More countries are adopting a strategic approach to anti-corruption for the first time. However, many other countries are allowing gaps between their strategies’ reporting periods, creating strategic vacuums which can undermine the effectiveness of their anti-corruption efforts. Where countries have retained an active strategic framework, its quality and implementation have generally improved in recent years, but for other countries there remains scope to strengthen the design and implementation of their strategies. Improvements include that countries’ strategies could better target high-risk areas. Implementation rates could be tracked to determine whether strategies are supporting desired outcomes. And outcome-level indicators and evaluation techniques to gauge implementation could be better used.
Anti‑Corruption and Integrity Outlook 2026
Abstract
A strategic approach to integrity allows governments to identify challenges, establish priorities and objectives, define specific actions for achieving desired outcomes, set responsibilities and build consensus around objectives and activities. It also facilitates effective implementation through monitoring and evaluation processes based on clear measurements of success. In short, a strategic approach, usually through the development of strategic documents, can support a country in strengthening a coherent and comprehensive integrity system if a whole-of-government approach is taken.
This strategic approach to corruption is particularly relevant in the face of the evolving and increasingly complex challenges which governments face in relation to organised crime, fraud and integrity in public procurement explored later in this report. Adoption of one or several strategic documents aiming at reducing corruption and promoting integrity by political leaders is an expression of commitment and political will. Involvement of non-state actors in the design, implementation and monitoring strengthens legitimacy, reach and therefore impact of the strategy.
A high-quality strategy document does not guarantee lower levels of corruption on its own. Achieving lower levels of corruption is a long-term outcome that is rarely visible within a single strategy period. This is in part because corruption is often measured using perceptions-based data that does not capture actual experiences or integrity improvements, at least not in the short to medium term. Anti-corruption and integrity strategy monitoring and evaluation systems have generally struggled to demonstrate how improving integrity of institutions translate into better service delivery or reduced waste and fraud. Strengthening a results-oriented and risk-based approach will help make these links more explicit, and thereby lend greater credibility to integrity reforms and a better business case to secure scarce resources. This would require that activities and outputs are actually delivered in practice and that objectives are sufficiently targeting improvements in specific sectors, services or processes. Constructing a meaningful theory of change that explains how strategy outputs can realistically lead to better societal outcomes is essential, as is reliable data for the specific segments of the population or government bodies that reforms target.
This chapter examines countries’ strategic approaches to anti-corruption and integrity, and trends in recent years. It finds that:
More countries continue to adopt first-generation strategies but periods of strategic vacuum are frequent over time, undermining reform progress and implementation
The design and implementation of strategies could generally be strengthened, but has improved for OECD Member countries that did not let their strategies expire
Well-designed strategies tend to have better implementation rates, but only 1 in 4 OECD Member countries track implementation in practice
Strategies are still rarely targeting high-risk areas
Less than half of countries make use of outcome-level indicators and evaluation to demonstrate the concrete advantages of integrity improvements.
Adopting strategic objectives on anti-corruption and integrity is becoming increasingly common practice around the world, including in OECD Member countries. 25 OECD Member countries (66%) and 22 OECD partner countries (88%) have a national, strategic framework in place that was adopted at the highest level of government. The 2024 Anti-Corruption and Integrity Outlook noted a wave of countries that adopted their first strategy: Costa Rica, Finland, France, Switzerland, and the United States. Chile, Greece, Guatemala, Spain, and Italy have now also adopted their strategies at the highest level of government.
Note: Data for country values for strategic approach were based on the following seven criteria: “Strategic objectives are established for mitigating public integrity risks in human resource management, including violations of public integrity standards”, “Strategic objectives are established for mitigating public integrity risks in public financial management, including reducing fraud and financial mismanagement”, “Strategic objectives are established for mitigating public integrity risks in internal control and risk management”, “Strategic objectives are established for mitigating public integrity risks in public procurement”, “Strategic objectives are established for reducing fraud and other types of corruption across the public sector”, “Strategic objectives are established to mitigate public integrity risks in the private sector, public corporations, state-owned enterprises or public-private partnerships”, “Strategies for any of the following sectors have at least one first-level objective aimed at mitigating public integrity risks: (a) infrastructure, (b) housing, (c) health, (d) education, (e) taxation, (f) customs.”
