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.
Query
Our country is currently reviewing its disclosure policy and system of corruption investigations (current, pending and resolved) related to its development activities. We would like to get more information on how the other bilateral and multilateral donors are publicly disclosing corruption investigations and cases involving development assistance. Please provide current and good practice examples of other donors’ public disclosure policies and systems.
Purpose
This will assist the country to understand how other bilateral and multilateral donors are addressing the public disclosure of corruption cases.
Content
1 Introduction
2 Examples: Bilateral donors
3 Examples: Multilateral donors
4 Conclusion
5 Resources
Caveat
The list of examples provided is not intended to be exhaustive but to give a snapshot view of the existing policies related to the public disclosure of anticorruption investigations and cases.
Summary
The disclosure of sanctioned or suspended entities and individuals for acts of corruption can be a useful tool in the fight to prevent, detect and investigate corruption. In the case of development assistance, such disclosure can help donors to share information about previously sanctioned individuals and entities that may be bidding for their contracts. Disclosure also can help to gain insights into how corruption arose in the first place in order to better prevent and detect the problem in the future. Finally, the publication of corruption investigations and cases provides the public withaccurate information about the true extent of the problem in development cooperation. Yet there is no one standard for how information is disclosed about current and closed cases. This is true for both bilateral and multilateral donors. Much of the decision is framed by policies that exist on data protection, access to information, and whistleblower protection. As a result, even a zero-tolerance policy on corruption does not guarantee case disclosure.
Authors
Craig Fagan, Transparency International, [email protected]Reviewers
Finn Heinrich, Transparency International, [email protected]Date
08/02/2013
