity over corruption, furthers credibility for the reforms and inspires public confidence in the integrity of the reformed institutions will always lag behind actual progress.

4. Systems with excessive individual discretion and overly complex rules on discretionary powers, as well as systems lacking structures to effectively monitor the exercise of discretion and hold decision-makers accountable, tend to be more susceptible to corruption than those that do not.

5. Systems in which individual offices, departments or agencies operate in isolation from one another tend to be more susceptible to corruption. One reason may be that systems where individual elements operate in a coordinated fashion and communicate regularly with one another, tend to carry out mutual “monitoring” both of activities and individuals.

CONDITIONS REQUIRED TO PREVENT CORRUPTION

6. Systems in which individual offices, departments or agencies operate in isolation from one another tend to be more susceptible to corruption. One reason may be that systems where individual elements operate in a coordinated fashion and communicate regularly with one another, tend to carry out mutual “monitoring” both of activities and individuals.

7. Systems with operational transparency are less susceptible to corruption than those that operate in secrecy. Transparency is created by such elements as access to information policies and the activities of a healthy independent media. A free media is a powerful instrument, not only for exposing corruption and holding those responsible legally and politically accountable but also as for educating the public and instilling high expectations of integrity.

8. Public trust in Government, anti-corruption agencies and anti-corruption policies and measures is key when a country invites the public to take an active role in monitoring the performance of its Government.9It takes political will, institutional ability and integrity to execute reforms to fight corruption. Political will is required to develop, implement and sustain the strong measures needed to identify and eliminate corrupt values and behaviour. Institutional ability is required to ensure that political commitments are actually carried out, often in the face of entrenched informal organizations within public institutions intent on blocking or limiting reforms. Curbing systemic corruption is a challenge that will require stronger measures, more resources and a longer time frame than most politicians and "corruption fighters" will acknowledge or can afford.

Fundamental to all reforms, however, is integrity and the perception of integrity, especially at the highest levels of Government and in entities responsible for anti-corruption measures. Without integrity, any steps taken to combat corruption will lack credibility, both as positive examples of how public officials and institutions should behave and as deterrents to corrupt behaviour. 9. Deterrence is a single but important element of anti-corruption strategies. By definition almost, corruption is a calculated and premeditated activity and can be deterred. Deterrence includes not only conventional prosecution and punishment but also administrative, regulatory, financial and economic deterrence. Where personal or corporate risks, uncertainties and punishments are minimal, corruption tends to increase. Conversely, reforms that increase uncertainties and the risk of criminal punishment or financial losses tend to reduce corruption. Generally, reforms must be broad-based and systemic, or corrupt conduct may simply be displaced into other areas or activities.

INVOLVING ALL KEY STAKEHOLDERS

10. The participation of civil society in assessing the problem of corruption and in formulating and implementing reforms is now seen as an important element of anti-corruption strategies. Anti-corruption measures and the commitment needed to make them work must be based on a full assessment of the extent of corruption and its harmful effects. The participation of civil society is vital to the assessment. Policies and practical measures are most likely to succeed if they enjoy the full support, participation and "ownership" of civil society. Finally, only a well developed and aware civil society ultimately has the capacity to monitor anti-corruption efforts, expose and deter corrupt practices and, where measures have been successful, credibly establish that institutions are not corrupt.

11. It is important to involve victims in any plan aimed at reducing corruption. Anti-corruption initiatives, and the interest of donors who support such efforts, tend to involve those paid to fight corruption rather than those victimized by it. Victims are often socially marginalized individuals and groups who are harder to reach, but they have an important role to play, particularly in areas such as establishing and demonstrating the true nature and extent of the harm caused by corruption. As victims are often the strongest critics of anti-corruption efforts, securing their approval can also assist greatly in establishing the credibility of a programme.

12. Raising public awareness is an element of most anti-corruption strategies, but it must be accompanied by measures that visibly address the problem, otherwise the increased public awareness can lead to widespread cynicism and loss of hope that may, in some cases, contribute to further corruption.

