Dr Claudia Baez Camargo
Director, Prevention, Research and Innovation
Dr Claudia Baez Camargo is Director of Prevention, Research and Innovation at the Basel Institute on Governance.
Claudia’s work brings together academic research and technical assistance with the goal of promoting anti-corruption and good governance approaches that are context sensitive and address the relevant root causes of weak rule adherence and enforcement. Her primary interest is in articulating approaches that respond to the needs and expectations of the intended audiences and beneficiaries, with a strong emphasis on co-design and local ownership. Among other areas, she has conducted extensive research on how behavioural factors, such as those associated with social norms and mental models, can impact governance and anti-corruption outcomes in spite of the existence of good legal and regulatory frameworks. Consequently, in her work Claudia has developed ample experience in developing interventions to help close the implementation gap that is often observed when robust laws are adopted but the corresponding behaviour change is lagging.
At the Basel Institute on Governance, Claudia is responsible for the development, oversight and management of the Institute’s research activities in the areas of public and global governance. Claudia also works with a broad range of interested stakeholders on technical projects aimed at developing context-sensitive strategies to prevent corruption and enhance good governance in the public sector.
Claudia holds a PhD in Political Science from the University of Notre Dame, USA and a graduate degree in economics from the University of Cambridge, England. Originally from Mexico, she initiated her professional career working with the Ministry for Social Development, Federal Government of Mexico. There, Claudia was involved in developing demand-driven poverty reduction programmes aimed at ensuring access to basic public services for low-income rural communities.
Before joining the Basel Institute in 2009, Claudia was Assistant Professor of Political Science at William Paterson University, New Jersey, where she taught courses at the undergraduate and graduate levels in comparative politics, Latin American history and research methods. To date, she continues to teach courses on corruption and development, health systems governance and has developed a special curriculum on research methods focusing on corruption studies.
Publications
The Evolution of Corruption and Crimes at Kapitan Andreevo Border Checkpoint: The Impact of EU Accession
Published in the Journal of Illicit Trade, Financial Crime, and Compliance, this article examines how Bulgaria’s 2007 accession to the European Union transformed illegal activities and corruption at the Kapitan Andreevo border checkpoint.
While the introduction of stricter EU regulations and advanced surveillance technology aimed to secure the border, these measures had the effect of transforming criminal strategies and corruption. The authors detail a shift from blatant smuggling to more sophisticated financial frauds, VAT carousel schemes and the illicit privatisation of public border functions.
The article highlights that in some cases, it was the bribery schemes that evolved to bypass new standards. In other cases – particularly involving drug trafficking and the smuggling of human beings – it was the criminal strategies that transformed, including advanced concealment methods or new smuggling routes.
The study also offers a nuanced perspective on the relationship between corruption and criminal activites at border checkpoints: stronger capacity to counter criminal activities could lead to an increase in the risk of corruption, while a more coherent anti corruption framework could trigger criminal activities to evolve. Ultimately, the article argues that anti-crime and anti-corruption policies must account for this evolutionary nature.
Conceptualizing the evolution of corruption: an empirical analysis from Italy
In a new peer-reviewed journal article, Jacopo Costa and Claudia Baez Camargo look into why and how corruption evolves over time, drawing on an empirical analysis from Italy. The article was published in Trends in Organized Crime.
Abstract
Corruption evolves over time. This paper investigates why and how this evolution happens. The analysis has employed a combination of qualitative network and document analysis to explore the configuration of corruption in two moments in Italy and the changes that have happened in between them.
The findings have disclosed that a higher efficiency of the activities of the criminal-justice chain, the transformation of the critical actors and the reform of legal frameworks and governance systems have been critical in determining the evolution of corruption.
The added value of the research lies in its ability to examine these transformative mechanisms within a conceptual framework that keeps together the fact that corruption is networked and that networks evolve over time.
Political economy in the weeds: Embracing complexity in anti-corruption work – lessons learned from an anti-corruption programme in Malawi
In this joint paper with Adam Smith International, authors Claudia Baez Camargo and Renee Kantelberg show how anti-corruption efforts require more than mere technical fixes, such as capacity building for civil society alone, to drive lasting change.
Anti-corruption work is often embedded in complex, politically charged environments. This requires thinking and working politically. Engaging with complex social and economic systems also means recognising that change is not linear or even predictable. What to do then?
Our years of anti-corruption research have demonstrated the centrality of having local stakeholders be in the driver’s seat for identifying priorities and finding solutions. This is how we have worked in Malawi in the Malawi Anti-Corruption Civil Society Support (MACCSS) project, funded by the UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and implemented with Adam Smith International.
This publication shares practical lessons and successes in applying this approach in the MACCSS project. It illustrates our joint efforts to navigate uncertainty and ground anti-corruption efforts in trust, resilience and local leadership. The key takeaways for practitioners who design or implement anti-corruption programmes (paraphrased) are:
- Embrace complexity. Change is adaption and pivoting to reality, which is not linear. In governance programmes, unexpected developments and temporary reversals are signs that systems are shifting.
- Local ownership matters. When partners are in the driver’s seat, impact and sustainability improve. This is true even if the route diverges from initial plans.
- Facilitation over funding. Hands-on mentoring and relationship brokering build deeper capabilities than unidirectional training, grants and results frameworks.
- Learning by doing. Regular reflection converts experience into strategy; failures become data for adaptation.
- Build trust and coalitions. Reform depends on a collective effort with credible institutions and sister anti-corruption programmes. It also requires nurturing emergent anti-corruption networks, rather than merely building the capacity of individual actors.
- Resilience grows from below. Sustainable accountability takes root when communities see anti-corruption as linked to livelihoods and services, not as an abstract governance agenda.
- Gender and inclusion strengthen legitimacy. Integrating gender and social inclusion (GESI) principles by addressing corruption in mining, infrastructure and agriculture – sectors critical for women and marginalised groups – broadens both the reach and credibility of anti-corruption efforts.
Ultimately, the MACCSS experience reinforces a simple but profound insight: anti-corruption work is not about perfect plans but about adaptive partnerships. Change happens through relationships, experimentation and persistence. The task is not to eliminate uncertainty, but to navigate it with integrity and learning at the core.
Working Paper 60: Understanding the enemy: Insights from corrupt networks to improve anti-corruption Collective Action initiatives
Corruption is not simply about individual misconduct. It is a networked phenomenon that arises from entrenched social, economic and political interactions. It is orchestrated through coordination between groups and clusters of individuals.
This Working Paper explores the networked nature of corruption and the opportunities this presents for anti-corruption efforts. The aim is to understand how shifting the unit of analysis from individuals to networks helps to understand the persistence and resilience of corruption, while opening up new anti-corruption perspectives.
A meta-analysis of findings from more than 15 years of research on informal networks and corruption underpins the conceptualisation of corrupt networks. The paper argues that a focus on networks helps to shed light on the functionality of corruption – from petty bribery to large-scale public procurement fraud – and the underlying social norms that enable it.
Understanding the structures, functions and modus operandi of the informal networks associated with corruption and applying the network logic to anti-corruption strategies can help to achieve better outcomes. The paper specifically looks at anti-corruption Collective Action initiatives, suggesting that these should emulate positive aspects of informal networks.
About this Working Paper
This paper is published as part of the Basel Institute on Governance Working Paper series, ISSN: 2624-9650. You may share or republish it under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 International Licence.
The contents are the sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Basel Institute on Governance, its donors and partners, or the University of Basel.
