Lecture
Это продолжение увлекательной статьи про коррупция.
...
the form of small unofficial rewards or gifts to officials or employees, which in some cultures may be a tradition. In such cases, corrupt acts are perceived as a way to simplify interaction with government bodies or to speed up the process of obtaining lawful services. Examples of white corruption include:
White corruption is dangerous in that it can foster a tolerant attitude towards corruption among citizens and gradually accustom them to its more serious forms. In addition, white corruption weakens trust in official institutions, since even small "gifts" can be interpreted as signs of unequal access to services.
Grey corruption is a form of corruption situated on the borderline between the legal and the illegal, often manifested as the manipulation of legal norms or the use of one's official position for personal ends without an overt violation of the law. Grey corruption is semi-legal in character: it is difficult to prove, since the participants' actions do not always breach explicit provisions of the law, yet they violate norms of morality, fairness or professional ethics.
Grey corruption includes such acts as:
Grey corruption is especially dangerous because its semi-legal character makes it harder to regulate and detect. It destroys equality of opportunity, creates unequal conditions for market participants and undermines trust in institutions, particularly when such actions go unpunished.
Black corruption is the most dangerous and publicly condemned form of corruption, involving clearly criminal and unlawful acts that directly violate the law. It includes such serious offences as bribery, embezzlement of public funds, the bribing of officials, abuse of office and the manipulation of large budgetary allocations. Black corruption causes substantial losses to the state and society and undermines the stability of the political and economic systems.
Examples of black corruption include:
Black corruption causes the greatest damage, since it undermines the fundamental principles of the rule of law and justice. In countries with a high level of black corruption, trust in state and law enforcement bodies declines, while social inequality and political instability increase.
The division of corruption into white, grey and black shows how varied its forms and consequences can be. White corruption is often considered harmless and acceptable, whereas grey corruption creates a "grey zone" of accountability and fairness, and black corruption destroys a country's institutions and economy.
Business corruption is corruption associated with the commercial and entrepreneurial environment. It affects relations between business and government structures, or relations within business itself. Business corruption is generally large in scale and is often carried out with the participation of high-ranking officials, company executives and influential entrepreneurs.
Forms and manifestations of business corruption:
Bribes and kickbacks — money or other valuables transferred to civil servants or partners in order to obtain favourable terms, for example when participating in tenders, issuing licences or concluding contracts.
Conflict of interest — a situation in which executives or civil servants use their official position to secure personal gain, for example by advancing the interests of affiliated companies.
Lobbying and influence over legislation — unlawful or ethically questionable influence over state laws and regulations with the aim of creating favourable conditions for a particular business or industry.
Falsification of data — the forgery of financial or reporting documents and the concealment of income or expenditure in order to evade taxes or obtain loans.
Monopolisation and cartel collusion — the creation of artificial market conditions to reduce competition and increase profits through collusion among major players.
Consequences of business corruption:
Economic damage — the inefficient use of resources grows, and costs increase for all market participants, including end consumers.
Unequal conditions for business — small and medium-sized enterprises find themselves at a disadvantage owing to the lack of access to tenders, contracts and opportunities.
Erosion of trust in the state and the legal system — business corruption leads to a decline in trust in legal and regulatory institutions and breeds discontent among the population.
Everyday corruption is corruption at the level of citizens' day-to-day interactions with representatives of various state institutions and services. It is usually smaller in scale and typical of grassroots-level interaction with local officials, police officers, doctors, teachers and other representatives of state structures.
Forms and manifestations of everyday corruption:
Small bribes to speed up services — for example, a modest sum or a gift to have documents or certificates processed more quickly or to obtain medical care.
Unlawful rewards for improved services — such as extra money to teachers for higher grades, to utility company staff for resolving housing and utility issues, or to police officers to avoid fines.
Gifts and favours — items or services that citizens offer to civil servants or municipal employees in gratitude for assistance.
Consequences of everyday corruption:
Inequality of access to services — people who can afford to pay a bribe gain access to services faster and of better quality than those who are unwilling or unable to pay.
Erosion of social norms — everyday corruption becomes part of daily life, and many people begin to regard it as acceptable, which helps corruption take root in society.
Declining trust in state institutions — everyday corruption undermines citizens' trust in state structures and generates a sense of injustice and disillusionment.
