|
The Papers
External Donors:
How Can They be Part of the Solution?
Rt. Hon. Baroness Chalker FSS
External Donors: How Can They Be Part of the Solution?
Mr Chairman, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen,
Today is the first major occasion overseas when I have given a speech since
leaving Government and the first without the constraints which government
necessarily imposes. This is a liberating experience in itself. Consequently, I
hope that what I have to say will be taken as a personal and honest appraisal of
the issues we are discussing, with the benefit of my experience at the cutting
edge of development politics for 8 years.
Corruption is a fact of life in all corners of the globe. It is found in
developed and developing countries alike. It is to be found in the public and
private sectors. It can manifest itself on a "grand scale" and at the "petty
level". Politicians, civil servants, businessmen and others have each been
implicated and exposed as perpetrators of corrupt practices, at different times.
It is too simplistic to look for definitive, all embracing answers to the
reasons why individuals or governments indulge in corruption. There is no magic
wand at our disposal. However, the fact that such an array of speakers has come
together here in Lima, is a clear demonstration of the will to tackle the cancer
of corruption. Yes it is all our tasks to drag out the truth from the dark
recesses where corruption has, for too long, gone undetected, and in some
instances, been condoned or even encouraged.
In this new climate of relative openness, the importance of the international
media should not be under-estimated; journals such as the Financial Times and
the Wall Street Journal have devoted considerable space to analyses of the
corruption issue as well as to articles exposing individual cases.
Some may be concerned that such media exposure could be counterproductive, at
least in the short term. Corrupt governments or businesses may seek alternative
methods. I believe that in the longer-term the cumulative impact of serious
investigative journalism will act as a highly effective weapon in the anti-
corruption armoury.
The task facing us all is daunting. There are vested interests to be tackled,
ingrained attitudes to be overturned and cultural orthodoxy's to be challenged.
There can be no gain in this process without some pain. However, we must ask
what is the price of not tackling the issue?
There is an overwhelming, hard-headed economic case for tackling corruption. If
developing countries wish to have fair access to the benefits which the
expansion of free trade will bring, then it is in their own national self-
interest to dismantle the barriers which will deter foreign investment. High on
the list of deterrents to FDI is the fear of dealing with countries where the
rule of law is undermined, where democratic institutions are weak, where the
accountability of the public service is non-existent and petty corruption is
endemic. There is increasing empirical evidence to show that investors,
especially foreign ones, choose to go elsewhere rather than become caught up in
costly projects which squeeze their profit margins. In the new world economy of
the twenty-first century, corruption on a grand scale will not continue to oil
the wheels of investment.
This is not to pretend that the onward march of free trade and more discerning
decision-making by investors from the developed world will, in themselves,
result in the market correcting all distortions in trade, investment and
development. They should, however, be a major factor in focussing politicians on
the disadvantages to the economic well-being of their people of failing to
tackle the causes of corruption.
Why Fighting Corruption is Essential
First, if the world's political leaders are serious about finding solutions to
the gross disparities in wealth between developed and developing nations, action
against corruption is crucial.
There must be a concerted effort to expose the causes of corruption and
particularly the contribution it makes to exacerbating the abject poverty of
millions in the developing world.
Second, all nations wish to stimulate economic growth to satisfy the increasing
expectations of their citizens. Such economic growth can only be achieved
effectively and for the long-term if decision making is soundly based with
institutions in which investors and ordinary people across the world can have
confidence. Those who refuse or fail to see the correlation between corruption
and long term economic stagnation will condemn poor countries to a worse fate as
more enlightened societies grasp the nettle of reform. Politicians who remain
wedded to out-dated and economically damaging corrupt activities will, in due
course, suffer the political consequences. Ultimately, economic progress and
wealth creation cannot be secured without the private sector, just as the
private sector is a truly essential player in the overall fight against
corruption.
President Narayanan and Prime Minister Inder Kumar Gujral have, in recent weeks,
demonstrated an impressive political and moral determination to attack the
corruption they believe is now endemic in Indian society.
Invoking the spirit of Mahatma Gandhi, President Narayanan declared:
"Corruption is corroding the vitals of our politics and society."
"
the people have to be in the forefront of the fight against corruption...."
"A social movement or a widespread national movement is needed to cleanse the
system."
The fact that the leaders of one of the world's great nations chose to highlight
the corruption issue at a time when the eyes of the world were focussed on
Delhi, celebrating 50 years of independence, demonstrates the progress being
made. At times of national rejoicing, politicians normally wish to concentrate
on the good news, not on the downside of their country's life.