Addressing Bribery and Associated Social Norms in Healthcare: Results of a Behaviour Change Intervention in Tanzania
This open-access, peer-reviewed journal article examines the results of a pilot behavioural intervention in Tanzania. The project tested a behavioural anti-corruption intervention to reduce bribery in a hospital. It targeted deeply ingrained social norms while also leveraging the social networks and influence of key staff members.
The research was funded by the Global Integrity Anti-Corruption Evidence Programme of the UK Foreign Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO). It was a collaboration between the Basel Institute on Governance, the UK Behavioural Insights Team, the University of Dar es Salam and the University of Utrecht.
Abstract
Practices of bribery in the delivery of public services become entrenched when they are driven by social norms of reciprocity.
The resulting economies of favours, which are common across diverse geographical regions, are resilient to conventional anti-corruption measures because they are underpinned by strong social pressures.
This article describes the results of a behaviour change intervention to address gift-giving as a form of bribery in a Tanzanian hospital. The intervention utilised environmental cues and a peer-led network approach to deliver messages aimed at disincentivising bribery.
An exit survey of hospital users indicates a reduction of the ‘gift-offering propensity score’, capturing self-declared behaviour, from 23% before implementation of the intervention to 13% afterwards. We find similar changes in the enabling norms score.
Semi-structured interviews with hospital users and health workers further support these findings.
These results suggest that practices and norms around bribery might be changed through a multi-pronged approach that addresses both the ‘supply’ and ‘demand’ side of bribery.
Quick Guide 23: Informal networks and anti-corruption
Why do many countries still struggle with high levels of corruption, in spite of years of investment in anti-corruption programmes and even where the right laws, rules and institutions are in place?
We believe one reason is that anti-corruption laws and policies are too often focused narrowly on individuals, rather than networks of individuals.
In our research, we see repeatedly how high levels of corruption are rarely the result of individual behaviour – some isolated rotten apples transgressing the formal legal order and leading others astray. Rather, corruption more frequently springs from the social norms and group dynamics of well-articulated and resilient informal networks.
And it’s those networks that have much to lose from integrity and ethics. Their behaviour as a group entrenches corruption, and they block attempts at reforms. This quick guide takes a look at what this means and the implications for anti-corruption programming.
About this Quick Guide
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. It is part of the Basel Institute on Governance Quick Guide series, ISSN 2673-5229.
Corruption and Social Norms: A New Arrow in the Quiver
One key question driving innovations in corruption studies is how anticorruption reforms can be more impactful and sustainable. This is critical to understand due to the detrimental impact of corrupt practices on equality, human rights, peace, and the rule of law. A significant body of research has shown that many anticorruption initiatives do not produce the expected effect, or they achieve results that fade after the intervention ceases. Seeking to understand how to improve anticorruption outcomes, scholars have turned to causal explanations of the persistence of corruption ranging from institutional settings and individual motives to informal practices and social norms.
This article explores the intersection of social norms and corruption as a contribution to improving anticorruption programming. It explains how norms impact our conceptual understanding of corruption and the vicious cycle that exists between corrupt practices and norms. Grounded in the belief that programming and social norm diagnosis need to be contextually driven, we lay out the nascent research on changing social norms that drive corruption and the consequences of ignoring them.
Guías de orientación práctica: las ciencias del comportamiento en esfuerzos de conservación
Esta serie de cuatro guías brinda orientación práctica sobre las posibles aplicaciones de las ciencias del comportamiento para mejorar los esfuerzos de conservación y anticorrupción.
Estos recursos se produjeron bajo el proyecto de Targeting Natural Resource Corruption.
1. Introducción a la ciencia del comportamiento para abordar el impacto de la corrupción en el medio ambiente – Una introducción a la ciencia del comportamiento y una guía para los profesionales sobre cómo empezar a aplicar las normas sociales a los esfuerzos por reducir el impacto de la corrupción en la conservación.
- Abordar la burocracia para reducir el soborno: la anticorrupción como herramienta de resolución de problemas en el sector de las pesquerías – Cómo la burocracia puede generar riesgos de corrupción y como se puede abordar – no solo simplificando las reglas y procedimientos, sino también incorporando estrategias para cambiar actitudes y comportamientos.
- Abordar la corrupción colusoria en la gestión comunitaria de los bosques – Cómo abordar la corrupción colusoria utilizando un enfoque basado en las normas sociales y el cambio de comportamiento.
- Apoyo a los defensores de primera línea de la vida silvestre mediante enfoques basados en normas sociales – Examinando la corrupción que afecta a los defensores de primera línea de la vida silvestre desde la perspectiva de las normas sociales y el cambio de comportamiento para comprender los factores que impulsan la corrupción y desarrollar formas concretas de abordarlos.
Designing social norms and behaviour change interventions: Guidance resources for conservation practitioners
This series of four guides provides practical guidance on the potential applications of behavioural science to enhance anti-corruption and conservation efforts.
*The resources were produced under the Targeting Natural Resource Corruption project. *
1. Behavioural science: introduction for addressing corruption’s impact on the environment – An introduction to behavioural science and its relevance to anti-corruption and conservation efforts, with guidance for practitioners on how to get started in applying social norms and behaviour change insights.
2. Tackling red tape to reduce bribery: Anti-corruption as a problem-solving tool in fisheries – How to address the problem of “red tape”, not only by simplifying rules and procedures but also by incorporating strategies to change attitudes and behaviours.
3. Addressing collusive corruption in community-managed forests – How to tackle collusive corruption using a social norms and behaviour change approach, based on a scenario where corruption affects a community-based resource management scheme in the forestry sector.
4. Supporting front-line wildlife defenders through social norms approaches – Examining the corruption challenges affecting frontline wildlife defenders through a social norms and behaviour change lens, in order to understand the different drivers of corruption, and develop concrete ways to address them.
Research Case Study 5: Harnessing behavioural approaches against corruption
Social norms and behaviour change (SNBC) approaches are a promising complement to conventional anti-corruption strategies. Adopting a context-sensitive and nuanced approach is an essential ingredient for success.
We wanted to understand if and how behavioural approaches can promote anti-corruption outcomes, as well as conditions for success.
To do this we reviewed research from 2016–2022 on the use of behavioural approaches in anti-corruption practice. We also analysed our practical experience designing and piloting an intervention to tackle social norms of reciprocity which fuel bribery in health facilities in Tanzania.
