OECD Integrity Review of the Dominican Republic

3. Strengthening a culture of integrity in the Dominican public sector

Abstract

This chapter examines initiatives to foster a culture of integrity in the Dominican public sector. It offers recommendations to establish codes of integrity for the Executive and Legislative branches, grounded in common public service values. It also recommends actions to strengthen a merit-based civil service, including developing and fully implementing an integrated human resource management information system as the backbone of professionalisation, transparency and accountability in personnel decisions. Finally, the chapter recommends actions to strengthen awareness-raising and capacity-building activities on public integrity, foster open organisational cultures and enhance integrity leadership.

3.1. Introduction

Fostering integrity in the public sector requires more than laws and regulations, it involves focusing on helping public officials to understand, adopt and apply the values and principles of public service and the highest standards of conduct in their daily work (OECD, 2020[1]).

This calls for a range of actions. First, the standards and norms on integrity must be complemented by guidelines and procedures to help translate values, principles and ethical standards into expected conducts. Second, it is important to develop awareness-raising and capacity-building activities to ensure public officials understand the conduct expected of them, especially when faced with ethical dilemmas or conflict-of-interest situations. Integrity measures should also be built into human resource management policies and practices to ensure a professional and merit-based public sector and encourage senior officials to lead by example and foster the creation of open organisational cultures.

The OECD Recommendation on Public Integrity sets out the pillars for cultivating a culture of integrity in the public sector, including (OECD, 2017[2]):

• Investing in integrity leadership to demonstrate a public sector organisation’s commitment to integrity.

• Promoting a merit-based, professional, public sector dedicated to public-service values and good governance in the public interest.

• Providing public officials with sufficient and timely information, training, guidance and counselling to apply public integrity standards in their daily activities.

• Supporting an open organisational culture within the public sector, where public officials feel safe to share their ethical concerns, seek ethical advice and speak up and report misconduct.

This chapter contains recommendations aimed at supporting the Dominican Republic in developing a culture of integrity in the public sector. It begins with specific recommendations to support the implementation of standards and norms on integrity in the daily work of Dominican civil servants, via common values of the public service and codes of integrity for public officials. It then examines the measures implemented to promote a professional and merit-based public service. Finally, it reviews initiatives to raise awareness and strengthen the public officials’ capacities relating to public integrity, foster open organisational cultures and enhance integrity leadership. This is all intended to achieve cultural changes that support integrity in the public sector.

3.2. Supporting Dominican public officials in applying integrity standards in their daily work and adhering to public service values

Integrity standards function as a behavioural reference for public officials. Evidence from behavioural science studies shows that these standards signal a high moral benchmark, helping public officials adjust their individual moral reference points upwards and develop their professional identity (OECD, 2018[3]). It is, therefore, vital to clearly define ethical expectations, developing participatory processes that facilitate the construction of common and meaningful values, with training and spaces for dialogue that allow public officials to know, understand and assimilate these standards, helping to align and strengthen their individual moral references.

3.2.1. The DIGEIG could establish a Code of Integrity for all public officials employed in the national and subnational government, based on a common set of public service values

Cultivating a culture of integrity in the public sector usually starts with a code of integrity that fosters the expected day-to-day conduct of public officials and provides additional guidelines for decision-making in the public interest (OECD, 2018[4]). Codes of integrity are an essential tool for clarifying what is expected of public officials, translating legal obligations into practical guidance, and helping them navigate ethical dilemmas and integrity risks. To be effective, codes of integrity should also clearly articulate the values that govern public service and help public officials translate these values into specific conducts.

In the Dominican Republic, the integrity framework currently includes a range of principles and values contained in Article 77 of Law No. 41-2008 and in the Model Code of Integrity:

• Article 77 of Law No. 41-2008 establishes ten guiding principles for the conduct of public officials in public administration bodies and entities, namely: courtesy, decorum, discretion, discipline, honesty, fairness, loyalty, probity, diligence, and vocation of service (Government of the Dominican Republic, 2008[5]), with a brief definition for each.

• In 2022, a Model Code of Integrity (Modelo de Código de Integridad) for public officials was developed. This model is intended to serve as an example and guide to help public entities to develop their own institutional codes of integrity. The model includes five institutional values: integrity, transparency, commitment, confidentiality, and responsibility; six transversal values: integrity, loyalty, fairness, tolerance, transparency, and discretion; and three institution-specific values: integrity, commitment and responsibility (DIGEIG, 2022[6]), with a brief definition for each.

Together, these instruments present more than 15 different values and principles intended to guide the daily conduct and behaviour of public officials in the national and subnational government.

While these values reflect important ethical standards, their number, overlaps and inconsistencies may reduce their practical usefulness. Evidence from behavioural sciences suggests that the number of items that humans can store in their working memory is limited, so ideally a set of memorable key values should contain no more than seven items (Miller, 1955[7]). Otherwise, their use in practice may be limited. Furthermore, several values overlap conceptually, while others are defined differently across instruments, creating potential confusion for public officials. For example, under Law No. 41-2008, “courtesy” and “decorum” both refer to respectful treatment in human relations, while “probity” implies honest conduct and is no different from the principle of “honesty”. Also, under the Model Code of Integrity, the value “integrity” is listed in all three groups, each time with a different definition, contributing to confusion and information overload for public officials.

Moreover, there are currently a number of codes of integrity in the Executive Branch. For example, the Ministry of Interior and Police (Ministerio de Interior y Policía), the National Housing Institute (Instituto Nacional de Vivienda) and the General Directorate for the Budget (Dirección General de Presupuesto) of the Ministry of Finance (Ministerio de Hacienda y Economía) all have institutional codes of integrity.

This decentralised approach reflects the diverse contexts that public entities operate in and the different roles they perform, as a result of which the integrity risks, ethical dilemmas and conflict-of-interest situations that public officials have to deal with will vary (OECD, 2018[4]). However, while this decentralised approach allows codes to be adapted to institutional needs and contexts, a certain level of consistency should be established via a set of global values that apply to the entire government (OECD, 2018[4]). A unified Code of Integrity would therefore provide a common ethical foundation across the government, ensuring that all public officials share the same understanding of the values and standards expected of them regardless of the institution in which they work. It would also facilitate communication, training, implementation and monitoring efforts, while helping to reinforce a shared public service identity and culture of integrity.