THE LINKS BETWEEN CORRUPTION AND MONEY-LAUNDERING

13. Identifying and recovering stolen assets is important, particularly in cases of "grand corruption", where the amounts are large and often needed by a new Government trying to remedy problems arising from past corruption. Very senior officials involved in corruption generally find it necessary to transfer looted proceeds abroad, making identification and recovery in most cases a multinational project.10 The legal and logistical difficulties of pursuing complex investigative and legal proceedings while rebuilding national institutions and infrastructures are great. Not only that, successor Governments usually have to establish their own international credibility and integrity before obtaining the necessary legal assistance and cooperation from abroad.

14. There are important links between corruption and money-laundering. The ability to transfer and conceal funds is critical to the perpetrators of corruption, especially large-scale or "grand corruption". Moreover, public sector employees and those working in key private sector financial areas are especially vulnerable to bribes, intimidation or other incentives to conceal illicit financial activities. A high degree of coordination is thus required to combat both problems and to implement effective measures that impact on both areas.

CONSTRUCTING AN ANTI-CORRUPTION STRATEGY: AN INTEGRATED APPROACH

Developing a national anti-corruption strategy requires the successful merger of:

"Universal" elements - namely those that have proved effective against corruption regardless of where it occurs, and;
Elements that take into account country-specific circumstances.

An integrated approach will be: fact-based; transparent; simultaneously nonpartisan and multi-partisan; inclusive; comprehensive; impact-oriented and flexible.

Country-specific will include problems that may be unique to the country involved plus other national variables such as:

• Legal or constitutional constraints,

• The nature of political and legislative structures,

• The extent to which the media, academic sources and other elements

of civil society are willing and able to participate in the strategy, and

• The availability and extent of domestic and other resources.

The early stages of planning frequently involve a preliminary assessment of the nature and extent of corruption in the country concerned and the relative strengths and weaknesses of governmental and societal elements called upon to combat it. That allows priorities to be set and efforts to be focused on the weakest and most vulnerable elements or on elements that require reform as a precondition for progress in other areas.

COMMON BASIC ELEMENTS OF ANTI-CORRUPTION STRATEGIES

Specific needs will vary from country to country but experience suggests that the elements listed below must be addressed as a priority before significant progress can be achieved:

• Effective rule-of-law structures, including judicial and legislative elements, are needed at an early stage. A professional, unbiased and independent judiciary is critical to the development and implementation of law enforcement and criminal justice measures; it is also necessary in areas such as the making and enforcement of legal contracts and the use of civil litigation as a means of identifying, exposing and obtaining redress for corrupt practices. Also required is an open and transparent legislature that formulates policy, creates laws in the public interest and provides a role model for other institutions.

• There must be transparency in public communications and mechanisms to give the public broad, straightforward and timely access to information. Government cannot begin to achieve credibility unless the public understands what it is doing.

• A professional, politically neutral and uncorrupted public service is one of the fundamental objectives of anti-corruption strategies. Establishing professionalism and neutrality will require a combination of legal standards and cultural reforms. The public service should be encouraged to adopt high standards of professionalism and integrity, and the general population should be encouraged to expect those high standards and take action when they are not met.

• Strong and independent elements are needed in several areas of civil society. The most important of these is a free, clean and independent media that disseminates important public information and provides criticism and commentary that is independent of political and public service influences. A free media can identify and expose corruption or other improper practices in Government; it can also validate Government measures that are neither corrupt nor improper.

• Periodic assessment of corruption and the effectiveness of anticorruption strategies, as well as the flexibility to adjust strategies to take account of assessments, are also important. Experience has shown that efforts to combat corruption often have unforeseen consequences, for example, displacement effects. Displacement, where action against corruption in one sector effectively displaces it into other areas, should be identified quickly and the strategy adjusted to incorporate effective countermeasures. Assessment and adjustment also entail identifying and replicating measures that have proved successful.

AN INTEGRATED APPROACH TO DEVELOPING AND IMPLEMENTING

STRATEGIES

The development and implementation of an effective anti-corruption strategy require the coordination and integration of many disparate factors. Elements must be integrated internally to form a single, unified and coherent anticorruption strategy and externally with broader national efforts to bring about the rule of law, sustainable development, political or constitutional reforms, major economic and criminal justice reforms. In some cases, they must also be coordinated with the efforts of aid donors, international organizations or other countries.

