When Did EU Anticorruption Conditionality Work, and When Did It Fail?

Posted on by
Reply

When countries apply for membership in the European Union (EU), the EU has substantial leverage to insist on various economic, political, and governance reforms—including anticorruption reforms. The EU has used this leverage, mandating (among other things) various anticorruption measures as a condition for accession. Has this worked? Does this form of conditionality help galvanize meaningful improvement in the corruption situation in candidate countries?

One of the most systematic attempts to answer this question, a 2014 study by Mert Kartal, compared corruption trends from 1995-2012 in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries that did and did not apply for EU membership. The study found that applicant countries made significant progress during the accession process—but after accession, these countries’ anticorruption performance tended to deteriorate substantially. This is perhaps not surprising, given that the EU loses its leverage after accession takes place. Nevertheless, the finding is disheartening, in that it casts doubt on whether the EU was able to spur meaningful, lasting anticorruption reform. Notably, though, the results were not uniform across the twelve applicant countries studied: In some, the improvement that occurred prior to accession almost completely reversed after accession, but in others, the improvements appeared more sustainable. Diving into individual stories of accession suggests several factors that may have played an important role in the success or failure of EU attempts at using the carrot of membership to spur sustainable anticorruption reform. Continue reading →

Sri Lankan Bill on Proceeds of Crime and Corruption Damage Actions

Posted on by
Reply

A distinguished group of Sri Lankan judges and lawyers recently released draft legislation to recover the proceeds of crime and compensate corruption victims. Prepared at the request of Justice Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe, enactment of such a bill is one of conditions of the $2.9 billion International Monetary Fund loan to stabilize the economy and restore economic growth.

While the proposed legislation exceeds the IMF requirement, providing for both criminal and non-conviction-based forfeiture of the proceeds of any crime, its overriding significance is it offers means for recovering the hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars corrupt officials have stolen from Sri Lankan citizens. The bill also establishes administrative procedures for compensating those injured by the corrupt act that generated the confiscated assets and granting anyone harmed by corruption the right to bring a civil action for damages.

The bill is accompanied by a clearly written report spelling out its provisions and explaining their rationale. A very nice diagram illistrates how the various freezing, seizure, and confiscation provisions will operate. Those in other nations struggling to write their own asset recovery or victim compensation legislation will find much of value in the Sri Lankans’ effort. (Text of bill with report and diagram here.)

At the same time, the bill is still in draft. Its authors welcome comments and critiques from Sri Lankans and international observers. Comments can be sent directly to the Ministry of Justice. Or GAB will be pleased to forward them to the appropriate personnel.

UPDATE. GAB just learned that Transparency International Sri Lanka has also posted a request for comments on the bill along with a brief explanation of the bill importance and the need for public input in English, Sinhalese, and Tamil here. The link includes an address to which comments can be sent.

Reconciling Tradition and Modernity in Africa’s Anticorruption Struggle

Posted on by
1

Even the most educated African citizens and public officials often have attachments to their cultural heritage. Perhaps for this reason, many African countries have retained traditional practices alongside modern governance institutions. While this has many advantages, such as increasing legitimacy and social cohesion, some of these traditional practices and attitudes are in tension with the contemporary state’s demands for accountability and transparency, and it can be challenging to differentiate acceptable and unacceptable practices at the intersection of the traditional and modern spheres.

Consider, for example, Sierra Leone. Prior to the establishment of the modern state, much of Sierra Leone consisted of chiefdoms. Sierra Leone considers the traditional institution of the chiefdom so vital that the Constitution reserves twelve seats in Parliament for Paramount Chiefs under customary law. What is the appropriate practice regarding gift-giving to chiefs who are also serving in Parliament? In traditional Sierra Leonean culture, visitors and petitioners are expected to give chiefs expensive gifts. However, under Sierra Leonean law, public officials, including Members of Parliament, are not allowed to accept gifts above a certain value. Similarly, in many of Sierra Leone’s chiefdoms, by custom, the chief would have the authority to determine land use rights, including those for activities like mining. However, under Sierra Leone’s written law, particularly the Mines and Minerals Development Act, the Ministry of Mines and the National Minerals Agency are empowered to grant licensing rights pursuant to the provisions of that Act. Mining company representatives often offer gifts to chiefs to acquire mining rights in their Chiefdoms—as tradition dictates. But offering such gifts to ministry officials would be an unlawful bribe under Sierra Leone’s anticorruption laws. More broadly, in many African societies—like most societies the world over—the traditional practice is to favor one’s family. This traditional kinship preference can create serious tensions for public servants: the expectations of their families and communities may conflict with ethical and professional rules that embrace universalism and prohibit nepotism as a form of corruption. Continue reading →

What the Next UK Government Likely to do About Corruption

Posted on by
2

If polls are to be believed, on July 4 the Labour Party will take control of the government of the (still!) United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Professor Robert Barrington (Centre for the Study of Corruption) was one of the architects of the Cameron government’s Anti-Corruption Summit in 2016. Below he reviews a recent speech from Labour MP David Lammy, almost certain to be Foreign Secretary in a Labour government. Given the UK’s role in the international fight against corruption, Lammy’s remarks will be of interest to more than just UK voters.

