Crime, Law and Social Change

, Volume 41, Issue 1, pp 1–14 | Cite as

Drilling down to the detail: A case study into anti-corruption project records and record-keeping

  • H. Marquette
  • A. Doig
Article

Abstract

This article complements one written in2001 for Crime, Law and Social Changethat underlined the importance of recordsand record-keeping in developing countriesin combating corruption and promotingparticipation. This article addresses thesame theme as the basis on which twodevelopments intended to promote moreefficient and effective anti-corruptionfunding could be assessed. These concern:the value of donors coordinating andcooperating over donor funding (byinstitution and country) and theidentification of particular expertise ofspecific donors to diversify the range ofcomplementary strengths (the comparativeadvantage approach). To do that, effectiveevaluation of past projects is necessary –and is in itself dependant on the quality,accessibility and usability of the recordsheld. The article uses the case-study ofcorruption prevention projects fundedbetween 1995–1999 by the EuropeanUnion to consider the importance of records andrecord-keeping to the evaluation processand thus to any assessment and developmentof coordinated funding and the comparativeadvantage approach.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Briefing Paper 10, Good Governance Research Project: Component on Corruption (DFID, 1999, unpublished).Google Scholar
  2. Brittlestone, M., The EC and the Third World: The Lomé Agreement.The European Dossier Series (London: PNL Press, 1989).Google Scholar
  3. Cain, P., A. Doig, R. Flanary and K. Barata, “Filing for Corruption: Transparency, openness and record-keeping,” Crime, Law and Social Change 2001: 36.Google Scholar
  4. Cassen, R., Does Aid Work?, 2nd edn. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994).Google Scholar
  5. Country Study Visit 3: Uganda, Good Governance Research Project: Component on Corruption (DFID, 1999, unpublished). Much of the visit material was published in: Flanary, R. and D. Watt, “The State of Corruption: A Case Study of Uganda,” Third World Quarterly 1999 (20:3).Google Scholar
  6. Crawford, G., “Evaluating European Union Promotion of Human Rights, Democracy and Good Governance: Towards a Participatory Approach,” Journal of International Development 2002 (14).Google Scholar
  7. DAC, Results Based Management in the Development Co-operation Agencies: a review of Experience, Draft by Annette Binnendijk, Consultant to the DAC Secretariat. Working Party on Aid Evaluation; 32nd Meeting, (OECD, 1999) p. 100.Google Scholar
  8. Dewald, M. and R.Weder, “Comparative Advantage and Bilateral Foreign Aid Policy,” World Development 1996, (24:3).Google Scholar
  9. Dickson, A., “Bridging the Gap: Great Expectations for EU Development Co-operation Policies,” Current Politics and Economics of Europe 2000 (9:3), 275–296.Google Scholar
  10. European Commission, The European Union's Role in Promoting Human Rights and Democratisation in Third Countries, (2001) pp. 4–5.Google Scholar
  11. European Commission, “Communication for the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on a Union Policy Against Corruption,” COM(97)192 final, 21 May 2001.Google Scholar
  12. European Commission, “Democratisation, State of Law: Action Plan,” From the “Communication for the Commission on Democratisation, the Rule of Law, Respect for Human Rights and Good Governance: The Challenges of the Partnership Between the European Union and the ACP States,” COM(98)146, final, 12 March 1998.Google Scholar
  13. Evaluation Unit, Manual: Project Cycle Management-Integrated Approach and Logical Framework-Methods and Instruments for Project Cycle Management No 1 (Commission of the European Communities, 1993).Google Scholar
  14. Faber, G., The European Community and Development Co-operation (Assen: Van Gorcum and Company, 1982).Google Scholar
  15. Franklin Advisory Services, Channel Research Ltd., SEPIA, External Evaluation of Community Aid Concerning Positive Actions in the Field of Human Rights and Democracy in the ACP Countries, 1995–1999.Synthesis Report (Phase 3) (European Commission (SCR F5), 2000).Google Scholar
  16. Huther, J. and A. Shah, Anti-corruption Policies and Programmes (World Bank, 2000). IRMT, From Accounting to Accountability: Managing Accounting Records As a Strategic Resource: Report to the World bank InfoDEV Programme (IRMT, 1999).Google Scholar
  17. Mosley, P., Overseas Aid: Its Defence and Reform (London: Wheatsheaf Books Ltd., 1987).Google Scholar
  18. NORAD, Annual Report 2001 (Oslo: NORAD, 2001) p. 23.Google Scholar
  19. NORAD, NORAD's Good Governance and Anti-Corruption Action Plan 2000–2001 (Oslo: NORAD, 2000) p. 3.Google Scholar
  20. NORAD, Annual Report 2001 (Oslo: NORAD, 2001) p. 18.Google Scholar
  21. Ricardo, D., Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (Orig. 1817. London: G. Bells & Sons, 1922).Google Scholar
  22. Smith, A., Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (Orig. 1776. London: Dent, 1933).Google Scholar
  23. Suranovic, S., “The Theory of Comparative Advantage: An Overview,” 1999. Internet. Accessed 19 July 2001. Available at http://internationalecon.com/v1.0/ch40/40c000.html.Google Scholar
  24. Therkildsen, O., “Public Sector Reforms in a Poor, Aid Dependent Country,” Public Administration and Development Jubilee Conference, Oxford, 1999.Google Scholar
  25. World Bank, Reforming Public Institutions & Strengthening Governance” (World Bank, 2000).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Marquette
    • 1
  • A. Doig
    • 2
  1. 1.University of BirminghamUSA
  2. 2.Teesside Business SchoolUniversity of Teesside MiddlesbroughEngland

Personalised recommendations