REDUCING CORRUPTION IN PUBLICGOVERNENCE

Introduction

Public Governance refers to the process of decision making in the management of social
and economic resources of a country or its units and the mechanisms by which decisions
are implemented for its development. Democracy, as a system of governance, signifies a
government of, by and for the people and entails features of good governance such as
timely elections, rule of law, accountability, transparency, predictability, non-corrupt
practices etc. Corruption, a menace that plagues effective functioning of governments,
exists both in democratic and authoritarian forms of governance even though democracy
is considered to be the best form of governance so far invented. Corruption is an insidious
disease of public governance that damages welfare measures, weakens economic growth
and distorts the focus of governance.
What is Corruption?

There is no single universally accepted definition for corruption. Attempts to develop

such a definition did not result in success. But there were many attempts that identified
the core features of corruption in an identical manner.

Corruption1 is abuse of public office for personal gain or actions causing transfer of
public money to private hands, in violation of rules. It entails acts of omission,
commission or illegality. Some kinds of corruption go on even within the framework of
laws appearing as lawful acts. Procedural correctness in administration does not preclude
the possibility of corruption. Similarly the deficiencies in procedures or lapses in
formalities alone cannot be inferred as actions falling within the ambit of corruption.
Corruption occurs even as part of policy formulation aimed at benefitting some interest
groups without violating any statue, rule or regulation.

Corruption can be classified into two – coercive and collusive. In coercive corruption,
bribe giver is forced to give bribe whereas in collusive corruption the bribe giver is an
equal partner. Corruption can again be classified as petty or grand, passive or active and
so on.

Corruption or bribery leads to undue actions and bestowing of undue benefits to in

eligible persons by establishing the vices of governance like favouritism, nepotism and
clientelism. Corruption normally involves payment of money to politicians or
government officials to obtain license/permit, by-pass regulation, avoid delays, jump
queues etc even though many forms of rent seeking are possible within it. Corruption
reflects patronage, nepotism, red-tape, ineffective revenue generation, bribery in
procurement, failure in service delivery etc which may or may not involve direct financial
consideration.

Indian Scenario
1
A historical perspective of corruption is detailed in Jain(2001) PP 11-32
India, the largest democracy in the world is now at a crossroads with many positive
elements of good governance on one hand and shameful aberrations of bad governance
including growing corruption, on the other. Corruption and concern about it is not new in
India. Political history indicates that India has never been free from corruption in ancient
times, the colonial period or even the Nehru’s period after independence. Many higher
level civil servants are believed to be corrupt or accomplices of corrupt ministers. Lower
bureaucracy involves in speed money or bribes. Legislature, judiciary, media and
independent professionals are not devoid of corruption. Allegations on corruption to
harass political opponents leveled by political parties when they remain in opposition and
not doing anything on it when they are in power later, politicized the allegations on
corruption as a tool to gain power. Legislative attempts could not make any marked
difference in dealing with corruption. Investigative journalism could expose innumerable
instances of corruption, but without much sustainability or stable remedial action. So a
close look at its nuances is imminent, if we want to deal with it effectively.

Consequences of Corruption

Corruption in public offices has grown worse over the years and has become a threat to
the stability of governance and democracy in India and the world over. It may destroy
peoples trust in state institutions. Every office is a position of trust. The cancer of
corruption has seeped into the blood stream of every sphere of our polity and public
governance. It touches every sort of activity in every sector and that leads to
inefficiency2, injustice and inequity. The very existence of governance systems seems to
be at stake. Corruption renders governance into a state of near non-governance or
misdirected governance. Corruption that has been with us from time immemorial spoils
the moral foundation of the society.

The cost of corruption is enormous. Many of our development problems would have been
solved, if there were no corruption. The poorest in the society are the greatest victims of
corruption. A society with high level of corruption has low level of rule of law.
Corruption at the top distorts fundamental policies on developmental priorities. Unless
2
The concept of speed money has become one of the most serious reasons for delay, inefficiency and
maladministration.
we address the issue of corruption, we cannot ensure equity, equanimity and prosperity
through the system of governance. Corruption aggravates inequality and can end up in the
emergence of an unequal society. Corruption reduces public revenue, distorts resource
allocation, retards economic growth and weakens rule of law. Corruption threatens the
hopes of the poor by draining the money that reaches them for education, health,
employment support etc. Poor will be denied basic justice in economic, political and
social spheres. No country can afford to have high degree of corruption which leads to
loss of confidence in public institutions and retards its all round development.

