What is the actual desired outcome of this intervention? Is it tackling corruption, or is it something else?
The aim of Step 1 is to help users think through whether or not the primary goal is to fight corruption (for corruption’s sake), or if there is instead a desired outcome that corruption is preventing. In other words, is fighting corruption the end, or is it the means?
Effective anti-corruption interventions are likely to be those that align action with motivation. The worst motivation, of course, is when ‘fighting corruption’ is motivated by the need to be seen to be ‘doing something’ about corruption, whether it’s due to political pressure or the demands of external funders (who may themselves be motivated by their own political pressures) and so on. Motivation is really about having a vision for what specifically will be different if corruption is effectively tackled.
Effective anti-corruption interventions are also those that have the right people in the room. If the desired outcome is reducing frontline bribery in the health sector, for example, then people in the room would need to include health officials, law enforcement, ombudsmen etc. But what if the actual desired outcome is improving clinic-level health outcomes? This would need patients’ representatives and health care unions to be in the room, but probably not law enforcement.
Getting this wrong is common in anti-corruption interventions: unmotivated actors lack political incentives to make often difficult choices; the wrong people in the room can lead to designs that don’t focus on the right things. And not having a clear understanding of the underlying vision can lead to competing goals; for example, when it comes to fighting corruption in the illicit wildlife trade, is the primary motivation conservation, or is it supporting rural livelihoods? These are different – and not always aligned - objectives that require different approaches to tackling corruption.
The following questions should help bring clarity on motivation and objectives, an essential starting point in any intervention, anti-corruption or otherwise.
Questions
- If you were successful in tackling corruption through your intervention what is the specific outcome you want to achieve? What is your motivation?
- Are you worried about evidence of harms, such as violence, reduced social and political trust, a lack of social cohesion, etc?
- Are you worried about the drag on growth?
- Are you worried about links to serious organised crime and security?
- Are you worried about the differential impact on the poor?
- Is your motivation intrinsic, e.g., you can only achieve your outcome if something is done about corruption, or is it extrinsic, e.g., are you required to do so for some reason? Is tackling corruption the means or is it the end?
Some sub-questions to get you started:
In other words, are you clear on how — and why — you need to tackle corruption and what this will achieve?
Aligning action with motivation when tackling customs bribery
Imagine you’ve been asked to develop a plan to reduce border and customs bribery. This is an example of a typical starting point for an anti-corruption intervention, and this is also why so many fail to deliver results.
Why – specifically – is this a problem? Are bribes decreasing trade levels and making it difficult to attract investment? Are bribes hurting vulnerable groups, such as women selling vegetables in informal markets? Are bribes facilitating the illicit flow of arms and drugs, leading to increased violence and instability? Is it a combination?
While the problem – customs bribery – is the same, the motivations are very different. This is important because designing an effective intervention for each of these requires different actors in the room and different resource levels – even if some of the actual activities could end up being quite similar. They’re also likely to face different technical and political challenges: tackling the illicit drugs trade is significantly more difficult than the others, even if widespread customs bribery is a problem identified in all scenarios.