What are the conditions that facilitate corruption? What are its costs and what are the most effective ways to combat it? This paper assesses the current literature on corruption.
It notes that corruption is a symptom of governance dynamics and institutional quality, and is enabled by economic, political, administrative, social and cultural factors. The collective and systemic character of corruption makes it entrenched and difficult to address. Democracy does not in itself lead to reduced corruption.
In relation to the gender dimensions of corruption, women are not necessarily less predisposed to corruption than men. Greater participation of women in the political system and political processes is not a ‘magic bullet’ to fight corruption.
The effects of corruption on growth and development include the following.
- Lack of trust, reduced legitimacy and lack of confidence in public institutions can be both a cause and an effect of corruption
- The effect of corruption on macroeconomic growth is not clear-cut
- Corruption has a negative effect on both inequality and the provision of basic services, affecting poor people disproportionately.
- The relationship between corruption and fragility varies: it can be a source of conflict but has also been an important stabilising factor in some settings.
Evidence on the effectiveness of initiatives that address corruption includes the following.
- Multiple, differing responses are needed based on the context, stakeholders and specific nature of corrupt behaviours. Anti-corruption measures are most effective when other contextual factors support them and when they are integrated into a broader package of institutional reforms.
- Public financial management reforms are effective in reducing corruption, although the size of the evidence base varies across the different PFM dimensions. The available evidence suggests the following factors matter to the effectiveness of PFM reforms: an enabling environment with support from the political leadership; an integrated approach; and an explicit focus on implementation and resourcing.
- The effectiveness of Supreme audit institutions (SAIs) depends on the wider institutional context, including power dynamics between different government bodies and the quality of checks and balances mechanisms linking them. There is consistent evidence that, when special audits are combined with follow-up actions to sanction the corrupt, they are effective.
- A large body of evidence indicates that social accountability mechanisms can affect levels of corruption when, for example, they: focus on issues relevant to the targeted population; target relatively homogenous populations; involve credible sanctions and responsive state institutions.
- A medium-sized body of evidence indicates that conditions for the success of civil society organisations in reducing corruption by strengthening accountability systems and mobilising citizens include: the capacity to influence service providers; an independent and free media; a combination of broad-based community mobilisation with professionalised CSOs; and engagement between state and civil society actors.
- By contrast, anti-corruption agencies have been considerably less effective. A medium-sized body of evidence shows that ACAs are not panaceas for reducing corruption, particularly in environments with poor governance.