Why corruption occurs?

The corruption thrives where monopoly power plus discretion minus accountability
exists without transparency. Meager salaries of staff, no incentive for performance and
mild penalties can help flourish corruption.

Many instances of corruption are collusive and in collusive corruption, the mutual
interest of the bribe giver and the recipient make it difficult to unearth corruption. In
coercive corruption, the unwilling victims are intimidated. Such cases can be unearthed.
Corruption is generally an outcome and a symptom of poor governance. Corruption and
poor governance go hand in hand. Poor governance can lead to corruption and corruption
can weaken governance going in a cyclic manner. Corruption enhances the exercise of
undue political or administrative discretion and creates consequential rent seeking
opportunities at a larger scale. The ‘political will’ of the government with focus on
improving governance is paramount in any attempt to reduce corruption. Costly elections
create a requirement for more unaccounted money and that political environment
develops a fertile land for political corruption touching every aspect of corruption.

Corruption has now become something to be scared to those who engage in it. It has
turned out to be a low-risk high reward activity. Corruption occurs when rents are high,
discretion is extensive and monitoring is nominal or soft. Absence of separation of
powers, checks and balances, transparency, system of justice and clearly defined roles in
governance mechanism inevitably lead to corruption.

The factors that promote corruption are

  Failure to ensure accountability through oversight bodies, active opposition
parties, independent media, fair and less costly elections

 Weak law enforcement structures, poor surveillance of violations etc

 Missing regulatory frameworks – legislation, codes of conduct and audit

requirements

 Low levels of individual values, societal values and transparency in governance.

 Unprofessional civil service, poor practice of ethical codes

Bad systems, bad ethics and bad incentives induce people to engage in corruption. Lack
of transparency, inadequate oversight and weak enforcement can cause corruption. The
institutional design largely influences the occurrence and opportunities for corruption.

The Legal Framework in India

India had a very good framework of law to deal with corruption, right from the
beginning3 even though we failed to translate the legislative intent into practice.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) enacted in 1860 was the main tool to prosecute corrupt in the
pre-independence India. The sections 161 to 165 were sufficiently good enough to deal
with offences by public servants. The large scale corruption in Second World War forced
the law makers to formulate an exclusive law Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA) in
1947 to reduce bribery and corruption which was amended in 1964 to incorporate the
recommendations of the Santhanam Committee. It gives immunity to bribe giver. The
Criminal Law Amendment Act was subsequently passed in 1952 which provided for
attachment of wealth obtained by a “public servant” through corrupt means. The IPC
sections for the purpose were deleted thereafter.

Later, the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 was enacted by consolidating the
provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act
1952 and some provisions of IPC. The objective of the act was to “make the existing anti
3
See Committee on Prevention of Corruption (Santhanam Committee), Report of the Committee on
Prevention of Corruption. New Delhi, Ministry of Home Affairs, 1964
corruption laws more effective by widening their coverage and strengthening the
provisions”. The act defines public servant as “any person who holds an office by virtue
of which he is authorized or required to perform any public duty”. This expansive
definition does not allow anyone who does public functioning escape the ambit of the act.
The act makes it an offence to habitually accept or agree to accept “any gratification other
than legal remuneration as a motive or reward” A public servant can be prosecuted under
the law if loss was caused to government and no public interest was served in the
transaction by the public servant that led to the loss. It is not necessary to establish that he
benefited from it. The public servant who possesses assets disproportionate to his sources
of income can also be hauled up for corruption as per the act. The history of the act shows
that it could not be used effectively to punish any political leader so far in the last twenty
to years of its existence in spite of having many effective provisions in it.

In 1967, Government of India, set up a committee to curtail the growing menace of

corruption existed then in India. There existed another law titled, The Benami
transactions (Prohibition) Act 1988 that provides for confiscation of properties illegally
acquired by corrupt means, but allied rules were not formulated and the law remains
unimplemented so far.

The parliamentary privileges, not enlisted into a code or law, provide undue protection to
the members and they need revisiting. The Members of Parliament or legislative bodies
should not have privileges to cover corrupt acts, in the name of impunity on their
parliamentary duties.

