The Global State of Corruption Control. Who Succeeds, Who Fails and What Can Be Done About It

Transcription

1 European Research Centre for Anti-Corruption and State-Building at the Hertie School of Governance, Berlin The Global State of Corruption Control. Who Succeeds, Who Fails and What Can Be Done About It 22/01/2013 1

2 What is control of corruption? Can we measure it? 1. Capability of a society to keep corrupt acts as an exception and establish ethical universalism as main governance rule of the game 2. Any deviation from ethical universalism is corrupt : favoritism (UNCAC) 1. World Bank Institute aggregate measure, CPI 2. Public opinion surveys 3. Objective indicators 22/01/2013 2

3 CONTROL OF CORRUPTION IS AN EQUILIBRIUM.AND SO IS CORRUPTION our model Klitgaard 1978 Corruption = Monopoly + Discretion Accountability Mungiu-Pippidi 2010 Corruption/control of corruption = Resources (Power + Material resources) Constraints (Legal + Normative) 3

4 Elusive progress

5 ECE

6 Gross profit rate Romanian and foreign companies compared after 2007 EU accession

7 Evolution of the government reserve fund for natural disasters Is this harmful for development? Share of funds for main govt party % Share of vote in local elections of govt party % 2004 (SDP) 2008 (Liberals) 2010 (Democrat Liberals)

8 Instruments: The impact of ACAs = year ACA came into power ICRG Control of Corruption Score lb/ub

9 The poor did not progress, the rich did not need to, the upper middle regressed... 22/01/2013 9

10 Politics seemed to have mattered little 22/01/

11 Certainly an island; and a democracy, maybe 2011 CC lowest CC mid tercile tercile CC top tercile Total Free Partially free Not free Total Liberal democracies do ten times better than autocracies within clean countries 50/5 (of which 21 islands) But two out of three corrupt countries are free and partly free (89/42); of which, 59 are electoral democracies 22/01/

12 Mixed progress and mostly stagnation Free Partly Free Not Free Total Progression Regression Total No significant change: 151 countries 22/01/

13 OUR AGENDA 1. Understanding successful change trajectories (change in equilibrium) and what might be universal in them 2. Study historical and contemporary achievement agency and context 3. Connect anticorruption intervention (for instance, EU policy, UNCAC implementation) with the country evolution (producing more time and policy sensitive indicators) 4. Design interventions for borderline cases (countries which are close to threshold) Who funds us? EU, through FP7; NORAD; USAID. 22/01/

14 Nearly there, and back again Asia and the Pacific: changes Significant changes in Control of Corruption in Asia and the Pacific ( ) Japan Malaysia Fiji Maldives China Nepal Philippines Papua New Guinea /01/

15 The EU accession effect Central Europe and the Balkans: changes Significant changes in Control of Corruption in Eastern Europe ( ) Estonia Latvia Croatia Macedonia FYR Bulgaria Serbia /01/

16 One in her class Former Soviet Union : changes Significant changes in Control of Corruption in the former USSR ( ) Georgia Turkmenistan /01/

17 A wealth of islands Latin America & the Caribbean: changes Significant changes in Control of Corruption in the Caribbean ( ) Significant changes in Control of Corruption in Latin America ( ) St. Lucia Uruguay St. Vincent El Salvador St. Kittis & Nevis Trinidad & Tobago Dominican Republic /01/

18 Walzing in pairs Sub-Saharan Africa: changes Significant changes in Control of Corruption in Sub-Saharan Africa ( ) Cape Verde Rwanda Namibia South Africa Liberia Zambia Tanzania Eritrea Côte D'Ivoire Guinea Zimbabwe Congo /01/

19 Enlightened despots Middle East & North Africa: changes Significant changes in Control of Corruption in the Middle East and North Africa ( ) United Arab Emirates Qatar Cyprus Israel Kuwait Morocco Egypt Yemen Libya /01/

20 Regional achievers Latin America: 44.9 Chile Uruguay Costa Rica Western Europe & North America: 91.1 Denmark Sweden Finland The Caribbean: 71.7 St. Kitts & Nevis St. Lucia Central Europe & Balkans: 59.2 Slovenia Estonia Poland MENA: 45.6 UAE Qatar Israel Sub-Saharan Africa: 32.8 Botswana Cape Verde Rwanda Former USSR: 18.9 Georgia Armenia Moldova Asia & the Pacific: 42.7 Singapore Hong Kong Japan 22/01/

21 Regional under-performers Latin America: 44.9 Haiti Venezuela Ecuador Western Europe & North America: 91.1 Greece Italy Spain The Caribbean: 71.7 Guyana Jamaica Suriname Central Europe & Balkans: 59.2 Kosovo Albania Bosnia & Herzegovina MENA: 45.6 Libya Iraq Yemen Sub-Saharan Africa: 32.8 Somalia Equatorial Guinea Democratic Republic of the Congo Former USSR: 18.9 Turkmenistan Uzbekistan Azerbaijan Asia & the Pacific: 42.7 Papua New Guinea China Philippines 22/01/

22 Who is doing better / worse than modernity indicators would predict? Region Better than Worse than expected expected The Caribbean St. Lucia and Dominica Trinidad & Tobago Sub-Saharan Africa Rwanda and Equatorial Guinea Zambia and Kenya Central Europe and Balkans Croatia - Former USSR Armenia and Georgia Belarus MENA Algeria, Jordan and Turkey Lebanon Latin America Peru and El Argentina and Salvador Mexico Asia & the Pacific Bhutan and Malaysia and Vanuatu China 22/01/

23 To evolve out of particularism as norm= collective action strategies Situation A. You have losers from corruption, of which some are autonomous enough to take some action / they are the principals and any strategy should be grounded their level Situation B. You have losers, but not autonomous enough for action; you do no AC, but develop them into a group capable of inflicting some normative constraints in the future (civil society development) Situation C. No significant domestic losers exist. Forget about AC except as an approach to aid distribution