Tag Archives: University of Sussex Centre for the Study of Corruption

Guest Post: The Need for Better Monitoring and Evaluation of Anticorruption Projects

Posted on by
Reply

Today’s guest post comes from Tom Shipley, a researcher at the Centre for the Study of Corruption at the University of Sussex.

While the anticorruption field is rife with disagreements and debates about “what works,” one thing that pretty much everyone can agree on is the need for more and better evidence. This is why it is so important that governments and other organizations engage in appropriate monitoring and evaluation (M&E) activities to assess the impact of their anticorruption work. Lots of organizations conduct M&E activity—but how good is it? A new report developed at the Centre for the Study of Corruption and published with the U4 Anticorruption Resource Centre seeks to provide a comprehensive review of anticorruption M&E in development cooperation. The report, which is based on a structured review of 91 evaluation reports published by 11 development agencies and non-governmental organizations, examines the M&E evidence available for a range of anticorruption measures implemented in a wide range of countries.

The findings are disappointing. Although there are some high-quality evaluations, the review demonstrates there are systematic problems with the quality of the evidence produced through M&E. Continue reading →

Job Postings: Centre for the Study of Corruption and International Centre for Asset Recovery

Posted on by
Reply

Two first-rate anticorruption NGOs have openings —

The Centre for the Study of Corruption (CSC) based at the University of Sussex in the UK has recently received a multi-million dollar grant from the UK government to research Anti-Corruption Evidence (ACE) – part of the wider ACE programme run by the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office. It has openings with a closing date of March 25th for two positions: Programme Manager (details here) and Comms Manager (details here).

The Basel Institute on Governance is an independent non-profit organisation working across sectors to counter corruption and related financial crimes and to improve the quality of governance. Registered as a Swiss foundation with headquarters in Basel, the Institute works globally and maintains field operations around the world. The International Centre for Asset Recovery (ICAR) is a division of the Basel Institute that aims to strengthen the capacities of countries around the world to recover assets stolen through corruption. It has an opening for a (Senior) Specialist, Asset Recovery Policy (details here.)

New Podcast Episode: In the 101st Episode, Hosts Reflect on the 100th Episode!

Posted on by
Reply
A new episode of KickBack: The Global Anticorruption Podcast is now available.In the previous episode (the 100th episode of the series), the KickBack hosts invited a dozen leading anticorruption experts (plus me) to offer their reactions to one or both of two big-picture questions about the field: (1) What is one thing about corruption that you’ve changed your thinking on in the past 10 years?, and (2) What is the most significant development — positive or negative — in relation to corruption and corruption studies over the past thirty years? In the most recent episode (the 101st), KickBack hosts Liz David-Barrett, Robert Barrington, Dan Hough, and Sam Power (all with the Sussex University Centre for the Study of Corruption) reflect on the wide range of answers that the various respondents gave to these questions, and more generally use this as an occasion to thing more broadly about the present and future of anticorruption–both as a practical reform agenda and as a field of study and research. 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!

New Podcast, Featuring Elizabeth David-Barrett

Posted on by
Reply
After our holiday hiatus, I’m pleased to announce that a new episode of KickBack: The Global Anticorruption Podcast is now available. In this week’s episode, my Interdisciplinary Corruption Research Network (ICRN) colleagues Nils Kobis and Christopher Starke interview Elizabeth David-Barrett, Professor of Governance and Integrity and Director of the Centre for the Study of Corruption at the University of Sussex. In the interview, Professor David-Barrett discusses the concept of “state capture,” the mechanisms by which corrupt actors may capture the state, and the new forms of state capture that have been emerging in many countries, as well as how the concept of state capture relates to lobbying and machine politics. Later in the interview, she addresses various questions related to anticorruption reform measures, including the unintended consequences that some well-intentioned reforms might sometimes have, and where up-and-coming researchers can make the most valuable contributions to the anticorruption struggle. You can also find both this episode and an archive of prior episodes at the following locations: KickBack is a collaborative effort between GAB and the ICRN. If you like it, please subscribe/follow, and tell all your friends! And if you have suggestions for voices you’d like to hear on the podcast, just send me a message and let me know.

Guest Post: A Defense of Anticorruption Orthodoxy

Posted on by
5

Robert Barrington, Professor of Anti-Corruption Practice at the University of Sussex’s Centre for the Study of Corruption, contributes today’s guest post.

The international anticorruption movement, which has been so successful over the last 25 years in putting this once-taboo issue squarely at the forefront of the international agenda, is suffering a crisis of confidence. The aspiration to eliminate corruption now seems to many like a fantasy from the dreamy era of the fall of the Berlin Wall. And what had appeared to be an emerging consensus about how to diagnose corruption, and how to respond, is fracturing. There has long been a lively debate within the anticorruption community about the best ways to understand and respond to corruption; and likewise, a growing challenge from several different quarters (including governments, businesses, journalists, and academics) on areas such as measurement, what has been successful, and whether the evidence matches the theory for fundamental approaches such as transparency. The debate and challenge have been broadly healthy, and have led to sharper thinking and improved approaches. But some criticism has veered towards attacking simplistic caricatures of the perceived orthodoxy, or launching broad-brush critiques that, intentionally or not, serve to undermine the anticorruption movement and provide nourishment for those that would prefer to see the anticorruption movement diminished or fail.

Take, for example, two common lines of attack against the “orthodox” approach to tackling corruption, one concerning the diagnosis of the problem and the other concerning appropriate responses: Continue reading →