Integrity and anti-corruption strategies
The OECD Recommendation on Public Integrity states that adherents should develop a strategic approach to mitigating public integrity risks in the public sector, most notably corruption. Some countries have opted for a single national integrity or anti-corruption strategy, although strategic integrity objectives may be located in several government documents owned by various authorities.
An effective strategic approach for public integrity should be based on reliable evidence to identify key public integrity risks, developed in consultation with key stakeholders through existing government procedures for strategy development, and adequately implemented and monitored.
In 2020, out of 24 OECD countries with data available, 20 (87%) had an integrity strategy in place. Only the Czech Republic, Mexico, Portugal and the United Kingdom had taken a comprehensive approach to the whole public integrity area by setting up an inter-institutional body to analyse public integrity risks. The integrity strategies of 11 of the 20 OECD countries (55%) were not based on a thorough problem analysis and integrity risk assessment. Only 7 countries out of 20 (35%) drew on a diverse set of data sources (including surveys and administrative data) when developing their integrity strategies to target the most harmful integrity risks (Figure 12.1).
Latvia, Poland and the Slovak Republic were the only countries that published their draft integrity strategy on their public consultation portal and only 8 of the 20 strategies (40%) underwent inter-governmental and public consultation. This means that many governments have not used their established, standard mechanisms to include inputs from citizens and non-state actors, including their public consultation portals. However, 7 countries out of 20 (35%) went beyond the minimum procedures by organising an extended public consultation process for at least one strategy, for example through open town hall-style meetings or social media outreach. Only six countries included non-state actors in the working groups mandated to develop or amend strategies (Figure 12.2).
Effective integrity strategies depend on proper monitoring. Out of the 20 countries with a strategy, 7 of them (35%) had included objectives with outcome-level indicators and targets, while an additional 3 (15%) only used outcome indicators. Tracking the implementation rate of activities contributes to effective monitoring, but most countries do not have these data. Online Table G.38 shows the average implementation rate for activities related to the strategic objectives for anti-corruption and public integrity. For the ten OECD countries that monitor implementation, the average implementation rate for the planned activities needed to meet the strategy’s objectives was 60%.
The indicator on “Adequacy of implementation structures and reporting” uses 15 criteria to assess whether the elements need for the implementation of the strategy and its action plan are in place. On average, OECD countries only met one-third of these criteria (Online Table G.38).
Data were collected through a questionnaire based on the OECD Quality of Strategic Framework indicators to which 24 OECD countries and one key partner (Brazil) responded. Respondents were senior officials responsible for integrity policies in central government. This set of indicators, which form part of the OECD Public Integrity indicators, was developed to measure the OECD Recommendation on Public Integrity. This work benefits from extensive collaboration with the Task Force on Public Integrity Indicators consisting of nine members of the Working Party of Senior Public Integrity Officials.
The indicator on “Adequacy of implementation structures and reporting” includes 15 criteria covering essential components, such as a central co-ordination function responsible for implementation, monitoring, evaluation and reporting of the strategy, as well as an action plan specifying activities, indicators, targets, costs, etc.
The implementation rate of activities related to strategic objectives for public integrity is based on monitoring reports provided by national authorities. Activities that are ongoing, continuous or only partly implemented are excluded. The average rate for all strategic objectives across all strategies is presented.
Public integrity refers to the consistent alignment of, and adherence to, shared ethical values, principles and norms for upholding and prioritising the public interest over private interests in the public sector.
Primary strategic objectives are understood as formal objectives set and adopted by the government (council of ministers or equivalent) in official strategy documents or regulations that are not subordinate to any other objectives.
Further reading
OECD (2010), Recommendation of the Council on Public Integrity, OECD, Paris, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0435.
OECD (2020), OECD Public Integrity Handbook, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ac8ed8e8-en.
Figure notes
Data for Belgium, Chile, Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Korea, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Slovenia and the United States are not available.
Table G.38. (Adequacy of implementation structures and reporting, 2020) is available online in Annex G.
Source: OECD (2021), Public Integrity Indicators: Quality of Strategic Framework.
Source: OECD (2021), Public Integrity Indicators: Quality of Strategic Framework.