Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Measuring accountability performance and its relevance for anti-corruption: introducing a new integrity system-based measure

  • Published:
Crime, Law and Social Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is widely presumed that preventing or addressing widespread corruption requires effective public institutions, supplemented by non-state actors, in a system of interlocking and interlinked institutions and actors (anti-corruption checks and balances). However there has been little evidence of the interactions and interdependencies between anticorruption mechanisms to enable empirical testing of theories that such institutionalised networks function as such, or have any relationship with reduced corruption. We use assessments of the performance of accountability roles of a diversity of institutions, on 19 indicators, in 38 countries using the National Integrity System approach, to test for the relationships between horizontal and vertical accountability, and the importance of each – and accountability in general – for policy and institutional reforms aimed at curbing corruption. We show that horizontal and vertical accountability are each measurable constructs, whose weakness or strength does tend to correlate; and that while causation is beyond the scope of this analysis, this accountability role performance also correlates separately and jointly with independent measures of corruption control. These results affirm the potential for holistic, country-based qualitative assessments of networked integrity institutions, as pioneered by the NIS approach, to deliver stronger evidence of how reforms to prevent and suppress corruption can be better targeted.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Adcock, R., & Collier, D. (2001). Measurement Validity: A Shared Standard for Qualitative and Quantitative Research, the American Political Review. The International Journal of Social Economics, 33(1), 529–546.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alt, J. E., & Lassen, D. D. (2008). Political and judicial checks on corruption: Evidence from American state governments. Economics and Politics, 20(1), 33–61.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bågenholm, A. (2013). Throwing the rascals out? The electoral effects of corruption allegations and corruption scandals in Europe 1981–2011. Crime, Law and Social Change, 60(5), 595–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Beth-Seo, E., & De Jaegere, S. (2014). Anti-corruption strategies. Understanding what works, what Doesn’t and why. Lessons learned from the Asia-Pacific region. New York: UNDP.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Botero, J. C., & Ponce, A. (2011). Measuring the rule of law. Available at SSRN 1966257.

  6. Brown, A. J. (2006). ‘What are we trying to measure? Reviewing the basics of corruption definition' in C. Sampford, A. Shacklock, F. Galtung, & C. Connors (eds), Measuring Corruption, Ashgate, UK.

  7. Brunetti, A., & Weder, B. (2003). A free press is bad news for corruption. Journal of Public Economics, 87(7), 1801–1824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bukanovsky, M. (2006). The hollowness of anti-corruption discourse. Review of International Political Economy, 13(2), 181–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Camaj, L. (2013). The media’s role in fighting corruption: Media effects on governmental accountability. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 18, 21–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Chene, M. (2015). Accountability and corruption. A literature review. U4 Helpdesk answer. Berlin: Transparency international. http://www.Transparency.Org/files/content/corruptionqas/Links_between_accountability_and_corruption.Pd accessed 20. May, 2016.

  11. Disch, A., Vigeland, E., & Sundet, G. (2009). Anti-corruption approaches: A literature review. Oslo: Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation http://www.norad.no/en/toolspublications/publications/2009/anti-corruption-approaches-a-literature-review/.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Eggers, A. C., & Fisher, A. C. (2011). Electoral accountability and the UK parliamentary expenses scandal: Did voters punish corrupt MPs?. Available at SSRN 1931868.

  13. Fish, M., et al. (2015). Legislative powers and executive corruption. In V-Dem Working Paper Series 2015: 7. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fox, J. A. (2015). Social accountability: What does the evidence really say? World Development, 72, 346–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Frangonikolopoulos, C. A. (2014). Politics, the media and NGOs: The Greek experience. Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 15(4), 606–619.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Global Integrity. (2011). The global integrity report: 2011 methodology white paper. http://www.globalintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/2011_GIR_Meth_Whitepaper.pdf. Last accessed 6 Sept 2014.

  17. Gloppen, S., Gargarella, R., & Skaar, E. (Eds.). (2004). Democratization and the Judciary: The accountability function of courts in new democracies. London: Frank Cass.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Goetz, A. M., & Jenkins, R. (2001). Hybrid forms of accountability: Citizen engagement in institutions of public-sector oversight in India. Public Management Review, 3(3), 363–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616670110051957.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hulsey, J. (2015). Party politics in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In S. Keil & P. Perry (Eds.), State-building and democratization in Bosnia and Herzegovina (pp. 41–60). London: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hussmann, K. (2007). Anti-corruption policy-making in practice: What can we learn from the implementation of article 5 of UNCAC? U4 Report 1: 2007. Bergen: U4.

  21. ICAC. (2014). Election funding, expenditure and disclosure in new South Wales: Strengthening transparency and accountability. Sydney: Independent Commission Against Corruption.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Johnson, J., Taxell, N. & Zaum, D. (2012). Mapping evidence gaps in anti-corruption: Assessing the state of the operationally relevant evidence on donors' actions and approaches to reducing corruption. Bergen: Chr. Michelsen institute (U4 issue 2012:7).

  23. Joshi, A. (2013). Do they work? Assessing the impact of transparency and accountability initiatives in service delivery. Development Policy Review, 31(1), 29–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kaufmann, D., & Kraay, A. (2007). On measuring governance: Framing issues for debate. Munich personal RePEc archive, MPRA paper no. 8187. http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/8187.

