Analysing the Anti-Corruption Approaches of the 26 Top-Ranked

Core elements Master brand This is our new brand mark Introduction The Institute’s name and Logo versions reputation have real equity, so Sizes the square tiles work to frame Exclusion zone and highlight this. The tiles Placement also reference a ‘chequer- How not to use board’, and the strategic nature of the Institute. As purely physical elements they also suggest balance and protection. In its entirety, the brand mark (logo), combining the typography and the square tiles, presents a brand identity that is strong, confident, open and friendly. It is designed to work in a monochrome palette to ensure consistency in reproduction across all types of media. The Institute for Statecraft Background Core elements Tone of voice Imagery style Applications Contact 04 Analysing the anti-corruption approaches of the 26 top-ranked countries An opportunity for a new generation of strategies Countries curbing corruption March 2018 Authors Mark Pyman, Senior Fellow, Institute for Statecraft Sam Eastwood, Jason Hungerford and Jasmine Elliott, Norton Rose Fulbright This research is the product of a pro-bono collaboration between Mark Pyman of the Institute for Statecraft and Norton Rose Fulbright. An opportunity for a new generation of strategies Executive summary Last year, we published a research report comparing 41 national anti-corruption strategies from countries that were in the middle of Transparency International’s 2015 Corruption Perceptions Index, ranking between 21 and 1301. Our purpose was to extract insights that could guide national leaders into making better strategies and having more impact on anti- corruption efforts. In this analysis, we have extended our initial work to cover the anti-corruption approaches of countries ranked at the top of Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index 2016. The 26 countries we have reviewed, in rank order, are: Denmark, New Zealand, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Singapore, Netherlands, Canada, Germany, Luxembourg, UK, Australia, Iceland, Belgium, Hong Kong, Austria, USA, Ireland, Japan, Uruguay, Estonia, France, Bahamas, Chile and United Arab Emirates. What we found was, at first sight, unexpected. Only three of the 26 countries have published national anti-corruption strategies; Estonia in 2013, Finland in March 2017 and the UK in December 2017. We found that the more recent Finnish and UK strategies have more of a focus on international anti-corruption efforts, reflecting how much international anti- corruption has advanced in the last five years. The UK strategy was notably comprehensive, being more specific on what the strategy was designed to achieve – namely to reduce corruption risks to national security, to raise trust in UK institutions, and to help economic prosperity. It also highlighted anti-corruption initiatives in high-risk sectors, notably borders, prisons, police and defence. In relation to the other 23 countries, we could find no demonstrable reason for the lack of formal strategies. Governments are aware that their “good” national results in the Corruption Perceptions Index could be misleading and conceal significant corruption, as exemplified by surveys showing public disenchantment with corruption in developed countries, such as the World Economic Forum survey below.2 Is corruption widespread throughout the government in your country? Percentage of respondents answering “Yes, widesprea” to the question Is corruption widesprea throughout the goernent in your country Ireland 40% Netherlans 40% Uruguay 40% Germany 38% Norway 30% New Zealand 27% Finand 26% Luembourg 26% Switerland 25% Denmark 19% Sweden 14% Source Gallup or onoi oru 1 See Pyman et al (2017) 2 See Lagarde (2017) 03 Analysing the anti-corruption approaches of the 26 top-ranked countries Governments are also aware that corruption can be facilitated by measures that may currently be legal, such as the use of tax havens and anonymous corporate ownership: a majority of these 26 countries are collaborating in the efforts being expended to address such issues. The Finnish strategy similarly notes that “Unethical behaviour that is technically legal is one of the ways in which new forms of corruption evolves, and it is one of the aspects of corruption that is least well identified”. These observations illustrate the argument that corruption in developed countries is a systemic and evolving characteristic of the use and abuse of power, which needs continued focus. We then reviewed what these countries are doing in relation to current trans-national and sub-national anti-corruption initiatives. We then reviewed what these countries are doing in relation to current trans-national, sectoral and subnational anti-corruption initiatives. All but one of them is involved in one or more of the collaborative trans-national initiatives that we reviewed (the exception is the Bahamas). On the other hand, we found less attention being paid to anti-corruption efforts at the sub-national level. This was true both for sectors (e.g. health, police, construction, prisons), and for local government (e.g. regions and cities). This broad trans-national focus of the countries is important and positive, but it does not equate to a national strategy. We believe that both countries and the international community will benefit significantly if each government develops its own national anti- corruption strategy: one that takes into account and integrates trans-national, national, sectoral and local government priorities. Formalising the strategy means that each part of government agrees on the objectives, the rationale and the priorities. Published strategies play a role too in signalling the government’s intent and ambition in fighting corruption; and they make it easier for civil society and other stakeholders to hold governments to account. We note that while an anti-corruption strategy is important, it is not sufficient. A national anti-corruption effort also needs a political champion, support from involved ministries, a responsible unit with coordinating mechanisms and structures across government, and external support such as from the private sector and civil society. These topics are not addressed here. Anti-corruption approaches can be significantly improved We found from our earlier analysis of the 41 countries that the first generation of strategies had limitations: for example, they were focused almost entirely within the country, on corruption as a stand-alone problem and at national-level activities only. That analysis and this current review of countries suggest that the second generation of approaches can be much better. We recommend seven areas for improvement. Clarity about the objectives: wider than reducing corruption. “Reducing corruption” is not usually an objective, more a means towards some other desired impact. 04 An opportunity for a new generation of strategies The new UK strategy exemplifies this approach. Their approach is directed towards the three objectives of increasing national security, increasing economic prosperity and increasing public trust in UK institutions. The UK presents the high level view of their strategy objectives in the diagram below3 Greater focus on integration with multi-national initiatives. The increasing importance of multi-national collaboration to tackle corruption and economic crime is recognised by the engagement of most of the 26 countries. But it is not yet an integral part of country strategies. This aspect is particularly important for developed countries who can play a much more strategic and effective role in combatting corruption internationally. Establishing national anti-corruption initiatives in high-risk sectors. Corruption in one sector of the economy is significantly different from corruption in another, as are the potential reform measures. Developed countries will have sectors that are high- risk, but little attention to date has been paid towards specific sector reforms. Common high- risk sectors in developed countries include construction, prisons and sport. Developing multi-national initiatives in sectors. Tackling corruption needs a developing body of knowledge about reforms and expertise, which is scarce. Initiatives from diverse organisations – international agencies, nationally sponsored entities, industry collaboration, NGOs - have started to provide international expertise in particular sectors: e.g. in education, defence, mining, shipping health and police. However, these are all small or in their infancy. There is great scope to reduce sector corruption both in the countries and internationally via such initiatives. Establishing or strengthening anti-corruption initiatives in local government. At the sub-national level, regions have had less pressure to tackle corruption, and favouritism is still rife in many local administrations. Both sector reforms and local government reforms are at least as important as the more conventional national-level elements of anti-corruption, 3 See United Kingdom Anti-Corruption Strategy (2017). 05 Analysing the anti-corruption approaches of the 26 top-ranked countries and, for developed countries, are arguably more important. The budgets of sub-national administrations of large countries are greater than many national budgets. Recognising and integrating private sector efforts. Attention to anti-corruption in the private sector in most developed countries is much higher than ten years ago. Yet, countries could require much more from companies, especially on a sector-by-sector basis, and would benefit

Load more