Step 1 – Analyse the specific corruption types
Add to reading list
Read our guidance to sector-specific corruption types below. Navigation is via the Contents list on the sidebar to the left. Or you can download a complete copy of this Guidance to STEP 1 as a pdf document to read separately:
We suggest you start by listing the different corruption types that you are faced with.
- Look at the template of sector corruption types
- Select or delete these according to your situation
- Gather available data. We suggest that you do this first in a broad way, to get a sense of which issues are big or small across the sector, across countries, across different regions. Then, gather available data at the micro level, local to you
- Decide if it would help to do a formal analysis of the corruption types and levels of corruption risk. This takes time but gives you a thorough baseline for your reforms. It also serves to show the level of danger and damage from corruption to staff and to the public
- Consider doing an analysis of the levels of support and opposition that you can expect. This is called a ‘political economy analysis’.
Prepare for the later step in which you develop your strategy (Step 4) by thinking about which the best ‘entry points’ are likely to be – certain corruption types, regardless of scale, merit being tackled first because they are the most likely to build momentum and/or enable further reform. This choice of starting point is hugely context dependent.
AUTHOR AND CONTRIBUTORS
The originating author of ‘Analyse the specific corruption types’ is Mark Pyman, managing editor of CurbingCorruption.
Most corruption analysis has been done at national level. This has a major drawback – nations are complex, and corruption is multi-faceted, so it is hard if not impossible for the reforms to be well targeted. Working at sector level allows the detailed corruption issues and the political dynamics to be unpacked, so that remedial work can be focused at an appropriate scale and level of detail. Our experience – and belief – is that the differences between sectors are large and significant. These sector differences are often bigger than the corruption differences between one country and another.
Working within a sector also allows the reformers to share problems and solutions within their sector across regions and countries. There are international professional links within most disciplines – the medical profession, policing, education, agriculture, telecoms, banking, etc – all have multiple forums where professionals in that sector get together. Common ways to tackle corruption form a natural part of those discussions. Several sectors have already started down this path, with active sector-specific international collaborations, such as in mining, in defence and in education.
What is a ’sector’? Read more
Corruption is not one phenomenon, but many different sorts of abuse, minor and major, all aggregated together. Differentiation between the different types of corruption is essential in order to tailor the reform measures to the specific problem. For example, in policing, there will be various forms of corruption at a high political level, such as allowing organised crime in specific areas or ensuring that independent oversight is permanently weak; corruption in the management of the police service, such as improperly promoting some officers or permitting officers to stay in lucrative positions; corruption and lack of integrity in personal behaviour, such as evidence tampering or demanding illegal fines; and so on. Similar differentiation exists in every sector.
How we differentiate different corruption types – Read more
In making these differentiations we have to strike a balance between defining a ‘reasonable’ number of distinct corruption types whilst not making the number unmanageably large. We end up with between 10 and 50 in each sector, with the typical number being 30 corruption types. These are then grouped into 5 or 6 different categories, such as corruption at policy level, corruption related to finance and budgets, corruption related to field operations or service delivery, corruption related to the management of personnel and corruption types related to procurement.
You will see the typology for each sector within that sector review, or you can get a good idea of them by taking a look at some of them here. Usually we present them both as a table – where each one is described, and as a one-page diagram, which we find is very easily assimilated by people in that sector.
Here are typologies from six sectors. More details are found in the relevant Sector review.
Example: Education corruption typology – Expand here
Example: Policing corruption typology – Expand here
Example: Health corruption typology – Expand here
Example: Higher Education corruption typology - Expand here
Example: Construction project corruption typology (from U4) - Expand here
Example: Land corruption typology - Expand here
Doing such an analysis can be a two-hour exercise or it can be a six month one. The quick way is always attractive. Your own staff are usually well aware of the corruption issues, often with extensive experience of working in large, complex, bureaucratic environments. Hence, they are likely to be the best informed about what the corruption problems are, which ones can be tackled, and which ones need to be left for later. You might give them the list of corruption from the relevant sector review in CurbingCorruption and ask a group of them to analyse which are the more relevant ones and their relative importance. This simple approach has the advantage that you can quickly capture the ‘top of mind’ knowledge of your senior professionals. It has some disadvantages, notably that it is likely to focus on the more immediate issues.
In the mid-range, you may have specialist groups with extra knowledge, like internal audit groups, regulatory agencies and professional fraud groups. Together with external groups like community groups, private sector associations and civil society, you can get a more inclusive analysis done, still quite quickly. It has the same disadvantages as above.
At the most thorough end of the spectrum, you can get a detailed analysis done by groups with professional anti-corruption knowledge, if possible combined with sector expertise. These groups might sit within universities, or civil society, or think tanks. Such analyses are likely to take from two months to six months. In large initiatives, there are several analytical techniques you can consider, as mentioned below. There is also an obvious and often sizeable political advantage to having a thorough, independent analysis done of the corruption issues and risks. If you have time and funds, we recommend that you do a thorough analysis.
There are lots of different methodologies and names for corruption analysis tools, but they all do much the same thing. They aim to develop concrete insights regarding forms of corruption, the extent of each, and the vulnerabilities in the particular sector or agencies or functions. The purpose is to focus the application of practical prevention measures. They use a simple methodology. First, they identify the underlying laws, regulations, and guidelines governing the target agency or function.
