This chapter focuses on strengthening a whole-of-society approach to public integrity in Jordan. This approach recognises that upholding and promoting public integrity in Jordan also depends on citizens, civil society, businesses and development partners to recognise their shared responsibility and take actions. The chapter recommends ways to foster trust in the relationship between Jordanian public institutions and citizens and to reach out and set incentives for non-state actors to contribute to the shared goal of achieving a culture of public integrity in the country.
OECD Integrity Review of Jordan
Together for an Accountable and Transparent Public Administration
Abstract
Public integrity is not just a matter for the public sector alone: individuals, civil society organisations and businesses have a shared responsibility as they can harm or promote public integrity through their actions (OECD, 2020[1]). Recognising this, the OECD Recommendation on Public Integrity places particular emphasis on the importance of promoting a culture of public integrity throughout society, working with the private sector, civil society and individuals, in particular by (OECD, 2017[2]):
Recognising the role of the private sector, civil society and individuals in the public integrity system through respect for public integrity values in their interactions with the public sector, and in particular by encouraging the private sector, civil society and individuals to uphold these values as a shared responsibility.
Involving all stakeholders in the development, regular updating and implementation of the public integrity system (see Chapter 2).
Raising public awareness of the benefits of public integrity and reducing tolerance for breaches of integrity standards in the public sector, and developing, where appropriate, campaigns promoting civic education on public integrity among individuals and, in particular, in schools.
Engaging the private sector and civil society in the complementary benefits derived from upholding integrity in both commercial and non-profit activities, benefiting from lessons learned from the implementation of good practices.
The active role and part-taking of the whole-of-society in upholding public integrity depends on the framework that allows them to exercise that power and to do so responsibly. Jordan’s Constitution grants rights and duties to all Jordanians, including freedom of association, opinion and expression within the limits set by the law. Moreover, His Majesty King Abdullah II has expressed the relevance of all citizens in promoting integrity. As quoted in the Jordan Economic Modernisation Vision’s document, His Majesty King Abdullah II, in a letter of January 30, 2022, when highlighting the aspirations for Jordan’s future, assured that (Government of Jordan, 2022[3]):
“…citizens are key partners in expediting positive change and benefiting from it. We must all stand in unity against those who seek to maintain the status quo to protect their personal interests, or out of fear of stepping out of their comfort zones and putting in the needed efforts and sacrifices for the benefit of all”.
Indeed, Jordan has been making persistent efforts to reform. These efforts driven by internal, regional and international events span from the 1980’s and the 1990’s into the 2000’s, and around 2011 after the demands that arose through the Arab Spring. The current modernisation efforts, as described in Chapter 2 and the (OECD[4]) Public Governance Review of Jordan, initiated around 2020 and focus on three pillars: economic reform, political reform and public sector modernisation. An important and cross-cutting characteristic of these efforts is the emphasis that Jordan has made in stakeholder involvement and consultation, seeking diversity in input across the Jordanian social and economic spectrum. When it comes to integrity, Jordan has started strengthening stakeholders’ involvement and engagement in designing elements of its national integrity system, for instance, by conducting debates and consultative sessions for developing the National Integrity and Anti-Corruption Strategy (NIACS) 2020-2025 (see Chapter 2).
The recommendations included in this chapter acknowledge and build on these on-going efforts. First, the chapter provides recommendations aimed at fostering trust between Jordanian citizens and their public institutions. Trust is one of the foundations needed to effectively promote a whole-of-society approach to public integrity. The following sections assess current efforts by the Jordanian government and relevant non-state actors (i.e., citizens, civil society organisations, the private sector and the donor community) to define, adhere to and promote shared integrity principles and norms, and provide recommendations to encourage a shared responsibility towards promoting a culture of integrity across society in Jordan.
4.2.1. Investing in integrity and openness is particularly relevant to support Jordan’s objective to enhance trust of Jordanians in their public institutions
Trust and integrity reinforce each other. Trust is at the centre of the successful and effective relation between the government and citizens. It is also at the centre of government effectiveness at all levels. Key stakeholders interviewed as part of this Review coincide in identifying trust as the main ingredient that will enable progress and a sustainable future for Jordan. Considering this, the recommendations of this Integrity Review aim at supporting Jordanian efforts in increasing public integrity in ways that enhance trust between the government, its citizens and other relevant non-state actors (i.e., business, civil society organisation, academia, among others) as well as their respective co-responsibility in cultivating a culture of integrity in the country.
The OECD has built a conceptual framework aimed at understanding the main drivers of trust in public institutions and providing countries with actionable evidence to build and maintain people’s trust: the OECD Framework on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions (herein “OECD Trust Framework”). Within this framework, trust is defined as “a person’s belief that another person or institution will act consistently with their expectation of positive behaviour” (OECD, 2017[5]; OECD, 2022[6]). The OECD Trust Framework identifies 5 key drivers of trust in public institutions, namely responsiveness, reliability, openness, integrity and fairness (Table 4.1). As such, reforms aimed at increasing governmental competencies (responsiveness and reliability) also require efforts to ensure public values (openness, integrity and fairness) to achieve the desired impact of increased trust, while reforms addressing values only will fall short should they not focus also on ensuring public sector competencies (Brezzi et al., 2021[7]; OECD, 2017[5]). The role of integrity in the public modernisation efforts in Jordan is therefore crucial.
The Jordanian Government has realised the importance of the link between government effectiveness and public trust in its Public Sector Modernisation Roadmap of 2022 (herein “Roadmap”), prompted by the recognition of the low levels of social trust, this is, trust between individuals or trust in other people, and trust of citizens in public institutions. Indeed, there has been a decline in social trust, as 78% of Jordanians believe that they cannot trust the majority of people, which represents a decrease of 9 points compared to 2022 (University of Jordan, 2023[8]). Moreover, similar to most countries around the world, trust in government (37%), local authorities (32%), the House of Representatives (22%) and political parties (15%) is low in Jordan, especially when compared to trust in institutions responsible for national security and intelligence services, universities and teachers/professors (Figure 4.1).Additionally, when asked about the main non-economic challenges facing Jordan, Jordanians identified the following top three challenges: i) internal security challenges (e.g., drugs, theft, crime, etc.) (36%), decline in the level of government services in general (24%), and financial, administrative, nepotism, and corruption issues (14%) (University of Jordan, 2023[8]). These challenges further support the relevance of addressing both governmental competencies and public values as part of Jordan’s reforms.
Note: The sample included 1,200 Jordanian over the age of 18, with 50% males and 50% females, from 150 locations covering the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and 607 Jordanian opinion leaders (senior male and female state officials, political leaders, professional and labour union leaders, university professors, professional unions, senior male and female businesspeople, writers and journalists, and literary and artistic figures).
Source: (University of Jordan, 2023[8])
The Roadmap is ambitious with respect to trust. It sets a goal of “Enhancing citizens trust in government by at least 60% through the governance of service delivery and increasing transparency and accountability” (Government of Jordan, 2022[9]). Indeed, the ongoing political, economic and public sector modernisation efforts are means to increasing public trust by strengthening responsiveness and reliability of public institutions. Achieving impact that is visible and credible to citizens is key to avoid fomenting cynicism and apathy. However, as highlighted by the OECD Trust Framework, focusing on strengthening responsiveness and reliability of public institutions is not enough. Efforts to ensure public values (openness, integrity and fairness) are in fact particularly relevant to ensure impact (Brezzi et al., 2021[7]). Previous experimental studies carried out by the OECD in developing the Trust Framework in fact showed that integrity and openness are the most relevant determinants explaining trust levels (Murtin et al., 2018[10]). Investing into these public values is therefore key and the recommendations in both this Integrity Review and the (OECD[4]) Public Governance Review of Jordan are aimed at supporting the efforts of Jordan to enhance trust.
4.2.2. Jordan could further encourage citizens’ participation and engagement in the development and implementation of different elements of the public integrity system to strengthen trust in public institutions
The OECD Trust Framework stresses the relevance of “Openness” in terms of providing open and accessible information to the public, consulting, listening and responding to stakeholders as well as ensuring there are equal opportunities to be part of and participate in the institutions of representative democracy (Brezzi et al., 2021[7]). The principles 5 “Society” and 13 “Participation” of the OECD Recommendation on Public Integrity echo this relevance. Principle 5 emphasises the relevance of engaging relevant stakeholders in the development, regular update and implementation of the public integrity system (see Chapter 2), while principle 13 invites countries to promote transparency and stakeholder’s engagement across the entire public policy cycle (OECD, 2017[2]).
