But do they work?
Hong Kong's Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), set up in 1974, is often held up as a key success story of the anti-corruption movement. It did indeed achieve great things from a difficult starting point, giving hope to other countries where corruption seems entrenched. But many other ACAs, in Argentina and Tanzania, for example, were frustrated by a lack of cooperation from parts of the government and judiciary.
ACAs only work if they have real power [1] - power to investigate, power to make other agencies cooperate with them, power to freeze assets, call witnesses and protect informants. They also need a clear mandate, and enough budget and autonomy to recruit specialised staff who are not vulnerable to corruption themselves.
The paradox then, is that ACAs rely on there being at least some acceptance of the rule of law, some functioning state institutions, and real political commitment to fight corruption. They are least likely to work in the countries that need them most.
References:
[1] Heilbrunn, J. (2004), "Anti-Corruption Commissions -- Panacea or Real Medicine to Fight Corruption?". World Bank Institute
The paradox then, is that ACAs rely on there being at least some acceptance of the rule of law, some functioning state institutions, and real political commitment to fight corruption. They are least likely to work in the countries that need them most.
References:
[1] Heilbrunn, J. (2004), "Anti-Corruption Commissions -- Panacea or Real Medicine to Fight Corruption?". World Bank Institute
No comments:
Post a Comment