To strengthen coherence across the government, the Directorate General of Ethics and Government Integrity (Dirección General de Ética e Integridad Gubernamental, DIGEIG) could establish a single Code of Integrity applicable to all public officials employed in the national and subnational government, based on a concise set of five to seven common public service values. These values could be selected and defined through a participatory process involving public officials across government, building on the principles established in Law No. 41-2008 and the values included in the current Model Code of Integrity. Using participatory processes to select and define the values is important for ensuring that the outcome is both meaningful and actionable (understandable) for those who are expected to follow them (OECD, 2018[3]). Evidence from the behavioural sciences shows that, in order to achieve greater impact, values must be able to influence, activate and remind the user of their own moral reference point, to create a sense of ownership and make them easier to apply in daily life (OECD, 2018[3]). Similar processes, which could serve as an example for the Dominican Republic, have been carried out in other countries such as Brazil, Canada and Colombia (see Box 3.1).

Box 3.1. Participatory processes for defining public service values

Seven Values of the Federal Public Service in Brazil

The Office of the Comptroller General of the Union (Controladoria-Geral da União, CGU) of Brazil, in partnership with the OECD, led a process to identify the core values of the Federal Public Service. In October 2020, the CGU launched an online survey inviting all federal civil servants to participate. 33 407 public officials took part in this first survey. The CGU, together with the OECD, then cleaned the responses from this first survey and grouped similar values together. The top ten values were selected and validated in a process including the participation of representatives from the private sector and civil society. A second survey, with 25 637 participants, then reduced the ten values to the final seven, which are: Integrity, Professionalism, Impartiality, Justice, Commitment, Kindness and Public Vocation. Each value includes a short description, providing an opportunity to add similar values pointing in the same direction.

Canadian Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector

The Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector (VECPS) outlines the values and expected behaviours that guide public servants in all activities related to their professional duties. The VECPS was established by the Treasury Board Secretariat in 2012, after a broad consultation process with public servants, public sector organisations and bargaining agents. The resulting framework identified five core values: Respect for Democracy, Respect for People, Integrity, Stewardship, and Excellence.

Colombian Code of Integrity

In 2016, the Colombian Administrative Department of Public Administration (Departamento Administrativo de la Función Pública) initiated a process to define a General Code of Integrity. Through a participatory exercise involving more than 25 000 public officials through different mechanisms, including voting in mailboxes and web platforms, five core public service values were selected: Honesty, Respect, Commitment, Diligence and Justice. In addition, each public entity can add up to two additional values or principles to respond to specific organisational, regional and/or sectoral needs. Colombia's public service values are accompanied by a definition, with a specific “Do and Don't” section for each value.

Note: Brazilian Federal Public Service Values: https://www.gov.br/cgu/pt-br/valores-do-servico-publico. Canadian Values and Ethics Code for the public Sector: https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=25049. Colombian Code of Integrity: https://www1.funcionpublica.gov.co/web/eva/codigo-integridad

Source: (OECD, 2021[8]; Government of Canada, 2011[9])

The Code of Integrity should not only define the common public service values but also explain the expected conduct associated with each value and provide examples of behaviours that are consistent with, or contrary to, those values. By linking values to concrete situations and decisions that public officials encounter in their daily work, the Code would become a practical tool for ethical decision making rather than a purely aspirational statement.

At the same time, the DIGEIG could develop guidelines to support institutions in adapting and communicating the common Code of Integrity within their specific contexts. These guidelines could encourage entities to identify the integrity risks, ethical dilemmas and operational realities most relevant to their mandate and to develop complementary materials that illustrate how the common values apply in their particular environment. Such materials could include examples of institution-specific behaviours, practical case studies, communication campaigns, awareness-raising materials and integrity messages tailored to different groups of officials (see also Section 3.4). This would allow institutions to contextualise and communicate the common standards effectively while maintaining consistency with the values and principles established in the government-wide Code of Integrity.

3.2.2. The National Congress could adopt a code of integrity for senators, deputies and officials of the Legislative Branch based on a common set of public service values

Previous efforts have been made to establish a code of ethics for members of the Dominican Legislative Branch in the Dominican Republic. In 2007, a bill was introduced to create a Code of Ethics for Legislators, intended to establish a framework for regulating their conduct in the exercise of their parliamentary functions as well as in their public and political activities. The proposal was subsequently reintroduced in 2022, reflecting continued recognition of the importance of integrity standards in the National Congress. However, despite these initiatives, the Dominican National Congress does not currently have a code of integrity applicable to senators, deputies and public officials.

Considering that senators, deputies and public officials of the National Congress have a fundamental responsibility for decisions that could negatively affect the well-being of society if they are not made in the general interest, the Dominican Republic could consider developing a code of integrity for the National Congress. To do so, the National Congress could also consider carrying out participatory processes to select and define their own common values, similar to the process recommended for the Executive Branch. This would allow senators, deputies and public officials to reflect on their own values in the light of their particular challenges, risks and realities. The ten guiding principles set out in Article 77 of Law No. 41-2008 could be taken as the basis for these processes, submitting them to their public officials for consideration. Having a single, simplified set of values for the National Congress could make it significantly easier for officials to understand what is expected of them in the exercise of their functions.

In addition, the code should provide clear guidance in everyday language on the conduct expected of senators, deputies and public officials of the National Congress in the course of their public duties associated with each value and provide examples of behaviours that are consistent with, or contrary to, those values. International experiences could serve as inspiration for the National Congress of the Dominican Republic (see Box 3.2).

Additionally, effective implementation of codes of integrity should be also accompanied by guidance and monitoring to ensure that public officials comply with the standards of conduct defined in the code (OECD, 2018[4]). It is therefore essential to have appropriate institutional arrangements in place to ensure communication and compliance with the codes and foster a culture of integrity in the National Congress of the Dominican Republic. The National Congress should assign this responsibility.

Box 3.2. Example code of integrity for Legislative Branch officials

Codes of Conduct for Members of the UK House of Commons and the UK House of Lords

The UK Parliament has adopted separate codes of conduct for members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Both codes aim to promote public confidence in Parliament by setting out the ethical principles and standards of conduct expected of parliamentarians, while also establishing mechanisms for oversight, investigation and sanctions. Both codes are grounded in the Seven Principles of Public Life (selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership). Compliance is overseen by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Committee on Standards.

• The Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Commons was first introduced in 1995 and most recently updated in 2022–2023. The Code and its accompanying rules set out detailed standards covering conflict of interest, gifts and hospitality, use of parliamentary resources, outside employment and earnings, and behavioural standards, including rules on bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct.

• The Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Lords was first adopted in 2001 and most recently updated in 2022–2023. The Code establishes standards relating to conflict of interest, gifts, benefits and hospitality, relations with lobbyists and external organisations, use of parliamentary resources, and behavioural standards, including provisions on bullying, harassment and discrimination.