Although business corruption and everyday corruption differ in scale and participants, they are interrelated. For instance, entrenched everyday corruption creates the preconditions for more serious forms of corruption at the level of business and public administration. In a society where everyday corruption is perceived as the norm, business corruption also penetrates the various levels of government and business more easily.
Both types of corruption cause serious damage, yet the differences between them show that the fight against corruption requires a multi-level approach, beginning with the strengthening of social norms and the struggle against everyday corruption and ending with legislative measures to prevent business corruption.
Individual, group and international corruption are different types of corrupt behaviour that differ in scale, the number of participants involved and their sphere of influence. Each of these types of corruption has its own characteristics and consequences and requires a specific approach to its analysis and to countering it.
Individual corruption is corruption in which an interaction takes place between a single person and an official or organisation for the purpose of obtaining personal gain. This type of corruption often takes the form of small bribes or favours that one person provides to another in order to obtain privileges, bypass bureaucratic procedures or avoid liability.
Examples of individual corruption:
Consequences of individual corruption:
Group corruption is corruption in which a group of persons who have joined together to achieve shared goals or obtain benefits is involved in corrupt schemes. Group corruption is more common in organisations, government structures or business circles, where several people act in concert to achieve a common result. Such corruption is usually organised and more concealed than individual corruption.
Examples of group corruption:
Consequences of group corruption:
International corruption is corruption that extends beyond the borders of a single country and affects relations between states, international corporations and organisations. It includes unlawful acts aimed at influencing international transactions, trade agreements, investments and cross-border interaction. International corruption poses a particular danger because of its global scale and the difficulties associated with regulating it.
Examples of international corruption:
Consequences of international corruption:
These three types of corruption show that corrupt practices can affect various levels and actors — from the individual person to global organisations. Successfully combating corruption requires an understanding of its forms and causes at all levels, as well as international cooperation and effective enforcement mechanisms.
Political and administrative corruption are two key types of corruption associated with different aspects of public administration and the intervention of the authorities in social processes. These forms of corruption play a decisive role in shaping political and governmental stability and can have serious consequences for the entire system of governance, economic development and social justice.
Political corruption refers to corrupt practices occurring at the highest levels of power, concerning political decisions, elections, party activity and the interaction of political actors with other spheres of society. Unlike administrative corruption, which is often manifested in the actions of civil servants, political corruption occurs in the context of political structures and processes.
Forms of political corruption:
Vote buying — the use of money, gifts or services in order to influence election results. This may include both the direct purchase of votes and the manipulation of the electoral process.
Bribery of politicians — the receipt of bribes or other benefits from businesspeople, companies or other interest groups in exchange for adopting particular political decisions, for example amending legislation or passing laws favourable to them.
Use of political power for personal gain — where political leaders or parties use their position to obtain private benefit, for example by creating conditions for personal enrichment or advancing the interests of close associates.
Manipulation of the electoral process — altering election results or using administrative resources to manipulate the voting process in order to keep power in the hands of particular politicians or parties.
Consequences of political corruption:
Declining trust in institutions of power — political corruption undermines citizens' trust in the government, political parties and the electoral process.
Entrenchment of authoritarianism — in countries with highly developed corrupt schemes, government may become authoritarian, with political elites using corrupt practices to retain control and suppress the opposition.
Problems with legislation — corruption in the political sphere can lead to the adoption of laws that benefit only certain groups and do not serve the interests of society as a whole, which reduces the quality of public administration.
Administrative corruption is corruption associated with civil servants and bureaucratic structures, manifested in their day-to-day activity and in the process of performing state functions. Administrative corruption may be connected with the delivery of public services, the application of administrative procedures and the use of one's official position for personal gain.
Forms of administrative corruption:
Bribes for services — where employees of state bodies (for example, the tax service, the police, or health care) demand bribes for providing lawful services or for overlooking violations.
Bureaucratic red tape — the creation of artificial obstacles for citizens or companies with the aim of extracting bribes for speeding up a process or resolving a matter.
Nepotism and cronyism — where officials appoint their relatives or friends to key positions despite their lack of qualifications, which results in ineffective management.
