Designing Programming Responses to Combat Corruption in Education Sector

Presentation by Anga Timilsina, Programme Manager, UNDP Global Programme on Anti-Corruption for Development Effectiveness (PACDE)

24 November 2011Bratislava, Slovakia

Outline

1. Challenges for designing responses

2. Some guiding principles from UNDP experiences

3. Step-by-step approach to programming

Scenario 1: Political/Macro Level Corruption vs. Sectoral Level Corruption

What do you do when grand corruption (state capture) exists? Do you prioritize high level corruption or sectoral corrution? (Example from Egypt, Tunisia)

Yes for fighting corruption in sectors!

1. High frequency of occurrence of corruption at low levels

2. Spill over effect (Broken window theory: major crime will be reduced by enforcing laws on minor offenses)

3. Sectoral approach directly impact the poor and marginalized, vulnerable population

4. Sectoral approach strengthens preventive mechanism

Scenario 2: Ruling elite do not allow you to go for big fish? (in Central Asia???)

Do you want to legitimize the illegitimate by sacrificing small fish?

Yes for fighting corruption in sectors!

1. Low hanging fruits (ruling elite willing to work in sectors

2. Sectoral approach could be a good entry point to a larger reform ): visible progress might be made (e.g., policy reform with low cost)

3. Bottom up approach/building critical mass (India?): Fighting corruption in sectors gives a human face (no corruption more children in school)

“Combating Corruption is like Judo. Instead of bluntly resisting the criminal forces, one must redirect the enemy's energy to its own decay”.

--Dr. Johann Graf Lambsdorff, Univ. of Passau, Germany

Some Guiding Principle for AC Programming/Designing Responses

1. Starting point: clarify the issue: What actually is the problem and what you are trying to respond? (key stakeholder engagement)

2. Find out what corruption risks you are targeting (risks assessment/measurement) will help to prioritize your responses, but they are not an end themselves

3. Know political environment and other complexities (define a minimum entry point)

4. Focusing both on institutional reform and changing attitude and mobilizing skeptical population

5. Sustainability (ownership)/follow ups (e.g., Botswana)

Experiences from Botswana: Strengthening Integrity of Systems in the Ministry of Education

1. Entry point: mandates of Directorate of Economic Crime and Corruption – System analysis as sectoral preventive strategy to identify weaknesses

2. Sustainability: research capacity of DCEC; periodic audit, effective coordination mechanism

3. Ownership and buy-in: Risk management approach (risk management plan)

Step 3:

Prioritize the key issues by looking at enabling

environment and formulate programming

responses (e.g., risk management plan)

 

Step 4:

Implement risk management plan together with the line

ministry or department

Step 1:

Engage keyStakeholders to assess/measure corruption risks

Step 5:

Evaluate the impact of the implementation plan; compile

lessons learned to feed into the next cycle of risk assessment

Step 2: 

Identify the risks and analyze the significance of each risk by using risk ranking matrix (looking at likelihood and cost)

CD approach: System

analysis as a sectoral

preventive strategy

Quotable quotes

• Wang an Shih, 11th century, blamed corruption on bad men and bad laws

• Klitgaad and Baser, ’not primarily a problem of bad people but of bad systems’

Way forward: UNDP’s priorities for 2012 and beyond

• UNDP recently mapped out corruption risks and good practices in education, health and water sectors

• Compiling information from pilots aimed at monitoring of services in India, the Philippines, Kenya, Nigeria, Uganda and Zambia

• Planning to support at least 12 pilots on education, health and water sectors in 2012

• Key criteria: EOI should be clear on impact (not just assessment), sustainability (ability to mobilize more funding, local ownership, partnership, etc.)

Prevention is better than cure!

Thank You!