Code of Conduct of the Spanish Parliament

On 1 October 2020, the Bureaus of the Spanish Congress of Deputies and of the Senate approved the Code of Conduct of the Spanish Parliament (Cortes Generales). The aim of the Code is to strengthen the reputation of Parliament and citizens’ trust in their representatives, as well as to give deputies and senators greater certainty in their dealings with third parties and with their respective chambers in the exercise of their functions. The Code includes a set of principles (integrity, transparency, diligence, honesty, accountability and respect), as well as standards of conduct in key areas of public service, specifically: conflict of interest, gifts and presents, institutional agenda, and breaches and sanctions for non-compliance.

Source: (Cortes Generales de España, 2020[10]; UK House of Lords, 2025[11]; House of Commons, 2023[12])

3.3. Fostering integrity in the human resources management process

Any public integrity system depends on a public service where staff are recruited, promote, managed and dismissed on the basis of merit. This has multiple advantages (OECD, 2020[1]; OECD, 2019[13]). First and foremost, meritocratic systems reduce opportunities for patronage, favouritism and nepotism, which occur when jobs are created for the sole purpose of giving salaries to friends, relatives or political allies, or when civil service appointments are made on the basis of personal ties rather than competencies and skills. Second, hiring people with the right skills for the job generally improves the performance and productivity of the public service, which translates into better public policies and more effective delivery of services to citizens (OECD, 2020[1]). Third, a merit-based civil service is an essential foundation upon which to develop a culture of integrity, providing the incentives that underpin professionalisation and public values.

In order to promote integrity in the public service, the OECD Recommendation on Public Integrity calls on countries to “promote a merit-based, professional, public sector dedicated to public-service values and good governance” (OECD, 2017[2]) that ensures accountability and ethics in public service, and where merit and transparency prevail.

3.3.1. The Dominican Republic, led by the MAP, must strengthen its career-based public service as the first step to cultivate a culture of public integrity

A career-based public service provides stability and continuity and protects against clientelism and political nepotism. This is vital for an efficient, effective and ethical public administration (OECD, 2015[14]). One of the primary goals of the basic reforms needed to promote a culture of integrity in the public sector should be, therefore, to develop and expand such a career-based public service.

In the Dominican Republic, the first framework for a career-based civil service was established in Law No. 14-1991 governing the central administration (OECD, 2015[14]). However, limited progress was made on institutionalising the career system in the years after that, demonstrating the need for a more comprehensive legal framework based on modern human resource management principles (OECD, 2015[14]). In response, Law No. 41-2008 established a new legal framework for a merit-based public career service (OECD, 2015[14]). This law also created the Ministry of Public Administration (Ministerio de Administración Pública, MAP), initially as the Secretary of State for Public Administration (Secretaría de Estado de Administración Pública), making it the central authority responsible for public administration, public employment and strategic human resources management in the Dominican Republic (OECD, 2015[14]).

However, the practical implementation of a career-based public service as defined in Law No. 41-2008 has faced significant challenges. By mid-2013, approximately 60 000 central administration employees had been incorporated into the career system, compared with 24 600 in 2010 (OECD, 2015[14]). This increase was mainly due to the fact that, in the initial phase of implementation of the Law, career status was granted on a massive scale to public officials occupying permanent, career-oriented posts. However, after this strong start, driven by the transitional provisions of the Law, the number of career employees has since remained below 60 000 in a country with around 800 000 public employees. This process has been slow in part due to difficulties associated with holding competitive examinations, in particular because of budgetary constraints.

Moreover, a culture of clientelism and favouritism still persists in the Dominican public sector, with appointment processes that prioritise personal relationships over professional skills and competencies. Indeed, clientelism is one of the most widespread corrupt practices in the country (Oliva Álvarez and Cañete Alonso, 2023[15]). Expert assessments and evidence from public opinion polls coincide in placing the Dominican Republic among the most clientelistic countries in Latin America (Oliva Álvarez and Cañete Alonso, 2023[15]; V-Dem, 2025[16]).

After more than fifteen years since the adoption of the Law No. 41-2008, the limited expansion of the career service suggests that renewed, co-ordinated and sustained efforts by the MAP are needed to make meritocracy a reality across the Dominican public administration. The MAP should therefore strengthen its administrative career system by ensuring the effective implementation of legislation and build a public sector grounded in professionalism, integrity and service to the public interest.

3.3.2. The Dominican Republic, led by the MAP, could develop and implement a comprehensive, centralised, reliable and up-to-date human resource management information system

The Dominican Republic currently lacks comprehensive and reliable workforce data needed to effectively steer, monitor and expand a merit-based civil service. There is no single, integrated source of information that provides an accurate picture of the size and composition of the public workforce across government. While the Office of the Comptroller General (Contraloría General de la República, CGR) holds the most reliable information on the number of public officials, human resources information remains fragmented across individual institutions and is often stored in separate administrative files and systems.

As the authority responsible for strategic human resources management, the MAP has only partial visibility of the public workforce and relies heavily on institutions voluntarily submitting information on personnel and administrative procedures. As a result, the MAP faces difficulties in determining how many public officials are employed by the State, let alone analysing the workforce by employment category (career officials, temporary staff, political appointees and other contractual personnel), institution, grade, tenure or career progression. It also lacks comprehensive, up-to-date and reliable information system for efficiently managing and monitoring key human resource processes, such as promotions, disciplinary processes and sanctions (see also Chapter 7), dismissals and other key aspects of personnel management.

This lack of reliable human resource information limits the government's ability to monitor compliance with merit-based recruitment and promotion principles set in Law No. 41-2008, identify areas vulnerable to patronage or political influence, evaluate progress in professionalising the civil service, and make evidence-based workforce planning decisions. In practice, a merit-based civil service requires not only a robust legal framework, but also accurate and up-to-date data that enable transparency, accountability and effective oversight of human resource management practices. In fact, one of the major obstacles for the MAP to fully comply with its legal functions as the governing body for public employment is the fact that there is no reliable information about the State’s workforce. This situation is even more serious given widespread the clientelism in the country (Oliva Álvarez and Cañete Alonso, 2023[15]).

To address these challenges, the MAP could develop and implement a comprehensive, centralised, reliable and up-to-date human resources management information system for the entire Dominican public administration. Such a system should make enable the management and monitoring of the full public employment cycle –from entry and promotion to termination– and consolidate the professional career path information of each public servant.

The MAP could also consider using the information generated by the system to prepare regular reports on the composition, distribution and evolution of the Dominican State's workforce, including indicators related to merit-based recruitment, career progression, turnover, performance and disciplinary measures. These reports could be submitted periodically to the Council of Ministers as input for strategic decision-making on human resources management. Publishing these reports on the MAP's institutional website would also help to strengthen transparency and public accountability. Making this information available would not only facilitate strategic workforce planning and efficient resource allocation, but also reinforce integrity, professionalisation and trust in the State's human resources system.