News and blog
Bridging the gap: How behavioural science can strengthen anti-corruption and crime prevention
This article by Claudia Baez Camargo offers valuable insights into how behavioural science can inform more effective anti-corruption strategies and crime prevention efforts. By shedding light on key behavioural drivers and practical approaches, the piece provides a strong foundation for those seeking to better understand how human behaviour can be positively influenced to promote integrity and reduce crime. It is republished with permission from the 7th Newsletter of the United Nations Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Programme Network of Institutes PNI . At the end of the day, it’s not formal policies and regulations that prevent crime or make criminal justice systems work better – it’s people. And people’s behaviour is shaped not just by formal rules but by informal practices and deeply embedded social norms. That’s why understanding what drives behaviour, and how we can shift it, is essential for achieving the goals of crime prevention and criminal justice. Behavioural science offers valuable insights here. It helps us identify practical, people-centred ways to encourage integrity, accountability and participation – both individually and collectively. This article explores how behavioural science-based approaches can contribute to preventing crime and corruption. It reviews relevant international texts and shares early findings from the Basel Institute’s promising work in Tanzania and in relation to environmental crime. While our primary focus at the Basel Institute is on anti-corruption, the insights are relevant across the broader field of crime prevention and criminal justice. Policies often miss the human dimension Too often, policies aimed at preventing corruption and crime look good on paper. They follow international best practices, tick all the boxes and appear technically sound. But in practice, they often fall short of delivering the desired results. This pattern is familiar across all the regions in which we work. One reason is that many such efforts overlook the people expected to put the policies into action. Specifically, not enough attention is paid to the incentives and contextual factors that shape their behaviour. Strong formal anti-corruption or crime prevention systems matter, but they aren’t sufficient on their own. Progress depends on how individuals within these systems behave – whether or not they choose to collaborate, share information report misconduct. And that cooperation is often blocked by low levels of trust or limited experience with collaboration. Another issue is the widespread reliance on awareness-raising campaigns. While well-intentioned, these often assume that more knowledge will lead to better choices. Yet we know from behavioural research and experience that this doesn’t hold up, particularly when it comes to corruption. People usually understand that corruption is wrong. But they may still choose not to report or resist it due to a range of behavioural and social factors: the belief that “everyone does it,” fear of retaliation, risk aversion or personal biases. Add to that bureaucratic "sludge" – unnecessary paperwork and other frictions that make doing the right thing harder – and even the best-designed policies can lose their bite. The upshot? If we want crime prevention and justice reforms to work in the real world, we need to go beyond rules and awareness. We need to understand the behavioural drivers behind corruption and crime. And we need to use that understanding to design smarter, more human-centred interventions that nudge people toward integrity and collaboration. International guidance on behavioural approaches International treaties and standards in areas like anti-corruption, crime prevention and broader development often focus on formal structures and high-level frameworks. That’s understandable: the realm of human behaviour is complex, unpredictable and deeply influenced by varying political, cultural and geographic contexts. As a result, behavioural dimensions are rarely given the attention they deserve. Some guidance documents, however, do take a behavioural lens – though this remains the exception rather than the rule. Notably, the World Bank’s 2015 World Development Report: Mind, Society, and Behavior made a strong case for integrating behavioural insights into development work. While it didn’t focus specifically on crime or corruption, it offered valuable, practical advice on designing interventions that reflect how people actually think and behave, rather than how we assume they should. Since then, behavioural science has gained traction in public policy. Many governments have established specialised teams to apply behavioural insights to policy challenges – from tax compliance to public health. Recognising this shift, the OECD released its Good Practice Principles for Ethical Behavioural Science in Public Policy in 2022, offering guidance on using behavioural tools in an ethical and effective manner. Yet despite these promising developments, behavioural approaches remain underused in anti-corruption and crime prevention efforts. This is a missed opportunity, since behavioural science offers a powerful lens for understanding and addressing the real-world challenges that undermine formal systems and laws. Promising research Two areas in particular – healthcare and environmental protection – illustrate how tailored interventions grounded in behavioural insights can help achieve corruption or crime prevention goals. Both arise from research led by the Basel Institute. Preventing corruption in healthcare One of the few real-world behaviour change interventions in the anti-corruption space took place in a Tanzanian hospital. The aim of the pilot project was to curb bribery in the form of “gift giving” – i.e. small gifts to healthcare workers to generate a relationship of reciprocity and secure better or faster treatment. While framed as gestures of appreciation, such practices can create expectations and reinforce corrupt dynamics over time. The intervention used a mix of behavioural tools: simple environmental cues like posters and desk signs reminded users of expectations around the giving of gifts, while respected staff members acted as “champions,” spreading the messages through their peer networks. In just eight weeks, the pilot recorded a 14–44 percent decrease in patients’ intentions to offer gifts, as well as more negative attitudes toward the practice and reduced beliefs in its acceptability. The accompanying working paper, Developing Anti-corruption Interventions Addressing Social Norms, offers practical guidance for practitioners. It outlines how to identify when a behaviour change approach is appropriate, develop a theory of change and design interventions that are context-sensitive and measurable. This pilot adds to the growing evidence on why some behavioural approaches can be effective in preventing corruption while others fall short see more . To give a taster, some of the strategies include: Using environmental cues tailored to the setting. Providing timely resources that support integrity under pressure. Building trust among stakeholders to foster cooperative social norms. Elevating role models and champions of integrity. Tackling environmental corruption and crime The adaptability of behavioural science also makes it a strong tool in the fight against environmental corruption and crime. These offences often flourish in settings where red tape, weak enforcement and collusive practices are the norm. Behavioural interventions can be tailored to disrupt these patterns. Under the Targeting Natural Resource Corruption TNRC project, led by WWF, we produced a series of practical guides that translate behavioural insights into conservation and anti-corruption strategies. Topics include how to reduce corruption driven by excessive bureaucracy or “sludge”, how to reduce risks of collusion in community-managed forests and how to design interventions that resonate with frontline wildlife defenders such as rangers. Other resources and activities At the Basel Institute, we are deeply committed to advancing the use of behavioural science in anti-corruption and broader crime prevention efforts. Our aim is not just to test promising ideas, but to rigorously examine what works, what doesn’t and – crucially – why. By sharing these insights, we hope to support practitioners around the world in adapting evidence-based behaviour change approaches to their own contexts. In this regard, an additional valuable contribution to the field is our research report synthesising lessons from a range of anti-corruption behaviour change interventions. It explores the reasons behind both successes and failures and extracts practical recommendations. In a nutshell, we believe that effective anti-corruption and crime prevention systems must be rooted not only in solid laws and institutions, but also in the behavioural realities of those expected to implement them. Bridging the gap between formal policy and real-world practice requires a systematic focus on social norms, decision-making dynamics and local incentives. Our Prevention, Research and Innovation team leads this work. We support anti-corruption practitioners, development agencies and other donors across three main areas: Research: Conducting academically grounded studies to understand the behavioural drivers of corruption and identify promising points for interventions. Advisory support: Helping donors and international partners integrate behavioural insights into their anti-corruption and development programming. Practical guidance and mentoring: Working directly with implementers to design, test and refine behaviourally informed strategies that are tailored, measurable and feasible in the context. By embedding behavioural science into anti-corruption and wider crime prevention efforts, we can help ensure that policies are not just well designed on paper, but embraced and enacted in practice – closing the gap between intention and impact. \ \ \ One of the key mandates of the PNI is to disseminate and enhance knowledge on crime prevention and criminal justice. This mission is carried out actively around the world by individual PNIs through various channels, including research, publications, and capacity-building activities. A notable example of such efforts was the creation of the Justice Knowledge Centre by Gary Hill – one of the first web-based platforms dedicated to sharing information and resources on crime prevention and criminal justice. Inspired by the spirit of such legacies and by the continuing efforts of PNIs around the world, the PNI Newsletter carries forward this knowledge-sharing mission by dedicating a section in each issue to a specific topic of relevance. Claudia's contribution is the first in this new series.