The legal codes in our country evolved from colonial rulers are not deeply rooted in our
culture or tradition and that make the laws ineffective.

Need for Reforming Laws

Laws play a key role in preventing corruption. But the legal provisions on corruption now
existing in India are not well-suited to deal with such a difficult task on the whole.
In India, taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act is
considered tantamount to corruption. It includes accepting or agreeing to accept, or
obtaining or attempting to obtain, any illegal gratification as a motive or reward for doing
or forbearing to do any official functions, favor or disfavor to any person or for or
attempting to render any service or disservice to any person.

The Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988 does not define corruption, but lists offences
of bribery, other related offences and penalties. But experience shows that such an
indirect definition of corruption cannot cover a whole range of corrupt practices
detrimental to public interest. So it is better that the laws on corruption should be drafted
with more general provisions. For example corruption can be defined as “abuse of public
office for private gain” which by definition encompasses a whole lot of malaise acts
rather than including a few imaginable activities within the definition and leaving aside
so many outside its fold.

Prosecution of public servants under the prevention of corruption act requires prior
sanction of the competent authority. This provision is designed to protect the bonafide
official actions of the executives from malicious or vexatious prosecution with cooked up
evidences. But the precaution is being misused in many cases to guard the powerful
corrupt executives.

Enacting and enforcing unenforceable laws on social maladies normally create an

environment for corruption. Unpreventable social problems need to be addressed not
legally, but by other means such as awareness building, attitude development and social
engineering. The amendments to anti-corruption law at times with stringent penal
previsions seem to be a ploy to create an illusion that action is being taken against
corruption while little is really done in practice. If any law is unenforceable or kept not
being enforced generally, it will remain redundant, meaningless or remain as a mere
mockery that encourages corruption. In practice, many legal provisions relating to
corruption are not being enforced or enforceable practically making them a mere
mockery. Lack of ‘political will’ and absence of administrative reluctance in many
situations drain the enforcement agencies relating to anti-corruption to remain without
obtaining enough resources from the government and remain functionless or inactive. In
some cases, the obstructive procedures make some provisions of laws unenforceable.
Legislations, by their poor drafting or weak constructions, create circumstances that lend
themselves to corruption. Carefully thought-out and skillfully drafted legislations can
create an environment in which corruption is less likely to occur.

Ambiguous and complex laws governing administrative practices such as service delivery
or regulatory exercises of power, which allows the public servants to have differential
interpretations, set a stage for corruption. So the laws that lack careful thinking and
skillful drafting develop an environment for corruption and the laws drafted in clear
language and unambiguous can minimize areas of discretion to officers in governance.
Skillfully worded laws with divine clarity can create an environment in which corrupt
activities are less likely to occur. Anti-corruption laws and the administrative machineries
created thereby also should not lend themselves to corruption just because of weak
drafting or poor designing.

The National Law Commission in December 2001 as per its 179th report wanted to
formulate a law to protect the whistle blowers who have a critical role in reducing
corruption. Nothing much has happened in that direction but a bill as passed by Rajya
Sabha is introduced recently in Lok Sabha. As well, there is under-utilization and neglect
of existing anti-corruption laws. It is better to make corruption, a criminal offence. As
well, seizure or forfeiture of proceeds of corruption should remain as a corruption
mitigation mechanism in the laws.

Difficulties in fighting against Corruption

Uprooting corruption is a formidable task. Every attempt to deal with it tends to

degenerate, lapse or disappoints the actors in the long run. The public outrage which
every scandal brings out at the outset tends to subside sooner or later. It is always
difficult to sustain and hard to institutionalize the public interest against corruption. So
corruption always re-emerges in a cyclic manner with different players.

In many instances of corrupt practices, government servants cannot be proved guilty for
misappropriation, but they can be removed from service for causing monetary loss to the
State. Imposition of penalties on the guilty and corrupt in public service is a difficult task
due to complexities in procedural formalities. But it is possible.

A major difficulty in fighting against corruption is due to the inherent paradox that the
cost of corruption is invisible and spread over a large number of people whereas the
visible benefits are limited to a few corrupt people in power positions. Getting even a
lobby to fight against corruption is thereby a difficult proposition. There is widespread
public cynicism about anti-corruption intervention. Political indifference, bureaucratic
inertia and citizen’s apathy make anti-corruption effort much difficult. In spite of this,
sincere and strategic endeavors in some parts of the world show spectacular success in
bringing down flagrant institutionalized corruption.