3.3.3. The Dominican Republic could make better use of performance evaluations as a tool for fostering integrity among public officials

A meritocratic and professional public service requires not only integrity and transparency in its selection, appointment and recruitment processes, but also measures that foster integrity throughout the entire human resources management cycle, including performance evaluations, training and career development, promotions, offboarding, etc. (OECD, 2020[1]).

Article 46 of Law No. 41-2008 states that civil servants’ performance must be subject to regular, objective and impartial evaluation to assess the quality of their work and identify areas for improvement and training needs; to plan their professional development; to award economic, academic and moral incentives and to determine their permanence and promotion within the administrative career structure. Decree No. 525-2009 provides the Regulation for Performance Evaluations and Promotion of Civil Servants and Public Officials.

However, performance evaluations give only limited consideration to public integrity issues, specifically officials’ level of compliance with the Ethics and Disciplinary Regime established in Law No. 41-2008. Performance evaluations measure five aspects linked to the Ethics and Disciplinary Regime on a scale of 0 to 3 (where 0 is an absence of compliance and 3 is the highest level of compliance), with different requirements for each job category (I general services, II administrative support, III technical officers, IV professionals, V supervision and management).

The MAP recently approved a Competence-based Management Model (Modelo de Gestión por Competencias) and Dictionary of Public Administration Competences and Conduct (Diccionario de Competencias y Comportamientos para la Administración Pública), defining the core behaviours and values that ensure public officials perform their tasks and duties to the highest standard. This competency framework requires performance evaluations to be conducted on the basis of verifiable behaviour and conduct according to the competency and compliance requirements established in the Ethics and Disciplinary Regime. This new model is being implemented subject to adjustments resulting from a review of the Civil Service Law taking place at the time this Integrity Review was being prepared.

In line with the Dominican Republic's efforts to make its civil service more meritocratic and professional, and based on international good practices (see Box 3.3), the MAP could consider the following recommendations when implementing the Competency-Based Management Model:

• Using performance evaluations as a tool for conveying public service values, clarifying expectations concerning the conduct of public officials and resolving potential ambiguities in this regard. The Competence-based Management Model could be reviewed and adjusted to reflect the public service values applicable to the Executive Branch, to bring behavioural expectations into line with these values. The communication and implementation of the Model should be supported by a broader awareness-raising campaign on the values of public service and the conduct expected of public officials.

• Including integrity in performance evaluations not only as a formal assessment criterion, but also as part of how evaluation processes are carried out. This calls for the development of specific tools and training and capacity-building measures for the line managers responsible for carrying out evaluations, with a special emphasis on strengthening soft skills.

• Maintaining up-to-date and reliable statistics on the performance evaluations of public officials, respecting the confidentiality of the information at all times. Reliable performance data is vital for adjusting existing policies and processes in order to turn performance evaluations into useful tools for cultivating integrity. These metrics and regular reports would also enable the operational and ethical performance of the organisation to be monitored and corrective action taken where necessary.

Box 3.3. The Australian Public Service Performance Framework

From 1 January 2026, Australia is implementing an Australian Public Service (APS) Performance Framework that explicitly assesses both the behaviours and outcomes of public officials. The Performance Framework is mandatory for all APS agencies and explicitly incorporates behavioural expectations that reflect the standards set by the APS Values, the APS Employment Principles and compliance with the Code of Conduct. This means that behaviours are as important as outcomes.

The Performance Framework applies to general APS staff and is complemented by the Senior Executive Service Performance Leadership Framework. The Performance Framework for general APS staff states that:

• Behavioural expectations should be explicitly defined together with outcomes in performance agreements. Performance assessments must describe the behaviours exhibited to produce the outcomes (the how) in accordance with the APS Values and Employment Principles.

• Organisations must assess behaviours and outcomes separately, and excellent outcomes do not justify poor behaviours or concerns related to an employee’s conduct.

• Performance assessments directly consider how the work was undertaken, including ethical conduct, adherence to organisational policies and values, as well as respect for colleagues and stakeholders, and whether the person modelled the APS Values in their day-to-day behaviour.

Source: (Government of Australia, 2021[17]; Government of Australia, 2025[18])

3.4. Raising awareness and building capacities on integrity to encourage behavioural change and open organisational cultures in the Dominican public sector

Activities to raise awareness and build capacities regarding integrity and anti-corruption are key to fostering a culture of integrity in the public sector (OECD, 2020[1]). Awareness-raising initiatives help public officials to identify integrity issues when they occur and to drive the implementation of integrity policies in their organisations. In addition, capacity-building initiatives provide public officials with the knowledge and skills required to properly manage these issues and to seek guidance and advice when needed. Together, awareness-raising and capacity-building activities reinforce public officials' commitment to integrity, encouraging them to perform their duties in the public interest (OECD, 2020[1]).

The OECD Recommendation on Public Integrity calls on countries to “provide sufficient information, training, guidance and timely advice for public officials to apply public integrity standards in the workplace”, through the following activities (OECD, 2017[2]):

• Providing public officials throughout their careers with clear and up-to-date information about the organisation’s policies, rules and administrative procedures relevant to maintaining high standards of public integrity

• Offering induction and on-the-job integrity training to public officials throughout their careers in order to develop essential skills for the analysis of ethical dilemmas in their own personal contexts

• Providing easily accessible formal and informal guidance and consultation mechanisms to help public officials apply public integrity standards in their daily work as well as to manage conflict-of-interest situations.

The OECD Recommendation on Public Integrity also highlights the key role of leaders in cultivating a culture of integrity in the public sector. In this case, “leaders” refers not only to the highest political and managerial levels of the State, but also to the lower and middle management levels that have more direct and constant contact with public officials. The importance of these leaders should not be underestimated, as they have a more direct and significant immediate impact on the conduct of their staff than can top-level politicians and executives (OECD, 2018[3]; OECD, 2023[19]). It is vital that leaders demonstrate a strong commitment to public integrity and foster open organisational cultures, setting an example on integrity. To that end, countries must support leaders in their roles by providing them with specific guidance, capacity-building initiatives and opportunities for peer-to-peer learning (OECD, 2020[1]).

3.4.1. The DIGEIG could work with the CIGCNs to develop and implement new awareness-raising campaigns in the national and subnational government

The DIGEIG has developed and implemented some awareness-raising campaigns aimed at public officials. These include #DominicanaSinCorrupción, a National Campaign for Integrity in Public Administration which in 2025 ran for its fifth year; “Protegiendo lo Nuestro con Integridad”, a national anti-corruption campaign to raise awareness of illegal conduct, foster ethics in public service and encourage the public to report irregularities affecting the proper use of State resources; and Citizen Ethics Week, an initiative to unite State institutions around the values of transparency, regulatory compliance and integrity culture.