Jordan has a constitutional framework that supports openness and participation, as well as transparency, freedom of opinion, expression and association (for more information see (OECD[4]) Public Governance Review of Jordan). In this context, public institutions have put in place initiatives to allow and promote such openness and participation in practice. For example, the “At Your Service – Bekhidmatikom” platform enables citizens to voice complaints as well as requests, praises and suggestions, and the “You Have the Right to Know” platform allows citizen to inquire about information related to the public sector. With respect to public integrity, for instance, the Jordanian Integrity and Anti-Corruption Commission (JIACC) conducted several debates and consultative sessions with relevant stakeholders concerned with its implementation to develop the National Integrity and Anti-corruption Strategy (NIACS) 2017-2025 and to update it in 2020 (see Chapter 2). However, as developed in Chapter 2, these efforts could be further strengthened to foster inclusiveness of such process.
Additionally, several complaint mechanisms have been established through which citizens can voice concerns or report cases of corruption (see Chapter 6). Relying mostly on such channels to allow citizens to express themselves, however, reduces the communication between citizens and public institutions to complaints related to misconduct and violations of public integrity. This cuts-off the possibility of constructive dialogue and communication of what citizens want, need and expect from the government, while restricting it to what they do not want nor need in terms of integrity-related aspects in the day-to-day life of citizens. Moreover, such complaint mechanisms could become a problem if they lead only to accumulated unresolved issues and a perceived impunity that could engender frustration by the Jordanian population.
To effectively promote trust and encourage engagement, communication should be a two-way street where both government and citizens have the chance to express themselves and to listen to each other. Listening is not only an empty action but requires the government to acknowledge what is being said and to provide an explanation (feedback) on how information is being used or considered. In this sense, communication and dialogue between government and citizens should encourage engagement and involve two purposes: i) enhance accountability of the government and ii) create effective channels to listen to citizens’ needs and expectations.
To that end, Jordan could enhance existing participation initiatives and develop channels of communication and interaction with Jordanian citizens that go beyond submitting complaints and allow for a two-way dialogue with the government about needs, interests and expectations on integrity-related aspects. This includes going beyond providing information and contributing to consultations related to integrity and anti-corruption policies. Rather, it should aim at encouraging active engagement of citizens to collaborate in the development and implementation of the different elements of the public integrity system by providing sufficient opportunities and the necessary resources for such an engagement to take place. For instance, engaging stakeholders in developing regulations can lead to higher trust and compliance with and acceptance of the regulations, in particular when stakeholders feel that their views were considered, when they understand how their comments were taken into account, and when they feel they are treated with respect (Lind and Arndt, 2016[11])). Chapter 2 of this Integrity Review provides recommendations on how to further strengthen the engagement of stakeholders in designing integrity strategies with recent good practices from Costa Rica and Chile. The example from Mexico in Box 4.1 also shows how society can be engaged through an institutionalised process. More general recommendations on how to strengthen stakeholder participation can be found in the (OECD[4]) Public Governance Review of Jordan.
In Mexico, the National Anticorruption Policy (Política Nacional Anticorrupción) was developed through a participative process and discussion involving civil society, academia, business chambers, public institutions and experts from all over the country.
First, a Consultative Council (Consejo Consultivo de la Política Nacional Anticorrupción) was established by the National Anti-Corruption System’s (Sistema Nacional Anticorrupción, SNA) Citizen Committee and Executive Secretariat to collect inputs from and promote dialogue with experts from civil society organisations, academia, the business sector, public institutions (including at the sub-national level) and international organisations.
Second, a parallel public consultation process collected citizens’ opinions and perceptions related to the causes and effects of and possible solutions to the problem of corruption in Mexico (Consulta Ciudadana).
Third, the consultation process involved the sub-national level, with eight regional forums organised throughout the country to include local needs and challenges in the development of national policy.
Source: (OECD, 2020[1])
Finally, participation and engagement need to be consistent to ensure impact. For example, if public institutions do not involve youth in the design and implementation of initiatives and policies to encourage youth participation, such initiatives risk not being tailored to the needs of youth and not being picked up by the target group. A good example for engaging youth in Jordan is the political party dialogue platform that aims at encouraging the exchange of views among young men and women on mechanisms and methodologies of political party work. The platform is currently being developed by JIACC and Rasheed under the Nazaha Programme, funded by the European Union and Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation AECID. Therefore, for example, if the Audit Bureau of Jordan wishes to adapt the practice of the Peruvian Supreme Audit Institution consisting in involving youth in audit practices mentioned in Chapter 5 of this Integrity Review, this adaptation and implementation should be developed as well jointly with young people.
4.2.3. JIACC could encourage discussions with citizens and public sector actors in view of clarifying shared values, norms and expectations
The 2017 OECD Recommendation on Public Integrity defines public integrity as “the consistent alignment of, and adherence to, shared ethical values, principles and norms for upholding and prioritising the public interest over private interests in the public sector” (OECD, 2017[2]). These values, principles and norms need to be clearly understood and shared by all members of society (i.e., citizens, representatives of private sector and civil society organisations, and public sector actors across the country). Such a shared understanding cannot be taken for granted and needs to be permanently renewed as society is in permanent change. Moreover, public integrity is closely linked to safeguarding the public interest. In this sense, listening to citizens expectations and needs to understand the public interest is a crucial part of public integrity. Additionally, a whole-of-society approach requires such culture of integrity to be shared, acknowledged and lived not only by stakeholders within the public sector but also by all stakeholders outside the public sector.
Considering this, JIACC could build on previous activities to create spaces to promote dialogue amongst citizens and with public sector actors about public values, principles and norms, as well as the expectations they have from their government and the public sector. To do so, JIACC could consider partnering with the Prime Minister’s Project Management Implementation Office (PMIO) and the Ministry of Local Administration (MOLA) to build up on and create synergies with relevant existing initiatives and ensure the participation and engagement of citizens and public officials across the country. Relevant existing initiatives may include, for instance, the recent Institutional Culture Framework of the PMIO that places citizens in the centre of attention of government institutions and services (for more information see Chapter 3) or the sessions conducted by JIACC with religious figures with regards to ethics and integrity to ensure their preventive role in the community. Since Jordanian society is rich and diverse, exchanges across tribes, religions, origins and ethnicities are important to create a common understanding of public integrity, a shared vision of the future and encourage trust among citizens themselves and towards public institutions.
A dialogue focusing on shared values, principles and norms instead of corruption is also a positive and constructive way to reach out to society. Concretely, JIACC could initiate and steer a series of workshops and focus groups with different stakeholders throughout the country with the aim to facilitate a dialogue on the values they share and the aspirations they have in common. Such an exercise could be a fundamental contribution to set the foundations to promote a culture of integrity in the whole-of-society and follow-up with more concrete and targeted measures, for example, in the context of the next NIACS starting in 2025.
Moreover, such discussions with citizens and public sector actors on shared values, norms and expectations could also be used to further raise awareness and provide clarity about the responsibilities of different public organisations particularly at the local level (e.g., municipal councils, governorate councils, among others) and the mechanisms available for holding them accountable. Indeed, interviews with key stakeholders undertaken as part of this Integrity Review highlighted the exiting gaps and heterogeneity when it comes to citizen’s understanding about the role of local authorities and the available mechanisms for participation and engagement. Promoting this understanding is key for setting expectations and promote dialogue. When developing these awareness-raising sessions, it is important to use a simple language and provide day-to-day examples that allow citizens to better understand how public institutions relate to them.
Citizens play a key role in promoting a culture of integrity in the whole-of-society (OECD, 2020[1]). They have a shared responsibility to ensure that society’s ethical norms, principles and values are respected in all their interactions with the public sector. This responsibility is translated into practice in several ways: through respecting the rules governing their exchanges with public officials, not participating in fraudulent schemes to access social benefits, paying their taxes, and reporting corruption and fraud whenever they encounter them, among others. To cultivate citizens’ commitment to public integrity, governments can take a variety of actions that include raising awareness on the benefits of integrity and equipping children and young people with the knowledge and skills to resist integrity failures (OECD, 2020[1]).
4.3.1. JIACC could reorient awareness raising activities from corruption towards integrity, considering carefully potential unintended consequences of communication strategies
Awareness-raising activities are one mechanism by which countries can increase citizens’ understanding of public integrity issues and their shared responsibility in promoting integrity (OECD, 2020[1]). Raising awareness about public integrity is not only a question of educating about the existence and consequences of corruption, which citizens are usually aware of, but also about how to break the vicious circle that enables misconduct and how citizens can embrace their responsibility in promoting public integrity. Although awareness-raising activities can help increase citizens’ understanding and commitment to public integrity, for these activities to be credible, they need to be accompanied by the leading example from government institutions and public sector officials.