Somewhat lost in the noise of the UK’s general election announcement was a major speech by Shadow Foreign Secretary David Lammy at the think-tank IPPR.  It was reported here in the Financial Times, but hardly anywhere else.  As Mr Lammy is likely to be the UK’s new Foreign Secretary on July 5th, anti-corruption experts should be paying close attention to what he said.  Moreover, this is the most significant speech made to date by a senior politician in the opposition party, and so gives the best clue as to what might happen should they win the election.  This analysis contains lengthy quotations, as the speech does not seem yet to be easily accessible.

Continue reading →

Fiddling While the Rainforest Burns: The KPK, Indonesia’s Natural Resources Sector, and Global Environmental Crisis

Posted on by
Reply

Indonesia, the world’s fourth most-populated country and third largest democracy, has attracted global media attention for its fight against high-level political corruption. Indonesia’s Corruption Eradication Commission (the Komisi Pemberantasan Korupsi, or KPK), which was established in 2004, has successfully prosecuted officials across the political spectrum and at levels ranging from corrupt city council members to the well-connected relatives of high-ranking central government officials. Yet despite the KPK’s many successes, corruption remains pervasive in resource extraction industries in Indonesia’s outlying islands. This entrenched corruption is a matter of concern not just for Indonesia but for the whole world, because corruption in this sector could kneecap efforts to control greenhouse gas emissions and could threaten the global transition to a green economy. The two sectors where this threat is most serious are nickel ore mining and palm oil farming:

Continue reading →

New Podcast Episode, Featuring Ketakandriana Rafitoson

Posted on by
Reply
A new episode of KickBack: The Global Anticorruption Podcast is now available. In this episode, host Tom Shipley interviews Ketakandriana Rafitoson, the Executive Director of Transparency International Madagascar and the Vice Chair of Transparency International. The interview focuses on the problem of “state capture” in Madagascar, emphasizing how this problem has manifested in key sectors such as natural resources, and how outside actors (countries and international firms) have contributed to the problem, and how civil society actors are using innovative approaches to fight back against networks of corrupt actors. You can also find both this episode and an archive of prior episodes at the following locations: KickBack was originally founded as a collaborative effort between GAB and the Interdisciplinary Corruption Research Network (ICRN). It is now hosted and managed by the University of Sussex’s Centre for the Study of Corruption. If you like it, please subscribe/follow, and tell all your friends!

Does Corruption Flourish in a “Culture of Corruption”?

Posted on by
Reply

A common intuition about corruption is that individuals are more likely to engage in corruption when they witness others committing corrupt acts without facing serious consequences—in other words, a “culture of corruption” can be self-perpetuating (see here and here), and the perception or belief that corruption is widespread can itself be a cause of corruption. While compelling, this intuition has not been subjected to much empirical scrutiny. While there does seem to be some evidence of an association between individuals’ perceptions of the prevalence of domestic corruption and those individuals’ inclination to act corruptly, the research on this topic is relatively thin.

In a recent paper, a group of academics (Israel Waismel-Manor, Patricia Moy, Rico Neumann, and Moran Shechnick) weighed in, presenting the results of a controlled lab experiment that sought to assess whether news about corruption by public officials affected individuals’ incentives to behave dishonestly. The study was conducted in Israel, and participants were required first to watch a short television news segment. The treatment group’s segment revolved around an Israeli mayor suspected of certain corrupt acts, while the control group’s segment was unrelated to corruption. The participants were also given a short quiz about the segment they’d seen, and half of the participants in each group were offered a monetary reward if they answered all the questions correctly; they were told “to answer all questions from memory” and not look anything up on the internet. However, unbeknownst to the participants, one of the questions could not be answered without doing additional searches, so the researchers could use the answer to this question to identify those participants who cheated on the test. The real goal of the study (of which participants were not aware) was to see whether exposure to the corruption news story (alone or in combination with the financial incentive) affected participants’ likelihood of cheating.

Unsurprisingly, participants who were offered money for answering all questions correctly cheated far more often, regardless of which news story they watched. The study’s authors seem to have expected that those participants who watched the corruption-related story would also cheat more (holding constant whether they had financial incentives to answer questions correctly). But this did not occur: Participants who watched the news segment involving a mayor suspected of corruption did not cheat in statistically significantly higher rates than those who watched the other, unrelated-to-corruption segment. The researchers suggested that perhaps the reason was that Israelis had been inundated with so much news about official corruption around the time of the experiment (which took place in 2019), particularly in connection with the investigation and prosecution of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other senior politicians (see here, here, and here), that the marginal impact of exposure to additional news about corruption, in the form of this one story, would not have much impact.