The fight against corruption should not be an end in itself; rather it should be a skilful
strategy to reform the governance or to vitalize service delivery. Preventing corruption
can raise revenue, improve service delivery and stimulate people’s participation.
Government should look into more important reform areas like public service
effectiveness, working with private sector, empowering citizen and making vibrant
economic development for launching innovative initiatives. If the approach towards fight
against corruption is oriented towards the path of administrative reforms, the result would
be more positive, productive and motivating. It can then both prevent the plundering of
public money and help in improving the services. Let us look at two of those examples.

Two Prominent Anti-corruption Case Studies

Hong Kong’s Anti Corruption Strategy

Hon Kong’s initiative in 1985 to root out corruption in the police department remains as
an excellent learning exercise4. Police corruption created a climate of distrust in the entire
government and lead to a loss of international investment. The usual solution such as
stronger laws, more powers to anti-corruption offices and detailed investigation failed to
address the growth of corruption.

Hong Kong then governor Mac Lahore adopted a new strategy. He created a new
Independent Anti Corruption Agency (IACA) with talented staff, good leadership and
five oversight boards to guide and monitor the agency. The agency emphasized
prevention and citizen’s participation. For prevention, the government functions were
analyzed, reduced the monopoly, streamlined discretion and promoted accountability. As
well, service delivery was improved. The citizens were educated about the harmful
outcomes of corruption and mobilized them to provide information.

The independent commission against corruption had three departments

 Operations Department for investigation

 Corruption prevention Department for taking remedial measures

 Community Relation Department to involve people

The results were remarkable and the systematic corruption in the police force was broken.

Experience of the Least Corrupt Country

The experience of Finland , the least corrupt country in the world, shows that they could
reduce the corruption because of a set of conditions such as provision of welfare services
for the aged and unemployed, good status and pay for civil servants, induction of lawyers
on senior civil service posts, refinery system for researching and suggesting options on
issues publicized by the Government, non-political civil servant as Heads of Ministries,
transparency and openness, the duty to provide public explanation on decisions,
collective decision making, personal independence and responsibility in administration, a
closed civil service career system etc .
4
Klitgaard, Robert et al: Corrupt cities: A practical guide to cure and prevention. Washington, World Bank
Institute, 2000. P 17
In Finland, the Supreme Court is endowed with clarification and examination of legal and
administrative norms. Everyone in public service is reminded of the limits and correct
interpretation of the norms.

A Policy Framework for less corruption in Governance

A framework or system that provides fewer incentives or opportunities for corruption is

the right prescription for reducing corruption. One’s exclusive discretionary control over
any good or service without accountability provides a good environment for corruption.
So the system should have reduced monopoly power, limited discretion and increased
accountability to minimize the possibility of corruption.

A strong political will of the government is a sine qua non for reducing corruption. Anti
corruption initiatives will become unsuccessful without strong political will. The
legislators can strengthen systems of accountability, reduce opportunities of corruption,
improve incentives for probity and promote popular demand for integrity. The
Parliament5 can join in the fight for corruption by enacting appropriate laws and
overseeing the enforcement of these laws through its committees. But more laws create
more scope for red tape, more red tape create more scope for corruption.

Media plays a critical role in curbing corruption through investigative reporting and
exposure. Recent incidents like revelation in Radial tapes and 2G scam indicate that a
section of media is part of public corruption in our country. Existence of transparency
laws, vibrant civil society, citizen’s charter etc is the other essential requirement. Civil
society in association with media can act as critical watch dogs to reduce corruption.

All procedures, laws and regulations that breed corruption or come against efficient
delivery system, will have to be eliminated. Enforcement of rule of law and deterrent
punishment can reduce corruption. A policy of zero tolerance to all types of corruption
which permeate governance, legal systems and administration can do a lot.

