A strategic approach to anti-corruption enables governments to identify key challenges, set clear priorities and objectives, and define actionable steps to achieve desired outcomes. It also establishes clear responsibilities, fosters consensus around goals and activities, and supports effective implementation through robust monitoring and evaluation, using specific indicators to measure success. The 2017 OECD Recommendation on Public Integrity states that adherents should develop a strategic approach to mitigating public integrity risks in the public sector, most notably corruption. A strategic approach, involving both the whole of government and the whole of society, can shift the focus from ad hoc policies to a coherent and comprehensive integrity system, to curb the worst forms of corruption such as undue influence, political and grand corruption.
An anti-corruption and integrity strategy can be an expression of political will, but only those adopted by a council of ministers or equivalent can be considered a whole-of-government approach likely to foster wide political support. OECD countries have intensified their recent efforts to develop such a strategic approach; 20 out of 32 OECD countries (63%) have in place a whole-of-government strategic framework containing strategic primary objectives to strengthen anti-corruption and public integrity (Table 12.1).
Strong anti-corruption and integrity strategies aim to cultivate a culture of integrity across society and include elements to mitigate corruption risks in private as well as public entities. However, only 14 out of 32 OECD countries (44%) have strategic objectives for mitigating corruption risks in the private sector, public corporations, state-owned enterprises or public-private partnerships. National anti-corruption and integrity strategies continue to focus on traditional areas, such as fraud and other types of corruption (19 out of 20 strategic frameworks in place in 2024, 95%), internal control and risk management (17 out of 20, 85%), public procurement (16 out of 20, 80%), and human resource management (14 out of 20, 70%) (Table 12.1).
The OECD Public Integrity Indicators measure the overall quality of strategic frameworks by assessing 45 standard criteria related to coverage (primary strategic objectives), evidence-based problem analysis and diagnostic tools, consultation practices, action plans for implementation, and monitoring and evaluation. On average, the OECD countries with a strategic framework in place in 2024 fulfil 22 of these criteria (50%). Latvia and Chile have the strongest frameworks, fulfilling over 36 criteria (80%) (Figure 12.4).
The adequacy of implementation indicator uses 15 criteria to assess the quality of action plans and monitoring reports. On average, OECD countries fulfilled 48% of these criteria. The countries fulfilling the largest share, Chile, Czechia, Greece, Latvia and Lithuania, tend to have stronger frameworks overall. The quality of action plans and monitoring reports therefore have a strong impact on the overall quality of the strategic framework (Figure 12.4).
Tracking the implementation rate of planned activities contributes to effective monitoring, but only six OECD countries fully monitor these data, with implementation rates of 28% in Chile, 36% in Greece, 48% in Finland, 49% in Hungary, 56% in Estonia and 98% in Czechia (Figure 12.4). The reasons for a lack of implementation vary but are usually driven by resource constraints, shifting political commitment or inadequate implementation structures.
