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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

What works and why in community-based anti-corruption programsOne assumption that is put aside through the diversity of case studies is the presumption thatcommunity is simple a geographic construct. To counter this notion there are lessons learnt fromprograms working with economic and social communities.• No independent assessment of successThe research has been obliged to be uncritical of the various program’s processes or achievements.The research largely relied on an organisation’s own assessments and evaluations of their programsalthough some programs did provide independent evaluations that indicated a reduction in corruptionin their target area. But for most activities there was also no opportunity to properly assess the impactof programs on reduction of corruption. Comparison of a program meeting its goals (a routine measureof success), and the wider impact on curbing corruption would be a vital next step for the short-listedprograms. Community-programs are not the panacea for addressing corruption and their limitationsneed to be better understood.• Limited consultation with community membersThere was only limited opportunity for field-based research which involved visiting and assessing theTransparency International Advocacy and Legal Advice Centre program of Azerbaijan. For all otherprograms there was no other opportunity to ask what worked and why from the perspective of otherstakeholders, most importantly community members themselves.• ‘Unsuccessful’ programs not discussed or analysedTo ask why is a program successful invites the question ‘what are unsuccessful programs’?Understanding the reasons why, even in optimal conditions, some programs don’t work can revealpertinent lessons for what not to do. However analysing what has been a designated failure, orperhaps simply unproductive, needs to be done with sensitivity and trust.There was insufficient time to build trusting relationships with program coordinators for them todisclose information about program ‘failures’. The next phase of research needs to invest time andeffort into building relationships with other anti-corruption organisations in order to discuss the reasonsbehind ‘unsuccessful’ programs. This will be crucial research because as noted above, the limitationsof community-based programs need to be better understood.• No forestry case studies discussedThe original terms of reference asked for a special focus on community programs addressingcorruption in forestry and fisheries industries, as these are two significant industries for Pacific Islandcountries, and also areas known to be prone to corruption. In this initial search for such programs, onlyone example of a successful community program working with fisher folk could be found andanalysed. No successful community-based anti-corruption forestry programs were available. Follow upresearch should be dedicated to looking for and analysing such sectoral programs.- 12 -
What works and why in community-based anti-corruption programs3. Case studies3.1 IntroductionThe 15 community-based anti-corruption programs examined in this research come from around theworld: from Bangladesh to Papua New Guinea, Indonesia to Bosnia. There are experiences ofdifferent Transparency International Chapters alongside programs from other anti-corruption groups,networks and organisations.This chapter briefly describes each program with a review of their results. Comparative analysis of thefactors and preconditions that fostered progress for these programs is further discussed in sectionfour.Organisations and groups were invited to put forward what they considered was a successfulcommunity-based anti-corruption program. Because this research sought to analyse a range ofdifferent community-based anti-corruption programs, the broadest definition of community orcommunity-based programs was offered. Most organisations interpreted community-based work asvocational occupations at a grassroots level with citizens in a locality specific activity. However someactivities were engaging with ‘social’ communities, for example faith-based communities. One programis working with an ‘economic’ community of fisher folk whose unifying feature is their trade.All programs had direct contact with citizens, by providing information and education on corruption, oroffering legal advice or bringing people together for popular action against corruption, for examplepublic meetings, rallies or collective monitoring against corruption. Some programs are verysophisticated with a range of sub-programs and many different activities. A few programs are verysimple. Some have been running for a number of years, others programs are still new and conclusionsare tentativeThe programs are discussed in five groupings:6. Community-led programs empowering communities to fight corruption7. Community programs monitoring against corruption;8. Community programs providing information and advice services;9. Community programs and anti-corruption education; and10. Anti-corruption coalitionsGrouping the programs in five general categories enables a simple comparative assessment of whatworks and why within each group, as well as across all the programs. All of the programs discussedhave elements or aspects that could relate to more than one group, but main purpose of the programdetermines which group they have been allocatedThe last category of programs is anti-corruption coalitions. These are coalitions that involvecommunity groups and civil society organisations together with other organisations – businesses,private sector, media groups and others.- 13 -
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?