In Jordan, several efforts have been made by JIACC and partners to raise awareness about integrity and anticorruption among citizens and specifically among youth (see next section). For instance, during 2021 and 2022, over 2 million SMS messages about the danger of nepotism and its negative impact to society were sent to different segments of the population through project No. 11 of the NIACS 2020-2025 via a partnership with the private sector and civil society organisations. JIACC also has carried out several campaigns related to the National Integrity Standards (NIS) and the National Integrity Indicators (NII). JIACC’s Facebook profile ranked second in terms of outreach among the Kingdom’s profiles several times. JIACC also kept up its efforts of promoting awareness on the need to fight corruption by using media and social media platforms to share news, publications, educational messages and instructional films with the public. Examples of specific campaigns include content aimed at promoting the reporting of acts of corruption under the slogan “Report and the Integrity Commission protects you”, or at countering wasta and other practices, e.g., the “No Nepotism and Favouritism” campaign and the “I am against bribery” campaign aimed at raising awareness of the dangers of these phenomena and encouraging citizens to reject and fight them (JIACC, 2022[12]). According to JIACC, when currently planning awareness-raising media campaigns about integrity and anticorruption, the main objectives are to inform members of society about corruption acts and how it affects both society and the individual, making them aware of the costs of corruption and enhance their role in standing together to reject it, prevent it and report it whenever witnessed. Moreover, JIACC has established partnerships with civil society organisations to raise awareness about integrity in selected municipalities, under the Integrity Project, and among youth, via the Integrity School Project -a cultural and intellectual camp to broadcast integrity messages and other related campaigns.
These media and awareness-raising campaigns designed and implemented by JIACC and partners follow several good international practices including using different communication channels to cover a broader audience, tailoring awareness-raising campaigns to different audiences and encouraging cooperation amongst relevant public institutions to leverage on their different capacities and encourage synergies.
Such awareness raising campaigns and communication activities could however benefit from insights from recent research to further increase their impact. Indeed, beyond well-known success factors for campaigns as shown in Table 4.2, more specific academic research on communicating on corruption has emerged over the past years. For example, findings show that talking about corruption and the costs related to this phenomenon can have unintended consequences. Indeed, in contexts where corruption is present in public debate and the media, campaigns that seek to raise awareness about corruption could have a counter-productive effect by increasing the already high perception of corruption and confirming the impression that this is a widespread situation. Thus, corruption campaigns could contribute to nurture the perception of corruption. In Jordan, a recent poll indicates that despite efforts to mitigate corruption, “financial, administrative, nepotism, and corruption issues” continue to be seen as one of the three main non-economic challenges the government needs to address (University of Jordan, 2023[8]). Moreover, research has shown that unethical behaviour can be contagious and that corruption-centred communication can result in a “self-fulfilling prophecy” effect. Indeed, the mere perception that corruption is a common practice in society can help individuals to rationalise and justify their own unethical behaviour (Ajzenman, 2021[13]; Bicchieri and Xiao, 2009[14]; Gingerich et al., 2015[15]; Gino, Ayal and Ariely, 2009[16]; Robert and Arnab, 2013[17]).
These research results are highly context dependent but nevertheless provide food for thought. Building up on this, JIACC could consider carrying out its own research, perhaps in co-operation with a university in Jordan or a specialised civil society organisation. This research could aim at understanding better how citizens perceive corruption and identify common justifications for unethical behaviours. International research shows that citizens often use euphemisms or similar unconscious strategies to rationalise corrupt behaviour and tolerate such practices carried out by friends or family members (OECD, 2018[19]). Indeed, the problem with traditional awareness raising or teaching activities is that rationally, almost all but a minority of criminals know already and agree that corruption is bad and should not be tolerated. Nonetheless, they still may participate in illegal activities or behave unethically, while managing to feel as an honest person thanks to such unconscious rationalisations (Shalvi et al., 2015[20]; OECD, 2018[21]; Sezer, Gino and Bazerman, 2015[22]).
In addition, JIACC has already carried out several campaigns to explain the National Integrity Indicators and standards. This is important to show citizens that actions are being taken. However, as emphasised in Chapter 2, there seem to be misunderstandings around the concept of such integrity measurements as they seem to be understood as reflecting the integrity of public entities, not their level of preparedness to deal with integrity risks. There is thus scope for JIACC to develop a communication strategy aimed at countering such misunderstandings and at showing visible change from government institutions and public sector officials. It is important that such messages should go beyond communicating about the government’s efforts to prevent corruption and instead focus on demonstrating results and that change is possible and impacts the daily life of citizens. This can be done by presenting success stories of effective behavioural change in the public administration and in society and how these changes of behaviour have had a positive impact.
Finally, for example, based on the exercise recommended above to discuss shared values with citizens, JIACC could tailor a communication campaign on those values and why each of them matters for Jordanians. This could be a good opportunity to make even more emphasis on using positive messages and visualising desired good behaviour instead of problems. Given the “messenger effect”, this is a cognitive bias that lead people to process the same information differently depending on who they received it from (e.g., depending on the perceived credibility, expertise or likeability of the person delivering the information) (Clark et al., 2013[23]; Eckel and Gintis, 2010[24]), JIACC could consider identifying credible and respected individuals to transmit those messages. This strategy is also aligned to previous efforts by JIACC, for example, the aforementioned “No Nepotism and Favouritism” campaign in which leaders in Jordanian society from various sectors were invited to talk about the importance of rejecting nepotism and favouritism. Moreover, the experience from Ecuador in Box 4.2 could be an inspiration to develop such communication campaign.
“Creole Honesty” (Honestidad Criolla) campaign in Ecuador
On 9 December 2019, the International Chamber of Commerce, through its Integrity and Anti-Corruption Commission, launched the “Honestidad Criolla” campaign, with the aim of promoting a cultural change in Ecuadorian society and preventing acts of corruption. The campaign, which includes a YouTube video, seeks to reach Ecuadorians with a positive message, to promote a change in citizens’ behaviour and to stop normalising acts that are wrong, such as petty corruption and bad actions. The video presents citizens who, given the choice to act contrary to integrity – for example, by buying pirated films, plagiarising publications or accepting bribes – decide to act honestly and contribute to change.
Source: (OECD, 2020[1]; OECD, 2024[25])
Similar to the recommendation in Chapter 3 on communication to public officials, JIACC could use the BASIC methodology developed by the OECD to guide such interventions aimed at promoting behavioural and cultural change (OECD, 2018[19]; OECD, 2019[26]). Indeed, to fine tune the key messages to be communicated and ensure that the awareness-raising campaigns unfold the desired impact, JIACC could consider developing and implementing small scale campaigns (pilots) by first selecting a subset of individuals where the awareness-raising campaigns could be tested. Lessons from the pilots could then lead to improvements in the messages and campaigns before implementing them at large scale. To monitor the effectiveness of the messages, JIACC should also use evaluation mechanisms such as public opinion surveys, web analytics, focus groups, participation in events, number of complaints submitted, etc.
4.3.2. Jordan could further strengthen education for public integrity in schools and universities
Promoting a culture of integrity in society necessarily begins with the education of the very young (OECD, 2018[27]). A growing trend around the world today involves countries using their school systems to communicate to children and young people the roles and responsibilities of public integrity as well as helping them develop the knowledge, skills and behaviours necessary to resist corruption, challenge the social norms that enable unethical behaviours to flourish (OECD, 2018[27]). Additionally, education for public integrity can generate new social norms and common knowledge about expected behaviours to prevent corruption, which contributes to raising citizens who are aware of their role and responsibility in promoting integrity.
In Jordan, several efforts have been made to raise awareness among children and young people of integrity and integrity related matters and promote an education for public integrity, including the following:
In 2010, JIACC signed a memorandum of understanding with the Ministry of Education, which stipulates conducting lectures and awareness-raising activities for school students. Since then, more than 200 public and private schools have been targeted to educate students, administrative and academic staff about the importance of ethics and national integrity standards.
Within the NIACS 2020-2025, in particular project 9 aimed at raising awareness of integrity in educational institutions and project 10 aimed at raising awareness in cooperation with the religious institutions (Islamic and Christian), JIACC has also raise awareness about integrity among children and young people. For instance, in 2022, JIACC’s Integrity Directorate carried out awareness lectures for students at universities, colleges, schools, municipalities, civil society organisations and hospitals. These lectures included the governorates of: The capital Amman, Irbid, Balqa, Ajloun, Karak, Zarqa, Jerash, and Madaba (JIACC, 2022[12]). Additionally, JIACC partnered with the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research to disseminate JIACC’s messages in schools and universities through social media platforms, their websites and university radio stations (JIACC, 2022[12]).