A new arrow in the quiver: making anti-corruption reform more effective and sustainable
A new paper published in the Annual Review of Political Science explores how we can improve anti-corruption efforts using a “new arrow in the quiver”: the social norms approach. Claudia Baez Camargo, Head of Prevention, Research and Innovation and a co-author of the paper, explains why the social norms approach is crucial for anti-corruption efforts, and shares some of the paper’s main messages for practitioners and researchers. The full paper, “Corruption and social norms: a new arrow in the quiver” is available at Annual Reviews. We have, by now, understood that it is impossible to legislate corruption away. Most countries in the world have adequate legal and institutional frameworks in place to counter corruption. They have also adopted measures such as tougher penalties for corruption offences and stronger administrative controls, and created dedicated anti-corruption agencies. And yet, corruption persists. Scholars have identified this as an “implementation gap”, highlighting the difficulties in enforcing existing laws and policies to counter corruption. Even targeted anti-corruption interventions are often not effective enough – a significant body of research has shown that many fail to have the expected effect, or produce results that fade soon after the intervention ends. Why does this gap exist, and how can we do better? There are several important considerations: Don’t blame the bad apple Corruption is very rarely the result of individual “bad apples” abusing power. Rather, evidence suggests that corruption is a highly networked phenomenon involving groups whose collective actions enable the emergence of or entrench a corrupt system. Research has shown that people behave differently when they are acting as part of a group than when they are acting individually. This can happen, for example, when peer pressure to conform to group behaviour undermines the effect of any legal provision prohibiting the behaviour in question. And yet, most conventional anti-corruption approaches target the behaviour and incentives of individuals. The illusion of the Homus Economicus Behavioural science research has shown that we are not always the rational decision-makers whose behaviour underpins the assumptions of classical economic theory. Humans do not always or even usually follow a traditional cost-benefit analysis in their decision making. Instead, we often operate according to social norms, with collectively held beliefs and the desire for social belonging producing behaviour that defies rational thinking. This behaviour may therefore contradict anti-corruption incentives or formal legal prescriptions, and can leave practitioners frustrated with lacklustre results. Social-norms tinted glasses In response to these considerations, scholars and practitioners are increasingly seeing the importance of analysing corruption in the social context in which it exists, identifying its drivers the why and enablers the how , and the relationship between these factors. This “social norms approach” can enhance our understanding of corruption and, therefore, the design of anti-corruption reforms by taking into account: the context-specific practices that affect corruption and anti-corruption outcomes in different regions and settings; the informal social networks that bind actors together: the self-reinforcing “glue” of common understandings, mutual expectations and accepted behaviours; the stubbornness of these social practices. Ask better questions, get better answers By asking the right questions, we can produce tangible results to make anti-corruption interventions more effective and sustainable. In the paper we ask and answer the following questions: What are the complexities and gaps in the definition of corruption and the shortcomings of leading theories of corruption? How do social norms influence corrupt behaviour? How can social norms be factored into anti-corruption policy and programming? How can research be incorporated more efficiently and effectively on the ground? Any response to corruption has to reflect its multi-faceted and intrinsically human i.e. messy nature. Applying a social norms lens is not a one-size-fits-all approach, and corruption does not always fit into neat bureaucratic or legal categories. Citizens will often differ in their understanding of what constitutes corruption. An in-depth analysis of the specific social context in which the corruption takes place is always a necessary first step. We should develop practical methodological approaches so that anti-corruption agencies can more easily identify specific social norms driving a corrupt practice. And we need more empirical investigation of the interaction between the various factors, including social norms, historical norms, the political system, the institutional system and individual factors such as gender, age, income and personality traits, that influence an individual’s choice to engage in a corrupt act.
Culture and corruption: a complex relationship
If someone gives a healthcare worker a “gift” in return for faster treatment, is that a bribe or just a cultural expectation? Are some cultures inherently more corrupt than others? And does the meaning of corruption vary according to cultural context? These are just some of the controversial and complex issues that scholars have asked in relation to culture and corruption. We summarised the key debates in a chapter contributed to the new Elgar Concise Encyclopedia of Corruption Law . In brief: A tricky topic Even the juxtaposition of “culture and corruption” causes unease: the word “culture” tends to have a neutral or positive connotation, while “corruption” is practically always negative. Many are understandably uneasy about the risk of labelling entire cultural groups as “corrupt” and warn against simplistic explanations of corrupt behaviour because "it’s in their culture". In contrast, others refer to cultural relativism, claiming that the concept of corruption is an artefact of the West and that local standards for what is and is not correct behaviour vary widely. Still others apply quantitative research methods to understand the links, for example comparing measures of cultural factors in different countries with indices of perceived corruption in those same countries. One study found a correlation between high levels of perceived corruption and more unequal and risk-averse societies that favour materialistic rewards. But correlation is not causation, as we know, so it is hard to draw conclusions about whether corruption causes those cultural factors or vice versa. Going deeper into social norms Qualitative research approaches focus on local conditions, narratives and legitimisation processes. And what stands out across many countries is the importance of personal relationships in citizens’ interactions with the state. As our research in Tanzania and Uganda has shown, for example, relationships are used instrumentally to gain easier access to public services, circumvent formal rules and gain undue advantages in business dealings, among other things. While these personal relationships are shaped by social and cultural norms around status, respect, shame, guilt, peer pressure, etc., they occur across many different countries and cultures. So it is not only simplistic but flatly wrong to say that entire groups of people are inherently corrupt because of their culture. Overcoming shortcomings of the state Personal relationships are necessary to overcome or compensate for the shortcomings of formal state institutions. Participants in our field research in various countries typically condemn corrupt behaviours, including the use of personal relationships to gain an undue advantage. But they continue to engage in these behaviours regardless. Why the paradox? First, because conflicting values of public duty versus social obligations may trap public officials, no matter how honest they are in their hearts. That is especially the case where unwritten social norms like reciprocity are stronger than formal, legal rules. Second, citizens may be forced to resort to corruption as the only way to access essential services – and they become especially likely to do this when they see and believe that “everyone is doing it”. Where the state can provide access to services, equal treatment and decent standards of living through its formal laws and institutions, it is far less likely that corruption will be seen as necessary and a normal cultural practice. The conclusion: nobody is inherently corrupt because of their culture. But corruption can become socially legitimised in contexts where it is the only way to get around the shortcomings of the state. Learn more The Elgar Concise Encyclopedia of Corruption Law is co-edited by Mark Pieth the Basel Institute’s founder and former President and Tina Søreide of the Norwegian School of Economics. Enter the code CRPT35 at the checkout for a 35 percent discount off the list price. Read Claudia Baez Camargo’s quick guide to social norms and corruption. See a summary of our research project exploring how individuals invest in creating informal relationships and networks in order to obtain public services or business deals. Learn more about the work of our Prevention, Research and Innovation formerly Public Governance team.
