- The Interdisciplinary Corruption Research Network (ICRN) website
- Google Podcasts
- Apple Podcasts
- Pocket Cases
- Radio Public
This year’s summer program of the International Anticorruption Academy will be delivered online September 5 through September 11. University of Gothenburg Bo Rothstein, SOAS Professor Mushtaq Khan, and OECD Antibribery Working Group Chair Drago Kos are among the authorities on corruption-related topics who will speak. Yours truly will moderate a panel discussion on preventing corruption in infrastructure. Participants not able to attend all live sessions will be have access to video recordings.
Details on the program and how to register here
The International Anticorruption Academy will offer a course this July 10 – 14 on combating corruption in local government. Its purpose is to provide participants an in-depth understanding how corruption arises in local governments and what can be done to fight it. The course is designed for local elected leaders, regional government administrators, anticorruption agencies’ professionals, experts from ombudsman offices and local anti-corruption organizations as well as governance specialists from development organizations
Former La Paz, Bolivia, Mayor Ronald MacLean-Abaroa will present his widely-praised work on cleaning up the city administration of La Paz. Ana Vasilache, founding President of Partners Foundation for Local Development, a Romanian NGO, will discuss the role of civil society in dealing with corruption in local government. This writer will offer a series a modules on “Developing and Implementing an Anticorruption Strategy at the Local Level” drawing from the UNODC’s Anti-Corruption Strategies: A Practical Guide for Development and Implementation and case studies of successful anticorruption initiatives at the local level.
GAB is pleased to welcome back Alan Doig, Visiting Professor at Newcastle Business School, Northumbria University, who contributes the following guest post:
In recent years, there has been a swelling call for a substantial portion of the fines, disgorged profits, and other payments recovered from corporations in foreign bribery cases to be used to fund anticorruption initiatives, particularly those designed to fight corruption in the “victim” countries. If this recommendation were taken seriously, the potential funding resources could be substantial. While the recoveries from corporate settlements are miniscule (and ad hoc) contributions to national treasuries, they often dwarf what even big donor agencies spend. For example, the UNDP’s 2014-2017 GAIN (Global Anti-Corruption Initiative) had a total budget of $16 million, an amount much less than the fine and disgorgement from the first Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) between the UK’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and ICBC Standard Bank in December 2015. Just think how such funds could provide badly-needed resources for anticorruption work, particularly for areas or organizations seeking new sources of funding, or for innovative work, in what is a very competitive environment. Thus while Integrity Action has managed to win competitive funding from soruces as diverse as Google’s Global Impact Challenge and the UK Comic Relief charity, the chair of the Board of Governors of the International Anti-Corruption Academy (IACA) recently bemoaned the fact that IACA’s “last two general budgets never received 90% of the funding that was unanimously agreed upon” by member states, without which there would be no opportunity for the implementation of its ambitious programs.
While corporate settlements would provide a regular and substantial resource beyond the usual multilateral and bilateral donors (and the occasional big private foundation), there are, of course, a number of practical, legal, and political problems with getting countries to agree to divert substantial portions of such settlement funds to support anticorruption efforts. But even assuming these obstacles are overcome, another set of problems remains: Assuming that a given country (say, the US or UK) has decided that a substantial portion of a corporate penalty for bribery should be redirected to fund anticorruption efforts, how should the arrangement be structured? Which entities should be responsible for any settlement funds? Who will make the key decisions? What will be funded, by whom, and for how long? Our limited experience to date illustrates several options that have been attempted so far: Continue reading
Alan Doig, Professor at Newcastle Business School, Northumbria University, contributes the following guest post:
Resources for anticorruption are scare; how should they be spent? In particular, how should the international community (national aid agencies, international institutions, and private donors and foundations) allocate resources for education and training programs for anticorruption professionals?
Although “education” and “training” are often lumped together as one category, in fact they are quite different. Education is about the acquisition of knowledge, with the accompanying change in awareness and understanding, through the provision and assimilation of information. Training involves the acquisition of the applied knowledge and technical skills required to improve individual and organizational performance in the workplace, invariably in relation to specific roles or functions. In terms of impact, education would look for longer-term benefits and impact while training can be judged more immediately by what the person does once trained.
The question of how to spend the even more limited funds that are not tied to the big spenders (the multilateral and bilateral donors) brings this issue into sharp focus, and raises the question of whether too much too much is allocated to postgraduate anticorruption education, at the expense of practical anticorruption training. Continue reading