Communication in Anti-Corruption Work: Articulating messages, structuring communication plans

www.dlprog.org

@dlprog

http://www.dlprog.org/

Communication in Anti-Corruption Work:

Articulating messages, structuring communication plans

Dr Heather Marquette, Director, Developmental Leadership Program/GSDRC, University of BirminghamDr David Hudson, Deputy Director, Developmental Leadership Program, University College London

Presentation to OECD DAC Anti-Corruption Task Team, Paris, 3 November 2014

Overall purpose of communications note• To help OECD DAC ACTT members better articulate

messages to explain resources spent on anti-corruption work

• Not a step-by-step plan & will require additional thinking on how to use this when engaging with other development agency staff, ministries and the public in your own countries

• Based on:• review of relevant literature (evidence

papers, evaluations, policy strategy documents, academic articles etc.)

• interviews with key development agency staff, civil society partners and academics

• reflections on HM’s research over the past fifteen years into donor anti-corruption programmes & DH’s research on public attitudes towards aid

The Developmental Leadership Program www.dlprog.org

3

Questions covered

1. What is the corruption and why is it important in development cooperation? What is the impact of corruption on development?

2. What do we know about the public in DAC countries’ perceptions about corruption in development aid? Have these changed over time? How do these compare with public perceptions of corruption elsewhere?

3. How can we measure corruption? What do current measures tell us? How are these measures being used to shape policy and make decisions on aid allocations, aid instruments, etc.?

4. What are donors currently doing in the fight against corruption (past and current trends, tools approaches)? In particular, what are the complexities in protecting aid funds with the increased trend in using developing countries’ own systems for the management, safeguards and reporting on the use of funds (through budget support, sector wide approaches, working in conflict settings, etc.)?

5. What has worked? What has not worked?


4

Impact of corruption on development (Q1)


5

Purpose:• To help explain why anti-corruption work is so

vital for development & development agencies• To demonstrate how complex anti-corruption work

needs to be• To flag up how aid is one small part of the

story

Key points to consider:– The human cost of corruption is high but

difficult to quantify (story = India school dinner poisoning)

– Corruption’s complexity makes it very difficult to deal with through discrete projects and programmes

– A lack of policy coherence between development agencies and between agencies and their governments makes this worse (story = $9bn in cash going missing in Afghanistan)

Measuring corruption for better decision-making (Q3) Purpose:• To help explain why measuring corruption is so

challenging• To question why non-specialists would turn to an

indicator other than the CPI• To flag up how corruption plays a very small

role, if any, in investment decisions

Key points to consider:– Knowledge of governance/corruption indicators

are rarely known outside specialist circles & the CPI ‘rules’

– Instead of trying to raise awareness, governance specialists could provide better, more clear information on a regular basis

– Other factors are often much more important in decision-making –and should be - but we’re not always honest about this


6

Role of development agencies

in fighting corruption (Q4)Purpose:• To set out some of the challenges in the ‘3rd’

generation of anti-corruption work• To highlight some recent innovations on

protecting aid funds• To flag up internal (political) challenges –

collective action among donors & the pipeline

Key points to consider:– There are some exciting new approaches to

safe-guarding aid under way but need better narrative on risks

– There are often two camps: the nuanced camp (‘be honest about risk’) & the ‘zero-tolerance’ camp (‘set up ring-fences’)

– Need to deal with the political challenge of protecting funds vs trying to get money out the door quickly


7

What’s worked (or not)? (Q5)Purpose:• To acknowledge the lack of evidence of success• To set out what a ‘bird’s eye view’ tells us

instead • To inject perspective on what’s realistically

possible given it has never been so easy to be corrupt

Key points to consider:– We don’t have the tools necessary to measure

success or failure– Much has actually changed in a relatively short

amount of time, but we need to be more realistic about time-frames (story = Brazil World Cup protests)

– Indirect approaches to corruption are looking more promising than direct ones (story = Afghanistan PBGF)

– Lack of policy coherence sends mixed messages about our commitment to fighting corruption


8

Public attitudes (Q2) Purpose:• To introduce evidence on what the public thinks

from an ongoing large multi-wave (2013-2018), multi-country (France, Germany, UK, US) survey project on attitudes to aid

Key points to consider:- Public attitudes in donor countries about

corruption and aid are largely pessimistic and negative. And they are hardening

- Estimates of losses to corruption are ‘all over the place’

- There is a small political space for donors to manoeuvre within when it comes to public sympathy towards corruption and tolerance levels for losses and risk taking by donors

- But it’s not all bad news. There is emerging evidence that some messages can cut through and win the public back – especially if anti-corruption efforts are foregrounded


9


10


11


12


13Tracking attitudes to corruption in the UK

Concern for Global Poverty in the UK

Can we talk about corruption experiment4 treatments into which respondents were randomly allocated. They were asked whether they strongly agreed, agreed, neither agreed nor disagreed, disagreed, or strongly disagreed with the statement that we should stop giving aid to Kenya.

– 1 Control (N=473)• Kenya is a country in East Africa. More than 40% of people in Kenya live below the

poverty line and 10,000 children die every year from diarrhoea caused by unsafe water and poor sanitation.

– 2 Societal Corruption (N=434)• Kenya is a country in East Africa. More than 40% of people in Kenya live below the

poverty line and 10,000 children die every year from diarrhoea caused by unsafe water and poor sanitation. Corruption tends to hit poor people the hardest. Widespread corruption makes life difficult for ordinary citizens because they have to pay to access basic services in places like hospitals, schools, and the police. More than 44% of Kenyans reported having to pay a bribe in the past year.

– 3 Individual Corruption (N=447)• Kenya is a country in East Africa. More than 40% of people in Kenya live below the

poverty line and 10,000 children die every year from diarrhoea caused by unsafe water and poor sanitation. Corruption tends to hit poor people the hardest. A recent government audit found that more than £30 million pounds went missing from Kenya’s Free Primary Education progamme. Sam Ongar, the Minister for Education, is alleged to have been involved in stealing funds. He was pressured to resign, but didn’t, and was never prosecuted.

– 4 Transparency Initiative (N=434)• Kenya is a country in East Africa. More than 40% of people in Kenya live below the

poverty line and 10,000 children die every year from diarrhoea caused by unsafe water and poor sanitation. Corruption tends to hit poor people the hardest. The UK government works to reduce corruption through its aid programme in Kenya; for example, through supporting citizens to report concerns and demand action, increasing accountability and transparency, and improving public financial management.


20


21

Final thoughts

All of this is resolvable but

requires political willBetter messaging needed

• Need more nuanced messages for the public other than ‘every penny of every pound’ will be protected

• Both aid supporters & sceptics expect us to take anti-corruption seriously

More realism needed• There are legitimate

reasons why development assistance is given in corrupt countries; need to be more honest and more strategic (better ‘thinking & working politically’?)

• Expectations are unrealistic when delivering aid in some of the most difficult environments in the world, but anti-corruption work should also better reflect the challenges

• More aid to FCAS – sufficient staff to deliver & monitor = potential disaster


22

Thank you for listening!

[email protected]@ucl.ac.uk

www.dlprog.org

@dlprog@hamarquette@dhudsonUCL


23

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.dlprog.org/

Communication in Anti-Corruption Work: Articulating messages, structuring communication plans

Documents

Transcript of Communication in Anti-Corruption Work: Articulating messages, structuring communication plans