In 2017, the National Centre for Curriculum Development elaborated a new curriculum, which includes the topics of democracy, integrity and transparency for 12 to 15-year-old students, under the National and Civil Education course. The curriculum is accompanied by a series of relevant publications including grade-appropriate textbooks and teacher’s guides. During 2022 and 2023, more than 20 awareness sessions on the National and Civil Education course and the new teaching materials were conducted in the Kingdom’s schools for teachers and supervisors. Additionally, values and practices of integrity are incorporated as cross-subject concepts in several courses of the curriculum (e.g., Arabic language, Islamic education, social studies, among others) linked to the specific subject and the targeted age group.
In 2024, JIACC signed a memorandum of understanding with the Zaha Cultural Centre aimed at raising awareness of children about the importance of National Integrity Standards and rejecting acts of corruption through activities and events organised by the Centre in a manner that suits children’s cognitive and perceptual levels.
Jordan has developed some extracurricular activities to deepen students’ knowledge and capacities on public integrity and related matters, such as Parliamentary Student Councils, which allow students to learn the different mechanisms that are available to participate in public life.
JIACC developed, through a joint project with UNDP, training guides on how to deliver awareness messages related to integrity and anti-corruption in simple language that mimics the way in which students think and promote interactive activities to consolidate the concepts intended to be conveyed to school students. 15 employees from JIACC were trained on how to use these guides, some of which delivered 3 awareness lectures in schools, with direct supervision by UNDP experts, to ensure that the concepts were duly applied on the ground.
Aware of the value of training teachers, JIACC adopted an awareness resource as part of the mandatory and permissive promotion programme held by the Ministry of Education for teachers from all governorates. This was done in co-operation and coordination with the Ministry of Education through the Department of Educational Supervision and Training. In 2022, 21,000 male and female teachers graduated from this programme (JIACC, 2022[12]) and in 2023, 23,750 supervisors, teachers and administrative staff were trained through this electronic training platform.
Regarding high level education, JIACC has developed, together with the Jordan University, a master’s degree programme on integrity and a diploma in governance and anti-corruption. Moreover, as part of the activities conducted within project 9 of NIACS 2020-25, JIACC signed a memorandum of understanding with the Ministry of Higher Education to support the work of universities in the field of integrity through lectures and awareness activities in universities. In 2022, 27 awareness raising lectures were held (JIACC, 2022[12]), and in 2023, more than 7 events were conducted in universities (e.g., Yarmouk University, Hashemite University, Mutah University, National University College of Technology, among others).
These efforts adhere to several good international practices. For instance, public integrity education is mainstreamed through the curriculum of 12 to 15-year-old students to ensure coverage of all students of these ages and guidance material (i.e., grade-appropriate textbooks and teacher’s guides) is provided to students and teachers to support learning/teaching. Additionally, public integrity education is also provided via extracurricular teaching activities allowing to deepen key concepts, knowledge and skills on public integrity outside of the classroom. Moreover, educators are encouraged to build capacities and skills to educate for public integrity via the awareness resource developed with the Ministry of Education. Finally, there is cooperation amongst relevant public institutions (i.e., JIACC, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Higher Education, and universities) which encourages engagement and synergies needed for an effective implementation of any education for integrity intuitive.
In this sense, JIACC is encouraged to continue leading efforts to inspire ethical behaviour and equip all children and young people with knowledge and skills to resist corruption and act with integrity. These efforts should be implemented in cooperation with relevant institutions such as the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research, the National Centre for Curriculum Development, schools and universities. Different initiatives could be considered. For instance, JIACC and relevant institutions could extend and adapt the National and Civil Education course to students from all grades, or further introduce public integrity and integrity related matters on relevant classes. Regarding the latter, the University of Jordan recently introduced a course titled "Ethics and Human Values” to emphasize the importance of integrity for students, teachers, and the local community. Inspired in such initiative, universities could consider developing and integrating courses on public integrity into undergraduate and graduate degree programmes to strengthen public integrity education before students start their working life. Moreover, examples from other jurisdictions could also be used by Jordan for inspiration (Box 4.3). In any case, efforts should be made to ensure that the lesson design enables students to identify and apply the integrity concepts in their existing contexts, to develop age-appropriate learning and reading materials aligned with public integrity learning outcomes and to develop lesson plans and tasks that include tangible, hands-on initiatives to help students see the impact of integrity actions (OECD, 2018[27]). This would allow to strengthen the approach to education for public integrity since an early age and throughout the educational process and ensure comprehensive coverage for all students throughout the country.
The General Comptroller of the Union (CGU) of Brazil, in partnership with the Instituto Maurício de Sousa and more recently with the Ministry of Education, developed in 2008 the programme “One for all and all for one! For ethics and citizenship” (Um por todos e todos por um! Pela ética e cidadania). This programme is a free citizen education initiative in Brazil aimed at educating future generations of citizens on topics related to ethics, citizenship, social participation, among others. The programme targets elementary school students (this is, students between 6 and 10 years old) from both public and private schools.
The programme is structured around comic characters. It includes didactic material such as magazines, stories, animation videos and comic books – including in digital format, as well as teaching materials such as teacher’s guides, student’s notebook and activities banks. Adherence to the programme is voluntary. Several lessons can be drawn from this initiative:
The didactic material has been designed to ensure a methodical progression in the internalisation of key concepts of ethics, citizenship, social responsibilities and participation, in alignment with the official curriculum, providing a solid approach to education for public integrity.
The didactic material offers students the opportunity to get to learn and practice, in a playful way, concepts such as self-esteem, respect, tolerance, inclusion, combating bullying, democracy, ethics, citizenship, social participation, public property, environment, solidarity and volunteering.
The programme provides for the participation of educators, families and the community as a whole, with the school as the centre for the development of awareness rising and education actions, allowing to reach out both students and their families.
The programme has been implemented in Brazilian schools from more than 15 years and it is part of a broader set of training and knowledge management actions developed by the CGU for children and young people, known as “Citizen Education”.
Moreover, it is important to keep up the efforts to provide educators with the skills, knowledge and confidence they need to educate for public integrity. Indeed, educating for public integrity goes beyond sharing key concepts and requires addressing contemporary social problems such as corruption, ethical dilemmas and lack of integrity. In this sense, the Ministry of Education, the National Centre for Curriculum Development and JIACC could continue their partnership and further develop specific trainings for educators to provide them with the appropriate knowledge to teach about public integrity and anti-corruption as well as to support them in developing skills to foster an environment of trust and openness. Such trainings could be incorporated in the mandatory and permissive promotion programme of the Ministry of Education and/or could be made compulsory for new teachers. Trainings can be complemented with guides and guidance materials on how to deliver the lesson in a dynamic and engaging way, how to communicate key concepts effectively and how to promote respectful and open dialogues within the classroom so that students can open up about their views and concerns regarding ethical and moral issues.
The OECD Recommendation on Public Integrity highlights the key responsibility civil society organisations (CSOs) have in promoting public integrity and displaying exemplary behaviour. First, CSOs have a key role in addressing gaps in society as well as collaborating with both government and business to face key challenges, including in the public integrity field. Second, CSOs have the responsibility of acting in alignment with their mission, showing integrity and being trustworthy, as they often receive special status, such as tax exemption and other benefits, and funds from companies or private individuals (OECD, 2020[1]). In this sense, adhering to integrity standards which recognise potential capacity and resource constraints of smaller CSOs is key to ensuring that CSOs are seen as a vehicle for the pursuit of the public interest.
4.4.1. Jordan could further build capacities for social accountability and programme implementation to enable a stronger and more autonomous involvement of CSOs at the local level
State and non-state stakeholders at both national and sub-national levels are expected to be involved in promoting integrity and reducing corruption as well as to share the responsibility of building strong and resilient integrity systems (OECD, 2017[2]; OECD, 2020[1]). Jordan has embarked in a process of decentralisation since 2015 to place citizens at the heart of local policies and services, which is both complex and ambitious (OECD, 2020[29]). The OECD has looked at these efforts in its 2020 report Engaging Citizens in Jordan’s Local Government Needs Assessment Process and made recommendations including to step-up communication and stakeholder engagement at the local level. These are also relevant for purposes of promoting a whole-of-society approach to public integrity, as local stakeholder engagement is key to secure local social accountability and ensure that policy solutions are closer to citizens’ needs (Box 4.4).
The 2020 report Engaging Citizens in Jordan’s Local Government Needs Assessment Process provided recommendations aimed at strengthening governance mechanisms to promote greater stakeholder participation in the needs assessment cycle and improving public communication at the local level. Key recommendations include the following:
Ensure the reflection of local needs into governorate and national development plans and support the transformation of the strategic planning process at the sub-national from the collection of wish lists to the creation of a more structured approach through innovative forms of stakeholder participation that promote co-creation.