Drawing on these existing initiatives and once the Code of Integrity recommended above is defined, the DIGEIG could partner with the Government Integrity and Regulatory Compliance Commissions (Comisiones de Integridad Gubernamental y Cumplimiento Normativo - CIGCNs) to develop additional awareness-raising campaigns focusing on communicating the common public service values and the new code of integrity.

In particular, the DIGEIG could provide guidance and general materials that the CIGCNs can adapt in line with the risks, challenges and context of their respective sectors and organisations. A range of media could be considered, including posters, e-mails and computer screen savers.

In addition, the DIGEIG could partner with the CIGCNs and other entities responsible for high-risk areas, such as the Directorate General of Public Procurement (Dirección Nacional de Contrataciones Públicas, DGCP), to identify key processes and procedures where timely moral reminders could be inserted. Moral reminders are specific, brief messages intended to remind public officials of the moral standards they are expected to follow when making decisions or when faced with ethical dilemmas. When introduced in a timely manner, just before key decision moments, these messages can have a significant impact on compliance with integrity standards (Pruckner and Sausgruber, 2013[20]). For example, procurement officials could receive timely reminders about the need to check for potential conflict of interests and take appropriate mitigation measures before publishing a call for tenders. The Dominican Republic could draw on Mexico’s example (Box 3.4).

Box 3.4. Use of moral reminders in Mexico

One straightforward strategy to induce ethical behaviour is to remind decision makers of moral standards. Research has shown that inconspicuous messages can have a striking impact.

In Mexico, the Secretariat of the Civil Service (SFP), now called the Secretariat of Anticorruption and Good Governance, in liaison with the Centre for Economic Research and Teaching (Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas, CIDE), applied this behavioural insight to their gift registration policy, in order to enhance compliance. The SFP sent reminder emails to public officials to register gifts they receive. They randomly varied the text of the message. Five different types of reminders were sent:

• Legal: By law you are obliged to report and hand over gifts given to you during the year. Do your duty!

• Honesty: We recognise your honesty as a public official! Remember that you must report and hand in gifts given to you during the year. Show your honesty!

• Impartiality: Receiving gifts can compromise your impartiality as a public official. If you are given a gift, you must report it and hand it in.

• Social: Your colleagues report and hand in, on average, over 1,000 gifts each year. Do what they do! We trust you!

• Sanctions: Take care! If you are given a gift and do not report it or hand it over, someone else could report it. Don't get yourself disciplined!

The study then looked at the number of gifts registered during the Christmas period (peak gift-giving season) and compared it to previous years and against a control group that did not receive any messages. The study demonstrated that receiving a reminder email increased the number of gifts registered. However, some messages were more effective than others: reminding public officials of their legal obligations and appealing to their impartiality and honesty encouraged more people to register gifts than referring to sanctions or reports made by colleagues.

This example shows that: (i) small behavioural nudges can increase compliance with an existing policy, and (ii) appealing to values and integrity changes behaviour more effectively than threatening sanctions.

Source: (OECD, 2018[3])

To refine moral messages and reminders and ensure that they achieve the desired impact without generating unintended consequences, the DIGEIG could test these measures before scaling them up. Lessons learned from the pilot phase could help improve the intervention by fine-tuning messages and identifying the best time to send reminders. To this end, the DIGEIG could adopt the OECD's BASIC toolkit for the systematic application of behavioural insights (BASIC corresponds to Behaviour, Analysis, Strategy, Intervention, Change).

3.4.2. The DIGEIG could collaborate with the MAP, the INAP and the INFOTEP to develop a comprehensive public integrity capacity building plan for public officials

In the Dominican Republic, courses and training resources have been developed on integrity and related areas for public officials in general and for members of the CIGCNs. These include a general course on basic ethics for public officials, which is mandatory for all new public officials and members of the CIGCNs. In addition, the DIGEIG, through its Directorate for Fostering and Training in Ethics and Transparency (Dirección de Promoción y Capacitación en Ética y Transparencia), offers support to public entities that request it, to carry out awareness-raising initiatives on ethics and values.

More specifically, the DIGEIG and the National Institute of Public Administration (Instituto Nacional de la Administración Pública, INAP) have worked together to develop courses for CIGCNs members, including the Public Administration Induction Diploma for Integrity Commissions and Officials, the Risk Management Diploma for Integrity Commissions and Officials, and the International Course on Integrity, Transparency and Combatting Corruption. The DIGEIG also offers a comprehensive management course on ISO 31000 risk management, ISO 37001 anti-bribery management systems and ISO 37301 compliance management systems. The training is provided by the Dominican Institute for Quality (Instituto Dominicano para la Calidad).

The DIGEIG is also developing a series of new courses on public integrity together with the INAP and the National Institute for Technical and Vocational Training (Instituto Nacional de Formación Técnico Profesional, INFOTEP).

Despite these significant advances, there are two areas of improvement that could be considered. First, most of the training currently available is aimed at CIGCNs members. However, public integrity is a commitment required of all public officials and, therefore, it is important to raise awareness and develop core competencies for all of them. Second, some key areas are difficult to implement on a day-to-day basis, such as managing conflict of interest and ethical dilemmas, and additional training using alternative teaching methods is required. Although there are various methods available to support capacity building in integrity, including presentations, online courses, coaching and mentoring programmes, and case studies (OECD, 2020[1]), the training currently available is mainly in the form of conferences and online courses. However, evidence suggests that interactive training using case studies or role-playing in which participants are confronted with realistic ethical dilemmas and feasible conflict-of-interest scenarios is more likely to generate a personal and meaningful commitment to integrity compared to the more passive methods currently offered (OECD, 2018[3]; Bazerman and Tenbrunsel, 2011[21]).

In the light of the above, the DIGEIG could work with the MAP, the INAP and the INFOTEP to develop a comprehensive capacity-building plan on public integrity for all public officials, using different teaching methods adapted to the target audience and training objectives. Such a plan could include:

• Induction training: First, the course on basic ethics for public officials should continue to be offered. Induction training is an opportunity to establish, right from the start, a culture of integrity and to familiarise public officials with the behaviours and conduct expected of them in the course of their duties (OECD, 2018[3]). However, this course should be updated to reflect changes to the legal framework on standards of conduct related to integrity as a result of ongoing reforms and the implementation of the recommendations of this Integrity Review. In addition, the course should not only be aimed at new public officials, but also at currently employed officials who take up new posts in the same or a different entity.

• Regular training: The DIGEIG, the MAP, the INAP and the INFOTEP could develop virtual courses or recurrent presentations to reinforce key concepts, expected conduct and the standards set out in the Dominican legal framework on public integrity, including those regarding whistle-blowing mechanisms and whistle-blower protection (see Chapter 7). This regular training helps public officials to maintain, refresh and apply integrity knowledge over time.

