This chapter highlights the relevance of the institutional framework for promoting integrity and transparency. It provides a structure that helps implement and manage public policies in these areas. The chapter describes the current institutional configuration for integrity and transparency in Peru, highlighting its challenges and opportunities.
Towards a National Integrity and Transparency System in Peru
Ensuring Impact Through Greater Coherence and Co-ordination
Abstract
Peru has a high perception of corruption both among experts (Peru scored 33/100 on Transparency International’s [TI] Corruption Perceptions Index in 2023, with no statistically significant change since 2012) and among citizens. In fact, 54.6% of the population interviewed by the Peruvian National Statistics and Informatics Institute in 2024 considers corruption as a major concern, a rise of 0.4 percentage points compared to the same semester of the previous year (INEI, 2024[1]). Citizens experience corruption directly in their daily lives. For example, 30% of public service users reported paying a bribe in the 12 months before the 2019 Global Corruption Barometer, a representative survey from TI. Also, several cases of high-level corruption have emerged in recent years.
Corruption is arguably one of the most important obstacles to the country’s economic and social development. It threatens democratic stability and weakens the government’s ability to implement policies, raise revenues and enforce laws and regulations. It can undermine citizens’ trust by impairing the effective and efficient delivery of public services, exacerbating inequalities and fuelling organised crime and the illicit economy.
Peru has actively promoted public integrity and transparency policies to reduce the risk of corruption and rebuild trust in government. Key milestones include the creation of specialised bodies such as the Secretariat of Public Integrity (Secretaría de Integridad Pública, SIP), the National Authority for Transparency and Access to Public Information (Autoridad Nacional de Transparencia y Acceso a la Información Pública, ANTAIP), and the Tribunal of Transparency and Access to Information (Tribunal de Transparencia y Acceso a la Información Pública, TTAIP). The SIP is responsible for implementing the National Integrity and Anti-Corruption Policy, which is currently being updated. At the same time, the ANTAIP and the TTAIP protect the right to access public information enshrined in Art. 2(5) of Peru’s Constitution. These efforts have been complemented by the establishment of the Integrity Model (Modelo de Integridad) and the creation of digital tools to support them, such as digital platforms. For example, standard transparency portals facilitate access to information on the use of public resources and institutional management, thus increasing transparency. The Register of Online Visits and the Official Agendas allow the transparent management of the interests and activities of public officials, recording and publishing online all the visits received by state officials, as well as the official agendas of their activities.
However, these initiatives are not perceived as yielding results. According to the 2023 Latinobarometer survey, 77.5% of citizens responded there was little or no progress in the fight against corruption in state institutions in the previous two years. Peru faces a challenge that is common among most OECD countries: ensuring effective implementation of integrity and transparency laws, regulations, and policies. Yet, only effective implementation can generate the desired results. As in other countries, the OECD Public Integrity Indicators show significant implementation gaps in the country (OECD, 2024[2]).
Many reasons can explain these implementation gaps. Among these reasons are, on the one hand, the challenge of achieving strong leadership through an empowered governing body and, on the other hand, effective implementation of integrity and transparency policies at all levels of public administration and government (mainstreaming). Although it is of course not sufficient to ensure change, such a solid institutional framework that ensures clear leadership, assurance and continuity in effectively implementing integrity and transparency policies is necessary to have an impact. It also reflects real political will (Brinkerhoff, 2000[3]).
Establishing the SIP in 2018 and the ANTAIP in 2017 have been important steps regarding the first challenge. In response to the second challenge, Peru has developed and implemented what is known as the “Integrity Model” (Supreme Decree 044-2018-PCM, the validity of which was extended by Supreme Decree 180-2021-PCM), which entails, among others, the implementation and exercise of the integrity function through the deployment of Institutional Integrity Offices (Oficinas de Integridad Institucional, OIIs) in all public entities in the country to fulfil the role of Institutional Integrity Managers (OECD, 2019[4]). The country also has Officials Responsible for the Transparency and Access to Public Information Law (Funcionarios Responsables de la Ley de Transparencia y Acceso a la Información Pública, FRAIPs), whose mission is to ensure the implementation of the Transparency and Access to Public Information Law and promote proactive and reactive transparency in their entity. Likewise, the Integrity Model has among its components one referring to transparency.
