Reiling 2009 How to Assess Corruption In
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THE FLETCHER SCHOOL, TUFTS UNIVERSITY How to Assess Corruption in Defence A Framework for Designing, Comparing and Interpreting Corruption Measurement Tools Kirby Reiling MALD Thesis 2009 This report provides guidance for measuring corruption in the defence sector. It lays out a series of conceptual frameworks for designing, comparing and interpreting corruption measurement tools, including suggestions for how to adapt general corruption indicators to defence. The report is divided into four sections. The first offers an exposition on the problem of defence corruption, its forms and consequences. The second section applies programme design principles to clarify how understandings of corruption and theories of change can inform a measurement endeavour. The third section is a structured review of four general approaches to measuring corruption, including descriptions of several major indexes in the field. Finally, the fourth section explores how the design principles and measurement approaches could be applied to the defence sector. TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgements & Notes ............................................................................................................................................... 3 Abbreviations and Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................. 5 Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................................................ 6 I. Understanding the Problem of Corruption in Defence ....................................................................................... 10 Global Consequences of Defence Corruption ........................................................................................................ 10 Corrupt Transactions in Defence ............................................................................................................................... 13 Political Context and Control .................................................................................................................................. 16 Functions and Process ............................................................................................................................................... 18 Defence Personnel ....................................................................................................................................................... 21 Context of Corruption: National and Regional Dynamics ........................................................................... 23 II. Towards a Strategy for Reform ................................................................................................................................. 27 Why Measure? ............................................................................................................................................................... 30 Corruption Models....................................................................................................................................................... 34 Theory of Change ......................................................................................................................................................... 36 Cross-Cutting Design Concepts ................................................................................................................................... 39 Conflict Sensitivity ....................................................................................................................................................... 39 Research-Practice Gap ............................................................................................................................................... 40 III. Comparing and Interpreting Corruption Measurement Approaches ...................................................... 42 Criteria for Comparing Corruption Indicators...................................................................................................... 42 Corruption Measurement Indicators ........................................................................................................................ 48 Perceptions-Based Indicators ................................................................................................................................. 50 Technical Indicators ................................................................................................................................................... 59 Socio-Legal Indicators ................................................................................................................................................ 63 Non-Traditional Indicators ...................................................................................................................................... 76 Summary of Findings ...................................................................................................................................................... 79 IV. Applying the indicators to defence .......................................................................................................................... 80 Suggestions for Defence-Specific Measurement Tools ................................................................................. 87 Summary Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................................... 94 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................................................ 97 Page 2 of 104 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS & NOTES This report was prepared by Kirby Reiling was submitted as a thesis to The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, and for use by Transparency International (UK). For more information, contact [email protected]. Substantial thanks are due to Professor Cheyanne Scharbatke-Church of The Fletcher School, who offered extensive input, guidance and insight as thesis advisor. The report also benefited from the generous feedback and guidance of Mark Pyman and Transparency International (UK) Defence Against Corruption team. Lastly, thanks to Dr. Johann Graf-Lamdsdorff and the participants of the Economics of Corruption 2008 conference, who offered a number of helpful ideas and suggestions. Note about Terminology In the report, the following definitions are employed: Corruption is the abuse of power for private gain. It includes, but is not limited to, bribery, embezzlement, fraud, straddling, favouritism, nepotism and similar acts. It includes both bureaucratic and political, or grand, corruption. The defence establishment refers to the Ministry of Defence, or equivalent, and the military and armed forces, but not internal security or police forces. The defence sector includes the public defence establishment and private defence companies, such as arms manufacturers and military suppliers. Defence here does not include non-state actors such as terrorist or rebel/armed groups, non-military or paramilitary intelligence, gendarmerie/state police, or unofficial trafficking operations. This document is primarily concerned with corruption as it pertains to conventional fighting forces and conventional arms. Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons may be traded in corrupt transactions in defence, but their specific problems as weapons of mass destruction with additional protocols and concerns are left to other authors to explore. Civil society refers to the multitude of individuals and organizations, including international and national non-governmental organizations (NGOs), media and community groups, which are generally not-for-profit and exert some influence on public life, but are not generally part of either the public or private sectors. Page 3 of 104 Indicators are here defined broadly, following UNDP’s Governance Indicators: A User’s Guide, as a measure that points to something about the state of corruption (or some other related phenomena) in a country or context. Assessments offer broader contextual analysis, drawing on multiple indicators of corruption. According to the User’s Guide to Measuring Corruption, “A balanced assessment will draw from a mix of qualitative and quantitative corruption indicators.” Page 4 of 104 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS BPI Transparency International Bribe Payers Index CPI Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index CSO Civil Society Organization EIRIS Ethical Investment Research Service GI Global Integrity MOD Ministry of Defence (any government, regardless of official title) NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization NGO Non-governmental Organization OBI Open Budget Index OECD Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development PEM Public Expenditure Management PETS Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys PRT Promoting Revenue Transparency Project TI Transparency International Secretariat TI (UK) Transparency International, United Kingdom National Chapter and Defence Against Corruption Initiative WB/WBI World Bank / World Bank Institute WGI Worldwide Governance Indicator (produced by World Bank Institute) Page 5 of 104 EXECUTIVE