• Intermediate training: As a next step in building capacity in public integrity, the DIGEIG could partner with the MAP, the INAP and the INFOTEP to develop and implement blended sessions with both theoretical and practical components focusing on specific areas such as the use of public service values as a moral compass or the management of ethical dilemmas and conflict of interest. These sessions could use a more participatory approach, presenting realistic situations and specific examples of ethical decisions and conflict of interest that public officials might face in the course of their duties, encouraging discussion and moral reasoning in small groups. This category could include the diploma courses on public integrity currently being developed with the support of the Inter-American Development Bank, which could be prepared along these lines.

• Advanced training: The DIGEIG could partner with the MAP, the INAP and the INFOTEP to design and implement more specialised practical training for officials in high-risk positions (e.g. those working in the areas of public procurement, human resources management, internal auditors, members of CIGCNs), in order to build their capacities to address and manage integrity-related challenges in their areas of work. It will be key to work with the relevant policy lead agency to do this (e.g. in the case of training relating to public procurement, it will be necessary to join forces with the DGCP). In particular, consideration could be given to developing a course on managing conflict of interest in public procurement. In the case of training for CIGCNs members, it is recommended to continue with the efforts already being made by the DIGEIG.

Furthermore, considering the emphasis of the current training on CIGCNs members and the particularities of each sector and public institution, the DIGEIG could consider working with CIGCNs members to adapt training topics to meet sectoral and institutional needs. The CIGCNs could contribute examples of expected conduct, conflict-of-interest situations and specific ethical dilemmas that have occurred in their institutions or might arise, given the nature of their work. This would ensure that the examples used to train public officials are meaningful for them and prepare them to face similar situations in the future.

3.4.3. The DIGEIG could collaborate with the MAP and the INAP to develop a training programme for integrity leaders and create a network for peer-to-peer exchange and learning

Leaders have a wide-ranging role in regard to integrity. In addition to allocating resources to public integrity systems and committing to developing them as an organisational priority, from a behavioural perspective leaders can also motivate others to adhere to public service values (Hansen et al., 2013[22]; Mayer et al., 2009[23]). When leaders demonstrate clear and reiterated respect for integrity, it emphasises common values and conveys to all public officials that integrity is a fundamental part of their professional identity (OECD, 2018[3]).

Integrity leadership helps to demonstrate the public sector's commitment to integrity. More specifically, integrity leadership is understood as “the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct through personal actions and interpersonal relationships, and the promotion of such conduct to followers through two-way communication, reinforcement, and decision making” (Brown, Treviño and Harrison, 2005[24]). This implies that there are two dimensions to integrity leadership: the “moral person” and the “moral manager” (Treviño, Hartman and Brown, 2000[25]).

• A leader, as a high-level public official, must be perceived as a “moral person” who understands the values that underpin public service, and their organisation in particular, and who applies them to make the right choices, even when faced with ethical dilemmas.

• In addition, the leader must be perceived as a “moral manager” who communicates openly about integrity and provides employees with the tools and confidence to make ethical decisions. This includes encouraging them to seek guidance, express their views and feel comfortable discussing integrity concerns before they pose a risk to the organisation.

It is vital that both roles are fulfilled, and consistently. It is particularly concerning when a leader appears to be a “moral manager”, i.e. fostering integrity, but does not act as a “moral person”. When employees perceive inconsistencies between discourse and practice, this can lead to cynicism and even provide individuals with arguments to justify their own integrity breaches (OECD, 2018[3]).

In the Dominican Republic, efforts have been made to strengthen and make visible the commitment to and political will for public integrity at the highest levels of government. The Strategic Ethical Commitment Model for Integrity and the Prevention of Administrative Corruption (Modelo Compromiso Ético Estratégico de Integridad y Prevención de la Corrupción Administrativa) developed by the DIGEIG for high-level public officials requires senior executives in the entities and bodies of the administration, regulatory bodies and companies with public capital, and their management teams, to declare a personal and institutional commitment to participate in creating and implementing the Dominican Republic’s National Integrity System (Sistema Nacional de Integridad, SNIRD). This Model is a “personal and institutional declaration by the entity’s most senior executive and their management teams [...] that aims at stating the political-institutional will and commitment to contributing to the creation and implementation of the Dominican Republic’s National Integrity System” (DIGEIG, 2024[26]).

When they take office, therefore, high-level officials of the aforementioned public entities sign this commitment, publicly declaring their intention to respect the fundamental principles of public administration in the performance of their duties, as well as to carry out actions to implement a model of institutional integrity and the prevention of administrative corruption.

To ensure the commitment of senior executives of the Dominican Executive Branch to public integrity is made visible, and to foster public accountability and control, the commitments they sign could be published on their entities’ websites. This would also help to communicate internally the commitment expected at an institutional level to cultivating a culture of public integrity. Additionally, to strengthen the implementation of integrity policies in each public entity and set the foundations to build a culture of organisational integrity, the DIGEIG could consider extending its efforts to further generate a sense of responsibility among senior officials and managers of the Dominican Public Administration, requiring them to report on the extent to which the measures in the Strategic Ethical Commitment Model for Integrity and the Prevention of Administrative Corruption have been implemented. These reports could be submitted to the DIGEIG and/or presented once a year in the Council of Ministers to the President of the Republic to identify good practices, encourage the sharing of experience and propose plans for improvement where required.

Moreover, there is currently no specific training for senior, middle and junior managers on public integrity. Considering the key role that leaders have in promoting a culture of integrity, it is vital to invest in integrity leadership, providing regular training and mentoring to boost awareness of their role and support the development of key skills (OECD, 2017[2]).

As such, the DIGEIG could partner with the MAP and the INAP to develop a training programme for leaders on integrity that helps them develop and strengthen the two key qualities of an integrity leader: being a moral person and a moral manager. To effectively support the development of the skills required for integrity leadership, a range of training content and methods must be considered:

• Presentations or e-learning modules to address different aspects of the integrity standards in place to ensure leaders have a common understanding of their integrity obligations and the mechanisms and tools available to help them meet them.

• Mixed training sessions could be organised that include presentations and case studies on the public service values that would be selected. This would enable leaders to become familiar with the values and also learn how to use them as a moral compass in their daily activities.

• More participatory training activities could be held, such as case studies and simulation games based on real ethical dilemmas and potential conflict of interest that can be used to teach and practise moral reasoning. Leaders would learn how to handle these situations and raise awareness within their teams through case studies and discussions on ethical dilemmas.

• Presentations could also be given on the importance of a culture of openness and communication to discuss integrity within a team. Leaders can learn how to build and maintain a “safe space” to talk about integrity openly and honestly in the workplace (see also Chapter 7).

