Synthesis of lessons learned of donor practices in fighting corruption

Year of publication: 2005

1. PURPOSE
1. The purpose of this study was to review donor experiences and lessons about what works or does not work in fighting corruption in developing countries. These lessons in turn are intended to assist the GOVNET to improve donor effectiveness in fighting corruption and to improve collaboration between all partners.

2. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
2. From the outset it was recognized that maintaining a focus and managing a potentially very large volume of diverse information would be challenging. As the study progressed, the focus was adjusted to reflect constraints encountered. These adjustments were made with the support of a steering committee composed of donors and the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) secretariat. It was decided that the study would concentrate on identifying lessons learned and would not attempt to provide a compendium of donor policies, projects or activities. It would also focus on DAC donor agencies, at the same time recognizing that significant efforts are being made by organizations such as Transparency International (TI) and the OECD.

3. The study asks two basic and interrelated questions: (1) What – generally have we learned about fighting corruption? and (2) What have donors learned from their own experiences? The emphasis of the study was on the latter. As part of the attempt to maintain focus, a selective approach was taken based on four main activities:

• A request to donors themselves to “trawl” their own experiences and come up with four or five projects or activities that they felt reflected actual or potential lessons learned.
• Second, a similar ”trawl” by the consultants of other sources of evaluative or analytic information related to lessons learned.
• Third, the identification of lessons learned from case studies being prepared by the Anti-Corruption Network consultancy.
• Fourth, a series of videoconferences with international experts, representatives from development assistance agencies and partners was planned to explore in greater depth issues identified from the previous steps and identify other sources of information. The videoconferences, although they had to be carried out later in the study than intended, proved to be a very useful tool.

4. This approach meant that the subject matter and organization of the report was driven by the information received. It was not structured around a particular conceptual framework of corruption.
5. Eleven donors and other agencies responded with information. Five donor agencies indicated that they felt they did not have adequate experience to contribute. The nature of the documentation provided varied widely in terms of subjects (policy, advocacy, project description, etc.) length and depth of analysis or description. DCD/DAC/GOVNET(2003)
6. A number of important challenges and constraints were encountered which affected the approach and necessitated several adjustments. These included:

•  A relative lack of evaluative and analytic information because of the newness of anti-corruption,
• Significant differences between donors in terms of size, complexity, organizational arrangements, financing methods (grants versus loans), scope of activities, etc.
• Difficulty in identifying anti-corruption activities because they are often part of governance, capacity building and organizational improvement projects.
• Related difficulties because many governance and anti-corruption activities and staff are frequently decentralized. In addition, important work that had been done in the language of the agency or country involved was not available in English or French.
• A somewhat theological approach taken by some respondents based on a belief that what they were doing, because it made sense, was working and would produce positive results.

3. KEY FINDINGS
A. What – Generally – Have We Learned About Fighting Corruption?
7. The paper notes that at this stage, there are relatively few success stories in fighting corruption.
Clear-cut successes, such as Hong Kong and Singapore (not donor assisted), are somewhat special cases and their broader applicability is not clear. There are a number of intermediate success stories and “emerging” lessons. These include:

• The results of anti-corruption advocacy (TI, domestic NGOs, donor and international agencies) in increasing our understanding of corruption, its nature and causes.
• The results of the actions of individuals and civil society organizations at national and local levels to not only raise awareness but to take action.
• The recognition that corruption is both a symptom of poor governance, as well as a severe developmental problem, in itself.
•  Greater collaboration and the building of partnerships among donors and partners.
•  The development of diagnostic tools, indices, data, indicators, websites, toolkits and other resource materials.

8. The fight against corruption is at a crossroads that has at least five dimensions:

1. The advocacy movement has been both important and successful is drawing attention to the issues, opening up the debate, mobilizing resources, developing analytic tools and deepening out knowledge and understanding of corruption. Many of the CSOs involved in advocacy are now shifting into a different role involving direct action.
2. Donor agencies, including the IFIs, have made a number of efforts to protect grant and loan funds from corruption. At the same time there is a growing realization that protecting donor funds is of limited use unless sustainable changes are made to the systems and institutions of partner countries.
3. Harmonization of procedures, SWAPs, greater focus on poverty reduction and untying are presenting new challenges to accountability.
4. There is a shift away traditional conditionality to more collaborative approaches, and
5. We can expect a significant amount of evaluative work on corruption to become available in the near future. It will be important to pause and reflect on the lessons that emerge.

- Download:

GENERAL_What_donors_have_le.pdf (352.8 kB)