U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre

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

Could you please: (i) highlight what new risk emerges for development programming as fragile/post-conflict states enter a transition phase? What suggestions are made for mitigating these risks?; and (ii) point us to recent and relevant writings on fiduciary mismanagement and managing corruption risk in Afghanistan.

Purpose

The answer will be used to inform development policy
and a risk strategy for programming in Afghanistan.

Content

1. Risks for development cooperation in post-conflict transition states
2. Lessons learnt in addressing risks for development cooperation in post-conflict transition states
3. Literature on fiduciary mismanagement and managing corruption
4. References

Caveat

There is very little publicly available information on the risks that will emerge as Afghanistan enters a transition phase, particularly with regard to corruption. This answer thus focuses on risks for developing
programming in fragile and transitional states more generally and on how these risks relate to corruption.

Summary

As many countries and regions emerging from armed conflict or violent instability, Afghanistan is entering into a transition phase where the international military presence will be scaled back and more resources will be channelled through the country system and managed by the Afghan state. Considering the highly complex environment in which such countries find themselves, this process is associated with major corruption challenges as well as other risks for donors. As international engagement in such transition periods typically combines humanitarian, development and security-related interventions as part of a broader peace-building and state-building agenda, risks for development programming should be considered at different levels, such as contextual (e.g. analysis of external facts which have an impact on developing programming such as security, economic and political environment), programmatic (e.g. risks of programme failure due to unrealistic approaches or unintended consequences), and institutional (e.g. fiduciary and reputational risks due to corruption). Donors will have to tailor their risk management approach to address.

Authors

Maíra Martini, Transparency International, mmartini@transparency.org

Date

24/01/2013

Tags

Close search

Responsive versions of the site in progress.