In most cases, national strategies will be complex. To achieve a few basic goals, many interrelated elements will be required. Individual reform efforts must be carefully sequenced and coordinated over extended periods of time. Many information sources and other inputs must be integrated during strategy development and subsequently, at frequent intervals, as the strategy is implemented, assessed and adjusted.

Strategies require the support and concerted effort of individuals and organizations in the public sector, civil society and the general population. Some elements of national strategies must also be integrated with the strategies of other countries or with regional or global standards or activities. That will allow them to deal more effectively with transnational forms of corruption and to meet the commitments of instruments such as the Conventions adopted by the Organization of American States (OAS), The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and, ultimately, the United Nations Convention against Corruption. To ensure integration, the following approaches should be adopted in developing, implementing, assessing and adjusting strategies11: The need for development, implementation and adjustment based on assessment and on fact.

It is important for strategies to be fact-based at all stages. Preliminary assessments of the nature and extent of corruption and the resources available to fight it are needed to develop a comprehensive strategy and to set priorities before the strategy is implemented. Upon implementation, further assessments of individual elements and overall performance should be undertaken, so that the strategy can be periodically adjusted to take advantage of successes and compensate for failures.

The need for transparency - Transparency in Government is widely viewed as a necessary condition for effective corruption control and, more generally, for good governance. Open information and understanding are also essential to public participation in and ownership of anti-corruption strategies. Lack of transparency is likely to result in public ignorance when, in fact, broad enthusiasm and participation are needed. It can also lead to a loss of credibility and a perception that the programmes are corrupt or that some elements of Government may have avoided or opted out of them. In societies where corruption is endemic, such an assumption will usually be widespread and can be rebutted only by programmes being publicly demonstrated to be free of corruption. Where transparency does not exist, popular suspicions about the programmes may well be justified.

The need for non-partisan or multi-partisan support - The perception that the fight against corruption is a partisan political issue can impede anti-corruption strategies and more general efforts to establish good governance, the rule of law and regular, stable political structures. The fight against corruption will generally be a long-term effort and, in most countries, is likely to span successive political administrations. That makes it critical for anti-corruption efforts to remain politically neutral, both in the way they are administered and in their goals. Regardless of which political party or group is in power, reducing corruption and improving service delivery to the public should always be priorities. The partisan scrutiny of Governments and political factions for corruption or other malfeasance is a valuable factor in combating corruption. Vigilance is important, but excessive partisanship can lead to retaliatory cycles in which each faction, on gaining office, corruptly rewards its supporters and punishes its opponents. Such behaviour corrupts and politicizes key functions such as the appointment of public servants and the awarding of public contracts. It also degrades the professionalism of the p-ublic service by replacing merit with political criteria in staffing, promotion and critical advisory and decision-making functions.

The need for inclusiveness - It is important to include the broadest possible range of participants or stakeholders to ensure that all significant factors are considered and a sense of "ownership" of and support for the strategy are instilled. The elements of the strategy will work in virtually every sector of Government and society. Thus, information and assessments from each must be included so that advantages or strengths can be used to the best advantage and impediments or problems can be dealt with early on. Broad-based consultation and participation also address the concerns and raise the expectations of everyone involved, from senior officials, politicians and other policy makers to members of the public. Bringing otherwise marginalized groups into the strategy empowers them, providing them with a voice and reinforcing the value of their opinions. It also demonstrates that they will influence policymaking, giving them a greater sense of ownership of the policies that are developed. In societies where corruption is endemic, it is the marginalized groups that are most often affected by corruption and thus most likely to be in a position to take action against it in their everyday lives and through political action.

The need for comprehensiveness - The need for a comprehensive approach to developing, implementing and evaluating an anti-corruption approach is vital, with all sectors of society from the central Government to the individual being involved at every stage. That includes elements from the public and private sector, as well as international organizations, national non-governmental institutions and donor Governments.

