Specialised Anti-Corruption Institutions - Review of Models

 

Specialised Anti-Corruption Institutions 2013 edition

Date of publication
2 April 2013

 

Browse or buy

OECD iLibrary 

Access for government officials with OLIS accounts

Local distributors



2008 EDITION

English (pdf)

Russian (pdf)

Ukrainian (pdf)


 

2013 Edition

Executive summary

International Standards and Models of Anti-corruption Institutions

Sources of International Standards

Elements of International Standards

Models of Anti-corruption Institutions

Selected Models of Specialised Anti-corruption Institutions

  • Multi-purpose Anti-corruption Agencies
  • Law Enforcement Type Institutions
  • Corruption Prevention Institutions

Countries reviewed

Azerbaijan, Botswana, Brazil, Croatia, France, Hong Kong China, Indonesia, Latvia, Lithuania, FFYR Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Singapore, Slovenia, Spain, United Kingdom, United States.


This report provides a comparative overview of common standards and key features of specialised anti-corruption institutions and comprehensive descriptions of 19 anti-corruption institutions operating in different parts of the world, presented in a comparable framework. This new edition of an 2008 report reflects the evolving understanding of international standards and the practice and the most recent experiences of anti-corruption institutions. The report discusses three "models" of anti-corruption institutions: multi-functional anti-corruption agencies, institutions fighting corruption through law enforcement and prevention institutions.  

Encouraged by international conventions and success of some specialised anti-corruption institutions in earlier times, such as the Hong Kong’s anti-corruption commission, many countries around the world, including those in Eastern Europe, have created new specialised institutions to prevent and combat corruption over the past decade. Establishing such bodies was often seen as the only way to reduce widespread corruption, as existing institutions were considered too weak for the task, or were considered to be part of the corruption-problem. The report highlights that while many of these new anti-corruption agencies have shown good results, they cannot fight corruption alone. Other public institutions, including various specialised integrity and control bodies, and internal units in various public institutions should play a role in preventing and detecting corruption in different sectors of public administration.