However, both the SIP and the ANTAIP have limitations in terms of political voice, capacities and administrative and financial independence that affect their ability to implement their mandates and functions optimally. This OECD report analyses the current Peruvian institutional set-up to propose possible avenues for reforms that can ensure the effective implementation of integrity and transparency policies. It is based on a detailed analysis of the local context, including the SIP, the ANTAIP, the OIIs and the FRAIP, and a dialogue with key actors in Peru. It also builds on previous work on public integrity at the national and territorial levels (OECD, 2017[5]; OECD, 2019[4]; OECD, 2021[6]) and work on open governance (OECD, 2021[7]; OECD, 2016[8]).
The objective of this report is to provide Peru with a tailored and concrete roadmap to consider in their efforts to establish a National Integrity and Transparency System (Sistema Nacional de Integridad y Transparencia, SNIT) in line with the decision adopted by the High-Level Anti-Corruption Commission (Comisión de Alto Nivel Anticorrupción, CAN) in an extraordinary session on 28 December 2022, approving the “Anti-Corruption Agenda”. In this framework, the representatives of the public sector, the private sector and civil society gathered in the CAN, urging the Executive Branch to:
Promote, with the support of the Anticorruption CAN, a proposal to implement a National System of Transparency and Public Integrity, with a technical and functional governing entity, located in a new entity, with the necessary autonomy and independence, to develop, implement, monitor, control, and ensure the application of the highest standards of integrity and transparency; so that it co-ordinates with the institutions of the judicial system and the National Control System to contribute to the fight against corruption. (CAN, 2022[9])
At its 42nd Ordinary Session, held on 17 May 2024, the CAN reaffirmed its commitment to promote the design of an institutional framework and to create a National System of Integrity and Transparency. The aim was to present a future legislative initiative to create this System. The same motivation had already been expressed by the Executive through the 2022 Integrity Strategy of the Executive Power for the prevention of Corruption, approved by Supreme Decree 180-2021-PCM in its eighth epigraph:
8) Strengthening institutionalisation in Transparency and Public Integrity
To strengthen the effectiveness and independence of entities’ performance evaluation in terms of transparency and public integrity, the Presidency of the Council of Ministers and the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights consolidate the regulatory framework of the Secretariat of Public Integrity and the National Authority for Transparency and Access to Public Information, respectively, enhancing their capacity for synergy and competencies in the matter. (Presidencia del Consejo de Ministros, 2021[10])
The following section provides an overview of the different actors involved in transparency and public integrity in Peru.
1.2.1. The co-ordination of integrity efforts requires alignment between the existing core institutions and control mechanisms
The large reforms in the fight against corruption in Peru have been responses to deep conjunctural crises that required significant institutional changes, which have enabled the creation of specialised organisms tasked with prevention, investigation and sanctioning functions. These entities complement one another, operating within a framework where co-ordination serves as the central axis of a comprehensive approach, laying the foundation for a smooth, coherent and robust relationship among the various public agencies involved.
The institutional evolution with regards to the fight against corruption started with a focus on strengthening, mainly from a punitive perspective, the Justice System and the Judicial Defence System of the State through the establishment of specialised anticorruption courts, chambers, attorneys’ and prosecutors’ offices. It then led to the identification of the need to consolidate the cohesion of institutional and legal mechanisms complementing the progress of the criminal dimension of anti-corruption; and strengthening of the Administrative Human Resources System through the creation of the National Authority of Civil Service (Autoridad Nacional del Servicio Civil, SERVIR) and of the National Control System through the formation of decentralised organisms improving audit capabilities at the national level.