Falsification of documents and reporting — the use of one's official position to forge documents, manipulate reports or conceal information in order to avoid liability or obtain benefits.
Consequences of administrative corruption:
Ineffectiveness of public administration — administrative corruption leads to the irrational use of resources, the slowing of processes and a decline in the quality of the public services provided.
Inequality and injustice — because of bribery and other forms of corruption, certain citizens or companies receive preferential treatment, which violates the principle of equality and fairness.
Declining quality of life — corruption in state institutions leads to a deterioration in the quality of health care, education, infrastructure and other spheres, which directly affects the well-being of citizens.
Scale and impact: Political corruption more often concerns major national and international matters such as elections, legislative initiatives and state policy, whereas administrative corruption focuses on smaller but everyday interactions between citizens and state institutions.
Participants: Political corruption usually involves high-ranking political figures, government officials and influential businesspeople. Administrative corruption mainly involves junior and mid-level officials who deal with citizens and businesses.
Consequences: Political corruption entails serious problems for democratic institutions and affects the political stability and development of the country, whereas administrative corruption, although it has significant economic and social consequences, is more localised and directly affects citizens' daily lives.
Both forms of corruption — political and administrative — seriously undermine the foundations of the rule-of-law state and effective governance. Political corruption destroys democratic processes and raises the level of authoritarianism, whereas administrative corruption creates obstacles to the normal functioning of state institutions and worsens citizens' quality of life. A systemic fight against corruption requires a comprehensive approach that must include both the reform of the political system and improvement in the work of civil servants at all levels.
The bureaucratisation of public life and the growth of corruption — these two processes are closely interconnected and have a serious impact on the functioning of state institutions as well as on the economy and social relations in society. Bureaucratisation is the process by which the role of administrative structures is strengthened, their numbers increase and management procedures become more complex, whereas corruption is a deviation from the normal functioning of the bureaucratic system in which personal interests and unlawful practices take a decisive place.
Bureaucratisation refers to the process of increasing the number of administrative and regulatory bodies, as well as the growing complexity of the procedures and norms to which public life is subject. This may include both the growth of the state apparatus and the expansion of the number of administrative requirements, oversight procedures and formalised rules in various spheres of life — from education and health care to business and the social sphere.
Causes of bureaucratisation:
Growth of state functions — as the state develops, its role in regulating the economy and social life increases, which requires the creation of new agencies and bureaucratic structures to manage these functions.
Growing complexity of legislation and norms — as state regulation expands and new areas of oversight emerge, the number of bureaucratic procedures and rules increases, which raises the demands placed on citizens and organisations.
Centralisation of power — the strengthening of control by central authorities and the drive to standardise governance at all levels is often accompanied by an expansion of the bureaucratic apparatus.
Consequences of bureaucratisation:
Growth of administrative barriers — as the number of state and private regulators increases and procedures become more complex, numerous obstacles arise that complicate access to services, permits and other public goods.
Dependence on officials — the growing complexity of procedures and the large number of permits required lead to a situation in which individuals or companies are forced to depend on officials to obtain permits and services, which fosters the growth of corruption.
Ineffectiveness — in bureaucratised systems the administrative burden often increases, which can slow decision-making processes, raise costs and lower the quality of the services provided.
Corruption is the use of one's official position or delegated powers of authority for personal gain. Corruption at all levels of government and in various areas of administration can flourish in a heavily bureaucratised system where numerous barriers and complications stand in the way of access to necessary public services and resources.
Forms of corruption in bureaucratised systems:
Bribes to simplify procedures — where a person or organisation, faced with difficult and lengthy bureaucratic processes, decides to pay a bribe to an official in order to speed up the process or obtain a permit without complying with all the norms and formalities.
Monopoly and cartel collusion — in conditions of complex and numerous administrative barriers, officials may create conditions for closed markets or collusion between state and private structures, which gives rise to corrupt schemes.
Positional and career schemes — officials may use their power to promote their relatives or acquaintances to important positions, which leads to the uncontrolled growth of the bureaucratic apparatus and of corruption.
Causes of the growth of corruption in bureaucratised systems:
Low level of transparency — complex, multi-stage bureaucratic processes are often accompanied by insufficient transparency, which creates fertile ground for corrupt schemes.