Why did President Narayanan do it? As The Times of London said:
"Behind this appeal, which if heeded would change India as much as it would
enrich it, lies a sharpening recognition that corruption and poverty go
together."
The enlightened approach being adopted by India's political elite should now
find expression elsewhere in the developing world. India will benefit from its
decision to lay bare the corruption culture and the mechanisms it intends to use
to overcome its causes. Foreign investors can have confidence that the climate
for investment in India will improve. Honesty and positive action by governments
can make a real difference. India has shown the way.
Can Donors Make a Difference?
There has been a tendency in some quarters to pin much of the guilt on developed
countries and their business communities for corruption. This is a futile and
self-defeating exercise. There are no truly innocent parties in this debate, and
we must acknowledge the causes of corruption are to be found in the north, not
only the south. However, our focus should be on finding solutions for the
future, not indulging in retrospective debate about who or what is most culpable
in the development of international corruption.
The north has understood the need to put its own house in order. The G7, the
Commonwealth, the OECD, the EU and others have in recent times, set in motion
recommendations to make foreign bribery a criminal offence and end tax
deductibility of bribes to foreign officials. There is still much work to be
done and scepticism to be overcome, before the necessary legislative frameworks
and legal sanctions are fully in place. This is not solely a job for the donors,
but it is also one for business. It is in their interests also. In a recent
survey for the World Bank top business executives identified corruption as the
most important obstacle to transacting business in sub-Saharan Africa, Latin
America and the Caribbean.
The fact that the political will is now being translated into proposals for
reform should act as a catalyst for everyone, especially the developing world to
respond. No single action by any individual or government can effect the changes
we wish to see; the process must be two-way and complementary. Where the
developed world can and should be enabled to make a difference is in the process
of building the capacity of institutions in developing and transition countries.
Based on my somewhat long experience, building strong, accountable and durable
institutions is central to deterring corruption and the causes of corruption.
I make no apology for repeating my views published in the Nairobi press in
1994:-
"Where a government wants development aid to help with a transformation to
democracy, to strengthen its institutions, to weed out corruption and
incompetence, we (the then British Government) will give it. But where a
government turns its back on democracy, ignores accountability, flouts human
rights and allows corruption to flourish, our aid will be of a humanitarian
nature to help the people in real need. No taxpayer in any donor country should
be asked to contribute to the Swiss bank accounts of corrupt third world
politicians".
Cleaning-up government is a complex and lengthy exercise, requiring political
commitment and a determination to see the process through to a successful
conclusion. The challenge for us is to devise ways of assisting those who wish
to be helped to set about building their own strong, independent and accountable
institutions whose ethos is to engage pro-actively in driving corruption out of
the national psyche. Where substantive strategies of reform and renewal can be
most effective are in the following six areas: -
- civil service reform;
- the establishment of soundly based policy-making processes;
- the legal framework, including the judicial system and an adequate prosecution
service;
- strengthening financial management systems;
- government procurement and contract Management systems which demonstrate open,
competitive bidding for public contracts;
- anti-corruption commissions to improve integrity in public life; answerable to
Parliaments not governments.
It would be disingenuous, however, to suggest that reform in any of these areas
can ultimately hope to fulfil its purpose unless the political environment is
open and democratic with a properly functioning elected legislature. The process
should as far as possible, in principle at least, have the consent of opposition
political parties.
Civil Service Reform
On the whole, western democracies benefit enormously from long-established
institutions such as an impartial civil service. During my many years as a
Government Minister, I deeply appreciated the ethical code and high standards by
which my civil servants discharged their duties. For an ethical code to operate
successfully requires all parts of the body politic to subscribe to its
development.
The objective of any reform programme in the civil service must be to enhance
public confidence in the integrity of the service. Tackling the root cause of
why officials resort to corruption leads to a civil service with improved
recruitment procedures, fairer remuneration and a career structure with
promotion based on merit. In short, the ethos should be thoroughly professional
with performance targets clearly set out. Underlying this should be a code of
conduct to which all public servants and politicians must adhere - and which
commands respect from the Permanent Secretary down to the lowliest desk officer.
Such a code may, for example, as in the case of Zimbabwe, define wrongdoing in
the following terms:
- failing to take reasonable care of state funds or property;
- theft of funds and property;
- failing to reimburse advances,
- falsifying official documents;
- accepting bribes;
- failing to declare and disclose conflict of interest.
Infusing the service with such an ethos cannot be achieved in isolation from the
conduct of government ministers or parliamentarians in general. If reform is to
produce results which improves demonstrably the policy-making process and
increases transparency and accountability, agreement and co-ordination between
the political and administrative arms of the Executive and Parliament, is vital.