From a preventive perspective, the establishment of the High-Level Anti-Corruption Commission (CAN) comprising public, private and civil society organisations created a co-ordinating platform for proposing medium- and long-term policies aimed at preventing and combating corruption. Along those lines, proactive and reactive transparency mechanisms were adopted with the approval of the Transparency and Access to Information Law, which instituted the National Authority for Transparency and Access to Public Information (ANTAIP) and enhanced the National Authority of Personal Data Protection (Autoridad Nacional de Protección de Datos Personales, ANPD).
The preventive component is conceived as a key pillar within a broader anti-corruption system that comprises a set of institutions, policies and regulations whose common objective is to prevent, detect and sanction acts of corruption. As integrity and transparency policies move forward, it is essential to understand the relationship between integrity and anti-corruption as a central part of improving the functioning of the State.
Strengthening public integrity and transparency cannot be conceived in isolation from existing anti-corruption mechanisms. In practice, the fight against corruption involves several systems and sub-systems that operate interdependently. Institutions such as the Comptroller General's Office, the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office, specialised prosecutors' offices and anti-corruption courts act together to ensure oversight and control of the use of public resources. The challenge is to co-ordinate these efforts with integrity principles and policies to strengthen the institutionalisation of prevention, consolidating a coherent framework.
1.2.2. Promoting transparency and integrity involves responsibilities of various actors, including constitutionally autonomous powers and bodies
Currently, the Secretariat of Public Integrity (SIP) within the Presidency of the Council of Ministers of Peru (PCM), and the National Authority for Transparency and Access to Public Information (ANTAIP), under the General Directorate of Transparency, Access to Public Information and Data Protection of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, are the main entities in charge of promoting and developing norms, tools and mechanisms to guarantee integrity, transparency and access to public information.
Mandate and powers of the SIP
The SIP within the PCM was established to promote and ensure integrity in the Peruvian public administration. It acts as the governing body on integrity, aligning its efforts with international good practices and OECD recommendations. The SIP is responsible for formulating, co-ordinating and overseeing integrity policies, in addition to developing tools and mechanisms to prevent and manage corruption risks and fostering an ethical culture among public officials. It also provides technical support to the CAN to ensure its proper functioning and the attainment of its objectives.
A key aspect of the SIP’s mandate is to promote the implementation of integrity policies at all public administration levels and promote an organisational culture based on ethical principles. To this end, the SIP developed the Integrity Model, implemented through Supreme Decree 042-2018-PCM and Supreme Decree 180-2021-PCM. The Integrity Model establishes a systematic structure to strengthen institutions’ preventive and response capacities to corruption and other unethical practices. This model advocates for strict adherence to normative dispositions and promotes the use of specialised tools and the implementation of good practices. Among other initiatives, the Model includes the creation of Institutional Integrity Offices (OIIs) in public entities. These offices are responsible for managing and promoting integrity within their respective entities, ensuring that the regulations and guidelines established by the SIP are followed.
The SIP provides guidance and technical support to OIIs, ensuring they have the technical capacity to perform their role effectively. This includes training OII officials on ethics and integrity issues, providing educational materials and technical assistance for the implementation of integrity programmes. In addition, the SIP monitors OIIs' performance and assesses their effectiveness in promoting integrity, providing feedback and recommending improvements when needed. It also uses Corruption Prevention Capacity Index (Índice de Capacidad Preventiva, ICP) to measure public entities’ compliance with integrity standards.
The SIP has regulatory powers that allow it to issue resolutions and directives to establish the necessary rules and procedures for promoting integrity in the public sector. It also partially regulates the operation of OIIs, establishing the requirements and competencies for those responsible for these offices.
Mandate and powers of ANTAIP
The National Authority for Transparency and Access to Public Information (ANTAIP) is key in strengthening transparency and access to information in Peru. Attached to the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights under the General Directorate of Transparency, Access to Public Information and Data Protection of the Ministry of Justice, ANTAIP is responsible for guaranteeing the fundamental right of access to public information and promoting a culture of transparency in the public administration, in accordance with the Law on Transparency and Access to Public Information (Law 27806).
