International approaches to tackling corruption: what works and what doesn't?

• Author: Dan Hough
• Pages: 339-354

FRONTIERS OF LAW IN CHINA

VOL. 12 SEPTEMBER 2017 NO. 3

DOI 10.3868/s050-006-017-0019-5

FOCUS

ANTI-CORRUPTION: AN INTERNATIONAL AFFAIR WITH DOMESTIC EFFORTS

INTERNATIONAL APPROACHES TO TACKLING CORRUPTION: WHAT WORKS AND

WHAT DOESN’T?

Dan Hough*

Abstract A well-developed set of international anti-corruption tools now exists. These

range from broad conventions to focused initiatives in specific policy areas. This article

argues that international agreements work best when they are focused and they speak to

the common interests of the parties involved. Solutions need to be creative, they need to

bring in a broad coalition of stakeholders and they need to be focused on specific

problems. International agreements need to help states with good quality institutions of

governance focus on developing transparency initiatives, accountability drives and

nuanced efforts to tackle particular national variants of “legal corruption.” In countries

with patchy institutions of governance the scope for international influence is broader,

while in states with serious governance challenges the best international anti-corruption

efforts will often have surprisingly little to do with corruption at all. In a state where the

rule of law is patchy or non-existent then anti-corruption laws (or indeed laws more

generally) mean very little. The challenge here is to improve the basic tools of

governance in the knowledge that only then can the issue of corruption be brought on to

the agenda.

Keywords corruption, anti-corruption, UNCAC, OECD, transparency

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 340

I. ZERO-TOLERANCE, ZERO PROGRESS?..................................................................... 340

II. INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND THE ANTI-CORRUPTION AGENDA............. 341

A. The UNCAC....................................................................................................... 341

B. The OECD .........................................................................................................342

C. Regional Anti-Corruption Initiatives ................................................................344

1. The European Union ......................................................................................344

2. Other Regional Initiatives.............................................................................. 345

III. FINANCIAL ACTION TASK FORCE.......................................................................... 346

* Dan Hough, Ph.D. in Politics, Department of German Studies, University of Birmingham, Birmingham,

UK; Professor, Department of Politics, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK. Contact: d.t.hough@sussex.ac.uk

340 FRONTIERS OF LAW IN CHINA [Vol. 12: 339

IV. EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES’ TRANSPARENCY INITIATIVE ........................................ 347

V. THE SHIPPING AND MARITIME INITIATIVE.............................................................. 348

VI. THE TRANSPARENCY CHALLENGE........................................................................ 349

IV. PUBLIC EXPENDITURE TRACKING SURVEYS ......................................................... 350

CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................ 352

INTRODUCTION

Given the amount of time and effort spent analyzing corruption in recent years it

should come as no surprise that there are a wide variety of potential remedies on the

market. Indeed, the world is most certainly not suffering from a dearth of toolkits, action

plans, agreements, conventions, treaties and agendas for change. The aim of this article is

not to unpack every anti-corruption option available, but rather to look at the evidence for

what seems to work, what does not and how one could learn from both sets of outcomes.

It focuses on international attempts to tackle corruption as well as initiatives that have an

international resonance. To be blunt, the evidence that genuine progress has been made in

tackling corruption is disappointingly thin on the ground. There is subsequently a case

both for re-thinking what we think might work and also for assessing what indeed

“success” might mean.

I. ZERO-TOLERANCE, ZERO PROGRESS?

For starters, any anti-corruption attempt that claims to want to eradicate corruption or

indeed to adopt a “zero-tolerance approach” should be treated with more than a dose of

scepticism. The aims are too grand and, quite frankly, incompatible with the rough and

tumble of everyday life. Corruption will often be deeply embedded in given social and

political practices and will be part of complex and ever-changing power relationships.

That is as true in the UK as it is in China. That is all before any consensus has been

reached as to what exactly the problem is and what needs to be done to put it right. The

specific aims of anti-corruption efforts, in other words, need to be carefully defined.

Reforms often take a long time to work, they need a modicum of good fortune along

the way and can be “a lot more messy and acrimonious” than is generally anticipated.1

One-size-fits-all policies, even of the most apparently obvious nature, can be

counterproductive. Carefully designed strategies that are focused on local contexts and

specific problems are very much the order of the day — even if they, too, fail from time

to time as well.

That may sound rather pessimistic. But there are also grounds for optimism. Not

optimism of the “corruption can be swept away” variety, but on the grounds that there are

1 Michael Johnston, Political Will or Political Won’t, 7(2) International Affairs Forum, 16 (2016). See also

Michael Johnston, Corruption, Contention, and Reform: The Power of Deep Democratization, Cambridge

University Press (Cambridge), (2013).