Use of governance and corruption indicators in incentive programmes
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.
What is the track record of using anti-corruption or related governance indicators in incentives schemes? What has worked in focusing attention on key priorities and what has not worked (e.g. either because the focus was wrong or the milestones proved too difficult to measure)?
I am interested in anti-corruption or governance indicators in incentive programmes in general. Global lessons and especially donor experiences would be really useful.
1. Governance, corruption indicators and incentive programmes
2. Examples of incentive programmes and indicators used
3. Challenges and lessons learned
Conditionality mechanisms such as incentive programmes can work as a means of bolstering policy changes, signalling particularly important reforms and stiffening the resolve of reformers. Governance and corruption indicators can play an important role in assessing eligibility and monitoring progress in performance-based aid disbursement projects.
Research reveals that corruption and governance indicators that can satisfy the particular needs of benchmarking and performance monitoring in incentive programmes are still largely absent and donors tend to rely on existing, broader, governance assessment tools.
This expert answer details some of the donor experiences with these indicators in incentive programmes. It finds that use of these blunter and broader instruments have generated mixed results. Donor assessments and analysis of incentive programmes are increasingly emphasising the need to develop more targeted corruption a governance indicators that are better suited to these projects.
AuthorsFarzana Nawaz, Transparency International, [email protected]