OECD survey of public sector corruption
Status of actions on twelve prevention measures tabulated.

Executive Summary

Corruption in government and public administration is a complex and pervasive phenomenon. In governance terms, corruption threatens democratic public institutions by permitting the influence of improper interests on the use of public resources and power, and by undermining the confidence of citizens in the legitimate activities of state.

Internationally, there is a growing awareness that sound governance plays an important role in effective action against corruption. This survey provides an overview of the measures that 15 OECD Member countries (Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland) are currently using to protect their domestic public institutions against corruption, and finding to be effective.

Countries were invited to describe the corruption prevention mechanisms they have in place by responding to a list based on mechanisms reported in the previous study. Underlying an apparent uniformity of measures across the surveyed countries are a variety of institutions and processes, suggesting that while OECD countries concentrate efforts on particular areas, issues or phenomena, they are employing multiple methodologies to do so.

When asked to identify their most effective mechanisms against corruption, most countries advocated the use of more than one type of mechanism. Nevertheless, law enforcement, investigation and control measures with strong sanctions attached were regarded by most countries as essential to preventing corruption. These were followed by preventive and educative approaches such as financial and management controls and training.

Among the new initiatives against corruption reported by countries, moves to increase administrative transparency stood out as the most popular. In particular, obliging public officials to declare financial and other interests incompatible with public duty was most frequently cited.

A new direction is discernible in the interest shown by some countries in streamlining excessive or irrelevant regulation, targeting high-risk areas of government activity, and ensuring more effective financial and banking regulation. This kind of approach -- looking beyond individual corrupt transactions to the conditions that allow corruption to develop -- represents a major shift in emphasis for many countries.

A complementary change of emphasis is evident in the wider range of policy areas that countries are drawing on to counter corruption. All reporting countries referred to aspects of crime and justice administration in their responses, but other policy areas seen as relevant to corruption prevention included public administration, regulatory management, and finance (for example, competition policy and tax policy).

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS: Summary of Mechanisms

Suggested mechanisms

BEL

CHE

CZE

DEU

ESP

FRA

GRC

HUN

IRL

ITA

JPN

KOR

MEX

POL

SWE

a

Primary regulation proscribing corruption and establishing sanctions

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

b

Other anti-corruption regulation

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

c

Oversight by legislature or parliament

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

d

Bodies with power to investigate corruption

x

x

x

x

-

x

x

x

x

x

-

x

x

x

x

e

Supreme financial audit authority

x

x

-

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

f

Ombudsman *

x

-

-

x

x

x

x

x

x

-

-

x

x

x

x

g

Specialised bodies to prosecute corruption

-

-

-

-

x

x

x

-

-

x

-

-

x

-

-

h

Human resources management procedures

-

x

-

+

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

i

Financial management controls

x

x

+

+

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

j

Organisational management policies, controls

x

x

-

+

x

x

x

x

x

+

x

x

x

x

x

k

Transparency mechanisms

x

x

x

+

x

x

x

x

x

x

-

x

x

x

x

l

Guidance and training for public officials

-

x

-

+

x

x

x

x

x

+

x

x

x

x

x

x Yes; - No; + proposed or under consideration

* also called Médiateur (BEL, FRA); Parliamentary Committee on Petitions (DEU); Public Grievances Commission (KOR); Citizen’s Advocate (GRC); Peoples’ Defender (ESP).

This table provides a snapshot of the anti-corruption mechanisms reported by the surveyed countries. Underlying the apparent uniformity are a variety of institutions and systems that countries have identified as relevant to the prevention of public sector corruption according to their own circumstances.

Because the reporting countries were encouraged to apply the suggested categories of mechanisms to their domestic priorities and systems, some explanation is needed to interpret the results of the survey, and the reported mechanisms are described in more detail in the following paragraphs. An example of this is the role of an ombudsman, which exists in most reporting countries, although not all use the same terminology. Differences among legal systems and public administration structures were also influential. In some cases the suggested categories of mechanisms were interpreted more broadly than in others, with the result that some countries have included the effects of general legal provisions and government policy on corruption prevention.

Since similar issues were covered in reports from nine Member countries (Australia, Finland, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States) for the 1996 study Ethics in the Public Service: Current Issues and Practice, the relevant findings from that study are acknowledged in this report and are discussed in relation to this survey in the section on "Developing Issues".

The trends evident from the two studies show that increasing transparency and strengthening sanctions and controls are favoured by a majority of the 23 countries. Among the secondary measures, guidance and enhancing expertise and awareness through specialisation and training were frequently mentioned in both studies. The Table above gives a summary of anti-corruption mechanisms reported by the countries in this survey.

Given the combination of uniform trends across so many countries and new policy directions, the information reported here can help policymakers identify future policy options.

Back to Institute of Ethics and Economic Policy