5
For more details see the book Role of parliament in Curbing corruption edited by Rick Stephen et al.
Washington, The World Bank, 2006. The book describes in depth the consequences of ignoring or
tolerating corruption. The role of parliament in anti-corruption legislation is described in chapter 5
Distinct separation of powers, checks and balances, transparent actions and clear do’s &
don’ts are remedial mechanisms against corruption. Avoid complex laws, rules and
regulations. Simple and clear administrative systems with little discretion will reduce the
possibility of corruption. Since corruption remains as a low-risk and high-gain activity to
those who are being involved, there is need to raise the punishment and make its risk very
high. Our criminal system should provide penalty that we give for murder for serious
crimes causing heavy public loss or widespread suffering. As well, increase the incentives
such as high salary to prevent corruption. Efficiently managed services provide fewer
opportunities for engaging in corruption as citizens neither need to compete for nor to pay
bribes to get the services or resources.

A merit based, professional and non-partisan civil service which is appropriately sized
and well motivated, is a pre-requisite to establish good governance in public spheres.
Meritocracy can reduce corruption to a great extend if civil servants are paid adequately.
Adequate pay may dispel the temptation for corruption arising out of lack of means for
living. Inadequate management and remuneration of the civil servants are sure causes of
corruption in bureaucracy. Adequate wages to employees can pre-empt them from opting
to the path of corruption. Well managed, broad based and visionary civil service reforms
including wage enhancement to adequate level can do a lot in reducing corruption.

Sound financial management system – with proper budgeting, accounting and auditing -
which allows objective setting up of targets, appropriate allocation of resources and
efficient implementation should be in place. There should be transparent preparation,
effective execution and careful monitoring of budget. Rigorous accounting, timely
financial reporting and meaningful auditing are essential elements in establishing a good
public governance system. The procurement practices should be proper, prudent and that
disallows exercise of patronage by those who handle it.

An accountable, impartial and corrupt-free judiciary is essential to exercise oversight

function. Vigorous application and enforcement of laws and prosecution of offenders is
essential. Weak investigation, policing and prosecution should be strengthened to ensure
compliance with law. Independent Ombudsman can be effective to contain corruption and
maladministration. In order to reduce corruption, judiciary should function in such a way
to bring corrupt executives to book. Use of purposeful disciplinary action in
administration can reduce corruption considerably. Appointment of Ombudsman - quasi-
judicial court - can do a lot in reducing corruption by referring corruption complaints to
anti-corruption agencies or prosecutors whenever needed and dealing with instances of
injustice by its own decision..

Audit institutions can play a great role in controlling corruption by ensuring

accountability, transparency and sound financial management. Audit can detect fraud , or
abuse and can foster strong financial management. So empowerment of audit is
necessary which can be done by ensuring the qualifications of auditors, fixing standards
of audit procedures and avoiding neglect of audit recommendations.

A sample code of conduct that spells out appropriate behavior of both elected and
appointed functionaries is a preventive mechanism to fight against corruption.
Enhancement of people’s participation in public affairs will reduce corruption.
Governance should be designed to make it easy for functionaries to do good and difficult
to do evil while exercising statutory powers. Simplification of rules and regulations is a
clear pre-condition for less corruption.

Political parties are now considered as the most corrupt institutions. The tendency of
political leadership to ignore policy making and to involve in routine administrative
actions which are in the domain of bureaucrats in public governance is on the increase. It
should be discouraged to ensure proper checks and balances between the elected
functionaries and appointed officials. The public functionaries, in general, consider the
official position as an opportunity to plunder public money.

Decentralizing state functions with due accountability mechanisms can reduce corruption.
Decentralization brings people closer to governance and creates forums for involving
them in governance. Corruption operates best under the veil of secrecy when no one else
is there to oversee.

Increasing public access to information is a powerful mechanism for ensuring

accountability. Public complaint mechanisms, citizen’s charter and regular assessment of
service delivery can do much in reducing corruption.
Launching an Anti-Corruption move

Corruption can be dealt with by some strategic steps6.

There should be national or state level strategies footed on ‘political will’ to promote
good governance and eliminate corruption. The strategies should engender transparency
and accountability in all sectors covering all active or passive actors in corruption.
Specialized anti-corruption agencies with autonomy are needed to push the drive and
coordinate the actions.