ANTAIP’s mandate focuses on promoting, supervising, and controlling compliance with the rules of transparency and access to public information. The entity is responsible for formulating and proposing policies on this matter, ensuring they align with the principles of transparency and access to information. In that sense, ANTAIP has the authority to issue directives on matters within its competence, provide guidelines for the classification and declassification of information considered secret, restricted or confidential, and to oversee the Standard Transparency Portals.
A primary function of ANTAIP is to monitor public entities' compliance with transparency standards. It carries out studies and diagnoses on applying current regulations, identifying areas for improvement and promoting best practices. In addition, it develops technical opinions regarding draft standards related to transparency and access to public information, ensuring that the new regulations are coherent and effective.
ANTAIP also provides advice and responds to queries from public and private entities on application of transparency standards. This advisory function facilitates the correct interpretation and application of the regulations, promoting greater clarity and efficiency in their implementation.
One of ANTAIP’s most important functions is the preparation of the annual report on requests for access to public information, which is presented to the Congress of the Republic. The report, published on ANTAIP’s website, provides a detailed overview of the state of compliance with the rules of transparency and access to information by public entities, highlighting progress and areas that require attention.
Furthermore, ANTAIP is responsible for promoting a culture of transparency and access to public information. This is achieved through dissemination and promotion of campaigns designed to raise awareness among citizens and public officials about the importance of transparency and access to information.
Other actors with relevant mandates
Preventing, investigating and sanctioning corruption and promoting integrity and transparency requires a multi-stakeholder, multi-level approach to governance. Box 1.1 explains in more detail the different actors and relevant generic roles in integrity and transparency systems.
In the OECD Public Integrity Handbook, a “system” designates a group of actors with different responsibilities for defining, supporting, monitoring and/or implementing anti-corruption, integrity and/or transparency policies, as appropriate (OECD, 2020[11]). These actors have clearly defined mandates and operate concomitantly according to a strategic approach and set of standards of conduct supported by a political leadership committed to integrity and transparency.
A system comprises basic functions (usually performed by policy implementation governing bodies or core actors) and complementary functions (support functions without which the system could not function, i.e. financial management, human resources, public procurement, etc. – exercised by supporting actors). Whether about integrity or transparency, such functions can be performed by bodies:
1. With an executive role − this includes promoting policies through guidelines, awareness campaigns, advice and training for public institutions on applying integrity and/or transparency policies by public management bodies, civil service, etc. For example, according to the results of the Open Government Survey (OECD, 2023[12]), the most common responsibility of independent information commissions and central government authorities is to advise public institutions on applying access to information law.
2. With a supervisory role - for example, ombudsmen or supreme audit institutions (SAIs), usually have diverse mandates. The independence of oversight bodies is key to ensuring their impact. SAIs ensure legality, efficiency, effectiveness, and financial and performance management in the public sector (OECD, 2020[11]). Ombudsmen are related to compliance with and/or knowledge of the law among citizens, the processing of complaints for non-compliance with the law, internal appeals processes, mediation between citizens and their governments and the protection of whistleblowers (Zuegel, Cantera and Bellantoni, 2018[13]).
3. With a role of enforcement of integrity and transparency laws – which implies powers for detection of irregularities (crimes and disciplinary offences, irregularities in asset and interest declarations, regarding the information that government bodies must proactively publish, etc.); investigation of complaints or suspicions of integrity breaches or requests for information not addressed; sanction and appeal, such as the issuance of opinions/testimonies in litigation on the law, or the imposition and potential revocation of administrative penalties.
In addition to the SIP and ANTAIP, there are other institutions in Peru that have related and complementary mandates necessary to advance in public integrity and transparency (OECD, 2019[14]). This is a standard feature of such multifaceted issues as integrity and transparency. While the existence of multiple institutions requires more co-ordination (see Chapter 2), the concentration of too many functions in a single entity also entails risks.