How (strategic) corruption fuels insecurity by affecting power
How do corruption and security intersect? What is strategic corruption and what can we do about it? These were two fundamental questions tackled at the Countering Strategic Corruption workshop at the 2024 Basel Peace Forum. Claudia Baez Camargo, Head of Prevention, Research and Innovation at the Basel Institute on Governance, spoke at the event. Together with her colleague Saba Kassa, the team’s Deputy Head, she highlights two key ideas: Using the lens of power helps us to better understand how corruption impacts security . Corruption changes power dynamics, which in turn affect security. We need to see how corruption is a highly functional tool for those seeking not just private benefits but – in the case of strategic corruption – geopolitical goals. Power: at the heart of corruption and security issues Corruption fuels insecurity in many ways, directly and indirectly. But the big picture is that corruption affects the exercise of power by undermining it, or by strengthening it in a particular person or group’s favour. Changes in power in turn affect all forms of human security, including a country’s ability to defend itself against internal or external threats. It is useful to think of three different types of corruption: Corruption State power Implications Insecurity Endemic corruption Weakens ability to serve citizens. Erodes trust. Increases inequalities and poverty. Fuels insecurity. Erodes performance of security institutions. State capture Repressive capacities are instrumentalised. State institutions serve elites. Consolidates power in hands of political elites. Impunity is the norm. Enables discretionary and abusive control of security apparatus. Fuels radicalisation of oppressed groups. Strategic corruption State powers abused and weaponised to achieve a geopolitical goal. Funds conflict, weapons. Influences or destabilises other countries. Contributes to polarisation. Emboldens populists, authoritarian or violent groups. Endemic corruption: weakening institutions and trust Widespread and systemic corruption affects the ability of the state to serve citizens. Consider the theft of public funds earmarked for hospitals or medicines, which affects citizens' access to good health care. Consequences include higher inequality and poverty, as well as an erosion of trust in government and public institutions. This is where security risks come in. Popular protests may spur violence and conflict as tensions rise. In conflict-afflicted and fragile contexts, theft of humanitarian aid or resources dedicated to strengthening legitimate state actors and institutions can undermine the prospects for sustainable peace. A related problem is the systematic erosion of defence and security institutions. Corrupt procurement deals and embezzlement leave institutions with underpaid and underequipped staff while draining national budgets. This makes it very challenging to respond to domestic and external threats, and organised crime and terrorism can get a stronger foot in the door. For example, research in Nigeria has shown that corruption in the military affects the ability to respond effectively to the militant group Boko Haram. In other words, corruption undermines the most basic responsibility of states: protecting citizens from violence and conflict. State capture: centralising power State capture is a systemic form of corruption in which political elites, often together with economic elites, control state institutions for their narrow purposes. It is more than about siphoning off state resources with impunity. It can be about getting laws, such as procurement rules, just right for those political elites and their associates to win lucrative contracts or control valuable natural resource sectors. The unchecked ability to shape laws and direct state intuitions puts a lot of power in the hands of a few people. For example, they can instrumentalise enforcement institutions such as the police or courts to neutralise opponents and ensure impunity for their circle. All this strengthens their power base. And it shows again that corruption can be a highly functional tool. The citizens of a country suffering from state capture understand that power is exercised discretionarily and that the rules apply to some and not to others. Fear and powerlessness often close the door to challenging the situation through democratic means. Strategic corruption: a powerful geopolitical tool Strategic corruption goes beyond the kind of narrow personal benefits implied in the common definition of corruption as “the abuse of entrusted power for private gain”. Here, corruption is weaponised to help change power dynamics on the geopolitical stage. In this cross-border and global context, states can use corrupt means and divert public resources to fund their geopolitical objectives. For an in-depth case study of strategic corruption, see the Kremlin Playbook series. Looking at examples of strategic corruption again highlights the functionality of corruption. It’s used not only to gain money and control of resources but because it gives people the power to achieve their goals. That functionality goes both ways. Even in democratic contexts, politicians can use accusations of corruption to erode trust in opponents or public institutions and weaken their legitimacy. On the other hand, politicians with a strong anti-corruption platform can see success in the polls, as Guatemala and Bulgaria have recently demonstrated. What we can learn from corruption’s power and functionality The main takeaway? Looking at power and functionality helps us better understand how corruption affects security and at why strategic corruption is increasingly becoming a concern. The main lesson? That we need to fight strategic corruption by disrupting its functionality, i.e. making it less of an effective strategy for obtaining power and achieving other illicit goals. And to do that, we need to ensure that anti-corruption efforts are strategic, coordinated and effective.
New insights into corruption in waste management and trade
The waste management sector provides a vital service for the good functioning of communities and economies and is essential for the protection of the environment and public health. This sector has been under increased scrutiny in recent years. Waste crime has become a growing concern around the world because of its dire impact on the environment and human health. In addition to challenges related to local waste management, the public has become more aware of the fact that this is an international issue. The transboundary movement of waste may pose risks to the environment and people in countries receiving large quantities of other countries’ waste. Policies and legal frameworks are evolving to better address waste management challenges. There has also been some research on waste-related crimes. However, the role that corruption plays in facilitating waste crimes is yet to be unpacked and addressed effectively to ensure better governance in this sector. As part of an ambitious “Environmental Corruption Deep Dive” research project, we decided to look at cases of corruption in waste management and trade. The entire research project is funded by Liechtenstein, a core donor to the Basel Institute and its Green Corruption programme. The research involves extensive desk research, an analysis of relevant cases and a series of interviews with experts from across sectors. Legal loopholes and gaps in implementation In brief, we conclude that complex legal frameworks and their weak implementation open up spaces for criminals to profit from illegally managing or trading in waste. The consequences on the environment and human health can be severe. We analysed five cases in Albania, Lebanon, North Macedonia, the U.S and Canada–Philippines. We found a variety of corruption risks even in this small initial set of cases. They include the potential for corruption to play a role in: influencing policy decisions involving waste management; corrupt deals involving the selection of waste management companies linked to powerful elites; schemes to gain lucrative waste management contracts through systematic bribery; illegal imports of hazardous waste for profit, avoiding or suppressing formal controls. Complex waste management chains Graphics in our report highlight different steps of the waste management chain and where corruption risks may arise. Again, these are both complex and numerous. The main areas are: Policies and procedures around waste management and trade: Liable to undue influence and state capture. Procurement for waste contracts: Like any sector, these are open to bribery, nepotism and favouritism. Inspections of waste: As a result of discretion, these are open to bribery, undue influence and collusion. What to do? This research is only an initial step to shine a light on potentially risky areas of waste management and trade. However, we note several external factors that make corruption and crime linked to waste management easier to get away with. Ongoing efforts to address these will help to reduce the space for corruption. These external factors include: poor record keeping and a lack of access to information even where records exist; low awareness and understanding of the field among public procurement officers, law enforcement and the judiciary; insufficient monitoring and lack of inspection and enforcement capacities; poor cooperation between environmental, financial investigation and other government agencies. In addition to addressing external factors and potentially reforming the legal frameworks governing waste, we and our interviewees identify a few basic steps to start addressing corruption risks. More research and corruption risk assessments on waste management supply chains. Greater investment in preventive measures, starting with digitalising administrative processes. More joined-up enforcement of waste management legislation through inter-agency cooperation and joint investigations. Extending wider transparency and accountability measures like open data and whistleblowing systems to the waste management field. Targeted capacity building and awareness raising for regulators and law enforcement. Collective Action initiatives between public, private and civil society actors in the waste management field, to build trust and understanding, share good practices and co-develop self-regulatory standards. Overall, more research is urgently needed to understand both the role of corruption in undermining proper waste management and trade, and the potential consequences of mitigation measures. Learn more Watch the launch webinar on YouTube View and download Working Paper 49: Dirty deals – Case studies on corruption in waste management and trade Find all Environmental Corruption Deep Dive reports and other resources from the Green Corruption team.