Strategies are mainstreamed when strategic objectives are found in one or several different policy documents, and there is no standalone anti-corruption strategy.
This figure is elaborated according to the latest available data. The latest data comes from 2025 for OECD Member countries, and from 2023 for OECD partner countries, except for Brazil, Guatemala, and Thailand, whose data is for 2025. The latest data for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Hungary, Serbia and Sweden, is 2024.
The Slovak Republic and Switzerland have adopted a new anti-corruption strategy in 2026.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators database (as of 10 March 2026).
Continued and sustained political commitment is essential for integrity reforms to take root and bring sustained results. However, gaps between strategic cycles undermine the effectiveness of anti-corruption strategies as a tool for reform. Of the four OECD Member countries whose strategies had expired by the end of 2025 (Switzerland, Korea, Poland, and Türkiye), two have been expired for more than three years, but even in cases where updated strategies are adopted, gaps between iterations are common (Figure 2.2). Such gaps risk stalling reform progress, especially since measures included in anti-corruption strategies are often not tracked or implemented on time (see the implementation rate of activities in Figure 2.6. Gaps may therefore result in reforms that are incomplete and abandoned, leading to an approach which is not only ineffective but also wasteful. This can lower confidence in anti-corruption and integrity efforts, a perverse effect of the original intention of adopting the strategy.
Timeline of anti-corruption and integrity strategic frameworks for OECD Member and partner countries
Note: The bars represent the periods in which countries had anti-corruption and integrity strategic objectives in place. Countries marked with an asterisk (“**”) do not have dedicated timeframes for their current anti-corruption strategies. The cut-off point for this figure is 2027, but some strategies’ timeframes go beyond this year.
For Chile and Greece this timeline includes strategic documents that have not been adopted at the level of government. The countries adopted their first strategic document at the level of government at the years 2023 (Chile) and 2022 (Greece).
The Slovak Republic and Switzerland have adopted new strategies in 2026, which are included in the figure. The latest year assessment for Moldova, Ecuador, and Jordan is 2023, but research conducted by the OECD Secretariat has identified updates in the countries’ strategic frameworks. These new strategies are included in the figure. Ukraine has extended the implementation period for its State Anti-Corruption Programme 2023-2025 (SAP) until the date of entry into force of its next SAP, which is currently under development.
Data not provided for Japan.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators database (as of 10 March 2026) and research conducted by the OECD Secretariat.
The quality of strategies differs substantially across countries, both in terms of design and implementation. Figure 1.1 in the Overview chapter shows that across the PIIs, the quality of anti-corruption and integrity strategies is comparatively low. There has been no progress on OECD average indicator values because the expiration of several strategies had a significant negative impact and cancelled out improvements made by other countries.
For those OECD Member countries that have not let their strategies expire, several indicators on the quality of strategies have gradually improved over the past five years (Figure 2.3). While average indicator values on financial sustainability and use of evaluation have declined, strategies are becoming more evidence-based, with better guidance for successful implementation, and consultations with stakeholders have improved. Improvements made by countries to their strategies were most significant for the following three PII criteria:
All strategies include a situation analysis, including identification of existing public integrity risks
All action plans reference administrative data sources from existing public registries
Strategic objectives are established for reducing fraud and other types of corruption across the public sector.
Note: The OECD average for each year is calculated only for countries that had relevant strategic objectives in place in that year. To ensure comparability between years, only countries that had strategic objectives in place in at least two of the years were included in the calculations. The averages therefore cover the following countries: Australia, Austria, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czechia, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Mexico, the Netherlands, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Sweden, Türkiye, the United Kingdom and the United States. Data for Hungary and Sweden comes from 2024 instead of 2025. The y axis presents the average “strength of strategic framework” criteria fulfilled by OECD Member countries by year for those countries with a strategic framework in force since 2020
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators database (as of 10 March 2026).
