Historical View of Corruption, Anti-Corruption Activities and Integrity-Building Activities in Georgia (original) (raw)

The role of a national integrity system in fighting corruption 1

Commonwealth Law Bulletin, 1997

The issue of corruption has come to center stage. The economic consequences of pervasive corruption, and recent trends toward democratization, have increased the pressure for accountability and transparency from those in public office. This paper does not suggest that there are any easy solutions or models that can be applied in the fight against corruption; nor does it suggest that any country has yet designed an ideal model, or indeed, that such an ideal model exists. What this paper does argue is that while each country or region is unique in its own history and culture, its political systems, and its stage of economic and social development, similarities do exist and that experience and lessons are often transferable. A "national integrity system" is proposed as a comprehensive method of fighting corruption. It comprises eight pillars (public awareness, public anti-corruption strategies, public participation, "watchdog" agencies, the judiciary, the media, the private sector, and international cooperation) which are interdependent. Establishing and strengthening such an integrity system requires identifying opportunities for reinforcing and utilizing each of these pillars in the fight against corruption.

The role of a national integrity system in fighting corruption

Commonwealth Law Bulletin, 1997

Integrity, ethics and corruption

During the last decades, corruption, a “social illness” has been spread to a number of countries all over the globe. Corruption is subversive of good governance, stable economic structures, stable legal systems and just and other structures because it replaces the normal rules which determine the outcomes of dealings between individuals, organisations, between organisations and the state and various commercial entities. It “undermines the fairness, stability and efficiency of a society and its ability to deliver sustainable development to its members” (Sampford,2006). The fighting and prevention of corruption is closely linked to installation of integrity, ethics, establishing the rule of law, consolidating security and building prosperity in our societies. A number of principles that characterise “good governance”, primarily the following: efficiency, transparency, accountability, avoidance of putting private interest ahead of public interest, loyalty, expediency and effectiveness. When we say integrity, it is as if we mentioned each of these principles. The word ‘integrity’ originates from the Latin word integritas and means indivisibility, stainlessness, honesty, reality, due diligence and other moral values of a person. Integrity of a civil servant and a state employee means that he/she has adequate knowledge and skills, acts ethically in accordance with the laws and morality and is not susceptible under the unethical and immoral (corruptive) pressure. Integrity of the institution refers to the method of work of the institution and its employees who work and act independently, impartially, transparently and fairly. By strengthening the integrity of both civil servants and institutions, the public confidence in the work of state authorities will be increased. One cannot talk about the integrity of the institution if there is no integrity of the individual, who knows and accepts that the interest of the institution should be above his/ her private interests (Komianos, 2010).

Integrity and Integrity Management in Public Life

2017

1. Integrity in public life is an essential component in establishing trust between citizens and their governments. However, over recent decades there has been increasing concern worldwide that standards of integrity are in decline. In part, that concern reflects a parallel focus on corruption as a core threat to good governance. The two concepts-corruption and integrity-are thus often understood as two sides of the same coin, an increase in one leading to a decline in the other. 2. In practice, much of the attention devoted to integrity has been largely implicit: rather than exploring in depth what should be understood by integrity in public life, and how to achieve it, researchers, activists and policy-makers have too often seemed to assume that integrity will result from the elimination of corruption. Their focus has therefore overwhelmingly been on tackling corruption, rather than on promoting integrity. 3. To focus primarily on corruption inevitably places emphasis on the negative behaviours we are seeking to prevent as opposed to the positive behaviours we wish to encourage. Integrity means more than just 'not corrupt', and involves doing the right thing in the right way. 4. Lack of clarity about what integrity is has hindered attempts to promote it. In particular, the relationship between personal integrity and role-based integrity, as well as between integrity at the individual or at the institutional level, has resulted in confusion about the how the concept can be translated into practical action. 5. Integrity thus entails complex relationships with other dimensions, and can be analysed from various perspectives. For the purpose of developing an approach to integrity management (that is, the formal framework to ensure ethical behaviour by public officials), the report distinguishes core characteristics of personal and political integrity. The former entails: wholeness (thinking beyond just the personal); action that is consistent with principles (doing the right things); morality (doing things for the right reasons); and process (doing things in the right way). The latter encompasses: normative justice; openness and transparency; citizen engagement; and impartial authorities. 6. Predominant anti-corruption approaches respond to a logic that does not sit easily with the promotion of integrity. The reason is that policies designed to combat corruption are usually developed as a reaction or response to particular scandals, or else are designed to prevent specific behaviours. They are driven by an attempt to address the visible expression of corruption, focusing primarily on institutional configurations or regulatory frameworks, rather than the promotion of a pro-integrity mind-set amongst public officials. 7. The report therefore addresses the issue of integrity management, focusing on what the OECD (2009) has referred to as an implementation deficit, as well as on the relationship between compliance-based and values-based approaches to ensuring high standards in public administration. The reports pays particular attention to the issues of culture and leadership in promoting appropriate models of integrity. 8. The report is informed by fieldwork that was undertaken in Bolivia and Rwanda, as well as by desk-based research on relevant primary and secondary sources.