Which anti-corruption messaging works best? New Working Paper
Many anti-corruption initiatives contain some kind of messaging element, such as public education campaigns or awareness-raising activities. Substantial resources, financial and human, are invested every year to develop and deliver messages about the evils of corruption and the need to eradicate it. However, recent research has cast serious doubt on the effectiveness of messages about corruption in achieving their intended results. Synthesising lessons A new Working Paper by our Public Governance team analyses seven main types of anti-corruption messaging for their impact. It extracts lessons for practitioners seeking to adopt a behavioural communications approach. Overall, the review finds that: Emphasising that corruption is widespread typically backfires. Negatively framed messages are mostly ineffective. Messages with a narrowed focus and target group may be more effective. Changing behaviour The report incorporates insights from behaviour change theories and research, for example on social norms. The authors also look to behavioural science to find solutions for when messages fail to convince people to update their beliefs – even in the face of credible information that defies those beliefs. Theory of Change The Working Paper gives practical implications for designing anti-corruption communication as part of behaviour change interventions. This includes outlining how to develop a robust Theory of Change to enhance the success of such efforts. The authors encourage practitioners to consider: the baseline of prevailing descriptive norms, injunctive norms, personal attitudes and behaviours; the potential power of influence identify which outcomes are within the intervention’s control ; the messenger as certain messengers hold more sway in reaching the target group than others . Practitioners are also encouraged to make messages relevant and actionable. Ways to do this include inviting relevant stakeholders to comment on the process, observing real-world behaviour and using messages about the concrete impact of corruption. Tracking and creating long-term change Finally, the guidance recommends that practitioners invest in a strong monitoring and evaluation framework. This is crucial for effectively measuring the achievement of outcomes and the intervention’s adaptability to any changes. Practitioners must also think about messaging in terms of long-term outcomes and consider how to make an intervention sustainable. This can include complementing messaging with other approaches, such as: Reforms of the regulatory framework or changes to incentives Community meetings Cultivating networks of champions Engaging opinion leaders Credible monitoring and potential for punishment More View and download: Working Paper 45: Strategic anti-corruption communications: Guidance for behaviour change interventions. This publication is prepared as guidance for the USAID Indonesia Integrity Initiative USAID INTEGRITAS , a corruption prevention programme in Indonesia implemented by a consortium consisting of Kemitraan Partnership for Governance Reform , Indonesia Corruption Watch ICW , Transparency International Indonesia TII and the Basel Institute on Governance. The initiative supports the country’s efforts to prevent corruption by enhancing civic engagement and strengthening a culture of integrity and accountability.
Bribery isn’t only an exchange of money: what new research tells us about how informal networks enable corruption and vice versa
Bila watu hufiki popote. “Without people or connections you won’t reach anywhere,” said a Tanzanian businessman participating in our recently completed research project on informal networks and corruption. His words encapsulate something we see time and again in our research on corruption: that bribery is far more than just a brute monetary transaction. Often more important, and far less studied, are the informal social networks that connect private individuals and public officials. Exploring informal networks and corruption Our two-year research project, part of the UK Aid-funded Global Integrity Anti-Corruption Evidence Programme GI-ACE , builds on our previous extensive research project on informal governance across seven countries. The evidence from this project highlighted that corruption is usually not the result of individual “rotten apples” acting in isolation to abuse their entrusted power for private gain. Rather, corrupt behaviour takes place according to unwritten rules and through informal social networks that connect the public and private sectors. It is becoming increasingly clear that anti-corruption practitioners need to pay more attention to networks, not only individuals. But a lot of questions still remained to be answered. Are distinct types of informal networks associated with particular types of corruption? How, why and by whom are these networks built? What roles and functions do different individuals have within the networks? What unwritten expectations, understandings and norms govern such networks? What are the implications for anti-corruption practice? Case studies: snapshots of corruption from a network lens With my colleague at the Basel Institute, Senior Research Fellow Jacopo Costa, and Lucy Koechlin, Senior Lecturer at the University of Basel, we set about answering these questions with the help our local researchers Danstan Mukono and Robert Lugolobi in Tanzania and Uganda. What emerged were 10 short case studies six from Tanzania and four from Uganda that illustrate ways in which citizens and business people invest significant efforts in building informal social networks to overcome shortcomings in public service delivery and to access business opportunities. The case studies give life to the research report, which show how monetary bribes and associated benefits are essential to developing informal networks, especially in societies with strong norms around reciprocity and gift-giving. In turn, these networks enable and perpetuate corruption in public service delivery. Importantly, informal networks may go beyond simply friends and acquaintances. In many cases, citizens and business people must use “brokers” – individuals with existing strong connections with relevant public officials – to act as door-openers. How do informal networks help to “get things done”? The stories we heard illustrate how informal networks help citizens and business people to gain benefits in three main areas: 1 - Ease access to public services At a basic level, this can mean someone using personal connections to skip red tape or speed up a service to which they are officially entitled but may otherwise be delayed. As one research participant said, for example: “For those who don’t have ‘jamaa’ a social connection and sometimes ability to provide money, it takes time to get a business license.” Highly bureaucratic procedures such as land transactions are especially vulnerable to this type of behaviour. At a more pernicious level, social networks can help users to obtain services they are not entitled to, or manipulate processes to their advantage. Examples include obtaining a driver’s licence despite not having the right documents, and influencing land valuations to minimise tax. 2 - Secure business opportunities with government The case studies illustrate that informal networks play a vital role in facilitating fraud and corruption in public procurement. Business people with the right connections need only pay the requested “fee” to be awarded a public tender, said one participant, referring to a bribe or kickback. Informal networks can also facilitate privileged access to information about tenders. To build those connections, said participants in both countries, business people may secretly collect information on public officials’ tastes and habits, or develop sophisticated strategies to cultivate links with them. 3 – Help businesses run smoothly Informal networks help entrepreneurs to leapfrog the many bureaucratic hurdles they face when establishing and running businesses. As one of the Tanzanian case studies shows, numerous informal connections have to be established with various public agencies and the officials that work there to get the business off the ground. These connections then form the basis for a network that will allow the business to run smoothly going forward. Complex networks can be built to solve seemingly simple problems. Another Tanzanian case study illustrates how a transport company owner built a “bribery network” involving drivers, conductors, traffic police, bus agents and the transportation regulatory authority. The network ensures that the company’s vehicles can provide a faster and more reliable service compared to competitors by avoiding roadblocks and speeding fines. What else does the research show? The research report also details, using examples from the case studies: The six functional roles that different individuals play in informal networks – from the “seekers” citizens seeking connections to public officials to the “doers” – those who have the ability to “make things happen”. How entry to these informal networks is controlled to make them exclusive for insiders. Social dimensions, including how people invest time and effort in developing their networks and cultivating trust. The case studies offer a wealth of qualitative information and evidence on informal networks, corruption and the links between them. So, what does this mean? In our analysis, we emphasise that anti-corruption practitioners should consider how to save the positive aspects of these informal networks which, in effect, act as efficient mutual support mechanisms in challenging contexts while eliminating their negative effects. Understanding how these informal networks work can help to understand, and target, the motivations of those who engage in bribery and other illicit practices. Addressing the hurdles that individuals experience while accessing public services and competing in public tenders should be a central element of an informed anti-corruption approach. Otherwise, the case studies show how adding formal control mechanisms to prevent corruption for example in competitive public bidding processes can actually generate more corruption than would have occurred otherwise – if only because of the fact that more people need to be bribed to obtain the desired result. The evidence from this research can also point the way to alternative approaches to tackling corruption in such contexts. These include harnessing social norms the topic of our second GI-ACE project and/or introducing efficient ways to resolve business-related disputes between the public and private sectors, such as Ukraine’s Business Ombudsman Council.