In addition to this training programme, the DIGEIG could partner with the CIGCNs to develop general guidance materials (such as brochures, toolkits or websites) for senior, middle and junior leaders on how to implement integrity standards, how to use public service values in decision-making, how to cultivate a culture of open communication and encourage employees to participate and voice their ideas and concerns on public integrity. Such materials could draw on the practice in New South Wales (Australia) of developing specific guidelines for managers on how to lead with integrity and promote an environment of openness in the workplace (Box 3.5).

Box 3.5. The “Ethics for people managers” guideline in New South Wales

The New South Wales (NSW) government has developed tools and guidance to help sector employees act ethically. This information is published on the website of the Office of the Public Service Commissioner (which is part of the NSW Premier’s Department). The Ethics Hub  includes the guidelines “Ethics for people managers”, which aims at supporting people managers in the NSW Government sector to lead with integrity, support a speak-up culture and and model ethical behaviour. The guidelines propose specific actions for people managers to build a speak-up culture: 

• Talk about giving frank and fearless advice and real-life examples of integrity in action.

• Create an inclusive culture where everyone feels like they belong and can raise issues without fear of reprisal.

• Recognise and commend employees who speak up and act ethically.

• Attend ethics and integrity training, even if you’ve done it before.

• Promote your agency’s policies and code of conduct, and look for opportunities to raise ethics and anti-corruption messages outside of formal training.

• Show that no one is above the rules – including you.

• Follow integrity and governance policies, including those on topics like conflicts of interest and managing gifts and benefits.

• Devote training and enough resources to prevent and address misconduct. 

Source: (NSW Public Service Commission, n.d.[27])

Additionally, the DIGEIG could also consider creating a network of integrity leaders to foster peer-to-peer exchange and learning and facilitate alliances between public entities. This network can be implemented in parallel with the training activities described above, bringing together leaders whose motivation and commitment to the values of the institution stand out and who actively foster them within their teams. To begin building this network, participants could be encouraged to meet online (e.g. every three months) and in person (once or twice a year). To ensure that the meetings are beneficial and contribute to the personal and professional development of the participants, the agenda of topics to be addressed could be defined ahead of the meetings. A network of integrity leaders who meet regularly to discuss topics of interest could have a number of benefits: helping to incentivise leaders' commitment to public integrity; allowing leaders to share information and experiences and learn from their peers; and allowing them to share common challenges and ask for support from outside their own organisations.

3.4.4. Public entities could systematically measure and evaluate the use and impact of integrity training activities and support materials

To make integrity guidance more effective, public entities could be encouraged to systematically report to the DIGEIG on their use of the supporting materials and the awareness-raising and capacity-building activities and to provide feedback. This mechanism would allow the DIGEIG to make evidence-based adjustments and improvements, ensuring that materials remain relevant and generate the expected impact. Monitoring the use of these resources would also help to identify those senior executives and categories of public officials who need additional support, so more targeted assistance can be provided.

The DIGEIG could also consider publishing on its website a list of the entities and subnational government bodies that have incorporated the materials and training resources developed in their own programmes. This could help to encourage uptake, strengthen transparency and facilitate public oversight.

Similarly, entities themselves should be encouraged to monitor and evaluate the quality and impact of their awareness-raising and capacity-building initiatives, whether they are based on materials developed by the MAP, the INAP or the DIGEIG, or on their own tools. This would allow them to learn from the experience of implementing them, refine their training approaches and target limited resources at those activities that demonstrate the best outcomes.

While most OECD countries assess the quality of capacity-building activities, they generally do not measure their impact. This is largely due to a lack of established methodologies for capturing the long-term behavioural and organisational changes resulting from training, while multiple internal and external variables make it difficult to isolate the effects of training (OECD, 2020[1]). One of the best-known models for assessing training that the Dominican Republic could use is Kirkpatrick's “Four Level Model” (see Box 3.6).

Box 3.6. Kirkpatrick's “Four-Level Model”

One of the commonly recognised models for evaluating training is Kirkpatrick's “Four Level Model”, which is described below:

• level 1, reaction: the immediate impressions of the participants and trainers, what they thought and felt about the training

• level 2, learning: the development of knowledge, skills and attitudes resulting from the training

• level 3, behaviour: the extent of behaviour and capability improvement, and demonstrated application of the new learning within the work setting

• level 4, results: the impact on work results; the return on the training investment

Most integrity training evaluation methods focus on the level 1 “reaction” that participants have from the training, but public organisations could measure behaviour change through pre- and post-training assessments in the form of a multi-rater assessment, such as a 360-degree assessment, along with a control group. Such assessments can gather useful data about whether integrity training is helping the organisation achieve its objectives, as well as justify training costs and inform adjustments to the integrity training strategy.

Measuring level 4 “results” requires assessing potential changes against a baseline established prior to initiating training activities. In the context of integrity in public organisations, potential indicators may include the following:

• number of cases where public officials have sought integrity advice on specific integrity issues and the outcomes of such cases

• number of disclosures of potential conflict of interest to the relevant authorities, and the mitigation measures implemented

• perceptions about the level of integrity and openness of the organisation

• number of reports from citizens and businesses where public officials did not behave with integrity in providing public services

• level of satisfaction of citizens and businesses with the quality of the services delivered by public officials.

Source: (OECD, 2020[1]; Kirkpatrick, 1994[28])

3.4.5. The DIGEIG could use the organisational climate and culture surveys in partnership with the MAP to identify areas for improvement related to public integrity

In line with the provisions of Decree No. 523-2009 (regulating labour relations) and Resolution No. 068-2015, the Dominican Republic conducts mandatory organisational climate and culture surveys (encuestas de clima y cultura organizacional) in public institutions every two years. Since 2015 the number of public institutions subject to an organisational climate and culture survey has progressively expanded to more than 300, including ministries, directorate generals, hospitals, municipalities, district councils, autonomous and decentralised entities.

The organisational climate and culture survey has identified general workplace trends in the Dominican Republic’s public administration. In the last survey, carried out in 2025 in institutions across a range of sectors, the perceptions reported for dimensions such as interpersonal relations, teamwork, user orientation and sense of institutional belonging were positive. Recurrent challenges have also been identified, including in the area of internal communication. Once areas for improvement have been identified, public entities must propose institutional improvement plans, while the MAP offers support.

In general, the results of the organisational climate and culture surveys serve as inputs for the design of public policies aimed at strengthening organisational culture and the well-being of public officials. As such, the DIGEIG could work with the MAP to use these surveys to collect key data on public integrity (e.g. on the effectiveness of awareness-raising and training processes, or on areas where integrity leadership training needs to be strengthened) for use in decision-making. It is essential, therefore, that the DIGEG and the MAP work together to ensure the next rounds of the organisational climate and culture survey include pertinent dimensions and questions on public integrity.