  25. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2011). The worldwide governance indicators: Methodology and analytical issues. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 3(2), 220–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Kenney, C. D. (2003). Horizontal accountability: Concepts and conflicts. In S. Mainwaring & C. Welna (Eds.), Democratic accountability in Latin America (pp. 55–76). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  27. Klitgaard, R. (1988). Controlling corruption. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Pop-Eleches, C., & Shleifer, A. (2004). Judicial checks and balances. Journal of Political Economy, 112, 445–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Malena, C. (2009). From political won't to political will: Building support for participatory governance. Sterling: Kumarian Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. McGee, R. (2010). Synthesis report: Review of impact and effectiveness of transparency and accountability initiatives. Available at SSRN 2188139.

  31. McNeil, M., & Malena, C. (2010). Demanding good governance : Lessons from social accountability initiatives in Africa. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  32. Mulcahy, S. (2012). Money, power, politics. Corruption risks in Europe. Transparency International: Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Mungiu-Pippidi, A. (2011) Contextual choices in fighting corruption: Lessons learned. NORAD, report 4/2011. Available at www.norad.no/en/tools-and-publications/publications/publication?key=383808.

  34. Mungiu-Pippidi, A. (2017). The time has come for evidence-based anticorruption. Nature Human Behaviour, 1, Article No. 0011. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016-0011.

  35. Norris, P., & Abel van Es, A. (2016). Checkbook elections, Political Finance in Comparative Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  36. O’Donnell, G. (1999a). Horizontal accountability in new democracies. In A. Schedler, L. Diamond, & M. F. Plattner (Eds.), The self-restraining state: power and accountability in new democracies (pp. 29–51). Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  37. O’Donnell, G. (1999b). A response to my commentators. In A. Schedler, L. Diamond, & M. F. Plattner (Eds.), The self-restraining state: Power and accountability in new democracies (pp. 68–71). Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  38. O’Donnell, G. (2003). Horizontal accountability. The legal institutionalization of mistrust. In S. Mainwaring & C. Welna (Eds.), Democratic accountability in Latin America (pp. 34–54). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  39. Olken, B. A. (2006). Corruption and the costs of redistribution: Micro evidence from Indonesia. Journal of Public Economics, 90(4), 853–870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Persson, A., Rothstein, B., & Teorell, J. (2013). Why anticorruption reforms fail--systemic corruption as a collective action problem. Governance, 26(3), 449–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Przeworski, A., & Stokes, S. C. (1999). Democracy, accountability, and representation (Vol. 2). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  42. Pope, J. (2000). TI sourcebook (Second ed.). Berlin: Transparency International.

  43. Rose-Ackerman, S. (2005). From elections to democracy: Building accountable government in Hungary and Poland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  44. Sampford, C., Smith, R., & Brown, A. J. (2005). From Greek temple to Bird’s Nest: Towards a theory of coherence and mutual accountability for National Integrity Systems. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 64(2), 96–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Schacter, M. (2005). A framework for evaluating institutions of accountability. Fiscal Management, 229–245.

  46. Schatz, F. (2013). Fighting corruption with social accountability: A comparative analysis of social accountability mechanisms’ potential to reduce corruption in public administration. Public Administration and Development, 33, 161–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Schmitter, P. (1999). The limits of horizontal accountability. In A. Schedler, L. Diamond, & M. F. Plattner (Eds.), The self-restraining state: Power and accountability in new democracies (pp. 59–62). Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  48. SELDI. (2014). Anti-corruption reloaded. Assessment of Southeast Europe. Sofia: Centre for Study of Democracy.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Six, F., & Lawton, A. (2013). Towards a theory of integrity systems: A configurational approach. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 79(4), 639–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Smulovitz, C., & Peruzzotti, E. (2003). Societal and horizontal controls. Two cases of a fruitful relationship. In S. Mainwaring & C. Welna (Eds.), Democratic accountability in Latin America (pp. 309–331). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  51. Sotiropoulos, D. A. (2014). Civil Society in Greece in the wake of the economic crisis. Athens: Konrad-Adenauer Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Transparency International Bosnia & Herzegovina. (2013). National integrity system assessment Bosnia & Herzegovina. Banja Luka: TI Bosnia & Herzegovina.

    Google Scholar 

  53. vaz Mondo, B. (2015). Accountability as a deterrent to corruption: New data from Brazilian municipalities. European Consortium of Political Research Joint Sessions - Warsaw, 29 March-2 April 2015. http://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/c19b9e1c-406c-476a-aef0-37054ce559e9.pdf.

  54. World Justice Project. (2015). WJP rule of law index. Constraints on Government Powers. http://worldjusticeproject.org/factors/constraints-government-powers. Last accessed 7 Sept 2015.

  55. Mungiu-Pippidi, A. & Dadašov, R. (2017). When do anticorruption laws matter? The evidence on public integrity enabling contexts. Crime Law & Social Change. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-017-9693-3.

  56. Peiffer, C. & Marquette, H. (2015). Theoretical (Mis)understanding? Applying principal-agent and collective action theories to the problem of corruption in systemically corrupt countries. In A. Lawton, Z. van der Wal & L. Huberts (Eds.), Ethics in public policy and management: a global research companion (pp. 109–126). Oxford & New York: Routledge.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Democracy Reporting International; formerly Director of Research and Knowledge, Transparency International Secretariat, Berlin, Germany

    Finn Heinrich

  2. Centre for Governance & Public Policy, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia

    A. J. Brown

Authors
  1. Finn Heinrich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. J. Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. J. Brown.

Annex

Annex

Table 9 Countries in the NIS dataset (n = 38)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Heinrich, F., Brown, A.J. Measuring accountability performance and its relevance for anti-corruption: introducing a new integrity system-based measure. Crime Law Soc Change 68, 359–381 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-017-9712-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-017-9712-4

Search

Navigation