Strengthen the capacities and skills of public servants to conduct stakeholder participation activities in the needs assessment process, including by providing technical and specialized trainings to the Local Development Units at the Municipal and Governorate levels, in particular on how to carry out stakeholder participation related initiatives in the context of the needs assessment process.
Build the capacities of local civil servants to ensure they have the skills to communicate effectively with stakeholders throughout the phases of the needs assessment process.
Improve the feedback process and clarify why needs were or were not selected.
Use a diverse range of communication channels to reach a variety of stakeholders based on audience insights to reflect different needs and media consumption patterns.
Ensure that communication is tailored to the needs of different segments of the population, based on demographic factors and regional needs.
Tailor communication for young people. This would not only increase the responsiveness of policies and services but could also promote their engagement in the wider decentralisation and policymaking processes.
Establish participation initiatives that move beyond sole consultation to assign a more direct and meaningful role for citizens in the co-creation of local policies.
Source: (OECD, 2020[29])
However, interviews with key stakeholders undertaken as part of this Integrity Review highlighted that additional efforts are needed to raise awareness on the role of local authorities, the legal framework setting the responsibilities in terms of service delivery and the existing mechanisms for citizens’ participation and accountability. Moreover, discussions with key stakeholders revealed that there exist important differences among CSOs in terms of needs, capacity, resources and geographical location. In this sense, as administrative and political reforms are currently taking place in Jordan, it is important to bear in mind the different capacities, needs and aspirations of CSOs at the local level to ensure they can provide the appropriate support in the implementation of the reforms and allow them to carry out their watchdog role.
Considering this, Jordan could further step-up tailored-made communication and stakeholder engagement at the local level as well as build capacities for social accountability and programme implementation to enable a stronger and autonomous involvement of CSOs in municipalities according to local needs and possibilities. Regarding the former and as recommended in a previous section, Jordan could consider leveraging the discussions with citizens and public sector actors on shared values, norms and expectations to further raise awareness and provide clarity about the responsibilities of public entities and the mechanisms available for holding them accountable. This could be done together with local CSOs as well as CSOs with a national presence. Building on existing joint awareness-raising activities between JIACC and the MOLA, Jordan could continue to enable meaningful and adapted spaces for participation of citizens and CSOs that are adapted to local realities, acknowledging CSO’s differences in sizes and resources.
Additionally, Jordan could consider designing and implementing capacity building sessions on social accountability and programme implementation to enable a stronger and more autonomous involvement of CSOs at the local level. This could be done inspired by existing initiatives such as the awareness-raising campaign and training programme by the Foreign Funding Unit (for more information see Chapter 3 of the (OECD[4]) Public Governance Review of Jordan), or the awareness-raising events in targeted municipalities on integrity and anticorruption by JIACC and the MOLA. These trainings would also be an opportunity for CSOs working at the local level to come together to exchange experiences and lessons learnt and to foster dialogue between CSOs. For these capacity building sessions to be successful, it is important to actively publicise and promote this initiative across the country and publishing relevant materials online to ensure as many CSOs as possible are aware of the training and CSOs can get access to relevant trainings even if they cannot attend the sessions.
4.4.2. Civil society organisations in Jordan could undertake autonomous self-regulation efforts to boost public integrity
CSOs and other non-governmental actors such as universities, think-tanks, amongst others, play an important role in promoting and ensuring integrity. Jordanian CSOs have been actively contributing to many different fields from implementing public policy and humanitarian assistance to exercising social control and making expert contributions to several areas that are relevant to the quality of life of all Jordanian citizens: anti-corruption, gender equality, youth participation, decentralisation and human rights. Ensuring CSOs sustainability and legitimacy in the eyes of the government, public and private donors and the broader society requires CSOs to be role-model for integrity, transparency and accountability.
Discussions with key stakeholders revealed the absence of self-developed frameworks for accountability, transparency and integrity for CSOs in Jordan. These discussions also showed a self-critical civil society that raised questions about their own impact and standards for transparency. While a few initiatives have started, for instance, through the Nazaha Programme, co-funded by the European Union and AECID, Rasheed (Transparency International Jordan) and RASED (Al-Hayat Centre) are supporting and empowering CSOs to achieve better governance at the local level, these initiatives could be further strengthened and expanded to include direct activities aimed at raising accountability, transparency and integrity standards for CSOs. Considering this, CSOs in Jordan could establish and implement initiatives of self-regulation to increase their accountability as well as standards of transparency and integrity they adhere to while conducting their activities. CSOs in Jordan could use examples from other jurisdictions as an inspiration (Box 4.5). Transparency and accountability by CSOs are important not only to provide assurance to public and private donors, but also to encourage citizen’s trust, which is needed to support the effectiveness of CSOs’ work in all fields.
In Germany, on the initiative of Transparency International Deutschland e.V., numerous actors from civil society and academia defined ten basic points that every civil society organisation should make accessible to the public. This includes:
1. Name, registered office, address and year of foundation
2. Complete articles of association as well as information on the organisational objectives
3. Information on tax relief
4. Name and function of key decision-makers
5. Annual report
6. Personnel structure
7. Information on the source of funds
8. Information on the use of funds
9. Affiliation with third parties under company law
10. Names of people whose annual payments account for more than 10% of the total annual budget
As of December 2023, 1 861 organisations have joined the initiative. The complete list of organisations can be found in: https://www.transparente-zivilgesellschaft.de/ueber-uns/unterzeichnerorganisationen.
For such initiatives to be effective, they need to be driven and implemented by Jordanian civil society on its own. The Jordanian government can and should be supportive of these efforts acknowledging and encouraging them, but it should not drive nor set any criteria nor try to influence such initiatives for it would take away the responsibility civil society has to take on its own. It is also important to emphasise that such self-regulatory efforts should be meant to ensure accountability, transparency and integrity, but they cannot translate in limitations to civic space or freedom of expression (for more information see Chapter 3 of the (OECD[4]) Public Governance Review of Jordan). One concrete tool to support the integrity of CSOs that CSOs in Jordan could be inspired by is the “Global Standard for CSO Accountability”, which was developed by a group of CSOs specialised in accountability. It lays out twelve commitments and provides guidance to CSOs for improving their accountability practices (Box 4.6).
The Global Standard for CSO Accountability has been developed in a participatory process by a partnership of nine established Accountability Initiatives from across the world. Built on their practical experience and together with a wide range of consultative partners, they have created a common accountability framework for Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) that consists of the following 12 commitments:
1. Justice and Equality: We will address injustice, exclusion, inequality, poverty and violence to create healthy societies for all.
2. Women’s rights and gender equality: we will promote women’s and girls’ rights and enhance gender equality.
3. Healthy planet: we will protect the natural environment and enhance its ability to support life for future generations.
4. Lasting positive change: we will deliver long-term positive results.
5. People-driven work: we will ensure that the people we work with have a key role in driving our work.
6. Strong partnerships: we will work in fair and respectful partnerships to achieve shared goals.
7. Advocating for fundamental change: we will address root causes by advocating for fundamental change.
8. Open organisations: we will be transparent about who we are, what we do and our successes and failures.
9. Empowered and effective staff and volunteers: We will invest in staff and volunteers to develop their full potential and achieve our goals.
10. Well-handled resources: we will handle our resources responsibly to reach our goals and serve the public good.
11. Responsive decision-making: we will ensure our decisions are responsive to feedback from people affected by our work, partners, volunteers and staff.
12. Responsible leadership: we will ensure our management and governing body are accountable.
Such framework is further defined in guidance material. This document suggests steps to work towards a global CSO practice in which CSOs are truly accountable to all of their stakeholders for their impact, approach and organisational processes.
Additionally, discussions with key stakeholders also emphasised the need of more dialogue and exchange between CSOs, and more understanding and acceptance for diverse approaches among them. Crafting and seeking higher integrity and transparency standards for CSOs should entail a framework that is respectful of diverse approaches and that encourages communication and sharing. Therefore, CSOs in Jordan could consider undertaking a participatory approach to establishing and implementing initiatives of self-regulation. Again, while JIACC and other governmental entities could be supportive of these efforts and exchange with CSOs on what their best role under such self-regulatory processes is, CSOs should lead this initiative themselves to secure its own impact and ownership.
