Review of donor disclosure policies of corruption cases

Filed under - Politics and government

Published on 8 February 2013 as a U4 Helpdesk answer
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.

Author(s): Craig Fagan, Transparency International, cfagan@transparency.org
Reviewed by: Finn Heinrich, Transparency International, fheinrich@transparency.org
Publication date: 8 February 2013
Number: 366

Download full answer

Country / Territory - International   |   Australia   |   Belgium   |   Denmark   |   Norway   |   Sweden   |   United Kingdom   |   United States   
Region - Global   |   Americas   |   Asia Pacific   |   Europe and Central Asia   
Topic - Governance   |   Politics and government   

Contact the Anti-Corruption Helpdesk

If you work for one of our supporting partner organisations, submit your query to the Helpdesk:
tihelpdesk@transparency.org

More Helpdesk answers

24
Feb
2010

International good practice in anti-corruption legislation

What is international good practice when it comes to the content and scope of a national anti-corruption law? Please answer with reference to ...

See the answer

22
Jun
2015

Fighting grand corruption: Challenges and successes

Are there success stories or successful programmes that have addressed the fight against grand corruption? What have been their main focus (for ...

See the answer