The need for impact-oriented elements and strategies - Clear and realistic goals must be set; all participants in the national strategy must be aware of the goals and the status of progress achieved to date. Thus, measurable performance indicators must be established, as well as a baseline against which the indicators can be measured. While elements of the strategy and the means of achieving specific goals may be adjusted or adapted as the strategy evolves, the basic goals themselves should not be changed if that can be avoided, with the occasional exception of time lines.

The need for flexibility - While strategies should set out clear goals and the means of achieving them, the strategies and those charged with their implementation should be flexible enough to permit adaptations to be made based on information from the periodic progress assessments. Compliance should not be reduced by suggesting to those adversely affected by the strategy that, by opposing it, they might secure adaptations that would be more favourable to their interests.

CHAPTER II: ASSESSMENT OF CORRUPTION LEVELS

TOOL #1: ASSESSMENT OF THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF CORRUPTION

Tool #1 is used to provide quantitative measurements of the extent of corruption in a country or within specific sectors of a country. It also provides qualitative assessments of the types of corruption that are prevalent, how corruption occurs and what may be causing or contributing to it.

Tool #1 will generally be used prior to the development of the national anticorruption strategy:

• In the preliminary phase, to assist with the development of the national anti-corruption strategy, to help set priorities, to make a preliminary estimate of how long the strategy will last and to determine the resources required to implement it. The preliminary assessment should cover all sectors of the public administration and, if necessary, the private sector, to ensure no detail is overlooked. The data gathered at this stage will be the baseline against which future progress will be assessed.

• In the follow-up phase, to help assess progress against the baseline data gathered at the preliminary stage, to provide periodic information about the implementation of strategic elements and their effects on corruption, and to help decide how strategic elements/priorities can be adapted in the face of strategic successes and failures.

• To help in setting clear and reasonable objectives for the strategy and each of its elements, and measurable performance indicators for those objectives.

• To raise the awareness of key stakeholders and the public of the true nature, extent and impact of corruption. Awareness-raising will help foster understanding of the anti-corruption strategy, mobilize support for anti-corruption measures and encourage and empower populations to expect and insist on high standards of public service integrity and performance.

• To provide the basis of assistance to other countries in their efforts against corruption.

TYPES OF DATA TO BE SOUGHT:

• Information about where corruption is occurring. Such information may include the identification of particular public or private sector activities, institutions or relationships. Data are often gathered about particular Government agencies, for example, or 77 relationships or processes, such as public service employment or the making of contracts for goods or services.

• Information about what types of corruption are occurring. While an overall assessment of what types of corruption are prevalent may be undertaken, a more detailed focus will be usually involved on what types of corruption tend to occur in each specific agency, relationship or process for which corruption has been identified as a problem. Research may show that bribery is a major problem in Government contracting, for example, while public service appointments may be more affected by nepotism.

• Information about the costs and effects of corruption. Understanding the relative effects of corruption is critical to setting priorities and mobilizing support for anti-corruption efforts. Where possible, information should include the direct, economic costs plus an assessment of indirect and intangible human consequences.

• Factors that contribute to or are associated with corruption. There is seldom a single identifiable cause of a particular occurrence of corruption but a number of contributing factors will usually be identifiable. They often include factors such as poverty or the low social and economic status of public officials that makes them more susceptible to bribery; the presence of specific corrupting influences, such as organized crime; or structural factors, such as overly broad discretionary powers and a general lack of monitoring and accountability. Information about such factors is critical to understanding the nature of the corruption itself and to formulating countermeasures. The presence of known contributing factors may also lead researchers or investigators to identify previously unknown or unsuspected occurrences of corruption.

• The subjective perception of corruption by those involved or affected by it.

All assessments of corruption should include objective measurements (of what is actually occurring) and subjective assessments (of how those involved perceive or understand what is occurring). The information is needed because the reactions of people to anticorruption efforts will be governed by their own perceptions. The following specific areas should be researched:

The impressions of those involved (offenders, victims and others) about the types of corruption occurring;
The impressions of those involved about relevant rules and standards of conduct, and whether corruption is in breach of those standards;
The impressions of those involved about the actual impact or effects of the corruption; and;
The views of those involved as to what should be done about corruption and which of the available remedies may prove effective or ineffective in their particular circumstances.

Read the complete Anti-Corruption Tool Kit