Review of anti-corruption strategies Rob McCusker - Australian ...

Asian Development Bank, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and Transparency
International 2005. Curbing corruption in tsunami relief operations. Manila: Asian Development Bank.
http://www.adb.org/Documents/Books/Curbing-Corruption-Tsunami-Relief/curbing-corruption-tsunamirelief.pdf
This paper outlines lessons relevant to humanitarian relief and reconstruction efforts concluded at the
Expert Meeting on Corruption Prevention in Tsunami Relief (April 2005, Jakarta) jointly convened by the
Asian Development Bank / Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Anti-Corruption
Initiative for Asia–Pacific, and Transparency International.
Asia–Pacific Economic Cooperation 2005. APEC Anti-Corruption and Transparency Symposium,
1–2 September 2005
This paper details the nature of the aforementioned symposium and notes that it produced a number of
relevant strategy papers including ones concerned with eliminating bribery and corruption in business
transactions and ensuring integrity in the public sector.
Australian Agency for International Development 2005. Ringing the church bell: the role of churches in
governance and public performances in Papua New Guinea. Canberra: AusAID
This paper discusses a case study which examines the role of the Christian churches as institutional
actors within Papua New Guinea’s governance and service delivery landscape.
Babb J 2005. Corruption and governance in Japan, in Hook G (ed), Contested governance in Japan:
sites and issues. New York: RoutledgeCurzon: 174–191
This chapter suggests that it is best to try to look at the manner in which the Japanese themselves have
constructed their political understanding of and attempts to cope with corruption. In doing so, the political
must be highlighted as a contrast to fixed notions of culture and/or ‘good governance’. In the end, it is
possible that the changing nature of political corruption may be as much a part of Japanese governance
as the attempts to eliminate it.
Brown AJ 2005. Chaos or coherence? Strengths, opportunities and challenges for Australia’s integrity
systems: final report. Brisbane: Griffith University and Transparency International
This paper deals with a range of new methodological issues in developing a new approach to integrity
system assessment for Australia and potential application elsewhere. These include: how integrity
should be defined; how relevant integrity institutions should be identified (including as ‘core’ or primary
institutions; ‘distributed’ or dispersed strategies); and how the many institutional and non-institutional
elements of an integrity system should be described. The assessment resulted in a useful new, natural
metaphor – a bird’s nest, in which a multiplicity of small elements make up the system, often individually
weak, but clearly interdependent and stronger as a whole.
Brown AJ & Head B 2005. Institutional capacity and choice in Australia’s integrity systems. Australian
journal of public administration 64(2): 84–95
This paper examines recent debate over core or ‘independent’ integrity institutions in the Victorian and
Commonwealth governments to highlight some of the need, and potential, for more careful deliberation
over options for building the capacity of integrity systems – the second of the analytical themes used in
Australia’s national assessment. The first part compares the resourcing of major integrity institutions by
Australian governments over the past 15 years. Staffing and finances are seen as a useful basic measure of
capacity, helping lift attention away from the assumption that creation of new bodies necessarily increases
capacity. The data also show that some jurisdictions – including Victoria – may yet have some way to go
if they wish to match other governments. The second part of the analysis identifies eight further issues for
consideration in deliberations on institutional design. The paper concludes that by working through such
issues more systematically, it may be possible to identify new or different institutional options for configuring
integrity resources. This could help avoid inappropriate choices – whether unnecessary new bodies,