A key advantage of these indicators is that they build on administrative data and in some cases big data from public registries and databases that are becoming increasingly available to use for performance measurement. This is the first time that an international organisation has developed a set of standard indicators in the area of anti-corruption policies, using primary data validated by countries. Arguably, all countries face corruption risks, albeit in different ways. However, existing measures focus on petty corruption.
3 One possible explanation could be that since those countries face numerous corruption problems, they dedicate more efforts to putting in place strategic objectives to address the challenge. Due to lack of data, the aggregate score without implementation rate is shown in bars.Ĭountries where the general population and business experience and perceive corruption as a highly problematic issue tend to have better strategic frameworks. Blue dots show aggregate indicator including implementation rate.
Countries with zero have either adopted strategic framework at a level below Government (Council of Ministers or equivalent) or do not have strategic framework in place at all. Countries’ overall score on the indicator of Strategic Framework for Public IntegrityĪggregate indicator, equal weights of subcomponents, 2021 Note: A higher score indicates better quality of strategic framework for public integrity. Countries with the single strategy approach tend to have comprehensive strategic framework for public integrity.įigure 2. Stronger involvement of the non-governmental sector can improve the quality of strategies and increase trust in government.Ī majority of countries adopted a single strategy approach, while six do not have strategic frameworks for reducing corruption in place at all (Figure 2). Yet, only half of the countries have ensured that integrity strategies went through standard public and intergovernmental consultation and included non-state actors in working groups to develop or amend integrity strategies. Development of integrity and anti-corruption strategies should be transparent and inclusive.Moreover, half of the countries do not track the implementation rate at all. The average implementation rate of planned activities of 55% means that almost a half of the planned activities were not yet carried out. However, such comprehensive action plans and monitoring reports based on reliable sources and pre-established indicators are often missing. Our analysis shows that high-quality strategies correlate with the existence of comprehensive action plans and ex-ante analysis of corruption risks. In countries that do set strategic objectives to curb corruption, implementation is surprisingly weak.In many countries, high-level strategic objectives addressing such forms of corruption are missing. One of the central ambitions of the OECD Council Recommendation on Public Integrity – a whole-of-society approach to curbing the most serious and detrimental forms of corruption such as undue influence, political and grand corruption – has not yet been translated into concrete policy objectives.The dataset covers 32 OECD countries and four non-OECD countries 2and shows that: Source: OECD, Public Integrity Indicators.
Structure of Strategic Framework for Public Integrity indicator The first data set measures the quality of the strategies for public integrity and anti-corruption (Figure 1) and is described in detail in our recently published working paper Anti-corruption and public integrity strategies – Insights from new OECD indicators ( Smidova, Z., A. 1 The OECD Public Integrity Indicators were developed to monitor progress made in the implementation of the Council Recommendation. The experience of OECD countries shows that addressing corruption requires a comprehensive policy approach, which in 2017 led to the adoption of the Council Recommendation on Public Integrity. Analysts, national administration and international organisations can now explore these data that adhere to OECD standards for statistical quality. It brings interesting insights on how countries are prioritising efforts to address corruption and documents the need to focus more on implementation. The first data set for 36 countries – on quality of the anti-corruption strategy or strategic framework – has already proven useful for decision makers in strengthening their policy frameworks. The indicators unpack the general notion of corruption into specific integrity risks and measure the strength of regulations, institutions and practices. OECD’s new Public Integrity Indicators offer a credible alternative to existing corruption-related indices, drawing directly on data from member countries instead of expert views. By Zuzana Smidova, Agnès Cavaciuti, OECD Economics Department, and Jesper Johnsøn, OECD Public Governance Directorate
0 kommentar(er)