The OECD Recommendation on Public Integrity underscores the role the private sector has as a key stakeholder in promoting public integrity. There are different ways in which actions by private companies could harm public integrity. Companies that evade their taxes, offer bribes for procurement contracts or provide illegal funds to political parties, threaten the legitimacy of the government and weaken citizens’ trust in institutions. Additionally, all these harmful actions by companies affect the business environment, reducing competitiveness and discouraging investments and trade. However, the private sector can be a force for good as a driver for change towards public integrity by advancing corporate integrity reforms and reshaping the global integrity landscape. As such, addressing corruption challenges and encouraging integrity in the private sector is beneficial, not only for the business sector itself, but also for governments and society as a whole.
In Jordan, the cultural concept of ‘wasta’, which involves favouritism and emphasizes the importance of building relationships, makes the Jordanian private sector particularly susceptible to corruption (Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime, 2023[31]). For instance, investors with good wasta can expedite procedures, gain exclusive access to services and information, and even influence legislation to their advantage (Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime, 2023[31]). Despite these challenges, current efforts to unleash Jordan’s full economic potential and improve quality of life for all citizens lack more actions to address corruption risks and to strengthen the role of the private sector in promoting public integrity. For instance, when it comes to the Jordan Economic Modernisation Vision “For a better Future”, the strategy does set up-front the need for transparency and accountability in its implementation, but it is not explicit on how integrity will play a role in addressing the foreseen economic vision.
Moreover, Jordanian businesses aiming to operate regionally or internationally need to visibly demonstrate adherence to integrity standards, giving them the competitive advantage to access markets in other regions and countries. As such, integrity can also be a market opener. Customers in relevant international markets and supply chains are increasingly requiring higher integrity and higher social and environmental standards from their suppliers. There is a clear opportunity for Jordanian companies to gain a clear and differentiated competitive advantage in the region, and a reason to be proud of, as responsible businesses.
4.5.1. JIACC could disentangle the concept “private sector” and propose differential actions based on businesses’ type, size, needs and potential contributions to public integrity in its next NIACS
Big international or multinational companies operating in Jordan, big Jordanian companies, small and medium size Jordanian enterprises (SMEs) as well as business and professional associations can all contribute to strengthening public integrity, even if that contribution may vary from their own standpoint. A business environment with a strong culture of integrity is a cost-effective and more predictable environment to operate in, so it is also in the companies’ own interest to promote integrity. Integrity is also key in unlocking business opportunities and facilitating local, regional and foreign investment in Jordan so needed for economic progress and job creation, so it will be also a decisive factor in implementing the Economic Modernisation Vision Jordan has set forth.
Promoting integrity in the private sector needs to be understood beyond the usual aspects of improving national and local governance and reducing bureaucracy. Integrity is required to create trust within society and to ensure modernisation efforts get enough traction. For this, integrity requires to be understood as a shared responsibility of private sector actors themselves. In this sense, it is positive that the updated NIACS 2020-2025 foresees collaboration between JIACC and the private sector, particularly in project 11 Partnership with the civil society organizations and private sector. Moreover, the process of designing the NIACS 2020-2025 included debates and consultative sessions with the private sector and civil society organisations thus promoting their involvement in the fight against corruption (on how to further strengthen this engagement, see also Chapter 2).
However, the goals and activities set forth in the NIACS seem to be too broad and unspecific to be actionable. As such, JIACC could consider disentangling the concept “private sector” and breaking it down into the different types of businesses, their different needs and the types of contributions they can make to the integrity system at different levels, both locally and nationally, to propose differential actions in its next NIACS. For instance, with SMEs constituting more than 96% of all companies in Jordan (European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 2020[32]), they deserve a special focus. Such specific effort could aim at encouraging and supporting SMEs in developing and implementing integrity standards that are appropriate to their size and capacities, without overburdening them and instead enabling them to reap the benefits of increased integrity in their relationship with the government and as providers in the value-chain.
4.5.2. Businesses and businesses associations in Jordan could step-up integrity self-regulatory efforts based on their type, size and sector
The most important opportunity the private sector has to promote integrity in their respective industries, nationally and locally, is by role-modelling and by developing self-regulatory efforts that establish higher standards of integrity. In Jordan, different efforts by businesses associations, public institution and civil society organisations are being implemented in this area:
The American Chamber of Commerce in Jordan initiated developing a private sector code of conduct in 2016. A more recent draft has been circulated by JIACC, but it is not clear whether this code is currently in force. There have also been several initiatives to implement standards for corporate governance and increase transparency at that level.
The Board of Directors of the Amman Chamber of Commerce approved in December 2023 the adoption of a Code of Conduct and Best Practices for the commercial and service sector. The code will be distributed to all members, will be published in the Chamber’s website and social media and will be socialised via awareness raising videos.
JIACC has partnered with business associations to raise awareness on the role of the private sector in promoting a culture of integrity. For instance, JIACC signed a memorandum of understanding with the Chambers of Commerce aimed at developing awareness on integrity and governance.
Rasheed for Integrity and Transparency (Transparency International’s chapter in Jordan) elaborated a draft code of conduct for the private sector and a roadmap for how to implement this Code in the private sector. It also created a simple 6-step model for strengthening integrity within corporations and conducted training for staff of JIACC and the Corporate Control Department on such model.
However, it seems that many of these efforts have been focused on corporate governance aspects and have not translated into general improvements in corporate ethics so far (European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, 2020[32]). Moreover, codes of conduct, which constitute a great proportion of the efforts implemented so far, have a risk of staying on paper and never translating into concrete changes of behaviour towards a culture of integrity. In this sense, initiatives to develop integrity standards in the private sector need to be strengthen and supported with monitoring and accountability mechanisms to ensure they are enforced and acted upon by businesses.
To that end, the private sector in Jordan could consider stepping-up integrity self-regulatory efforts. To do so, it can get inspirations from international standards such as the OECD’s Responsible Business Conduct instruments and, in particular, the OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct, a key tool for identifying, detecting and managing activities where risks arise (OECD, 2018[33]). However, there cannot be a realistic aspiration to have homogeneous integrity standards – e.g., a unique code of conduct- across the private sector for all companies and the different sectors, given their differences in size, type, needs, capacities and impact. Rather, each company has to identify and find a response to its own integrity challenges. Moreover, Jordanian associations, including the Jordanian Chambers of Commerce and Industry, could play a key role in raising awareness about international standards and the responsibility of the private sector in promoting and acting within integrity standards among their members, encouraging high standards of integrity by businesses, building capacities within the private sector and monitoring the implementation of integrity standards.
Additionally, Jordanian businesses, businesses associations and JIACC could exchange on what is the best role JIACC could play to further promote such self-regulatory processes. Such role could include creating an appropriate incentive regime to encourage businesses’ behavioural changes, such as establishing procurement incentives or introducing a reputational incentive programme to encourage public acknowledgement of a company’s commitment to public integrity. Box 4.7 provides some examples for such measures.
Incentives that reward a company for good practice are an important complement to enforcement sanctions. They recognise that meaningful commitment to and investment in anti-corruption programmes and other measures that strengthen corporate integrity are largely voluntary and can be encouraged through inducements that signal their priority to company leadership. Four main types of incentives can be identified:
Penalty mitigation
Companies that have made a significant effort to detect and deter corruption may be rewarded with a reduction in fines, reduced charges or even a defence against liability for the misconduct of an employee or agent. In a settlement context, the perception that a company is serious about countering corruption can substantially ease the conditions for resolving an investigation.
Relevant policy considerations: Incentives should strike an appropriate balance between the potential investigative benefits that result from the cooperation of offenders and the administration of justice, particularly in view of the public perception of the benefits for this cooperation.
Procurement incentives
Companies that demonstrate a meaningful commitment to integrity practices can benefit in procurement procedures, in the form of an eligibility requirement or and affirmative competitive preference.
Relevant policy considerations: The simplest form of this incentive is a requirement that companies meet certain minimum good practice standards as a condition for doing business with State agencies. However, mandatory programme requirements can be a very effective way to strengthen corporate integrity practices but can also present special challenges for smaller enterprises that may not have the experience or resources to compete on this basis. As such, governments can provide technical assistance to smaller companies, through training seminars, model content and other means, or ease programme requirements for smaller companies, recognizing their different circumstances and risk profile and taking into account that changing entrenched attitudes and practices will take time.
Preferential access to government benefits
Government benefits can be made available on a preferential basis to individuals and companies that are able to demonstrate a commitment to good practices of business integrity. This incentive may take the form of an eligibility requirement, for example, that an applicant for government benefits meets specified minimum programme standards.
Relevant policy considerations: This is most commonly associated with government procurement opportunities addressed in the preceding section but may also be applied to other categories of government benefits or services (e.g., “fast-track” access to customs services or a preference in export credit support).
Reputational incentives
These are a type of benefit that encourage corporate integrity, through public acknowledgement of a company’s commitment to integrity and combating corruption.
