Daniel Altman
July 18, 2006

International Herald Tribune

Peter Eigen, founder of Transparency International, the global anti-corruption organization, and a member of Prime Minister Tony Blair’s new Africa Progress Panel in Britain, answered questions recently from readers of the Managing Globalization blog, which is written by the International Herald Tribune’s global economics columnist, Daniel Altman.

Here are excerpts from the site:

Fighting corruption

Q: Most of the time in our African countries, leaders are corrupt and “happy” with mismanagement and bad governance, provided they can get rich thanks to their public position. Citizens and civil societies are so feeble in reacting adequately against the situation that corruption lasts many, many years. So in that very frequent case, how can corruption be overcome and development better assured?

Faraniaina Pierre Bernard, Madagascar

Eigen: It is true that corruption represents a huge obstacle to economic and social development in many African countries. And it is true that so-called entrenched networks of socially connected businesspeople and public officials make life very hard for corruption fighters. But there are fresh signs of success in some countries, such as Nigeria and South Africa, and other countries that already enjoy good governance and strong institutions.

And, although it may not always be enough, every country in Africa has citizens willing to stand up for integrity and accountable government, such as the Senegalese journalist Abdou Latif Coulibaly, who received a Transparency International Integrity Award in 2005 for his investigative reporting, or the Kenyan constables Naftali Lagat and David Munyakei, who received Integrity Awards for their work in uncovering Kenya’s Goldenberg scandal.

Now I realize that these are individual examples, but they are sure signs that progress is not only possible, it is happening.

An eye on the funds

Q:I have been working in Central and Eastern European countries since 1990 for international donor organizations. In every case, a protocol or agreement was drawn up between the financing donor and the recipient government in which the government contracted to be the main partner to the project while the beneficiaries varied between ministries and other state bodies and, occasionally, the private sector.

In nearly every case, the governments failed to deliver their part – either with woefully inadequate personnel to achieve targets or they had no intention of creating the necessary institutional capacity or structure to enable the project’s terms of reference to be realized in a sustainable manner.

Will your new initiative [the Africa Progress Panel] actually demand/ enforce compliance with the terms of reference of the support projects in a meaningful way so that the funds will not be dissipated or even lost?

Brian McCarthy, Romania

Eigen: These are classic examples of lacking capacity, and they are still far too common, perpetuated by ignorance, indifference or distorted priorities on the part of some donors.

Although we have encountered this often enough, I cannot claim to have a silver bullet. For our part, we would consider different types of funding or service delivery when there are doubts about a government’s capacity. We advocate that donors continue support based on demonstrated progress. Civil society, including the intended beneficiaries, should be consulted during project design and should be involved in participative evaluation once the project is being carried out.

This requires a commitment from donors to genuinely independent evaluation. Donors may not want the public to see that funds have been misused or may have diplomatic agendas in maintaining support for underperforming institutions.