Excessive centralisation — centralised power concentrated in the hands of a small number of people is prone to corrupt practices, since such systems are less subject to external control and oversight.
High compliance costs — the more complex the system of norms and rules, the greater the likelihood that people will seek ways of circumventing those norms through corruption, especially if the rules are regarded as ineffective or excessive.
1. Growing complexity of procedures as a catalyst for corruption:
2. Bureaucrats as key figures in corruption:
3. A vicious circle:
Combating bureaucratisation and corruption requires comprehensive reform aimed at simplifying administrative procedures and increasing the transparency and accountability of state structures. Important measures include:
Decentralisation of power — reducing the control and role of central bodies in decision-making, which lowers the scope for corrupt practices at the local level.
Transparency and openness — ensuring citizens' access to information about the activities of state bodies and about administrative processes.
Digitalisation of processes — the introduction of electronic systems to minimise human intervention in administrative procedures and reduce the scope for corrupt schemes.
Tougher penalties for corruption — the creation of an effective system of penalties for officials and citizens involved in corrupt schemes, together with the introduction of oversight and accountability mechanisms.
The bureaucratisation of public life, accompanied by the growing complexity of administrative processes, often becomes a catalyst for the growth of corruption, creating opportunities to circumvent norms and laws. Reducing the level of bureaucracy, increasing transparency and improving administrative procedures can significantly diminish the impact of corruption and contribute to more effective and equitable public administration.
Legal and ethical means of combating corruption are two important aspects of the comprehensive struggle against corrupt practices in society and in public administration. These methods can be applied separately, but they are most often used effectively in combination with one another, creating a legal and cultural foundation for resisting corruption.
Legal methods of combating corruption include various legislative initiatives and judicial and law enforcement measures aimed at suppressing, punishing and preventing corrupt acts.
The adoption of strict anti-corruption laws. This may include the creation of special regulatory acts aimed at defining and punishing corruption offences. One example is the adoption of an Anti-Corruption Act, which sets out specific measures for combating corruption in different spheres, from public procurement to electoral procedures.
Establishing liability for concealing corruption. It is important to provide for liability for the failure to disclose instances of corruption, both for those who directly commit the offences and for those who turn a blind eye to them or help to cover up the traces.
Transparency in the activity of public authorities. The introduction of mandatory public reporting on the activities of state bodies and their funding, and openness of data on state contracts and on officials' expenditure and income, helps to reduce the scope for corruption, since citizens and the media can monitor these processes.
Introducing mechanisms of public oversight. The creation of independent oversight and monitoring bodies, such as anti-corruption commissions and public councils, together with the use of international monitoring standards and anti-kickback systems (for example, electronic tendering systems), helps to ensure transparency in public administration.
Judicial independence. A crucial aspect is the creation of a court system free from political pressure, which promotes the fair investigation and punishment of those engaged in corruption. The effectiveness with which anti-corruption laws are applied depends on the independence of the courts.
Strengthening law enforcement bodies. Specialised law enforcement agencies such as anti-corruption bureaux, prosecutors' offices and investigative committees must possess the necessary powers and resources to investigate corruption offences. These bodies must work effectively, without allowing corrupt elements to influence their work.
Ethical means of combating corruption comprise measures aimed at changing behaviour and culture in society, focusing on moral aspects, responsibility and social values. These methods play an important role in building long-term resilience in the fight against corruption by reducing its acceptability and prevalence in society.
Education and public awareness. The most important ethical means of combating corruption is the education and upbringing of citizens in a spirit of honesty, respect for the law and responsibility. The inclusion of courses on human rights, anti-corruption law and social responsibility in school and university curricula helps to instil in young people the conviction that corruption is unacceptable.
Public campaigns and civil society initiatives. Anti-corruption public initiatives and campaigns help to raise citizens' awareness of the consequences of corruption. Educational programmes and information campaigns can help to establish honesty, openness and responsibility as values within society.
Upholding honest standards of conduct. State bodies and private companies should implement a policy of zero tolerance for corruption, including the adoption of codes of ethics and the development of internal regulations and procedures aimed at preventing corrupt acts.
Leading by example. Leaders at all levels must set a personal example. This means that policy at the highest levels of power must be consistent in demonstrating the fight against corruption through their own conduct. It is important that high-profile anti-corruption cases in the upper echelons of power be public and transparent.
