Rethinking anti-corruption

The papers were stimulated in part by a series of international workshops that brought together leading researchers, practitioners, and policymakers to explore ways to develop innovative approaches to analysing and combating corruption.

The hypothesis that underpinned the workshop series is that core questions we ask about corruption have been poorly posed, analytic frames have not always been helpful, targets have often been inadequately specified, issues of political feasibility have been frequently underplayed and/or vested interests have interfered.  If prevailing approaches have not worked, how do we move beyond them?

Of particular note is the growing awareness that the prevailing focus  on individual nation states in much of the work on anti-corruption is increasingly out of touch with the reality of how many forms of corruption develop and function in practice. “As hard as it might be for scholars to accept,” Cooley and Sharman (2017) have observed, “it is notable that through their stings and data-dumps, investigative journalists and NGOs have done more to push our understanding of corruption in a transnational direction that the bulk of academic work on the subject.”

The participation of many of the world’s most renowned researchers in the field of (anti-)corruption, as well as representatives from major international organisations, key figures from national development agencies, and a host of nongovernmental organisations ensured that these workshops achieved their intended aim of making a contribution to helping shift the debate, or ‘change the conversation,’ in regard to how corruption is understood and combated (see, for example, here, here and here).

To help address the practical implications of what ‘rethinking’ means, the seminars sought to ensure that discussions linked back to core issues:

  • Who are the critical actors who need to be involved in helping to change the terms of the conversation?
  • How can they be supported in doing so?
  • What are the resource implications?
  • How can participants at the workshops best contribute to moving from our existing paradigm to developing more effective approaches to both understanding and combating corruption?

Although we did not come to any comprehensive agreed-upon conclusions, the seminars none the less served to highlight key issues in relation to the scale of the challenge in tackling corruption. They also reinforced the view that, if we are to make substantive progress, we need to be prepared to adopt a more open and flexible mind-set, moving away from the idea that ‘we know what works’ and assuming that technocratic interventions and institutional fixes provide all the answers.

Existing approaches to combating corruption have often failed to have the desired impact. If prevailing approaches have not worked, how do we move beyond them and discover, explore and test approaches that may be more effective?

The approaches, tools, and methodologies in this section argue for a more nuanced and sophisticated understanding of corruption in order to better describe and explain its various modalities and invite practitioners to take action.

This set of papers aims to make a contribution toward the wider agenda of shifting the conversation from an existing paradigm that has stalled toward a more focused and actionable framework for both understanding and tackling corruption. We want to interrogate issues in order to identify the key practical changes needed to help make progress on the agenda of rethinking corruption. The ultimate aim is to translate that understanding into more effective anti-corruption policy design and practice.

mapping icon

Janine Wedel’s Mapping Method sets out a guide for charting corruption, offering a practical way to identify the key players in corruption or influence networks in order to reveal their roles and interconnections in an increasingly fluid framework of power and resources.

partnership icon

Paul Heywood and Mark Pyman’s paper on Strategy, Scale and Substance sets the stage for developing more effective anti-corruption strategies, as further explored in their Sector Focus and Reformulation Approach (SFRA). In line with the growing acceptance that context matters, and that we need to understand much better the specific modalities of corruption in given settings, they argue that a crucial step is to better understand the real objectives of reform measures.

network icon

Heather Marquette and Caryn Peiffer lay the groundwork for analyzing interventions in their Corruption Functionality Framework. Their four-step approach helps those designing anti-corruption interventions to understand why ‘everyday’ corruption appears to provide solutions to problems that formal structures and systems fail to address.

The issues tackled in the papers are complex, messy, contested and – all too often – thoroughly intractable. Not only are there scholarly disagreements, but there is often a more general disjuncture between academic analysis and the policy world. In fact, nearly all the key questions in relation to corruption (its definition, nature, causes, extent, location, impact, and susceptibility to reform) are contested. However, the insights and guidance presented in the papers offer practical responses to the broad failure of approaches to combating corruption that have been developed over the last 25 years.

strategy scale and substance

research method mapping method

Corruption functionality framework