'What works and why in community-based anti-corruption programs'

More documents

Recommendations

Info

What works and why in community-based anti-corruption programsthese programs’ ability to meet their goals? What were the positive influences on the variousprograms? Are these influences repeated across different programs, or is a program’s success builtentirely on a local context?Identifying what has enabled or positively influenced the achievements of a particular anti-corruptionprogram is crucial when considering the program’s transferability to a new location or context. Oncethe required ‘factors’ for a program to work – the positive influences on the program without which theprogram would not succeed – are understood, a different location or environment can be evaluated forthe presence (or absence) of these factors. This will offer some indication as to whether a successfulprogram in one setting is viable in a new and different location. As every community and society isdifferent, the presence and degree of enabling factors for an anti-corruption program will vary from onelocation to another. Understanding a local setting and determining which factors for program successare present will greatly assist in adapting anti-corruption programs to suit a prevailing environment.One analysis that explores specific enabling factors for success in anti-corruption programs is theindependent evaluation of Transparency International’s Advocacy and Legal Advice Centres(McCarthy 2005). McCarthy’s report noted that for the advice centres to be successful, certainconditions needed to ‘ripe’. McCarthy carefully considered what these optimum conditions might be,looking inwards to the attributes of the organisations operating the centres (in this case the localTransparency International Chapter), and looking out towards the external political, social and culturalenvironment. McCarthy referred to these as ‘internal’ and ‘external’ factors, and suggested that acombination of internal and external factors were critical to creating an enabling environment for theanti-corruption program.This research expands on McCarthy’s framework of internal and external factors, and examines whatwere the enabling factors for success across a range of different community-based anti-corruptionprograms. This analysis also asks if any factors for success are repeated across numerous programs.This will assist in determining what (if any) enabling factors should be considered critical and essentialfor all of the community-based anti-corruption programs investigated.AusAID Anti-corruption strategyThe Australian Government AusAID 2006 White Paper 1 announced the preparation of a new strategyto guide Australian aid programs countering corruption. The strategy will include law and justice, andeconomic and fiscal management programs, both complemented through a raft of programs fosteringbottom-up demand for transparency and anti-corruption. This will include direct support for anticorruptionorganisations in partner countries.Traditionally donors, including AusAID, have been more comfortable in the zone of ‘supply-side’programs, offering financial resources, training, technical assistance and external advisors to build andsupport a quantity of top-down mechanisms and institutions to counter corruption. As AusAIDconsiders how to better support demand-led initiatives against corruption, Transparency Internationalis presented with an opportunity to offer recommendations on what works and why in communitybased anti-corruption programs.Given the Australian aid program has a significant interest in the Pacific region, this research hasconsidered how lessons learnt from successful community based anti-corruption programs could beapplied in a Pacific context. Section 6 outlines six case studies recommended for further research andconsideration for piloting in the Pacific.2.3 MethodologyResearch commenced with a review of Transparency International toolkits and documented casestudies of community-based anti-corruption programs. This was followed by search of allTransparency International chapter websites for further examples of community based anti-corruption1 AusAID, 2006, Australia Aid: Promoting Growth and Stability, A White Paper on the AustralianGovernment’s Overseas Aid Program.- 10 -
What works and why in community-based anti-corruption programsprograms. The researcher also directly contacted Transparency International chapters and groups inthe Asia and Pacific regions by email and phone. Other NGOs and community organisations involvedin anti-corruption activities were also contacted.There was also a field trip to visit the Transparency International Advocacy and Legal Advice Centresin Azerbaijan and participate in an international workshop on the opportunities for replicating thisprogram in other countries. This field trip gave the opportunity to visit an Advocacy and Legal AdviceCentre, meet with program staff and volunteers, discuss the program with clients and also discuss theprogram with donors. The workshop involved program staff from over a dozen countries currentlyrunning an Advocacy and Legal Advice Centres. This was a rare opportunity to speak to programcoordinators implementing a successful community program in different social and political contexts,and highlighted that certain factors for the success of the Advocacy and Legal Advice Centres wereconsistent across different countries and communities.The criterion for ‘successful’ community anti-corruption programs was at the discretion of theimplementing organisations. Most organisations declared success on the basis of meeting their projector program’s goals and objectives. Some case studies also highlighted unexpected accomplishmentsthat were deviations from the original strategy, but nevertheless were achievements in fightingcorruption. The measure of success was a subjective perception of success, given that this researchcould not undertake an objective measure of effectiveness or impact or affect on curbing corruption.Except for the field work on the Advocacy and Legal Advice Centres there was also no opportunity toassess community views and attitudes towards the various programs. Where possible organisationsdid share critical evaluations of their programs. However the short time frame for the research gavelittle limited opportunity for building relationships with the various organisations approached. Thismeant that independent evaluations and critiques of programs, often prepared for internal use withprogram stakeholders were not made readily available.Not all anti-corruption organisations contacted currently conduct or support community based anticorruptionprograms. Of the organisations and groups who do have community programs,approximately 60% were available to respond to requests for in-depth phone interviews. The majorityof the respondents were staff (directors, program coordinators and technical advisors) with somevolunteer board members also responding. Some organisations unavailable for phone interviews wereable to answer questions and share evaluations of their programs by email. The email and phoneinterviews were semi-formal with a minimum set of standard questions but in most cases, informalfollow up conversations were more informative than the initial interviews. Two case studies have beenpresented on the basis of previous assessments and analysis.The case studies selected for this report have been given a simple comparative assessment as to thefactors and pre-conditions for their success. This was to establish if certain preconditions and factorsfor success were consistent across the programs, or if catalysts for success were wholly unique toeach program’s circumstances.2.4 Assumptions and limitations of researchPrimarily due to the limited time frame, there have been some unavoidable assumptions andlimitations in the research. This investigation is hopefully a first step in a longer process of discussionand learning on what works and why in community based anti-corruption programs. To challenge theassumptions and assess and verify the conclusions, further research will be necessary.• Uncritical approach to notion of communityThe greatest assumption in this research is the uncritical reference to community. There has been noopportunity for this research to challenge individual case studies’ interpretation of community, orassess individual community relations or power structures. Defining the ‘boundaries’ of community isalso important (Mansuri and Rao 2004), but there was no opportunity for a thorough investigation thatcould determine community borders or investigate if people at the borders – the poor, marginalised,excluded people – were involved in the various programs.- 11 -
Page 1 and 2: TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL AUSTRALI
Page 4 and 5: What works and why in community-bas

'What works and why in community-based anti-corruption programs'

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?