The actors with key “complementary” functions in terms of integrity and transparency in Peru are the following:
The Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic (Contraloría General de la República del Perú, CGR). The CGR is the country’s Supreme Audit Institution and a constitutionally autonomous body (órgano consitucional autónomo, OCA). The CGR supervises and verifies the correct application of public policies and the appropriate use of State resources and assets through its regional control managers, the institutional control bodies (órganos de control institucional, OCI) and the audit companies (Sociedades de Auditorías, SOA). The CGR thus plays a vital role in the supervision, auditing and external control of integrity and transparency policies. To fulfil this role, it is essential that its independence from management is ensured and that it is not involved in developing and implementing public integrity and transparency policies. In fact, previous OECD work has highlighted that the fact that the CGR is the governing entity for internal control in the country is creating confusion and weakens the authority of the public administration to assume its responsibilities in the area of internal control and internal audit (OECD, 2023[15]; OECD, 2017[5]). The CGR has the power to sanction functional administrative responsibilities and temporarily separate from the public administration officials who, in exercising their functions, commit administrative offences, violate their duties and cause damage to the State within the framework of the Sanctioning Administrative Procedure (Procedimiento Administrative Sancionador, PAS). The Supreme Court of Administrative Responsibility (Tribunal Supremo de Responsabilidad Administrativa, TSRA) is the final administrative instance in this sanctioning procedure.
The National Civil Service Authority (SERVIR). SERVIR is the governing entity of the Administrative System of Human Resources Management of the State, with a focus on the modernisation of the civil service and the comprehensive and sustained strengthening of the civil service. This mandate includes: (i) the formulation of strategies, policies and procedures; (ii) the design and administration of posts; (iii) the selection and recruitment of personnel; (iv) induction and supervision during the probationary period; (v) the administration of files; (vi) occupational health and safety management; (vii) social welfare; and (viii) the promotion of an appropriate organisational culture and environment, among other relevant aspects. In this context, SERVIR issues guidelines for training and improving the performance of civil servants and the efficiency of the services provided by the State. Its mandate includes a strong emphasis on the professionalisation of public servants taking into consideration a set of topics transversal to civil service, including ethics and public integrity. Based on the Law on the Code of Ethics of the Public Service (Law 27815), SERVIR establishes fundamental principles of integrity, responsibility and transparency that guide the behaviour of public servants. SERVIR is also responsible for the Disciplinary Administrative Procedure (Proceso Administrativo Disciplinario, PAD) within the framework of the Civil Service Law.
The Civil Service Tribunal (Tribunal del Servicio Civil, TSC) is the body of SERVIR that resolves, in the last administrative instance, appeals arising from disputes between public entities and their employees within the framework of the Administrative System for the Management of Human Resources (SAGRH).
The Secretariat of Public Management (Secretaría de Gestión Pública, SGP). The SGP is responsible for proposing, formulating, implementing and evaluating the National Public Administration Modernisation Policy for all public administration entities, including regional and local governments. It is also the governing body of the Public Administration Modernisation System. It is responsible for assisting senior management in co-ordinating and directing the process of modernising the management of the public administration and the State. It also plays a key role in the implementation of the Institutional Integrity Offices, given that their creation in an entity requires a favourable opinion by the SGP. In addition, it is the body in charge of promoting Open Government in Peru, through various initiatives such as the National Open Government Plans (Plan de Acción de Gobierno Abierto) developed in the context of the Open Government Partnership and the creation of guidelines and mechanisms that promote citizen participation in the development of laws and public policies.
The Tribunal of Transparency and Access to Public Information (TTAIP). Created by Legislative Decree 1353, which entered in force in 2017, it is the final administrative authority for resolving disputes relating to transparency and the right to access public information at the national level. It is autonomous in exercising its functions and is administratively attached to the Ministerial Office of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights. It began its functions on 20 December 2018 and has a technical secretariat and two chambers, each with three members. It functions as an internal appeal within the executive branch for complaints related to access to information, although users do not mandatorily have to make a claim in front of the TTAIP before they do so in the courts.
