Correction to: Crafting anti-corruption agencies’ bureaucratic reputation: an uphill battle

Correction to: Crime, Law and Social Change

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-020-09928-9

The original version of this article unfortunately contained mistakes introduced during the production process.

The corrections are given in the following list:

• (1) In article title, “Battle” should be “battle”.

• (2) In “Bureaucratic reputation and anti-corruption” section, fifth paragraph, first sentence, a new reference citation should be added at the end of the sentence as follows:

  Hence, this article aims at better understanding ACAs as independent and autonomous agencies through the lens of their bureaucratic reputations - offering a unique window into their post-delegation dynamics [16, 51].

And the new reference is:

51. Tomic, S. (2019). Leadership, institutions & enforcement: Anti-corruption agencies in Serbia, Croatia and Macedonia. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.

• (3) In Table 1, “Relevance for Anti-Corruption Agencies” should not be in bold. The correct Table 1 is now given below:

Table 1 Dimensions of the bureaucratic reputation of ACAs

• (4) In “Conclusion” section, sixth paragraph, last sentence, citation for Table 3 should be deleted. The sentence should be rewritten as follows:

  This may prove critical for the morally charged mandates of anti-corruption institutions as they grapple to fight an increasingly complex criminal phenomenon, while trying to win over and maintain public trust.

• (5) In the pdf version, the layout of the Table under "Qualitative coding scheme" section was incorrect. The correct Table is now given below:

Name of node	Description
Bureaucratic Autonomy	General statements which refer to the ability of the ACA to pursue its mandates without exogenous interference
(A) Capacities-unique-niche	Specific statements which pertain to the powers, capacities, programs which define the autonomy of the agency
(A) Legitimacy-Network	Specific statements which pertain to the building of institutional inter-agency networks and legitimacy that define the ACA’s autonomy
(A) Preferences-independence	Specific statements which pertain to the political independence and organisational preferences of the agency.
Bureaucratic Reputation	General statements which refer to the organisational reputation and credibility of the agency.
(R) Moral	Specific statements which pertain to the values and normative dimension of the ACA’s reputation
(R) Performance	Specific statements which pertain to performance indicators, outputs, and goals of the ACA.
(R) Procedural	Specific statements which pertain to the following of protocol, appropriate procedures, legal and judicial guidelines, and jurisdictions.
(R) Technical and Professional	Specific statements pertaining to the competence of the ACA’s staff, their professionalism, the development of a unique technical expertise in fighting corruption.
Change and evolution of policies	General statements pertaining to the modifying of the policy environment surrounding the ACA, changes in anticorruption laws, or the addition of new institutions over time.
Citizens	General statements pertaining to the relationship with citizens as an accountability forum, fostering trust, and cooperation (i.e. witness testimonies).
Coordination and Cooperation	General statements pertaining to inter-agency relations with other bureaucratic agencies, coordination with other public agencies
Prevention	General statements pertaining to the different mandates of corruption prevention such as education, training, raising awareness, risk-management etc.

The original article has been corrected.