Source: (UNODC, 2013[34])
In particular, drawing from the experience of the King Abdullah II Award for Excellence for Private Sector, which has been in place since 1999 and aims at enhancing the competitiveness of Jordanian businesses by promoting quality awareness and performance excellence, and inspired by good international examples (Box 4.8), Jordan could consider developing and implementing an incentive programme to encourage the expected behavioural changes from private sector actors. When designing this programme, it is important to encourage the active participation of the private sector and to communicate broadly all programme regulations -including evaluation criteria, composition of the evaluating committee, timelines, among others- to guarantee relevance, transparency and trust. Moreover, although it is unlikely that a JIACC-sourced code of conduct would have the same impact and traction as standards developed by businesses and businesses associations themselves, JIACC could offer guidance, resources, knowledge and expertise to support these efforts by the private sector.
As part of the efforts to promote ethics and integrity in the Brazilian private sector, the General Comptroller of the Union (CGU) created the Pro-Ethics (Pró-Etica) programme, an incentive programme that promotes the adoption of integrity policies by private companies. Through this programme, companies can voluntarily apply for a “Pro-Business Ethics” seal, a certification in recognition of their integrity and anti-corruption efforts.
The Pro-Ethics programme has been implemented since 2010, and in its 2022-2023 edition – the most recent edition – nearly 299 private companies participated by filling out the assessment questionnaire, more than 250 companies were admitted and evaluated by CGU, and subsequently 84 companies were approved by the Pro-Ethics Committee and received the "Pro-Ethics Business” seal.
The Pro-Ethics Committee (Comité Pró-Ética) is the collegial body responsible for deciding which companies receive the seal each year, as well as for discussing and deciding on updates to the Pro-Ethics participation requirements. The composition of the Pro-Ethics Committee – i.e., public entities, civil society organisations, civil associations, representatives of private companies – demonstrates the whole-of-society vision of this initiative.
Source: (OECD, forthcoming[28]), https://www.gov.br/cgu/pt-br/assuntos/integridade-privada/avaliacao-e-promocao-da-integridade-privada/empresa-pro-etica and https://centralpaineis.cgu.gov.br/visualizar/painelproetica.
Given the amounts of resources that they provide and their capacity to leverage technical knowledge, donors (i.e., countries, donor agencies, international financing institutions, multilateral financial institutions and international organisations) play an important role in the integrity systems of the countries they cooperate with. Donors have an influential role in policy making and implementation and can have an impact on a country’s governance and socio-economic indicators. In this sense, the responsibility of donors is twofold: i) through the implementation of their own integrity standards in their operations and increasing transparency of their practices and procedures, and ii) through the support and contribution they make to different stakeholders and initiatives within a country’s integrity system.
4.6.1. Prioritising locally led approaches, demanding impact and improving co-ordination can boost donors’ contribution to public integrity in Jordan
Over the years, Jordan has qualified to receive Official Development Assistance (ODA) and related support from countries, donor agencies, international financing institutions, multilateral financial institutions and international organisations. Although the bilateral share (gross ODA) of Jordan has slightly decreased in the last years (from 86.3% in 2019 to 73.6% in 2021 (OECD, 2023[35])), the share of development aid to Jordan is still among the highest (Jordan is placed 6th in the top ten ODA recipients, for both DAC and non-DAC countries (OECD, 2023[35]). Moreover, the top ten donors to Jordan, except for the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, are part of the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC), which has made pledges to several standards including policy coherence and civil society involvement, among others, and are signatories of the 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the 2008 Accra Agenda for Action.
As such, like CSOs and business, donors too are relevant societal actors in Jordan. Their commitment to integrity, through their own actions, the adherence to their own integrity standards and their support and contribution to advancing the country’s integrity system, is key. Indeed, donors have been decisive in supporting both governmental and non-state actors in their efforts to promote and increase integrity in Jordan. For instance, through different Twinning Projects, several Jordanian public institutions with responsibilities in the public integrity system (e.g., JIACC and the Audit Bureau) have received support to strengthen their capacities. Donors also play a critical role in Jordan’s effort to articulate and address regional, national and local agendas. However, through their actions and given the funds involved, international development agencies can also be part of the problem and unintendedly fuel corruption in the country or undermine incentives for reform through their responses to corruption cases.
The 2016 OECD Recommendation for Development Co-operation Actors on Managing the Risk of Corruption acknowledges this ambiguity. The 2016 Recommendation invites development partners to set up or revise their systems to manage risks of and respond to actual instances of corrupt practices in development co-operation (OECD, 2016[36]). Such a system should be implemented by international development agencies and their implementing partners when they are involved in the disbursement and/or management of aid (OECD, 2016[36]). This includes, for example, ensuring that agencies carry out corruption risk assessments, have internal prevention and detection measures in place and ensure effective internal and external auditing of their programmes. Furthermore, the 2016 Recommendation emphasises the relevance of joint and co-ordinated responses to cases of corruption involving aid as well as of taking into consideration the risks posed by the environment of operation. On the latter, the 2016 Recommendations concretely asks for “working collaboratively, providing resources and/or technical assistance, with recipients and grantees in the home country of the international development agency or in developing countries to improve their own corruption risk management systems” (OECD, 2016[36]).
More generally, the 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness aimed to improve the quality of aid and its impact on development through five fundamental principles: Ownership, Alignment, Harmonisation, Results and Mutual Accountability (OECD, 2005[37]). The 2008 Accra Agenda for Action further complemented the 2005 Paris Declaration and reinforced, amongst others, the principle of ownership emphasising on making greater use of country’s systems for aid delivery (OECD, 2008[38]).
However, the interviews in the country revealed some areas for improvement to increase impact on the integrity systems and probably on aid effectiveness in general:
Improving alignment with local needs. Overall, CSOs have expressed discontent with donors’ overemphasis on national-level agendas and the lack of focus on subnational needs. Because different donors have taken different approaches, it is not clear what portions of donors’ efforts are directed at implementing programmes responding to local citizens’ needs. Integrity initiatives are among the activities that require efforts at the municipal level for their effectiveness, as well as efforts that are knowledgeable of the context, the local social norms and that are aligned with local aspirations. The absence of decisive localisation efforts results in derailing funds for expensive diagnostics, imposing priorities, fuelling brain drain from the public sector and using intermediaries or foreign implementation partners. Discussions with key stakeholder from both the government and non-state actors highlighted the concern that donors, through higher over-heads and salaries, were taking skilled resources out of government and the CSO sector; this is an impact that localisation efforts should consider addressing or at least mitigating.
Improving impact and effectiveness. Often, donor funded projects are cited by our interviewees to be costly and not resource efficient. Some actors noted that donors generally do not demand results or impact from their projects and do not undertake due diligence on their recipients. Also, integrity efforts are usually long-term initiatives that risk being finished abruptly the moment donor support ceases or staff rotates, and before they manage to create impact. A greater focus on outcomes and impact would benefit both taxpayers in Jordan and abroad. Moreover, according to some interviews, the allocation of donor funds results in competition among government agencies, among CSOs and among donors. It is unclear whether such behaviour improves policy and service delivery or creates duplication and inefficiency.
Improving co-ordination and accountability. Interviews revealed a perception of a lack of transparency in the way how donors and developing agencies plan and implement programmes. Issues of duplication (overcharging the system), lack of co-ordination and lack of accountability of recipients appear to affect trust as well. For some interviewees, donors thereby contribute to the status quo and make change difficult, hollowing reform efforts.
Therefore, the Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation (MOPIC), together with JIACC and potentially leveraging the interinstitutional co-ordination mechanism recommended in Chapter 1, could consider promoting official co-ordination channels among donors. This co-ordination should focus on supporting Jordan’s anti-corruption and integrity efforts and aim at reducing duplication risks and prioritising allocations’ alignment with national priorities and local needs in ways consistent with integrity policy targets. Indeed, international development agencies can play a key role in strengthening the country’s integrity system by aligning behind and supporting Jordan’s own strategic objectives and integrity actors in a co-ordinated way. The current NIACS (as well as the follow-up strategy after 2025, see Chapter 1), for example, provides a road map for support on integrity and anti-corruption and could be used to promote co-ordination meetings with donors to improve the alignment of their support, to ensure synergies and to avoid overlaps and gaps. Such co-ordination of course cannot come at the expense of necessary flexibility in development aid and needs to be efficient and accountable.
Donors could make efforts to sharpen the alignment of their programming to national and local needs as expressed by different stakeholders, and could seek to establish programme and knowledge stability, particularly in integrity related initiatives that require a long-term approach. Donors are also encouraged to lead by example and establish and implement standards of integrity, transparency and accountability as well as practices of monitoring and evaluation of their own programmes.