Civic engagement and participation in legal initiatives. The active participation of citizens in anti-corruption initiatives — for example, through filing complaints, taking part in elections or supporting initiatives to reform legislation — creates an atmosphere of hostility towards corrupt practices.
Encouraging moral norms and self-restraint. Citizens' personal participation in anti-corruption programmes and ethical self-restraint, whereby each person recognises their role in the system of combating corruption, can play an important part in preventing corruption at the level of the individual.
Anti-corruption standards in business. Companies should implement their own anti-corruption codes and staff training programmes and develop internal control mechanisms in order to prevent corruption in the private sector.
Upholding corporate values. Moral leadership and the introduction of high standards of honesty and responsibility into corporate culture are also an important element in combating corruption. Companies that do not encourage corruption and that openly uphold ethical principles can become an example for others.
Conclusion
Legal and ethical means of combating corruption complement one another. Legislative and law enforcement measures are important for detecting, punishing and preventing corruption offences, whereas ethical practices play a key role in shaping an anti-corruption culture and moral norms in society. The combined use of these approaches can significantly reduce the level of corruption and create a sustainable system oriented towards fairness, openness and effectiveness at all levels of society.
Below we present original, provocative and experimental approaches that have been discussed or applied in various countries, including hypothetical ideas.
The idea: to make corruption economically unprofitable.
How this might work:
Introduce a "corruption tax" — anyone who reports receiving a bribe and pays 10× its amount avoids criminal prosecution.
"Legalised bribes": create an official register of "expediting payments" with a progressive rate. The higher the sum, the greater the tax, the fine and the publicity — and the less point there is in paying.
Paradoxical effect: bribes become too expensive and too risky, which makes the system self-cleansing.
The idea: to change society's symbols.
Example:
Advertising campaigns along the lines of "Only losers pay bribes".
Media portrayals of "anti-heroes" — those who were caught — and "heroes" — those who refused.
Creating an image in which "honesty is the new elite", where refusing a bribe = prestige, status, coolness.
Result: a fight waged not through fear, but through social fashion.
The idea: create a digital game (or platform) in which society "rates" officials.
Every citizen can give an official an integrity rating, much as one rates a driver on Uber.
An algorithm identifies "anomalous" connections and spikes in trust.
Officials with high ratings receive bonuses (for example, additional leave or privileges).
The aim: to make honesty more profitable than corruption.
The idea: move the state apparatus onto a system of transparent finances.
All expenditures by civil servants, business trips and bonuses are published in real time (in the form of a blockchain).
Anyone can see where every last kopeck goes.
The effect: corruption becomes technologically difficult and leaves far too many traces.
The idea: make corruption an object of public ridicule.
Sketches, comedy shows and satirical series in which the corrupt official is a clown rather than a "skilful fixer".
Examples: anti-corruption stand-up comedy, festivals of "honest people".
The result: ridicule turns corruption into socially unacceptable behaviour.
The idea: allow every official "one bribe a year", with mandatory publication of its amount.
The system destroys itself, because "official" bribes become public, while any attempt to conceal a second one is punishable.
A paradoxical mechanism that ridicules the very idea of "concessions".
The aim: to expose the absurdity of corruption through its formalization.
The idea: eliminate the source of corruption — the human being.
Automation of all permits and certificates (AI bureaucracy).
Artificial intelligence does not take bribes and does not "do favours".
The problem: the developers and custodians of the code and systems can be bribed.
A real-world example: Estonia — e-government that all but eliminates personal contact.
The idea: tolerate petty corruption so that it crowds out large-scale corruption.
"Controlled corruption" — like a vaccine against a disease.
Establish small permissible incentives (for example, a gratuity for expediting a process) while cracking down hard on major cases.
The result: the system becomes more stable, and "survival bribes" turn into a regulated service.
The idea: use "false bribes" as a detection tool.
Citizens may offer "test" bribes and receive a reward if the official accepts.
Example: deploying actors as decoys or digital "traps".
The result: an atmosphere of distrust makes a bribe a risk rather than a benefit.
The idea: education through emotional impact.
School courses: "How a bribe destroys — a simulation using a city as an example".
