SOCIAL PREVENTION AND PUBLIC EMPOWERMENT

For ease of reference, prevention measures have been classified either as

"situational", targeting specific situations in which corruption problems are

to be addressed, or "social", targeting more general social or economic factors in

order to bring about conditions that are less likely to produce or support corrupt

practices. Most "social" prevention measures have to do with raising awareness

of corruption and mobilizing citizens to refrain from corrupt practices themselves

and to expect integrity on the part of those who provide services, particularly in

the public sector. For that reason, many of the social elements of anti-corruption

programmes can also be considered as "empowerment" measures, in that they

provide powers and incentives for members of the population to take appropriate

action.

Other measures in this category, such as oversight and accountability structures

work more through surveillance and deterrence, but on a scale so broad that they

affect the entire public sector, and in some cases the private sector as well.

Thus, for example, transparency measures specific to a situation such as a

public procurement process would be considered situational measures, whereas

the adoption of access to information laws bringing transparency to the entire

public sector would be more in the nature of social prevention. There is,

however, some overlap between the two. They are interspersed throughout

Chapter II of the United Nations Convention against Corruption, and some

specific provisions embody elements of both.139

The social measures dealt with in the following section are arguably more

powerful instruments than situational prevention measures because of the impact

they can achieve. They are, however, much more general in nature. Most

include elements that tend to prevent corruption; most, however, go further,

including elements that also bring about other desirable outcomes. Generally,

raising the awareness, integrity and expectations of large numbers of people will

have two outcomes:

• It will prevent corruption by increasing deterrence and making those prone to

corrupt practices less likely to engage in them;

• It will make reactive elements of anti-corruption strategies stronger and more

effective. Mechanisms such as criminal law enforcement and audit structures

will become more effective, for example as public expectations make outside

interference more difficult, and those affected by corruption more likely to

report incidents and cooperate with investigations and prosecutions.

Ultimately, the success or failure of any national anti-corruption strategy will

depend to a very large degree on the extent to which it mobilizes popular

concern about the true costs of corruption. In the vast majority of cases, it is

society as a whole that bears the costs of corruption, and it is the tolerance or

apathy of the citizens that allow corruption to flourish. While specific institutions

or individuals may be held accountable for specific cases or specific corruption

problems, those who hold them accountable are, in turn, accountable to the

people. Mobilizing public opinion in support of strong anti-corruption measures

also entails mobilizing popular support for high standards of integrity and

performance in public and private administration and opposition to corrupt

practices wherever they occur. If this is done, anti-corruption strategies will have

a greater chance to succeed.