Quick guide to strategic anti-corruption guidelines for development agencies
During SDC Governance Week, a cross-agency learning event for staff and partners of the Governance network of the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation SDC , the Basel Institute’s Public Governance team will speak about its support to the agency’s development of new strategic anti-corruption guidelines. The process of updating the guidelines aims to reflect evolving risks, emerging understandings of corruption and fresh evidence about effective approaches to anti-corruption interventions. In this quick guide, Claudia Baez Camargo, Head of the Basel Institute’s Public Governance team, explains the purpose, focus and value of strategic anti-corruption guidelines for development agencies: In what context do development agencies face corruption issues? In their efforts to promote sustainable development around the world, development agencies and their country offices face a variety of corruption risks. Some risks directly threaten funded projects, for example if money intended to finance a new hospital is embezzled, or the building contract is given to the friend of a local politician and at an inflated value. Other corruption risks more indirectly, or at least less visibly, impact the ability of development agencies to achieve their project goals. For instance, if sextortion – the coercive extraction of sexual favours – is prevalent, it will undermine programmes aimed at promoting gender equality. And when corruption is a systemic issue, it hampers sustainable development directly and in multiple ways. Development agencies may therefore consider addressing systemic corruption issues strategically through a dedicated anti-corruption programme. What is a “strategic” approach to anti-corruption? The above three types of corruption risk that development agencies face often overlap and spring from the same underlying factors. These factors, or drivers, include the political economy and prevailing power relations in a country or community, as well as the social norms that influence people’s behaviour. A strategic approach to anti-corruption in a specific context will therefore always start with a good diagnosis that covers two broad areas: First, the major corruption issues in that country or context that are hindering sustainable development. For example, widespread petty corruption in the health sector or a flawed procurement system that sees inflated contracts going to political cronies. Second, the underlying drivers of those problems, such as social norms around the need to give “gifts” to health workers, or state capture through powerful networks of elites. Strategic approaches to anti-corruption will be based on this diagnosis and design projects that are – at the very least – relevant, feasible, sustainable and mindful of risks or unintended consequences. Setting out an anti-corruption strategy in black and white – why? Not all development agencies have written guidelines setting out their strategic approach to anti-corruption. But they have multiple benefits. Their main purpose is to support the development of evidence-based and effective anti-corruption programming decisions. This makes targeted anti-corruption interventions more likely to succeed in their goals, to help the beneficiary communities in tangible ways and to be a good use of taxpayers’ money. By setting out their strategic anti-corruption approach in black and white, the agency leadership clearly signals which areas are important to focus on and how to go about it. This clear messaging is extremely useful for staff in country offices who face the task of identifying which programmes to fund and how best to design them. New staff joining the country office can quickly grasp not only which projects are being implemented and how, but also – very importantly – why. The consistent underlying approach also provides a solid base for learning from the experiences of peers in other country offices. Developing the guidelines – a valuable collaborative exercise Like all strategic documents, the value is not only in the final product but in the process of developing it. What helps tremendously when developing anti-corruption guidelines is to convene a series of discussion groups that bring people from multiple units, disciplines and levels of hierarchy around the table. This is because corruption is a transversal issue, cutting across almost all other thematic areas and professional specialisms. It is not just a topic for the anti-corruption department and external anti-corruption experts, but needs to include the experiences, views and concerns of those working on the ground. Getting a broad range of inputs helps to make the guidelines more robust and reflective of the real challenges that country offices and programme managers face. The process also helps to get buy-in, which is crucial when it comes to implementation. An agile approach with multiple rounds is probably needed. At the Basel Institute, we typically also find it valuable for a partner anti-corruption organisation or expert to sense-check and challenge the drafts. It is worth taking this time to get the strategic guidelines right. This is because unlike hands-on operational guidance documents and tools that may evolve more rapidly, the strategic guidelines are approved at the highest levels of the agency and need to be built to last. Turning strategy into practice – implementing the guidelines Strategic guidelines are not a recipe for what you should do, but a recipe for how you should think and what you should consider. How best can a development agency help staff turn that knowledge into practical action and avoid it getting lost in the heaps of paperwork that country offices inevitably have to deal with? A must-have is an operational guidance document that translates the guidelines into practical resources and tools. Additional short explainers on particular topics, like how to set up a useful monitoring and evaluation system on anti-corruption, are often helpful. But however user-friendly these documents are, they are the basis for discussion and not a substitute for it. Some ideas to encourage dialogue and active implementation are: Short training interventions, in which country staff have the opportunity to raise questions about their specific issues. Peer learning events on anti-corruption, to share experiences with colleagues and learn what’s working elsewhere. An on-demand support function for country staff to bounce ideas around and discuss doubts and concerns relating to anti-corruption. Learn more Find out more about the Public Governance team and its research, training and technical assistance services. See the team’s dedicated resource site on informal governance and its implications for the fight against corruption. Download this quick guide as a PDF and view all quick guides.
Rethinking governance in the times of the COVID-19 pandemic
The enormity of the situation brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic invites – or rather forces – us to reflect on the nature and effectiveness of our systems of governance. And not just of health systems, but more broadly the governance of our very complex societies and their transnational flows. I start with some definitions, as the term governance is itself broad and contested. You say governance, I say…what? Governance, as many development practitioners understand and apply the concept, is frequently used to refer to certain positive attributes that organisations and institutions often public institutions should incorporate. These attributes include abstract concepts such as: Transparency Accountability Control of corruption Efficiency Inclusiveness Rule of law This manner of understanding governance, often also referred to as “good governance”, has strong normative connotations. It has been the subject of criticism by many who argue that development cooperation seeks to transport Western models of state institutions to contexts where they do not fit the local realities and customs. To get an idea of this discussion see for example Good Governance, R.I.P by Merilee S. Grindle, Good Governance and Aid in Africa by Patrick McAuslan and How Good Governance Got a Bad Name by Kim Eric Bettcher. This is not the use of the term governance that I want to discuss. Rather, I want to bring our attention to the notion of governance as a more general analytical concept that refers to the rules formal and informal distributing roles, defining practices, setting boundaries, and shaping behaviours with the goal of attaining a collective outcome. This definition suggests that effective governance is about setting rules and incentives such as enforceable orders, directives or recommendations. Through these, the behaviours of a substantial number of individuals in the group of interest are steered in a direction that is conducive to achieving collective goals. Governance models are being put to the test In our current situation with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the central governance issue involves getting people to divert from their normal routines in the name of public health goals. In some cases, they are even asked to forego engaging in the activities that provide daily sustenance. A tall order to say the least. This highlights the importance of assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the different models of governance which are being put to the test by leaders as they are confronted with extremely difficult choices to contain the spread of the coronavirus. On the one hand, there is the model of governance adopted by the Chinese government to deal with the outbreak. At the moment it appears to have succeeded at stopping the contagion, but it is clearly problematic from a human rights perspective. On the other hand, democratic governments in Europe and elsewhere are confronted with the enormous challenge of trying to control an emergency situation with all means possible while respecting democratic rights and freedoms. What factors underpin the current challenges? The underlying sources of the difficulties in braking the spread of the virus are varied, intertwined and complex. But if we are to learn out of this experience how to make governance more effective, we can and should take a step back to discern the different factors that are at play in hindering the containment of the pandemic. For instance, it is a well-known fact that macro-level collective action problems quickly surface when promoting a public good. The proverbial free rider problem arises because individuals estimate they can still pursue their particular interests go out, meet my friends and enjoy the public good contained virus spread if everyone