VR games in which you play a corrupt official and watch your city, the economy and your family collapse.
The effect: the formation of an emotional aversion to the mechanism itself.
A table showing an implementation example, advantages, disadvantages, legal or ethical considerations and an approximate assessment of feasibility.
|
№ |
Method |
Type of impact |
Implementation example (actual/hypothetical) |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
Ethics / legality |
Feasibility assessment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1 |
"Making bribes more expensive" / controlled legalization |
Economic, legal |
A tax/fine on documented bribes; a register of "facilitation payments" (hypothetical) |
Makes corruption economically unprofitable; transparency |
May legitimize wrongdoing; difficult to enforce |
Risk of legalizing a crime; requires legislative amendments |
Low — politically sensitive |
|
2 |
Promoting the message that bribes are costly; "honesty is style" |
Cultural-psychological, communicative |
Advertising campaigns, media programmes, influencers, awards for the honest |
Changes social norms; long-term effect |
The effect is gradual; requires resources and time |
Ethically acceptable; the honesty of the campaigns matters |
Moderate |
|
3 |
Gamification (ratings of officials) |
Socio-technological |
A ratings platform, citizen reviews, bonuses for high ratings |
Transparency, public engagement, rapid feedback |
Manipulation of ratings; privacy risks |
Data protection is needed; reputations may be distorted |
Moderate — depends on the design |
|
4 |
Open money (a public register of expenditures) |
Technological, transparency |
Publication of budget transactions in real time (blockchain/portal) |
Reduces opportunities for concealment; verifiability |
Substantial technical requirements; staff privacy |
Freedom of information legislation; personal data protection |
High — given the political will |
|
5 |
Corruption theatre / satire |
Cultural-communicative |
Comedy shows, satirical series, "honesty" festivals |
Lowers the prestige of corruption; mass effect |
May not reach the target audience; a fine line to walk |
Ethically permissible; it is important to avoid defamation |
Moderate |
|
6 |
"Corruption quotas" (ironic formalization) |
Ironic, demonstrative |
Formally permitting "one public bribe" a year, with publication (hypothetical) |
Exposes the absurdity; may demotivate covert corruption |
Risk of normalization; legally problematic |
Almost certainly unlawful; more a provocation than a policy |
Low |
|
7 |
Automation of services (eliminating personal contact) |
Technological, procedural |
Fully electronic issuance of permits, applications submitted through systems (example: Estonia) |
Reduces personal contact — fewer opportunities for bribes |
Difficulties with the digital divide; software vulnerabilities |
Legality depends on regulation; testing is required |
High — proven in practice |
|
8 |
The evolutionary approach (regulating petty corruption) |
Regulatory, behavioural |
Legalizing small "flexible" payments while firmly suppressing large-scale schemes (hypothetical) |
Reduces the pervasive shadow economy; focuses on major abuses |
Hard to draw the line; risk of enriching low-level corruption |
Contentious from both a moral and a legal standpoint |
Low — risky |
|
9 |
Sting operations and traps (operational methods) |
Counter-intelligence, law enforcement |
Sting operations, undercover agents, digital honeypots |
Effectively uncovers instances of corruption |
Risk of abuse, entrapment and legal disputes |
Sensitive from a human rights standpoint; requires oversight |
Moderate — given strong oversight safeguards |
|
10 |
Education and VR simulations (emotional learning) |
Educational, psychological |
Courses, simulations and VR games demonstrating the consequences of corruption |
Fosters a negative attitude toward corruption; effective in the long term |
Long payback period; requires content and funding |
Ethically permissible; requires balance and a scientific basis |
Moderate |
Corruption prevention is a comprehensive set of activities aimed at forestalling the emergence of corrupt practices in various spheres of society and public administration. It encompasses prophylactic work, the creation of an anti-corruption environment, and a system of measures that help reduce corruption to minimal levels. Corruption prevention matters both for maintaining effective state institutions and for building an honest and transparent environment in business and society.
