Why we struggle to fight corruption
(Reason 2) Focusing on transparency and accountability
This approach is based on the principal-agent framework, which thinks of two parties; a principal, such as a voter who delegates authority and resources to an agent, typically a politician.
Transparency is meant to increase the knowledge available to the principal, so for example publishing the budget for all voters to see.
Accountability is meant to give power to the principal to punish cheating, so for example allowing voters to recall a corrupt politician.
Changes that focus on increasing transparency and accountability struggle to be effective in highly corrupt states because of two fundamental flaws — assuming that the principal (voters in our example) automatically want to stop corruption and that they have the real world power to stop it.
What if the principal is unprincipled?
In states with ‘tribal’ politics, people might overlook corruption if it favors their own group. At times, they not only anticipate corruption but also actively demand it, especially when they expect to benefit from it.
What if the principal is not strong enough?
In poor countries, where the power asymmetry can be too large, powerful politicians can manipulate judicial mechanisms and financially influence voters in elections.
Corruption can also happen higher up the food chain where the principal can be a politician who has delegated some authority and resources to his agents, the bureaucrats, to implement his manifesto.
This is usually the kind of corruption that some leaders tend to fight by doing unannounced site visits or using informal channels to gather information.
But again, transparency and accountability at this level of the chain may not yield much if the politician is not ethical or the bureaucracy is strong enough to arm twist or sabotage the politician.
In sum, research shows that transparency and accountability tend to work best where there is already a strong rule of law, no one has too much power over organisations or institutions and when corruption is already low. Otherwise, where corruption is endemic, people already know there is corruption and feel quite helpless in pushing back at it.
(Acknowledgements to Prof. Mushtaq Khan and the Anti-Corruption Effectiveness (ACE) research consortium based at SOAS, University of London)
