This Anti-Corruption Helpdesk brief was produced in response to a query from a U4 Partner Agency. The U4 Helpdesk is operated by Transparency International in collaboration with the U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre based at the Chr. Michelsen Institute.
Please provide an overview of: (i) the Public finance management (PFM) reforms most relevant and often used in developing and post-conflict countries to address corruption and fraud, giving country-based examples of where they have been particularly effective or ineffective; (ii) how these measures help to reduce opportunities for corruption and fraud.
To assist development practitioners in improving their understanding of how PFM can be used to tackle corruption.
1. The linkages between PFM and Anti-Corruption Reforms
2. PFM reform tools at the various stages of the PFM cycle and their impact on corruption
4. Further resources
The nature and level of corruption risks vary across the individual stages of the PFM cycle, ranging from administrative to political corruption. While PFM reform is a central element of governance reforms in many developing, transition, and post-conflict countries, addressing corruption is rarely an explicit objective of such reforms, especially in post-conflict countries.
Experience in this range of countries shows that the impact of PFM reform on anti-corruption parameters is difficult to separate from other factors that may have led to positive anti-corruption outcomes. Countries that have seen substantial improvements in the performance of their PFM systems and have been able to reduce corruption, like Rwanda, Kosovo, Georgia, and West Bank and Gaza, have achieved these positive results within the framework of broader governance reform which were backed by strong political commitment by the national governments.
AuthorsMatthias Morgner, [email protected]
ReviewersMarie Chene, Transparency International; Robin Hodess Ph.D, Transparency International