Effective corruption prevention at the state level requires a clear anti-corruption strategy comprising a set of measures to combat corruption. This may include:
Transparency in the work of government bodies is an important aspect of corruption prevention. Openness of government processes reduces the scope for corruption, since it makes manipulating officials' decisions and actions difficult. Measures include:
One of the key methods of preventing corruption is educating and raising awareness among citizens, public servants, and business people about the harm corruption causes. Training programmes should aim to:
Establishing effective anti-corruption mechanisms inside government bodies and organisations helps avoid corruption. This includes:
Protecting those who report corruption plays an important role in preventing criminal acts. This includes:
The independence of law enforcement and oversight bodies is the foundation of effective corruption prevention. Anti-corruption bureaus and similar structures, for example, must operate free of political interference and have sufficient resources and powers to conduct investigations.
It is important to institute a policy of zero tolerance towards corruption both within the state apparatus and in the private sector. This may include:
One effective method of preventing corruption is requiring officials and executives to declare their income and personal assets. This makes it possible to build a system of external monitoring of public servants' financial position and to detect possible discrepancies.
Corruption often flourishes in societies with low trust in state institutions and where corrupt practices are regarded as the norm. It is important to:
Modern information technologies can play an important role in preventing corruption by simplifying administrative procedures and reducing the scope for manipulation. This may include:
Using electronic platforms for submitting applications and reports helps reduce the human factor in decision-making and makes processes more transparent and accountable. Examples include online platforms for filing declarations and digital systems for obtaining permits and licences.
Preventing corruption requires cooperation between countries and international organisations. This includes:
Many countries facing corruption can obtain assistance and guidance from international organisations such as the World Bank, the UN, and others in order to reform legal systems, improve institutions, and raise the overall effectiveness of governance.
Corruption prevention is not a one-off measure but a long-term process that requires a comprehensive approach and the involvement of all strata of society, including state structures, business, and citizens. Building an anti-corruption environment, strengthening oversight, increasing personal accountability, using modern technologies, and pursuing international cooperation together create a solid basis for minimising corruption. Only in combination with legal and ethical measures can sustainable results be achieved in combating corruption at all levels.
Anti-corruption review of regulatory legal acts is the process of assessing legislative initiatives and acts in force for their conformity with anti-corruption standards. The principal aim of such review is to identify and eliminate provisions that could create conditions for corruption, and to prevent new corruption risks from appearing in legislation.
The main aims of anti-corruption review are:
Anti-corruption review is conducted on the basis of a number of principles that help achieve effective identification and elimination of corruption risks:
Review must be carried out independently of interested parties, including government bodies, lobby groups, and other actors that might seek to influence its results. This requires the creation of specialised bodies or the engagement of independent experts to perform the review.
The results of anti-corruption review must be publicly available to a wide audience, including citizens and legal entities. This helps build confidence in the process and ensures transparency in legislative activity.
Anti-corruption review must take into account all possible aspects of a regulatory act's impact on social relations, including social, economic, and political consequences, and must also draw on international experience and standards.
Review must extend to all regulatory legal acts capable of affecting opportunities for corruption, including laws, subordinate acts, administrative instructions, orders, and so on.
The process of anti-corruption review can be divided into several stages:
At this stage it is determined which specific regulatory acts are subject to review. The methodology and approaches to be used in assessing the acts for corruption risks are also defined. Working groups may be formed for this purpose, comprising lawyers, economists, sociologists, and legal experts.
At this stage an in-depth analysis of the regulatory act itself is carried out:
Textual analysis: wordings that could allow ambiguous interpretation and thus lead to corrupt practices are assessed. Examples include vague or unclear definitions that could be used for manipulation.
Analysis of the procedure by which the act was adopted: it is assessed how the regulatory act was adopted — whether all procedures relating to public discussion and consultation with experts and stakeholders were observed.
Assessment of the provisions' impact on corruption risks: possible corruption risks associated with specific provisions of the document are identified. For example, provisions granting excessive powers to particular individuals or bodies without adequate accompanying controls.
After analysing the content of the act, experts forecast how its adoption or amendment will affect the level of corruption in the relevant field. This also includes modelling the possible corruption schemes that could arise on the basis of the proposed provisions.
On the basis of the analysis
продолжение следует...
Часть 1 Corruption: its nature, types, causes and the principal strategies for countering it
Часть 2 Business corruption and everyday corruption. - Corruption: its nature, types,
Часть 3 Public education work with people of different ages and social
Часть 4 See also - Corruption: its nature, types, causes and the
Comments