else is abiding by the collective rules staying home, avoiding social contact . However, we know that individuals can also display generosity towards others and join together to punish those who violate rules that promote the well-being of the wider group. This clearly indicates that social norms are also a factor that needs to be considered as we think about developing better governance approaches to confront crisis situations. Harnessing social norms and behavioural insights to promote the public good Societies where close social, physical contact hugs and kisses to greet each other are the norm will naturally require a greater conscious effort to enforce social distancing than other countries where social interactions involve less physical contact and where individualism is more prevalent. However, tight social links also are associated to high levels of social capital and trust, which are key in overcoming collective action problems. Ongoing work on social norms and governance should delve deeper into these topics and suggest ways in which deeply rooted social practices can be harnessed in the pursuit of the public good. We should also think about the manner in which behavioural insights may reinforce behaviour changes desperately needed to address the crisis. Visibly salient environmental cues could help people remember the steps simple as they may be that they need to take to prevent contagion. Many wonderful examples of how simple changes in the landscape can promote better accountability and citizen empowerment have been collected by Dieter Zinnbauer in his ambient-accountability site and can provide inspiration on reshaping our environments to promote public health goals. Moving governance beyond the state and towards empowering the people The crisis, as tragic as it is, also opens immense opportunities. I believe that energies should be invested in governance programmes moving beyond the sphere of public institutions. I am talking about decisive and sustained public education and awareness-raising campaigns to ingrain the recognition that the existential threats we face are of a global nature. They require global, collective responses. Whether a pandemic or the effects of global warming, the crises that are surely to come will continue to underscore our interdependence and interconnectedness. The current crisis has made it clear how vulnerable we are to what happens on the other side of the planet. Thus, we should start planning to help people be prepared to react and change behaviours in pursuit of the global common good – that common good to which all our individual fates are tied. Education will inevitably be a big part of that, highlighting the fact that contributing towards the welfare of others is ultimately a contribution towards our own individual well-being. This includes raising awareness about the right to hold accountable those who govern and speak in our names. COVID-19 reveals the weakness of populism and isolationism… The coronavirus is egalitarian and does not give in to false claims. It attacks everyone regardless of economic class, political affiliation and race. It exposes demagoguery. The current crisis is therefore clearly demonstrating the weaknesses of those who try to solve global problems by reverting to isolationist strategies. It is the right time to emphasise the need to demand decisions from our leaders that are based on science and evidence and not on ideological or populist claims. …and teaches us the value of public goods Last, but certainly not least, it is indispensable to raise awareness about the value of public goods. I have spent 10 years conducting research on the drivers of corruption, interrogating why corruption seems to be so resilient, and collecting data on popular beliefs and attitudes towards corruption from many different sociocultural contexts. Based on this experience, I am convinced that corruption partly results from a lack of appreciation for the common good. There is considerable evidence that in those countries most affected by corruption, there is a notable disregard for the value of the public sphere. “The public space is not important because it belongs to nobody” is a belief I have seen expressed by individuals in Africa, Latin America and Asia alike. For the same reason, people justify stealing public funds because in the end they are not perceived to belong to anyone in particular. Today, as we are caught in the midst of this pandemic, we have a golden opportunity to vigorously push for a global agenda that raises consciousness about protecting public goods. The coronavirus pandemic is here and its effects on our lives are still unimaginable. It has opened our eyes to the limitations we have to generate effective governance in the face of a public health crisis. We should clearly invest significant efforts to research and test approaches to protect public health, and that should be of course a high priority. But we should also do much more to prepare for the global, collective challenges that await us in the future. Learn more Explore the anti-corruption research and insights of Claudia Baez Camargo and her team at the Basel Institute. Learn more about informal governance. Photo by Ryoji Iwata on Unsplash.
Claudia Baez Camargo’s quick guide to social norms and corruption
This quick guide draws on a more comprehensive blog by Claudia Baez Camargo published on the website of the Global Integrity Anti-Corruption Evidence GI-ACE research programme. Find more details on the GI-ACE anti-corruption research projects led by Dr Baez Camargo’s team at the Basel Institute on Governance, as well as other pioneering research on social norms and implications for anti-corruption practice, at the end of this guide. What is a social norm? Like many abstract concepts it is slippery, but a good definition is that of Church and Chigas 2019 : social norms are “mutual expectations held by members of a group about the right way to behave in a particular situation”. For an everyday example, think of your workplace. You and your colleagues expect each other to behave in a certain way in shared office spaces, at meetings, during joint projects, etc. These unspoken expectations are social norms, and you may not even realise that they exist – until somebody breaks them. How do social norms drive and perpetuate corrupt behaviour? If most people believe acts of corruption are accepted and expected by those around them, it is not difficult to see why corruption persists. Say you grew up and live in a community where public officials routinely demand bribes and your family and friends routinely pay them without questioning whether it is right or wrong to do so. You would probably find it hard to even recognise that this behaviour might be corrupt and unfair, never mind stand up against it. The case of health facilities in East Africa In a recent research project in East Africa, we found that users of public health facilities often offer unsolicited bribes and gifts in order to create a relationship with the provider. The expectation is that having a “provider friend” helps facilitate access to treatment. This is perhaps no surprise when you think about the queues, waiting times and shortage of essential medicines and medical supplies at many of these public health facilities. Now comes the first interesting question: is a social norm underpinning this behaviour? How to identify social norms that drive corrupt behaviour First, let’s distinguish between four related concepts: Personal attitudes: What an individual believes is appropriate behaviour in a particular situation, e.g. a health worker believes that it is wrong to accept a gift from a patient. Descriptive social norms: Beliefs about what others do, e.g. the health worker believes that her colleagues routinely accept gifts from patients. Injunctive social norms: Beliefs about what behaviours others approve or disapprove of, e.g. the health worker believes that most of her colleagues think it is fine to accept gifts from patients. Behaviours: What people actually do when confronted with that situation, e.g. the health worker accepts or rejects a gift from a patient. You can see that social norms 2 and 3 are different from both personal attitudes 1 and from actual behaviours 4 . Which makes them difficult to measure. The trick is to look for an informal enforcement component – i.e. when people who behave in a particular way are rewarded e.g. reputation, friendships, smiles and those who break the norm are punished e.g. social isolation, gossiping, frowns . Back to our research project in East Africa: during field research in Tanzania, we found that bribery and gift-giving is widespread, expected and accepted in public health facilities by both patients and providers. Those who refuse to give or accept bribes and gifts suffer social costs such as gossiping and bad-mouthing. The exchange of gifts and bribes at public health facilities in Tanzania is therefore a social norm. What are the implications for anti-corruption practice? If social norms are driving corrupt behaviour, then anti-corruption measures that only target individual incentives and behaviours are unlikely to work. They ignore the overpowering social pressures generated by these collective beliefs. And they ignore the fact that social norms are often unconscious and not a result of deliberate cost-benefit calculations. The implications for anti-corruption practice are therefore huge. The million-dollar question …is of course, how to design anti-corruption interventions to identify social norms that fuel and perpetuate corruption, measure them and tackle them. This is exactly what we are doing in the GI-ACE-funded project, Addressing Bribery in the Tanzanian Health Sector: A Behavioural Approach, together with co-investigators Dr. Richard Sambaiga University of Dar es Salaam , Prof. Tobias Stark University of Utrecht and Ms Ruth Persian UK Behavioural Insights Team . We hope that the results of our pilot intervention in Tanzania will be valuable in informing anti-corruption interventions in public health sectors worldwide. As well as – why not – all cases of corrupt behaviour where social norms have a major role to play. Find out more View Claudia Baez Camargo’s blog on the GI-ACE website: Working with social norms to develop effective anti-corruption interventions Learn about the Basel Institute’s recent research projects and findings. See current projects and publications on social norms and corruption. Read about a separate GI-ACE research project led by the Basel Institute on Harnessing Informality: Designing Anti-Corruption Network Interventions and Strategic Use of Legal Instruments. Download a PDF of this quick guide.
Back
Go back to the team overview