Continuity between strategies is not enough to ensure quality. Even among the countries that have had a strategic framework in place since 2020, progress is unequal. New strategies in Chile, Greece and Spain drove much of the improvement, while Finland, Sweden and the Netherlands saw the most improvement between successive iterations of their strategies (Figure 2.4). By contrast, a decline is observed in eight countries. Within this group, the most pronounced regressions concern evaluation practices and the adequacy of the implementation plan, which decreased, on average, by 29% and 22%, respectively.
Percentage change in the strength of strategic frameworks from 2020 to 2025 among OECD Member and partner countries with frameworks in place in both years
Note: The ‘strength of strategy’ is based on the number of criteria fulfilled in the PIIs relating to strategic framework, excluding the implementation rate. The columns represent the difference between the qualities of the strategic frameworks between 2020 and the latest year of assessment.
Only countries that had validated data in 2020 and up-to-date strategic frameworks during the latest assessment year are included. For all OECD Member countries and Brazil the latest assessment was conducted in 2025, except for Hungary and Sweden which comes from 2024. The latest assessment for Argentina, Peru, and Romania was conducted in 2023.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators database (as of 10 March 2026).
LAC countries tend to perform well on the two indicators measuring (a) the use of evidence to inform strategies and (b) the use of evaluation to guide implementation and inform future strategic objectives, but not so well on financial sustainability. European countries consistently introduce consultation processes for their strategies with civil society and other state bodies, craft strong implementation plans and ensure financial sustainability. Future efforts to further improve strategic approaches may therefore benefit not only from intra-regional exchanges but the exchange of good practices at a global level (Figure 2.5).
Average values by region, latest available data
Note: The bars represent the average of countries with relevant, up-to-date strategic objectives in place during the latest year of assessment. The averages do not consider countries without a strategic framework. The latest year of assessment is 2025 for OECD Member countries as well as Brazil, Guatemala and Thailand. The latest year of assessment for Hungary, Sweden, Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina is 2024. The latest year of assessment for all other countries is 2023.
Regional composition is per Table 1.1 in the overview chapter.
Data not provided for Japan.
How to read: In the latest year of assessment, European countries with an anti-corruption strategic framework in place fulfilled 58% of the criteria related to the implementation plan of their strategies, on average.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators database (as of 10 March 2025).
Countries with high-quality strategies tend to combine evidence-based strategic objectives with a strong focus on monitoring implementation. Where implementation is not tracked, progress toward intended outcomes is undermined. Yet, despite the widespread adoption of strategic frameworks, monitoring remains the exception rather than the norm. Although anti-corruption strategies have mushroomed globally since the adoption of the United Nations Convention Against Corruption many countries with anti-corruption strategies still do not account for the level of implementation. Of the 46 countries with an anti-corruption strategy in place, only 21 (46%) track the implementation of planned activities. In 2020, 60% of OECD Members with a strategic framework did not track the implementation rate of their strategies. In 2025, this rate was 67%. The situation is better in OECD partner countries, where 36% of countries do not track implementation. Reporting on whether planned activities were carried out and outputs delivered is not just a matter of accountability to citizens on how public funds are spent and whether the strategy is on track. Figure 2.6 shows that the top overall performers are more likely to also track the annual implementation rate of their action plans. Countries that design high-quality strategies tend to track implementation and have higher-than-average implementation rates.
Where implementation rates are monitored, there is large variation across countries as to whether planned activities and outputs are actually delivered (Figure 2.6), but those with well-designed strategies and stronger institutions generally perform better. The average implementation rate for countries with a strategic framework is 58%. This means that globally, on average, almost half of planned activities are not carried out in practice. For OECD Member countries, the average rate is 55%, compared to 68% in 2023. The lower value reflects that only 8 OECD Member countries actually tracked the implementation rate in 2025 (compared to 9 in 2020) as many countries had gaps between strategy periods.
Average percentage of criteria fulfilled on quality of the strategic framework for OECD Member and partner countries
Note: The ‘quality of strategy’, represented by the columns, is based on the number of criteria fulfilled in the PIIs relating to strategic framework, excluding the implementation rate. OECD member countries are represented by dark blue columns. OECD partner countries are represented by light blue columns. The latest data is 2025 for OECD Member countries, and 2023 for OECD partner countries. The latest data for Hungary, Sweden, Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina is 2024, and for Brazil, Guatemala and Thailand it is 2025.
