Where Is Progress Being Made Globally?

Where Is Progress Being Made Globally?

Many governments around the world have anti-corruption laws on their books, but if they
are not enforced, they may have little impact on reducing corruption. Those committing
corrupt acts must ultimately be brought to justice. Governments need to send “a signal
that the existing culture of impunity will no longer be tolerated,” says the Millennium
Challenge Corporation (MCC), whose Threshold Programs aim to tackle corruption in
several countries.21 They point to work in the Philippines, where the government is
focused on stepping up enforcement efforts and significantly increasing the corruption
conviction rate. Tanzania too, notes MCC, is “reducing the backlog of pending corruption
cases to ensure that violators who are caught are brought to trial in a timely manner.”
Anti-corruption measures can be punitive in nature, focusing on legal prosecution for
crimes committed, or preventive, focusing on making sure that corruption does not
happen in the first place through practices like implementing accounting controls and
regular audits. Both of these are covered in the United Nations Convention against
Corruption, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2003, entered into force
in 2005, and currently has 140 signatories. This legally binding instrument requires
states to develop independent anti-corruption bodies and transparent procurement
systems, criminalizes certain offenses, and puts measures in place for states to
cooperate more closely with each other on fighting corruption. There are also a variety of
similar agreements at regional and global levels, including the African Union, the
Organization of American States and the OECD (Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development)—for example, making it illegal to bribe foreign public
officials. Such agreements have contributed to a stronger international consensus about
corruption and its costs and have increased the number of cases brought before judicial
bodies. Critics, however, point out that effective monitoring processes are still lacking
and that it remains difficult to track payments that are made through intermediaries
(rather than directly). Too often, these conventions are not self-enforcing and require
enforcement by national authorities. Common standards have been agreed to by the
international community, but greater enforcement at the national level, more compliance
by private companies, and greater public education and pressure from civil society
groups, are needed.
Anti-corruption campaigns are likely to be more successful when they are backed by
strong leadership at the highest levels of government. Although news reports on corrupt
heads of state in Africa are common, there are also examples of African leaders who

have made fighting corruption central to their administrations. Seretse Khama, the
president of Botswana from 1966 to1980, did not tolerate a culture of corruption in his
government and put strong measures in place against it. Officials who misappropriated
funds were prosecuted. With state resources used to build the country’s infrastructure,
Botswana underwent rapid economic and social progress during his term in office. The
current president of the Republic of Rwanda, Paul Kagame, has also exercised
“leadership from the top” in fighting corruption. He has professionalized the police force,
required all public officials to post earnings statements, and has imprisoned officials
caught pilfering public funds.22 There is a long history of corruption in Liberia, which will
take time and effort to address. However, President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, who took
office in early 2006, has launched various efforts to tackle corruption, including
protections for those providing information on stolen assets, improving financial
management and accountability, and prompt payments for government employees.
Liberia also has an Anti-Corruption Commission, tasked to investigate potential acts of
corruption and carry out a public education campaign to highlight its work and shame
corrupt officials, but like many other similar institutions in developing countries, it does
not have enough staff and resources to be truly effective. While such commissions have
had strong enforcement powers and worked very well in wealthier countries like
Singapore and Hong Kong, they have not been as successful elsewhere. One of the
major critiques of such commissions is that they are encouraged by international donors,
but often do not have political support—or capacity—locally.
In addition, there is often resistance among countries in the developing world because
they equate anti-corruption campaigns or conditions placed on international donations as
attempts by the developed world to “govern other countries like a colonial power,” in the
words of Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni. He and other developing world leaders
and economists often charge the donor countries as using anti-corruption requirements
as a way to dictate to poorer countries economic, political, and foreign policy decisions.
More successful initiatives have been ones like the Extractive Industries Transparency
Initiative (EITI). Now a global activity supported by companies, countries, civil society,
and international organizations, EITI has improved transparency and accountability in
the extractive sector, e.g., oil, gas, and minerals. It does this by verifying and publishing
both company payments and government revenues from these resources. By making
these processes more transparent, the ultimate goal is to see that these natural
resources become a means of development rather than a cause of poverty and conflict.
EITI has become the global standard in this particular industry, with many hoping to
apply the model of international cooperation to other sectors.