Then, they identify the main processes; Identify key steps (both formal and informal) for each business process; Assess strengths and vulnerabilities to corruption of each step (based on weaknesses in the formal system and weaknesses in the capacity/ incentives to implement the formal system).
Then they make some estimation of the scale of each one, usually through survey information. They might be able to access existing surveys that provide information on the perceived scale of the corruption types, or they may commission a survey, or they may do their own. These can be small – a ‘straw poll’ of 50 people – or they can be large. One analysis that I have been involved in, of Education corruption in Afghanistan, developed its own survey data from 550 interviews.
Here are three such analysis techniques: Vulnerability to Corruption Analysis (VCA), Public expenditure tracking surveys (PETS) and Quantitative Service Delivery Surveys (QSDS). There are others that are more community based, such as citizen report cards.
Three formal corruption analysis techniques – Read more
Regarding the factors driving the corruption in each sector, you and your colleagues are likely to know the political and power context. It is valuable to consider this more formally. Who is gaining from each corruption type and why? Who might gain, who might lose from reducing corruption in this specific area? For each corruption type, who are your supporters are and who are the possible spoilers.
Doing such a ‘Political Economy Analysis’ means that these issues are laid out in a structured way and can help decide which corruption types you should address. It will also help when you put together the overall strategy that fits best with your specific context. This is discussed further in Step 3 – Develop your overall strategy.
Here are three simple guides to doing a political economy analysis. You can commission someone to do the analysis formally, or you can follow the steps yourself for an informal analysis.
- Hudson et al 2016 Everyday Political Analysis (EPA);
- Effective States and Inclusive Development Research Centre (ESID) 2015 Making political analysis useful: adjusting and scaling.
- Whaites 2017 The Beginners guide to Political Economy Analysis (PEA)
Whaites 2017 The beginners guide to political economy analysis (PEA)
This guide borrows from the best materials that are available while also adapting some approaches by incorporating wider ideas on politics and institutions. This guide affirms that there should never be an official `orthodoxy’ for PEA and so the emphasis here is on questions, prompts and ideas to help thinking and practice. The note instead focuses on `the essentials’ of PEA as they relate to the following questions: Why do we do political economy analysis, and what is it? What kinds of issues and ingredients are often included in a PEA? How do we make sense of the different varieties of PEA? What tools are out there to help us conduct a PEA? What is thinking and working politically?
Hudson Marquette and Waldock 2016 Everyday political analysis
This is a framework for thinking about politics and power called Everyday Political Analysis (EPA). EPA is for anyone who is convinced that politics and power matter, but feels less sure of how to work out what they mean for their programs.This note introduces a stripped-back political analysis framework – stripped down to its barest bones – leaving only the essentials needed to help frontline staff make quick but politically-informed decisions.
ESID 2015 Making political analysis useful - adjusting and scaling
There are three types of analysis – their purpose affects the questions to ask, the intended audience, or even their timing. 1) Agenda-setting analysis aims to establish a shared language and understanding. 2) Problem-solving analysis aims to increase rates of implementation. 3) Influencing analysis aims to develop a political strategy for change. The report encourages organisations to start small and be pragmatic.
If you want to go into more detail, look at the following:
- OECD 2015 A governance practitioner’s notebook: alternative ideas and approaches (on politics, public sector reform and stakeholder engagement); Tools for political economy analysis from the EU(2008).
- Hudson and Leftwich 2014 From political economy to political analysis; and
- World Bank 2008 The political economy of policy reform: Issues and implications for policy dialogue and development operations.
- Khan et al (2016) Anti-corruption in adverse contexts: a strategic approach.
Ang, Yuen Yuen (2014) Authoritarian restraints on on-line activism revisited. Why I-paid-a-bribe worked in India but failed in China. Comparative Politics 47(1), 21-40.
Effective States Institute and inclusive Development Research Centre (2015) Making political analysis useful: adjustment and scaling. http://www.effective-states.org/wp-content/uploads/briefing_papers/final-pdfs/esid_bp_12_PEA.pdf
European Commission (2008) Tools for political economy analysis. Annex A. https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiPiKnJ9cfcAhUQM8AKHaHXDswQFjAFegQIBhAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Feuropa.eu%2Fcapacity4dev%2Ffile%2F11174%2Fdownload%3Ftoken%3D1N9xFSAp&usg=AOvVaw0Lh07fhvF1zmLIK_pqM3Z0
Hudson, David, Marquette, Heather and Waldock, Sam (2016) Everyday political analysis. Development Leadership Program, January 2016. http://publications.dlprog.org/EPA.pdf
Khan, Mushtaq, Andreoni, Antonio, Roy, Pallavi (2016) Anti-corruption in adverse contexts: a strategic approach. SOAS Research Online. http://eprints.soas.ac.uk/23495/1/Anti-Corruption%20in%20Adverse%20Contexts%20%281%29.pdf
Whaites, Alan (2017) The beginners guide to political economy analysis. National School of Government international. https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=2ahUKEwj-psnT88fcAhXFRMAKHQNEBqwQFjABegQIAxAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sclr.stabilisationunit.gov.uk%2Fpublications%2Fthe-national-school-of-government-international-series%2F1248-the-beginners-guide-to-pea-1%2Ffile&usg=AOvVaw1PovIUJKNXfPV1dhMKOeG6