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

05
Oct
2015

Corruption risk assessment and management approaches in the public sector

Please provide an overview of corruption risk assessment and management approaches in the public sector. Please provide country examples.

See the answer

06
Jun
2017

The role of external auditing in fraud and corruption

What is the relationship between corruption and the support of audit controls? How can auditing controls serve as a tool to cover-up fraud and ...

See the answer