The implementation rate is shown by the marker, and it represents the number of activities conducted during the last full calendar year divided by the number of activities planned for that year. Although Argentina, Chile, Czechia, and Morocco track the implementation of their activities, their implementation rates are calculated for the timeframe of their action plan and not the last full calendar year. They have therefore not been included in the figure for comparability purposes. The annual implementation rate for Romania and Greece was calculated by the OECD Secretariat based on the information provided in monitoring reports.
Data not provided for Japan.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators database (as of 10 March 2026).
Effective anti-corruption strategies take a broad view of corruption, recognising the wide range of integrity risks and setting goals across different areas. Traditional fields such as public procurement and human resource management remain the most common strategic objectives, in addition to general objectives to reduce levels of corruption (Figure 2.7). There is nevertheless a growing awareness that different types of corruption require tailored responses. As shown in the chapter on “Fraud prevention”, anti-fraud is emerging as an area of focus within the wider anti-corruption strategic coverage in fifteen countries.
Engaging the whole of society is necessary to instil a culture of integrity in both the public and private sector, promote collaboration, and to tackle emerging integrity risks that are increasingly not confined to the public sector alone. Countries would benefit from diversifying their efforts and developing strategic objectives on public and private corporations, which have been flagged as high-risk areas for corruption. However, OECD Member countries could further increase their focus on risks in the private sector in their national strategies. A handful of countries (five) address state-owned enterprises, and only one country (Slovenia) has set specific goals for public–private partnerships. This limited engagement may leave important integrity risks at the interface between the public and private sectors unaddressed. Countries in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) often promote business integrity and could therefore serve as inspiration for how to take a whole-of-society approach to anti-corruption and integrity. Nine out of eleven countries with a strategic framework in place include measures addressing integrity risks in the private sector, state-owned enterprises, and public–private partnerships.
Countries that successfully identify their risk sectors can develop more tailored and effective strategic objectives, but there are few signs that policymakers are making greater use of the strategies to prioritise high-risk sector or emerging integrity risks. Less than half of OECD Member and partner countries with an up-to-date strategic framework have introduced sector-based objectives in areas such as infrastructure, housing, education, taxation, and customs, and the trend is slightly negative over the past two years. Sector-specific goals also help address emerging risks and act on lessons learned from past crises. For instance, out of 46 countries with a strategy, ten have established objectives for the healthcare system, an area which was in the spotlight from an anti-corruption perspective following the COVID-19 crisis where a substantial amount of public funds were lost to fraud and corruption (see the fraud prevention chapter for examples of public sector fraud in the healthcare system). Only 3 countries (Slovenia, the United States, and Ukraine) tackle integrity risks in the defence sector as part of their strategic objectives despite the increase in public spending in this sector and the many integrity risks involved.1
Note: The columns represent the percentage of OECD Member countries with a strategic approach to anti-corruption that fulfil the criteria on different areas, according to the latest data. The latest data for all OECD Member countries is from 2025, except for Sweden and Hungary, which is from 2024. The earliest data for all OECD Member countries is 2020.
The criterion “Private sector” covers all objectives relating to business integrity and public-private co-operations, including state-owned enterprises and public-private partnerships. The subsections in the “Private sector” column show the percentage of countries fulfilling that criterion that include objectives specifically on state-owned enterprises and public-private partnerships, according to the latest data.
Data for ‘Other areas’ are based on country values for the criterion “Strategies for any of the following sectors have at least one first-level objective aimed at mitigating public integrity risks: (a) infrastructure, (b) housing, (c) health, (d) education, (e) taxation, (f) customs”.
Data not provided for Japan.
How to read: In 2025, 67% of OECD Member countries with an anti-corruption strategic framework included objectives tackling integrity risks in the private sector. Out of those, 31% focused specifically on state-owned enterprises.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators database (as of 10 March 2026).
Strategic priorities for anti-corruption and integrity in OECD Member and partner countries generally follow similar trends. However, while internal control and risk management remain key areas of focus for OECD Member countries, they receive less attention in OECD partner countries. Only seven (32%) OECD partner countries establish strategic objectives on this area. Strengthening these systems in OECD partner countries could help support a more risk-based approach and thus improve the overall effectiveness of their anti-corruption efforts.