The National Authority for the Protection of Personal Data (ANPD). The ANPD ensures compliance with Law 29733 on the Protection of Personal Data and its regulations. It is attached to the General Directorate of Transparency, Access to Public Information and Data Protection of the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights. Its main functions include drafting and proposing regulations to protect personal data, monitoring compliance with regulations in this area, providing advice and guidance on properly handling personal data, and resolving complaints and conflicts relating to the processing of personal data. Another key responsibility of the ANPD is the management and update of the National Personal Data Protection Registry. The ANPD issues authorisations for privately and publicly owned databases, ensuring that personal data protection standards are met according to the Regulation of the Personal Data Protection Law. Its position under the same Director General as ANTAIP and its link with TTAIP, due to the close relationship between the right of access to information and data protection, which can sometimes contradict each other, make this a vital issue concerning the transparency regime in Peru.
The National General Archive (Archivo General de la Nación, AGN), attached to the Ministry of Culture, is responsible for the conservation and management of public archives. In the context of integrity and transparency, the AGN guarantees access to historical and documentary information and promotes transparency in the management of public documents. Proper file management is crucial for transparency and accountability in public administration.
The Ombudsperson’s Office (Defensoría del Pueblo, DP) is a constitutionally autonomous body that defends fundamental rights and supervises the fulfilment of the duties of the state administration, as well as the efficient provision of public services throughout the national territory. Through transparency and integrity, the DP, through the Anti-Corruption, Transparency and State Efficiency Department, oversees compliance with transparency and access to public information standards and issues recommendations to improve integrity practices in public entities.
The National Board of Justice (Junta Nacional de Justicia, JNJ) is a constitutionally autonomous and independent body subject to the Constitution, its organic law, and other laws on the matter. The JNJ is responsible for appointing, ratifying and dismissing judges and prosecutors in Peru. It has a crucial role in promoting integrity in the judicial system, ensuring that judges are selected and evaluated according to criteria of merit and integrity.
The Office of the Attorney General (Ministerio Público Fiscalía de la Nación) plays a fundamental role in the fight against corruption. This body has several specialised prosecutor's offices, including the Prosecutor's Offices Specialised in Crimes of Corruption of Officials and the Prosecutor's Offices Specialised in Asset Forfeiture, in charge of investigating and criminally prosecuting corrupt public officials and managing the loss of ownership of illicitly obtained assets. In addition, Special Investigation Teams, such as those dedicated to the Lava Jato and Cuellos Blancos del Puerto cases, focus on addressing complex cases of transnational corruption and criminal networks. The structure of the Attorney General’s Office also includes the Board of Superior and Provincial Prosecutors, which co-ordinates the work of prosecutors in various jurisdictions and creates unique teams of provincial and deputy prosecutors for highly complex cases. This organisation allows the Attorney General’s Office to effectively confront corruption, promoting transparency and integrity in the country’s public administration.
The National Election Processes Office (Oficina Nacional de Procesos Electorales, ONPE) is the autonomous constitutional electoral body responsible for organising and supervising electoral processes in Peru, ensuring transparency and fairness. It supervises the legality and transparency of campaign financing and accountability of political parties, playing a central role in ensuring the integrity of electoral processes, which is crucial for the legitimacy of the democratic system.
The Supervisory Agency for State Procurement (Organismo Supervisor de las Contrataciones del Estado, OSCE). It is attached to the Ministry of Economy and Finance. It oversees public procurement in Peru, ensuring it is conducted transparently and competitively. The OSCE establishes standards and guidelines for public procurement and monitors compliance, promoting integrity and efficiency in using public resources. Transparency in procurement is essential to prevent corruption and ensure procurement processes are fair and open.
