This latest posting encourages us to ask more pointed questions about how corruption is experienced and propagated by different genders, and about the importance of those differences. In this latest post from the series on corruption in fragile states, Barnard-Webster asks us to reconsider assumptions underlying efforts to utilize gender differences to stem corruption. Click here to read the post in French.
Are women less corrupt than men; until recently, researchers have often associated the idea of “corruption and gender” with the pursuit of answering this question. Working on innovative anti-corruption approaches in Lubumbashi, DRC, we have repeatedly grappled with this question. Why? How might knowing more about this intersection help our network of local anti-corruption actors fight corruption in the criminal justice sector? What do those working on corruption in fragile contexts need to know? Before diving in, I wanted to learn more about how others in the field have unpacked these issues. Continue reading
– click here to read the post in English –
Les femmes sont-elles moins corrompues que les hommes ; jusqu’a maintenant, plusieurs chercheurs et académiciens avaient fréquemment associé la phrase « genre et corruption » avec la recherche de la réponse à cette question. Travaillant sur les approches innovantes en matière de lutte contre la corruption à Lubumbashi en RDC, l’équipe de projet CAASDI de CDA a, à plusieurs reprises, étudié cette question. Pourquoi ? Comment pourrait-il aider les acteurs locaux anti-corruption de CAASDI luttant contre la corruption d’en savoir plus sur cette question? Ou même ceux qui travaillent sur la corruption dans les états fragiles, comment pourrait-elle en être utile ? Avant d’approfondir ces questions, je voulais en savoir plus sur la façon dont d’autres dans le domaine les ont analysées. Continue reading
Esteemed corruption author and academic Michael Johnston encourages us to look up from our data from time to time, to challenge the evidence we often rely on to define and analyze corruption. In this latest post from our series on corruption in fragile states, Professor Johnston asks us to take a fresh look at the lives and histories of those living in corrupt contexts, in hopes of finding richer, more useful, possibilities for peacebuilding and corruption control. Continue reading
Do you need evidence to sway your donor that innovation is needed in anti-corruption programming because the old ways are insufficient? Are you trying to convince a colleague the necessity of looking at a wider array of issues in the context in order to understand what drives corruption? Do you dig systems-thinking? Are you interested in seeing it applied to more topics? Continue reading
– Last week CDA Executive Director Peter Woodrow shared a systemic analysis of corruption in the criminal justice system in Lubumbashi. Today, Peter describes the process of working with local partners to develop the analysis. Responding to Peter’s introduction of key concepts in systems thinking and program design, the local stakeholders developed a common understanding of corruption and then identified possible points of intervention for change. In laying out possible initiatives, the group was able to balance priorities for change against what was most feasible for the context. –
– part of our series on corruption in fragile states –
CDA has been working with local stakeholders and partners to develop a thorough understanding about how corruption works in the criminal justice system in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). After completing a broad national level analysis, the project has focused on Katanga Province in southeastern DRC. The main approach has been to support the establishment of a local network of people, including judges/magistrates, lawyers and others dedicated to promoting change in the system of corruption in the criminal justice sector. Click here to see the theory of change for the project. Continue reading
A post by Cheyanne Scharbatke-Church and Diana Chigas first published on The Global Anticorruption Blog Law, Social Science, and Policy, and part of the CDA Perspectives’ series on corruption in fragile states.
Early last week, the Transparency International (TI) Secretariat in Berlin circulated an Invitation to Tender with a title that grabbed our attention. Framed as part of a commitment to “the highest standards of accountability, organizational effectiveness and learning,” this tender described a “Research Review and Evaluation of Anti-Corruption Work Assumptions: Grievance as a key determinant of people’s anti-corruption behavior.” The email that accompanied the tender suggested an exciting and needed inquiry into assumptions that drive anticorruption programs funded by the international community—on a topic that is closely related to some of our research team’s work on corruption in fragile states (see here and here). That TI was interested in funding a project of this sort was encouraging: Testing core assumptions, after all, is central to learning and should be a fundamental element of effective programming. We were also heartened by the fact that TI sought comparative analysis, and would give preference to counterfactual analysis over experimental designs—suggesting an interest in the type of qualitative inquiry that is necessary to penetrate the dynamics of corruption as a complex system.