Fostering trust between Jordanian public institutions and citizens
Jordan could further encourage citizens’ participation and engagement in the development and implementation of the different elements of the public integrity system to strengthen trust in public institutions.
JIACC could encourage discussions with citizens and public sector actors in view of clarifying shared values, norms and expectations. To create synergies with existing initiatives and ensure participation and engagement of stakeholders across the country, JIACC could partner with the PMIO and the MOLA. Additionally, discussions with citizens and public sector actors on shared values, norms and expectations could also be used to further raise awareness and provide clarity about the responsibilities of different public organisations particularly at the local level and the available accountability mechanisms.
Fostering citizens’ commitment to public integrity in Jordan
JIACC could reorient citizens’ awareness raising activities from corruption towards integrity, considering carefully potential unintended consequences of communication strategies by using behavioural insights and methodologies aimed at promoting behavioural change. To monitor the effectiveness of the strategies, JIACC could use evaluation mechanisms such as public opinion surveys, web analytics, focus groups, participation in events, number of complaints submitted, among others.
Jordan could further strengthen education for public integrity in schools and universities and could keep up the efforts to provide educators with the skills, knowledge and confidence they need to educate for public integrity. Such efforts should continue to be implemented in coordination with relevant stakeholders such as the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Higher Education, the National Curriculum Centre, among others.
Sharing the responsibility of promoting public integrity with civil society
Jordan could further build capacities for social accountability and programme implementation to enable a stronger and more autonomous involvement of CSOs at the local level.
Civil society organisations in Jordan could undertake autonomous self-regulation efforts to boost public integrity.
Strengthening the responsibility of the private sector for promoting public integrity and boosting economic modernisation efforts
JIACC could disentangle the concept “private sector” and propose differential actions based on businesses’ type, size, needs and potential contributions to public integrity in its next NIACS.
Businesses and businesses associations in Jordan could step-up integrity self-regulatory efforts based on their type, size and sector. Additionally, they could exchange with JIACC on what the best role of JIACC could be to further promote such self-regulatory processes.
Aligning donors' efforts towards a whole-of-society approach to public integrity
To boost their contribution to public integrity in Jordan, donors could prioritise locally led approaches, further demand impact from implementing partners and improve co-ordination among themselves.
MOPIC, together with JIACC, could consider establishing official co-ordination channels among donors to support Jordan’s anti-corruption and integrity efforts, to help reduce duplication risks and to prioritise allocations’ alignment with national priorities and local needs in ways consistent with integrity policy targets.
References
[13] Ajzenman, N. (2021), “The Power of Example: Corruption Spurs Corruption”, American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, Vol. 13/2, pp. 230-57, https://doi.org/10.1257/APP.20180612.
[14] Bicchieri, C. and E. Xiao (2009), “Do the right thing: But only if others do so”, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol. 22/2, pp. 1191-208, https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.621.
[7] Brezzi, M. et al. (2021), “An updated OECD framework on drivers of trust in public institutions to meet current and future challenges”, OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 48, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b6c5478c-en.
[23] Clark, J. et al. (2013), “Evaluating the message or the messenger? Implications for self-validation”, Persuasion, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 39/12, pp. 1571-84, https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213499238.
[24] Eckel, C. and H. Gintis (2010), “Blaming the messenger: Notes on the current state of experimental economics”, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Vol. 37/1, pp. 109-119.
[32] European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (2020), Jordan Diagnostic, https://www.ebrd.com/country-diagnostic-paper-jordan.pdf.
[15] Gingerich, D. et al. (2015), “Corruption as a Self- Fulfilling Prophecy: Evidence from a Survey Experiment in Costa Rica”.
[16] Gino, F., S. Ayal and D. Ariely (2009), “Contagion and differentiation in unethical behavior: the effect of one bad apple on the barrel.”, Psychological science, Vol. 20/3, pp. 393-8, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02306.x.
[31] Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime (2023), Global Organized Crime Index, https://ocindex.net/country/jordan (accessed on 15 April 2024).
[30] Global Stanfard for CSO Accountability (n.d.), 12 Commitments for Dynamic Accounability Guidance Materials, https://www.csostandard.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/2017_The-Global-Standard-Guidance-Materials.pdf (accessed on 20 November 2023).
[3] Government of Jordan (2022), Jordan Economic Modernisation Vision. Unleashing potential to build the future, https://www.jordanvision.jo/img/vision-en.pdf.
[9] Government of Jordan (2022), Jordan Public Sector Modernization Roadmap.
[12] JIACC (2022), Annual report 2022, https://www.jiacc.gov.jo/En/List/Annual_Reports (accessed on 28 November 2023).
[11] Lind, E. and C. Arndt (2016), Perceived Fairness and Regulatory Policy: A Behavioural Science Perspective on Government-Citizen Interactions, OECD Regulatory Policy Working Papers, No. 6, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1629d397-en.
[18] Mann, C. (2011), Behaviour changing campaigns: success and failure factors, U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre, Bergen, https://www.u4.no/publications/behaviour-changing-campaigns-success-and-failure-factors.
[10] Murtin, F. et al. (2018), “Trust and its determinants: Evidence from the Trustlab experiment”, OECD Statistics Working Papers, No. 2, https://doi.org/10.1787/869ef2ec-en.
[4] OECD (2024), OECD Public Governance Reviews: Jordan: Together for an Accountable and Transparent Public Administration, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/be41202d-en.
[25] OECD (2024), Promoting Public Integrity across Ecuadorian Society: Towards a National Integrity System, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/bae418f9-en.
[35] OECD (2023), Aid at a glance charts, https://www.oecd.org/dac/financing-sustainable-development/development-finance-data/aid-at-a-glance.htm.
[6] OECD (2022), Building Trust to Reinforce Democracy: Main Findings from the 2021 OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions, Building Trust in Public Institutions, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/b407f99c-en.
[29] OECD (2020), Engaging Citizens in Jordan’s Local Government Needs Assessment Process, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c3bddbcb-en.
[1] OECD (2020), OECD Public Integrity Handbook, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ac8ed8e8-en.
[26] OECD (2019), Tools and Ethics for Applied Behavioural Insights: The BASIC Toolkit, OECD Publishing, Paris,, https://doi.org/10.1787/9ea76a8f-en.
[19] OECD (2018), Behavioural Insights for Public Integrity - Harnessing the Human Factor to Counter Corruption, OECD Publishing, Paris.
[21] OECD (2018), Behavioural Insights for Public Integrity: Harnessing the Human Factor to Counter Corruption, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264297067-en.
[27] OECD (2018), Education for Integrity Teaching on Anti-Corruption, Values and the Rule of Law, OECD, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/governance/ethics/education-for-integrity-web.pdf.
[33] OECD (2018), OECD Due Diligence Guidance for Responsible Business Conduct, https://www.oecd.org/investment/due-diligence-guidance-for-responsible-business-conduct.htm.
[2] OECD (2017), “Recommendation of the Council on Public Integrity”, OECD Legal Instruments, OECD/LEGAL/0435, OECD, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/gov/ethics/Recommendation-Public-Integrity.pdf.
[5] OECD (2017), Trust and Public Policy: How Better Governance Can Help Rebuild Public Trust, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264268920-en.
[36] OECD (2016), “Recommendation of the Council for Development Co-operation Actors on Managing the Risk of Corruption”, OECD Legal Instruments, OECD/LEGAL/0431, OECD, Paris, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0431.
[38] OECD (2008), Accra Agenda for Action, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264098107-en.
[37] OECD (2005), Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264098084-en.
[28] OECD (forthcoming), Integrity Review of Brazil.
[17] Robert, I. and M. Arnab (2013), “Is dishonesty contagious?”, Economic Inquiry, Vol. 51/1, pp. 722-734, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.2012.00470.x.
[22] Sezer, O., F. Gino and M. Bazerman (2015), “Ethical blind spots: Explaining unintentional unethical behavior”, Current Opinion in Psychology, Vol. 6, pp. 77-81, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.03.030.
[20] Shalvi, S. et al. (2015), “Self-Serving Justifications: Doing Wrong and Feeling Moral”, Current Directions in Psychological Science, Vol. 24/2, pp. 125-130, https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414553264.
[8] University of Jordan (2023), Public opinion poll results: Dr. Bisher Al-Khasawneh’s government two and a half years after its formation, Center for Strategic Studies.
[34] UNODC (2013), A Resource Guide on State Measures for Strengthening Corporate Integrity, https://www.unodc.org/documents/corruption/Publications/2013/Resource_Guide_on_State_Measures_for_Strengthening_Corporate_Integrity.pdf (accessed on 17 April 2024).