Any anti corruption move should start with an assessment of the nature and extend of
corruption by using surveys, interviews and other appropriate means. Determine how
corruption works, who is involved, who benefits and who is adversely affected. An
assessment of institutions should also be made to find out which institutions are affected
by corruption and how they can be placed in the anti-corruption drive. This would help in
identifying the priority in reforms needed in different kinds of institutions. Any
assessment or analysis of corruption should be done in a holistic and participatory
manner. While beginning any anti-corruption drive, it is better to start with the types of
corruption that are more visible or hated by the people so that it will get better mass
support.

A workshop of stakeholders should be convened to develop, implement and evaluate anti-

corruption strategies that are needed. Such workshops should set goals, timeline and
sequencing of actions.

As well, it is essential to prosecute and punish high level visible perpetrators, as a

symbolic act to build the confidence of public activists. In order to rupture the culture of
impunity, key corrupt actors should be punished visibly as a model act to build the
confidence of people. Simultaneously, there would be attempt to educate the citizen about
the varied harms that may arise out of corruption.

The fight against corruption should focus on corrupt systems rather than on individuals.
Prosecuting the guilty is also important. But prosecution alone does not reduce the
6
A brief account of anti-corruption strategies are described in the Commonwealth Expert Group Report
titled Fighting Corruption: Promoting Good Governance. London, Commonwealth, 2000 PP 3-21
opportunities or incentives for corruption. A change in the system may yield better
results than any change in the individuals in the system. If we do not change the
institution or the environment, the next occupants of the position will likely to be corrupt
as their predecessors because of the mismatch between the rewards and the risks
associated with corruption. Any strategy towards enhancing the quality of governance
and reducing the degree of corruption should result in effective public services as its
outcome rather than mere reduction in corruption as an end in itself.

Existing laws should be carefully analyzed, re-defined and modified with better practices
and enhanced penalties, for avoiding chances of corruption. It is better to have
Ombudsman to attend cases of mal-administration, neglect or inefficiency in discharging
duties. Decentralization initiatives that lead to real devolution of power down to the
people will also reduce corruption as it widens the citizen’s access to governance. In
short, diagnosing the corrupt practices, designing a strategy and implementing the
activities sincerely can contain corruption, improve efficiency and bring in good
governance.

Any anti-corruption activity should seek to find its possible allies - institutional and
individual - during its progress and such allies can boost the drive against it. An anti-
corruption drive with high voltage publicity can change the public perception and values

Conclusion

Elimination of corruption is a moral necessity and an economic need to make

governments work well. Citizen’s inability to hold the Government accountable and to
demand accountability from the Government leads to unabated corruption. Corruption
can be reduced if we nip it at the bud rather than handling it after the event or at a stage
when the handling has become difficult. In corruption, prevention is better than cure.

There is a saying that when the ruler himself is right, the people naturally follow the right
course. If the ruler is wrong, it would be difficult for the ruled to remain on the right path.
On the other hand, it is true that as is the ruled so is the ruler. A corrupt government is the
result of a corrupt society. Whatever be, all those who refuse to take part in governance
will have to suffer under corrupt men whom we elect.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Guhan, S and Paul, Samuel Ed., 1997. Corruption in India: Agenda for Action.
New Delhi, Vision Books

2. Jain, Arvind K Ed, 2002. The Political Economy of Corruption. London,

Routledge.

3. Klitgaard, Robert, 1988. Controlling Corruption. Berkeley, University of

California Press.
4. Klitgaard et al, 2000. Corrupt Cities: A Practical Guide to Cure and Prevention.
Washington, World Bank Institute.

5. Law Commission of India, 2001. One Hundred and Seventy Ninth report on the
Public Interest Disclosure and Protection of Informers. New Delhi, Government
of India.

6. Mishra, Ajit, Ed, 2005. The economics of Corruption. New Delhi, Oxford.

7. Neild, Robert, 2002. Public Corruption: The dark side of Social Evolution.
London, Anthem Press.

8. SPIDER, 2010. Increasing Transparency and Fighting Corruption through ICT:

empowering People and Communities. Stockholm, The Swedish Programmed on
ICT in Developing Regions.

9. Stapenhurst, Rick and Kpundeh, Sahr J, 1999. Curbing Corruption: Towards a

Model for Building National Integrity. Washington, The World Bank.

10. United Nations, 2004. UN Anti Corruption Toolkit. Vienna, The United Nations
Office on Drugs and Crime.

11. UNDP, 1997. Corruption and Good Governance. Discussion Paper 3. New York,
United Nations Development Programmed