Integrity Reform in Developing Countries

Public Integrity, 2013

National Integrity Systems have been developed to assist in governance reform. This article outlines the development of such an assessment, and describes a specific project-the National Integrity System of Georgia. Applying systems methodology and learning, especially within developing countries, may assist an integrity-driven approach toward improved public integrity and social responsibility.

Promoting integrity in governance to tackle political corruption

The report analyses the root causes and drivers of corruption as well as transparency and accountability measures to fight against it and to promote a culture of integrity in governance. Different historical, political, social and cultural traditions along with anti-corruption policies are discussed in four case studies (the United Kingdom, Ukraine, the Netherlands and Spain). The report also analyses a number of anti-corruption strategies in terms of legislation, institutions and education, and pays specific attention to the mandate and powers of national anti-corruption institutions. It proposes a number of recommendations to Council of Europe member and observer States and States whose parliaments enjoy observer or partner for democracy status with the Parliamentary Assembly, as well as to national parliaments, political parties and the Assembly itself, to step up the fight against corruption and promote integrity in governance. It also recommends a number of actions to the Committee of Ministers to enhance the Council of Europe's impact in this field.

Integrity Agencies as One Pillar of Integrity and Good Governance

Public Policy And Administration, 2011

This article argues the case that integrity in public agencies is best served through the development of a system of arrangements involving laws, policies, protocols and institutional design that, in total, operate in harmony to generate a culture of integrity. A critical element in this system of integrity is the formation and operation of specialised integrity agencies, which work with parliaments and civil services to create a means through which public concerns about integrity can be independently examined and reported. The article recognises the balancing that is required between agency autonomy and parliamentary control and warns that arrangements must be capable of dealing with the complexities that follow from these specialised integrity agencies operating in a dynamic environment.

National Integrity Systems – An evolving approach to anti-corruption policy evaluation

Crime, Law and Social Change

Tackling corruption has proven to be one of the most intractable policy problems for governments and civil society worldwide. From the past 20 years, it is clear that there are few classes of crime which are so capable of diverting resources and perverting policy on grand and petty scales, yet so intrinsically linked with larger political and economic forces, intertwined with the self-interests of influential social actors, and so interwoven with other social behaviours, both positive and negative. As a consequence, there are few crime problems for which solutions are so systemic and elusive, at the same time. However, while a rich literature continues to develop on how corruption problems are best diagnosed and measured, 1 far less expert attention has been devoted to how best to evaluate the presumed answers to corruption. In particular, only limited attention has been placed on how to evaluate the policy systems, institutions and processes aimed at bolstering corruption's antithesisintegrity in the discharge of office, performance of institutions and exercise of public or other entrusted power. This is notwithstanding the obvious importance of understanding why so many anticorruption efforts seem ineffective, and of identifying what makes for relative success. Overall, anti-corruption research has given much less focus to the origins of 'high-Crime Law Soc Change

Historical View of Corruption, Anti-Corruption Activities and Integrity-Building Activities in Georgia (original) (raw)

Related papers