Regardless of what areas strategic objectives on anti-corruption and integrity cover, such objectives are unlikely to have an impact without a coherent theory of change that links outputs to the intended outcomes. Drawing on a wide range of data sources when developing the strategic approach helps esure the prioritisation of objectives is evidence-based. Measuring and evaluating the impact of strategic objectives then helps ensure not only that these objectives and their supporting activities are having their intended effect, but also that those responsible for developing the objectives have thought through what the intended effect is (OECD, 2020[14]). Therefore, effective strategies identify not only the expected output of a given activity but also its expected outcomes and impact that demonstrates to citizens and businesses that integrity improvements lead to concrete advantages for them. Setting target values for these outcomes can further clarify the expected impact. Once the implementation period is complete, a formal evaluation of the results can help take stock of lessons learned that can be used for the next strategy, and such an evaluation is more effective when it assesses impact against pre-defined indicators (OECD, 2020[14]).
Few countries comprehensively diagnose the most relevant corruption risks and assess the impact on their strategic objectives. As shown in Table 2.1, out of the 46 OECD Member and partner countries that have relevant strategic objectives in place, 28 relied on at least four types of data to inform their approach. The most used sources of data among OECD Member and partner countries were indicators from international organisations or research institutions and public research documents from international organisations or academia (both used in 25 countries), while business and employee surveys were the least used source of data (only used in 6 and 7 countries respectively). This suggests that insights from surveys could be better utilised when developing anti-corruption strategies and estimating the impact of certain measures.
While 28 countries have defined measurable indicators of success, nine countries measure only outputs, which leaves just around half (20) of countries with relevant strategic objectives that are measuring outcomes in concrete terms. Finally, of these 20 countries, 13 have set target values for their outcome-level indicators. Just 17 countries have an end of term evaluation planned as a formal activity. The fact that less than half (37%) of countries evaluate the results of their strategic objectives indicates that countries have generally not yet invested in building the monitoring and evaluation systems that can document the concrete advantages of integrity improvements through reliable data, outcome-level indicators and methodologically strong evaluations. Anti-corruption authorities have traditionally seen such functions as a necessary cost to track implementation, promote co-ordination and be transparent to the public about progress. Going forward, however, these are increasingly essential functions to make the case that scarce public funds are well invested in curbing the most significant corruption risks.
Status of selected criteria for countries with relevant strategic objectives in place
Note: The table includes countries that had relevant strategic objectives in place during the latest round of assessments: for OECD Member countries, data is taken from 2025, and for OECD partner countries from 2023. Data for Sweden, Hungary, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Serbia is from 2024. Data for Brazil, Guatemala and Thailand is from 2025. The relevant criteria are “Each existing strategy refers to at least 4 out of the following 8 sources of information related to public integrity: (a) indicators from international organisations or research institutions, (b) employee surveys, (c) household surveys, (d) business surveys, (e) other survey data, such as user surveys, or polls from local research institutions, (f) data from public registries (e.g. law enforcement, audit institutions, national statistics office), (g) published research documents from national or international organisations or academia (e.g. articles, reports, working papers, political economy analysis) and (h) commissioned research”, “All strategies contain outcome-level indicators for the public integrity objectives”, “All strategies set target values for all outcome-level indicators” and “Current strategies all have an end-of-term evaluation listed as an activity in their action plan”. There is no criterion on output-level indicators, but the OECD counted the number of countries with such indicators based on information in completed assessments and further review of relevant strategic objectives. Finland’s economic crime strategy contains outcome-level indicators, but its anti-corruption strategy does not. Romania’s anti-corruption strategy contains outcome-level indicators for each activity but not each objective. Zambia has an evaluation report scheduled for its anti-corruption strategy but not its public financial management strategy.
Data not provided for Japan.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators database (as of 10 March 2026).
← 1. The OECD Secretariat analysed the 46 anti-corruption strategic frameworks in place to find primary-level strategic objectives related to integrity risks in the defence sector.