While that explanation is plausible, I have some other concerns about the research’s design and methodology, which make me question whether this experiment was in fact a good way to assess the “culture of corruption” hypothesis.

Continue reading →

Anticorruption Protests in Central and Eastern Europe: What They Do and How They Can Do More

Posted on by
Reply

The beginning of 2024 was a period of unrest for several Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. In Slovakia, a series of protests erupted over Prime Minister Robert Fico’s plan to weaken the country’s anticorruption infrastructure. Meanwhile, in Albania, demonstrators took to the streets alleging corruption in the cabinet, demanding investigations, seeking the end of retaliatory investigations against opposition figures, and pushing for the ouster of corrupt officials. And journalists in Croatia turned out in masses to protest a whistleblowing law that would make the investigation of misconduct more difficult.

These aren’t the first anticorruption protests in CEE, and they won’t be the last. Over the past decade, citizens in CEE countries have become much more attuned to the problem of corruption and to their governments’ failure to do much about it. The result has been numerous episodes of citizen-based anticorruption movements. But while such movements have great potential for spurring meaningful change, many have proved ineffective. Why is this? Examining past episodes—for example, in Bulgaria, Slovakia, and the Balkans—may help us better understand the conditions under which anticorruption demonstrations succeed. These past episodes offer a few key lessons:

Continue reading →

The Quotidian Corruption of the NYPD

Posted on by
2

In April 2024, the New York City Department of Investigation (DOI) released a scathing report on how the New York City Police Department (NYPD) enforces parking laws in New York City. The report found, in relevant part, that the NYPD frequently opts to turn a blind eye to illegally parked vehicles displaying inapplicable or expired parking permits, letting NYPD and other City Government employees park illegally with no consequences. The DOI also found that the NYPD “has no written policies or procedures” for enforcing parking laws in the areas around police precincts and other government buildings in NYC, and Traffic Enforcement Agents told DOI investigators that were subject to internal discipline if they issued parking tickets in sufficiently close proximity to NYPD precinct buildings. This parking permit enforcement problem comes on top of the longstanding problem of “ticket fixing,” in which officers make parking and traffic tickets “disappear” as favors for friends. A favorite technique for helping friends or family (or those willing to pay) get out of tickets (or worse) is the practice of police officers giving out (or even selling) “PBA cards” (named for the Police Benevolent Association, the largest municipal police union in the world); with a quick flash of a PBA card, drivers can avoid a speeding ticket or even arrest. PBA cards have long been identified as a notorious example of petty corruption within the NYPD (see here, here, and here, and here). In fact, an NYPD officer sued the department last year, alleging he was demoted for ticketing a cardholder who was a friend of his supervisor (see here and here).

These are examples of what we might call “quotidian corruption”: officers deciding that low-level civil laws apply to some members of the public but not others, and engaging in this selective non-enforcement to help out friends, family, or those with the right connections. While there are certainly far more important forms of police misconduct, such as racial bias and improper use of deadly force, it would be a mistake not to take quotidian police corruption seriously. As one former NYPD police officer turned prosecutor and law professor commented, in connection with a high-profile ticket fixing scandal, even though the alleged behavior might not be “seriously corrupt,” ticket fixing must stop “for the sake of the public trust[] and the NYPD’s own reputation.” 

The NYPD is unlikely to address these problems itself. Even if the NYPD leadership decided to support more evenhanded enforcement for these low-level offenses, police unions would likely prevent any such reforms from taking place. This leaves the possibility of reform largely in the hands of New York City Government. Here are three potential reforms that City Government could undertake to help combat the quotidian corruption permeating the NYPD, listed in order from least to most challenging:

Continue reading →

New Podcast Episode, Featuring John Penrose

Posted on by
1
A new episode of KickBack: The Global Anticorruption Podcast is now available. In this episode, Robert Barrington interviews John Penrose, a UK Member of Parliament who served as the government’s Anti-Corruption Champion from 2017-2022. Mr. Penrose explains the role and function of the Anti-Corruption Champion position and what he learned from his time serving in that position. He discusses the major developments and drivers behind UK anticorruption policy during this period, as well as his decision to resign from the position during Boris Johnson’s administration. The interview concludes with some discussion of what the UK’s anticorruption infrastructure could and should look like in the years to come. You can also find both this episode and an archive of prior episodes at the following locations: KickBack was originally founded as a collaborative effort between GAB and the Interdisciplinary Corruption Research Network (ICRN). It is now hosted and managed by the University of Sussex’s Centre for the Study of Corruption. If you like it, please subscribe/follow, and tell all your friends!