The Judiciary plays a crucial role in the fight against corruption, both internally and externally. In recent years, it has been strengthened through reforms and the creation of specialised bodies, such as the Anti-Corruption Subsystem and the National Authority for the Control of the Judiciary. These bodies are responsible for investigating and sanctioning corruption cases within the judiciary and ensuring that judges and officials act with integrity and transparency. In addition, anti-corruption courts and chambers have been set up to deal exclusively with corruption offences, providing a specialised and effective approach to fighting these crimes. The judiciary has promoted transparency at the regulatory level by publishing decisions and implementing information systems that allow for greater public scrutiny of its decisions and processes. These measures aim to strengthen public confidence in the justice system and ensure it acts impartially and fairly at all levels.
The State Attorney General’s Office (Procuraduría General del Estado, PGE), an entity attached to the Ministry of Justice and Human Rights, plays a crucial role in the legal defence of the State and the fight against corruption. The PGE co-ordinates and supervises legal actions against acts of corruption and works on asset recovery. In addition, the PGE collaborates with other institutions to ensure the implementation of anti-corruption policies and is responsible for the representation of the State in judicial and arbitration proceedings. Within the PGE, the Public Prosecutor's Office Specialised in Corruption Crimes, the Ad Hoc Prosecutor’s Office for the Lava Jato Case and the Public Prosecutor’s Office Specialised in Money Laundering and Loss of Ownership Crimes have a specific mandate to investigate and prosecute acts of corruption, working closely with the entities that make up the Justice System to ensure the effective sanction of these crimes. Effective co-ordination between the PGE and other entities is essential to strengthen the State's capacity to prevent and punish corrupt acts.
1.2.3. To achieve the effective implementation of integrity and transparency policies, Peru could continue strengthening complementary elements in terms of meritocracy and internal control and audit
As part of any institutional reform, it is essential to keep creating adequate conditions for a system of integrity and transparency to function properly. Promoting integrity and transparency requires adequate human and technical resources and effective public management. The main challenges identified and the necessary considerations for a comprehensive solution in the Peruvian context are detailed below.
A civil service, which is meritocratic and values-based, plays a fundamental role in creating a culture of integrity in the public sector (OECD, 2017[16]; OECD, 2019[17]). The importance of further progress in implementing the civil service reform in Peru has been highlighted in several OECD studies, including those aimed at bringing Peru closer to OECD standards and best practices. The limited professionalisation and the high personnel turnover in the Peruvian public sector hinder the establishment a solid organisational culture, including integrity and transparency. Ensuring continuity remains a challenge which makes it difficult to consolidate processes and build a sense of belonging and commitment to the mission and institutional values. In this regard, promoting greater job stability and strengthening continuity in the civil service would also support more effective implementation of the values of integrity and transparency. Similarly, consolidating a civil service committed to and bound by ethical rules would make the reform of integrity and transparency more effective.
Law 30057 (Civil Service Law) of 2013, which applies to all levels and branches of government, including constitutionally autonomous bodies, would be an important step towards building a civil service based on merit and values, but its implementation has been slow. Legislative Decree 1602 of 2024 indicates a renewed commitment to advance the implementation of a civil service reform. However, the recurrent use of Administrative Service Contracting (Contratación Administrativa de Servicio, CAS) and the widespread practice of using external contractors to perform public functions are particularly problematic, generating high turnover in the public sector, especially at the regional and local levels, and undermining the sense of loyalty to the public interest. In addition, unlike CAS, those hired through service contracts are not public employees, creating a grey area concerning the application of the Code of Ethics in the Civil Service Law and other provisions applicable to public employees. According to the interviews conducted by the OECD, this recruitment modality is also sometimes used to repay political favours, especially at the local government level. Such actions can only be prosecuted under criminal law. At the same time, these individuals often have access to sensitive information and can participate in public decision-making, creating risks for public integrity. Although Law 31298 of 2021 intended to address this issue and limit this practice, it is still unregulated and ineffective. Implementing Legislative Decree 1602 could allow public entities to contract under the new civil service regime regulated by Law 30057, which could help mitigate the abovementioned risks.
