Global Forum V On Fighting Corruption and Safeguarding Integrity 2 - 5 April 2007

1. Global Forum V On Fighting Corruption and Safeguarding Integrity 2 - 5 April 2007 Sandton Convention Center, Gauteng, South Africa Sub-theme 2: Taking stock through monitoring and evaluation Workshop 3: Evaluating the impact of corruption Marianne Camerer Co-founder, International Director http://www.globalintegrity.org

2. Outline MONITORING AND EVALUATION The challenge A common understanding of corruption The causes and consequences of corruption Methods to measure corruption Methods to monitor anti-corruption The 2006 Global Integrity Report and Index Evaluating anti-corruption reforms Questions to consider

3. Corruption is a universal problem with negative developmental consequences What do we know about controlling corruption? One of the most significant challenges facing policymakers and advocates is how to diagnose and prioritize anti-corruption reforms and interventions Difficult decisions must be made on how to spend limited financial and political capital on reform efforts Often, the process has been a “best guess” effort based on perceptions The Challenge

4. Corruption is the (ab)use or (mis)use of entrusted public power and the public interest for private gain or interests (World Bank, Transparency International) Corruption = Monopoly +Discretion -Accountability (Robert Klitgaard, Controlling Corruption, 1998) A common understanding of Corruption

5. Social Cultural Political Economic Institutional Individual Ideological The causes of corruption

6. Negatively impacts investment and growth Creates risk and uncertainty Distorts public expenditure and resource allocation Negatively impacts industrial policies and business development Undermines democracy Exacerbates poverty and inequality Leads to a breakdown in political trust The consequences of corruption

7. Gathering the informed views of relevant stakeholders (surveys of firms, public officials, individuals, NGOs, donors, private sector) Tracking a countries’ institutional features (information on opportunities/incentives for corruption, such as procurement practices, budget transparency etc) Careful and specific audits of specific projects Methods to Measure Corruption(Kaufmann, Kraay, Mastruzzi 2006)

8. What do we know about controlling corruption? Controlling corruption is about limiting abuses of power Controlling corruption is linked to the practices and institutions that promote democratic governance Credible information gathered by local actors according to a transparent methodology can assist Monitoring implies a time dimension that can track changes and adjust interventions accordingly Methods to monitor anti-corruption

9. The 2006 Global Integrity Report An investigative report on anti-corruption mechanisms in 43 countries • Primarily an in-depth diagnostic tool for decision-makers Country Reports • Country Facts • Corruption Timeline • Reporter’s Notebook • Integrity Indicators (#292 questions) • Integrity Scorecard Global Integrity Index Transparently quantifies anti-corruption and national integrity systems by assigning scores to indicators Potentially able to benchmark and monitor trends in reform efforts

10. 2006 Countries (43) Latin America Argentina, Brazil, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua Sub-Saharan Africa Benin, DRC, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Liberia, Mozambique, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zimbabwe Middle East and North Africa Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, The West Bank*, Yemen Europe Bulgaria, Montenegro, Romania, Russia, Serbia Southeast Asia Cambodia*, Indonesia, The Philippines, Vietnam South and Central Asia Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, India, KyrgyzRepublic, Nepal, Pakistan, Tajikistan North America USA 15 repeated from 2004

11. The existence of institutional mechanisms that prevent abuses of power (i.e. corruption) The effectiveness of those anti-corruption mechanisms The access that citizens have to those mechanisms to hold public officials accountable The Global Integrity Index:

12. Institutions of Governance: 6 key dimensions23 sub-categories292 discrete indicators - clear codebook criteria IV. Administration and Civil Service Civil Service Regulations; Whistle-Blowing Measures; Procurement; Privatization V. Oversight and Regulation National Ombudsman; Supreme Audit Institution; Taxes and Customs; Financial Sector Regulation; Business Licensing and Regulation VI. Anti-Corruption and Rule of Law Anti-Corruption Law; Anti-Corruption Agency; Rule of Law; Law Enforcement I. Civil Society, Public Information and Media Civil Society Organizations; Media; Public Access to Information II. Elections Voting and Citizen Participation; Election Integrity; Political Financing III. Government Accountability Executive Accountability; Legislative Accountability; Judicial Accountability; Budget Process

13. The Integrity Indicators offer a toolkit to policymakers, civil society advocates, and private sector actors by identifying strengths and weaknesses in a national governance structure. Armed with that insight, decision makers can make more informed decisions and address the greatest weaknesses (while supporting mechanisms that work well) in a system. All actors have a common frame of reference and can track progress in real-time to gauge effectiveness and ensure reform efforts remain on track. Using the Integrity Indicators

14. A Powerful Diagnostic Tool

16. A multi-dimensional national strategy that includes a long term, structured and sequenced approach to entrench integrity reforms Political commitment to combat corruption wherever it occurs including being subject to scrutiny Enforcement of comprehensive anti-corruption legislation across the public and private sector Sufficient resources, skills, independence and powers to anti-corruption bodies Constant review, research and evaluation of areas most prone to corruption A partnership approach that includes all stakeholders Evaluating anti-corruption reforms

17. How will we know when anti-corruption reforms have been effective and successful? What are the measures of success? In what ways are countries rewarded by effectively addressing corruption? Are certain anti-corruption controls more important than others? What is the relationship between perception and reality when it comes to monitoring and evaluating anti-corruption reforms? What about double standards, both internally and externally? Questions to consider