The Risks that Should be Taken into Account and Conditions that Needs to be Met before the Government Launches a Programme to Attack Corruption in the Civil Service
Transparency International (2008) defines corruption as “the misuse of entrusted power for private gain”. The menace of corruption is central on the agenda of policymakers and scholars. In view of this, the recent anti-corruption summit in London in May 2016 underscored the need to mitigate corruption as an essential tool for sustaining economic stability and growth. The causes of corruption has been imputed to low salaries, greed, and senior public officials’ immunity from prosecution among others. Governments around the world have set up anti-corruption agencies and policies however, corruption continues to be rampant in many countries. While scholars like Vogl et al (2000) argue the difficulty of setting up anti-corruption agencies and countries that have it in place have failed to mitigate corruption, (Svensson, 2005) contends that the level of corruption in a country is determined not only by GDP per capita and human capital but by political competitions and markets in a country. Moreover, a number of studies have elucidated the effectiveness of various anti-corruption strategies in countries with low levels of corruption (Franken, 2009, Herzfeld and Weiss 2003, Van Rijckeghem and Weder, 2001). This paper therefore seeks to independently address the risks that should be incorporated and the conditions that needs to be met by government in an attempt to launch a programme to combat corruption in the civil service.
Banerjee A., Duflo E., Glennerster, R. (2007). Putting a band-aid on a corpse: incentives for nurses in the Indian public health care system. Journal of the European Economic Association 6: 487–500.
Chavis, L. (2010). Decentralizing development: allocating public goods via competition. Journal of Development Economics 93(2): 264–274.
Franken, N. (2009). Reducing corruption in public education program in Africa: instruments and capture in Madagascar. LICOS Discussion Paper: 240. University of Leuven, the Netherlands: LICOS Centre for Institutions and Economic Performance.
Graaf, G. de, (2007) “Causes of Corruption: Towards a Contextual Theory of Corruption” Public Administration Quarterly Spring 2007: 39-86
Herzfeld T, Weiss C.R (2003) Corruption and legal (in) effectiveness: an empirical investigation. European Journal of Political Economy 19(3): 621–632
Khan, M. (2012). Transparency, Accountability and Citizen’s Engagement Committee of Experts on Public Administration, Eleventh session, New York, 16-20
Olken, B. (2007).Monitoring corruption: evidence from a field experiment in Indonesia. Journal of Political Economy 115: 200–249
Svensson J (2005) Eight questions about corruption. Journal of Economic Perspectives 19: 19–42.
Thorne and Jones, (2005). ‘Organisational Deviance and Culture: Oversights and Intentions’ Chapter 13 in Managing Organisational Deviance pp 309-334
Transparency International, (2008). http://www.transparency.org/research/cpi/cpi_2008
Van Rijckeghem C., Weder B. (2001). Bureaucratic corruption and the rate of temptation: do wages in the civil service affect corruption, and by how much? Journal of Development Economics 65(2): 307–331.
Vijayalakshmi V. (2008). Rent-seeking and gender in local governance. Journal of
Development Studies 44: 1262–1288
Vogl, F., Pope, J. (2000).‘Making Anticorruption Agencies More Effective’,
Finance & Development 37(2): 6–9.
World Bank, (2010). Africa Development Indicators 2010, World Bank Washington DC
Copyright (c) 2021 Albert Mcbell Ninepence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The author fully assumes the content originality and the holograph signature makes him responsible in case of trial.