Additionally, there is room for improvement in increasing the training and knowledge of Peruvian public officials on their role and best practices in public management, including risk management and internal control. It would be helpful to support any reforms to implement basic training programmes to improve their skills and enable them to manage and control others in their respective institutions, ensuring a competent and professional public service. This could be addressed in co-operation with universities, ensuring that training programmes include ethics and critical issues for effective public management.
One key finding from the OECD interviews conducted for this project is the limited infrastructure, including office space and technological equipment for information collection, analysis and secure storage at all levels of government. Integrated information systems that would allow for inter-institutional co-ordination at all levels of government are lacking. Moreover, significant disparities have been observed between regional and local capacities compared to national ones, especially in rural areas.
When it comes to public management and in light of the three lines model (IIA, 2020[18]), Peru has weaknesses in internal control and internal audit. The operational level, the first line, is typically not empowered in its own role and responsibility concerning internal control. Besides, a main weakness in the internal control system in Peru is that, with a few exceptions, the internal audit function (the third line) does not exist (OECD, 2017[5]; OECD, 2019[4]; OECD, 2021[7]; OECD, 2023[15]). While Peru has taken steps to strengthen internal control systems, its legal framework is not fully aligned with OECD standards and best practices (Figure 1.1). A fundamental challenge is that the regulatory framework and guidelines on internal control are issued by the CGR rather than the Executive, blurring the line between internal and external control. For example, the Institutional Control Offices (OCIs) belong to and are accountable to the CGR, Peru’s Supreme Audit Institution, performing external rather than internal control and auditing functions. The fact that public administrators often, wrongly, refer to these OCIs as “internal control offices” seems to reflect this confusion between the responsibility of public managers to ensure internal control and the external control responsibility of the Comptroller's Office.
The OECD Integrity Review of Peru had already identified this challenge and recommended setting up internal audit units led by an institution other than the Comptroller General’s Office (OECD, 2017[5]). In Peru, this could be the Secretariat of Public Management (SGP), the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF) or a specialised institution that does not currently exist in Peru but which would resemble the Office of the Comptroller General of the Union (Controladoria-Geral da União, CGU) of Brazil or the Office of the Comptroller General (Sindicatura General de la Nación, SIGEN) of Argentina (OECD, 2017[5]). Recent interviews conducted as part of this work indicate that the SGP would be the most appropriate entity to perform this function in Peru. Therefore, to strengthen public management, it is recommended that the SGP becomes the governing entity for internal control and audit, while co-ordinating with the CGR to promote effective alignment between external and internal control while maintaining their respective independence.
Source: OECD Public Integrity Indicators.
Finally, to achieve the commitment of the whole of society to the new reforms in terms of integrity and transparency, it is necessary to strengthen citizens’ trust in government and institutions. Figure 1.2 revealing data from the Latinobarometer of 2023 shows that as many as 90.3% of Peruvians believe that their country is governed for the benefit of a few powerful groups and not in the public interest. This is well above the already high regional average of 72.1%, making Peru’s percentage the highest in the region, followed by Paraguay with 89.7%. Data from the 2023 Latinobarometer also shows that 70.5% of Peruvians have no trust in their Congress, and 70.5% have no trust in their government. Again, both figures are higher than the regional average and are the highest in Latin America (Figure 1.3).
Source: Latinobarometer, 2023.
Source: Latinobarometer 2023.
Restoring this trust requires a comprehensive approach that addresses the structural and operational issues that lead to corruption and emphasises transparency, accountability and citizen participation in public administration. Reforms that promote integrity and transparency have the most significant impact on trust (Murtin et al., 2018[19]). Still, efforts to strengthen citizens should also come from other areas, such as government responsiveness to citizens' needs and perceptions of fairness (OECD, 2017[20]).