3.5. Proposals for action

Supporting Dominican public officials in applying integrity standards in their daily work and adhering to common public service values

• The DIGEIG could establish a Code of Integrity for all public officials employed in the national and subnational government, based on a common set of public service values.

• The National Congress could adopt code of integrity for senators, deputies and officials of the Legislative Branch based on a common set of public service values.

Fostering integrity in the human resource management process

• The Dominican Republic, led by the MAP, must strengthen its career-based public service as the first step to help cultivate a culture of public integrity.

• The Dominican Republic, led by the MAP, could develop and implement a comprehensive, centralised, reliable and up-to-date human resource management information system.

• The Dominican Republic could make better use of performance evaluations as a tool for fostering integrity among public officials.

Raising awareness and building capacities on public integrity to encourage behavioural change and open organisational cultures in the Dominican public sector

• The DIGEIG could work with the CIGCNs to develop and implement new awareness-campaigns in the national and subnational government.

• The DIGEIG could collaborate with the MAP, the INAP and the INFOTEP to develop a comprehensive public integrity capacity building plan for public officials.

• The DIGEIG could collaborate with the MAP and the INAP to develop a training programme for integrity leaders and create a network for peer-to-peer exchange and learning.

• Public entities could systematically measure and evaluate the use and impact of integrity training activities and support materials.

• The DIGEIG could use the organisational climate and culture surveys in partnership with the MAP to identify areas for improvement related to public integrity.

References

[21] Bazerman, M. and A. Tenbrunsel (2011), Blind Spots: Why We Fail to Do What’s Right and What to Do about It, Princeton University Press, https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=39124.

[24] Brown, M., L. Treviño and D. Harrison (2005), “Ethical Leadership: A social learning perspective for construct development and testing”, Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 97/2, pp. 117-134, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.03.

[10] Cortes Generales de España (2020), Código de Conductade las Cortes Generales, https://www.congreso.es/public_oficiales/L14/CORT/BOCG/A/BOCG-14-CG-A-70.PDF (accessed on 16 May 2025).

[26] DIGEIG (2024), Manual didáctico para las Comisiones de Integridad Gubernamental y Complimiento Normativo, Dirección General de Ética e Integridad Gubernamental, Gobierno de la República Dominicana, https://gobernacionlavega.gob.do/transparencia/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Manual-Didactico-para-CIGCN-GUIA-COMPLETA-DEFINITIVA.pdf (accessed on 25 July 2025).

[6] DIGEIG (2022), Modelo del Código de Integridad de los Servidores Públicos de República Dominicana.

[18] Government of Australia (2025), non-SES Performance, https://www.apsc.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-12/Non-SES%20Performance%20Framework_Accessible.pdf (accessed on 19 January 2026).

[17] Government of Australia (2021), Performance Management in the Australian Public Service, https://www.apsc.gov.au/working-aps/information-aps-employment/performance/performance-management-australian-public-service (accessed on 19 January 2026).

[9] Government of Canada (2011), Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector, https://www.tbs-sct.canada.ca/pol/doc-eng.aspx?id=25049 (accessed on 23 June 2026).

[5] Government of the Dominican Republic (2008), Law No. 41-2008, https://migracion.gob.do/transparencia/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Ley-N%C2%B0-41-08-de-Funci%C3%B3n-P%C3%BAblica-y-crea-la-Secretar%C3%ADa-de-Estado-de-Administraci%C3%B3n-P%C3%BAblica.pdf (accessed on 16 April 2025).

[22] Hansen, S. et al. (2013), “Ethical Leadership: Assessing the Value of a Multifoci Social Exchange Perspective”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 115/3, pp. 435-449.

[12] House of Commons (2023), The Code of Conduct of the members of the House of Commons, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmcode/1083/1083-1.pdf (accessed on 23 June 2026).

[28] Kirkpatrick, D. (1994), Evaluating Training Program -The Four Levels, San Francisco, CA: Berret-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

[23] Mayer, D. et al. (2009), “How low does ethical leadership flow? Test of a trickle-down model”, Organizational Behaivor and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 108/1, pp. 1-13, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.04.002.

[7] Miller, G. (1955), “The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information”, Psychological Review, Vol. 101/2, pp. 343-352, http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/peterson/psy430s2001/Miller%20GA%20Magical%20Sev.

[27] NSW Public Service Commission (n.d.), Ethics for people managers, NSW Office of the Public Service Commissioner, https://www.nsw.gov.au/nsw-government/ethics-hub/ethics-for-people-managers (accessed on 25 June 2025).

[19] OECD (2023), Strengthening Integrity Leadership in Brazil’s Federal Public Administration: Applying Behavioural Insights for Public Integrity, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/50a9a028-en.

[8] OECD (2021), Strengthening Public Integrity in Brazil: Mainstreaming Integrity Policies in the Federal Executive Branch, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/a8cbb8fa-en.

[1] OECD (2020), OECD Public Integrity Handbook, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ac8ed8e8-en.

[13] OECD (2019), La Integridad Pública en América Latina y el Caribe 2018-2019: De Gobiernos Reactivos a Estados Proactivos, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ebd84d6d-es.

[3] 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.

[4] OECD (2018), Developing a Code of Conduct for public officials: Insights based on OECD Experiences.

[2] OECD (2017), “Recommendation of the Council on Public Integrity”, OECD Legal Instruments, OECD/LEGAL/0435, OECD, Paris, https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0435.

[14] OECD (2015), Dominican Republic: Human Resource Management for Innovation in Government, OECD Public Governance Reviews, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264211353-en.

[15] Oliva Álvarez, G. and R. Cañete Alonso (2023), Cultura Democrática en República Dominicana: Análisis de la Encuesta de Cultura Democrática 2022-2023, Ministerio de Economía, Planificación y Desarrollo, https://mepyd.gob.do/publicacion/cultura-democratica-en-republica-dominicana-2022-2023/.

[20] Pruckner, G. and R. Sausgruber (2013), “Honesty on the streets: A field study on newspaper purchasing”, Journal of the European Economic Association, Vol. 11/3, pp. 661-679, https://doi.org/10.1111/jeea.12016.

[25] Treviño, L., L. Hartman and M. Brown (2000), “Moral person and moral manager: How executives develop a reputation for ethical leadership”, California Management Review 4, pp. 128-142, https://doi.org/10.2307/41166057.

[11] UK House of Lords (2025), Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Lords, https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/lords-commissioner-for-standards/code-and-guide-april-2025.pdf (accessed on 23 June 2026).

[16] V-Dem (2025), Clientelisim Idex, https://v-dem.net/data_analysis/CountryGraph/ (accessed on 6 May 2026).