High level participatory diagnoses have proved remarkably fruitful in generating frank analyses of sensitive policy issues, leading to suggestions for remedial measures. But sometimes there is no carrot or stick to keep that momentum moving.
The dividing line between willing and unwilling leaders is not as precise as journalistic accounts may make it appear. Most people who are corrupt or who lead corrupt institutions are schizophrenic about corruption. They may sincerely loathe it and wish to eradicate it, while at the same time participating in it or allowing it to occur. (I am told that psychologists and police personnel often encounter similar phenomena.) So it is that in my workshops on corruption, after some time people are remarkably frank about the corruption that exists, how it works, and how it might be prevented even when their analysis belies an intimate knowledge that can only be incriminating.
Describing these workshops on corruption may contain general lessons. Sensitive subjects like administrative adjustment may require a therapeutic approach. First the subject is demystified through the analysis by participants of corruption in other countries and successful campaigns to reduce it. Then analytical frameworks are supplied that help participants realize that corruption is not (just or primarily) a problem of evil people but of corrupt systems. The formula is: corruption equals monopoly plus discretion minus accountability. To members of corrupt organizations this insight often proves therapeutic.
As in good therapy, the participants then move to self diagnosis and self prescription. The facilitator assists in several ways: by asking questions, helping combine seemingly different phenomena or separate seemingly similar ones, by pushing when the group avoids work or escapes into relativism or cynicism. Out of such session emerge a deeper understanding of general phenomena and specific manifestations, and (if one is lucky) a six month plan of action.
This plan may require assistance, and this is where external people may enter. They can help with money and ideas, and they can help in surprising ways by imposing conditions and deadlines that fortify local decision and self discipline. An aura of international respectability part of a worldwide program to fight the universal plague of corruption, not just here in [country x] may help nervous actors coalesce around reform.
Such workshops can and perhaps should occur at many levels of society, but it is important that the first one involve the highest levels of government. Ideally, the president would call the workshop, and ministers, military leaders, legislators, judges, police chiefs, heads of labor unions, heads of business groups, and heads of religious organizations would participate. The ideal number of participants is 20 to 25. The ideal format is 1 1/2 to 2 days, in the mode of a retreat. The first session analyzes a case from another country, presenting the problem via slides and asking the group to divide into subgroups of about 8 people. Each subgroup is asked to describe the types of corruption in the case, say which is most serious and which least, list alternatives and their pros and cons, and make a recommendation. After 45 minutes, the subgroups report to a plenary session. After discussion, slides then show what the country in question actually did, and the results. Success stories are used.
Then after a break there is a lecture on the economics of corruption, focusing on motive and opportunity, and on the equation corruption = monopoly + discretion accountability. Questions and discussion are encouraged.
The second case goes further than the first. It asks not only for what might be called an economic analysis of corruption and how to fight it, but for a political strategy. Three lessons emerge from the case and from other success stories I have studied. First, in order to break the culture of corruption and cynicism, big fish must be fired major violators, including violators from the ruling party. Second, after big fish are fried, anti corruption efforts should focus on prevention. This includes the selection of agents, changing incentives, enhancing accountability, structural changes to mitigate monopoly and clarify discretion, and efforts to increase the moral costs of corruption. Third, involve the people. They know where corruption resides. Give them a chance to tell. Under this rubric come hot lines, citizen oversight boards, using village organizations to monitor public works, involving accounting and lawyers groups in oversight operations, and so forth.
After finishing the second case, the participants turn to their own situation. The outside facilitator here asks them to go through the same headings as before: what kinds of corruption exist, which are more serious and which less, what are the alternatives and their pros and cons, and what do they recommend. The subgroups go off and analyze, then present their results to the full group. A vivid discussion ensues. After a break, the facilitator poses a final challenge. This has been a fascinating exercise. But we do not want it to be just another seminar. What has to happen in the next six months, what concrete steps by this group, to move things forward?
A fascinating and practical agenda emerges. What is sometimes lacking, as mentioned above, are the resources, the expertise, and the leverage to make that agenda come true.
![[Valid RSS feed]](http://www.look4articles.com/images/icon_Rss.png "XML Feed For RSS"){kind=icon}
Category Rss Feed
Print This Article
Add To Favorites
![[Valid RSS feed]](http://www.look4articles.com/images/rss.jpg "XML Feed For RSS")