Although countries embarking on a reform process should work closely with the
international advisory organisations, each country must identify for itself what
specific requirements they have. The host country needs to be involved in
drawing up the programme of reform. Such exercises must command the widest
possible support within the country and not be viewed as interference in their
internal affairs by foreign authorities.
The Case for a Public Forum
As a potentially integral part of the reform process, I suggest that there is
considerable merit in convening a public forum of key public figures to debate
openly the fundamental issues involved ineffective capacity-building.
Politicians, parliamentarians, the private sector, the media and academic
community all have a useful and productive role to play. Not only can they
generate ideas, they should also command respect from and the support of, the
wider society. Chaired by an independent public figure, the forum might
consider:
- an ethics code;
- effective interface between the State institutions and the people;
- case studies on comparative examples of reformed or reforming civil service
structures; and
- the effects of corruption and bribery on
- the international standing and reputation of a country and
- the economic well-being of a country.
In itself, such a forum cannot hope to produce a panacea for all ills. However,
its deliberations should facilitate informed debate on the evils of corruption
at all administrative levels within a country. In other words, an anti-
corruption ethos must permeate regional and local government too where
corruption may be endemic and more difficult to detect.
In addition to the civil service, an integrated institutional reform process
needs to examine the legal and judicial systems. Effective enforcement of
anticorruption legislation demands an accountable judiciary truly independent of
the Executive and political interference. In particular, together donor and
recipient should look at ways of creating effective prosecuting authorities as
part of the process of strengthening legal enforcement. I am strongly of the
view that a highly trained and motivated prosecuting authority is vital. Without
this, there is a real prospect of corruption cases collapsing because of
evidence withheld or false information used by the defence. The capacity of
authorities to gain the evidence necessary to secure a conviction is a crucial
element in a fair and responsive legal system.
None of these reforms will have lasting success without budget reform. The
requirement for sound modem financial management systems within government,
central and local, is now more widely recognised. Proper auditing procedures
should be established which can at best prevent but at least minimise and detect
wrong-doing in the public sector.
This is necessary if a government's macro-economic objectives are to be secured,
scarce resources prioritised and allocated within a strategic framework, and
projects implemented effectively.
Associated with this is the difficult and sensitive area of government
procurement. Countries seeking to improve their system of bidding for public
contracts should learn from best practice elsewhere. The economic and moral
madness of corrupt bidding procedures is self-evident. The legacy of badly built
roads, semi-finished tower blocks and industrial enterprises situated in the
wrong location is well known to those who have witnessed at
first hand the debilitating consequences of corrupt bidding practices. I repeat
-if countries indulging in such folly continue to sweep this issue under the
carpet, the downward spiral to economic stagnation and decline will inevitably
increase the prospects of economic marginalisation.
Anti-Corruption Authorities
The use of anti-corruption authorities is a mechanism used throughout the world
to advance the cause of integrity in public life. I have personal experience of
a number of such projects where Ombudsman offices, independent anti-corruption
commissions and Inspectors General have been established to investigate those
suspected or accused of corruption and to pursue alleged abuses of power.
In principle, the creation of such bodies is essential although experience has
taught me to be sceptical about the effectiveness of those which report
exclusively to a Head of State or government. The independence of any such
commission is necessarily compromised if there is an absence of scrutiny by the
elected legislature. Such commissions should report direct to parliaments where
all elected representatives of the people can judge issues on their merits, free
from interference by the Executive. The ACCs must also be underpinned by an
adequate system of prosecution, an open and independent judiciary and the
resources necessary to conduct their work in a proper fashion.
Conclusion
I make no apologies for concentrating my remarks today on the importance of
building the capacity of institutions. Of course, the anti-corruption agenda
encompasses other issues many of which are inextricably linked to each other
But, for a nation in the developing world to advance its economic well-being,
rooting out the underlying causes of corruption in State institutions must
surely be a very high priority.
We meet at a time when the corruption issue has rarely been higher on the agenda
of governments and international organisations. It is incumbent upon all of us
to seize the advantages which this new openness provides. No one pretends that
there is a bright new dawn just around the corner. There are forces at work in
the international economy with much to lose from a concerted attack on the
menace of corruption. We shall not, however, be deflected from the task in hand,
notwithstanding the dangers which can accompany an assault on wrong-doing.
If the political will exists, reinforced by a demonstrable commitment to enact
the reforms required, then whilst we may not remove completely the blight of
international corruption the movement towards a less corrupt environment will
become irreversible.
|