The international system has witnessed dramatic changes in the recent past. Questions relating to how and when ordinary citizens can stand against oppression, injustice, and abuse without resorting to violence challenge all of us to rethink our understanding of international peace and conflict. As academicians, educators, practitioners, private citizens, and students, what is our role in this increasingly complex global picture? What can we do to nurture and preserve international security and world peace?

One thing is certain. We must make sure our learners and educators have access to the best available information about the issues surrounding peace, justice, freedom, and security. Our country’s future depends upon their interest in and understanding of these complicated topics. In the belief that knowledge of these issues is vital to civic education, we have developed this study guide to expand our readers’ perspectives and knowledge of some aspects of international peace and conflict.

It is our hope that citizens around the world will find the contents of the study guide useful as they strive to deepen their understanding of international peace and conflict.

© 2010 by the Endowment of the United States Institute of Peace. All rights reserved.

About the United States Institute of Peace

The United States Institute of Peace is an independent, nonpartisan institution established and funded by Congress. Its goals are to help prevent and resolve violent conflicts, promote post-conflict peacebuilding, and increase conflict management tools, capacity, and intellectual capital worldwide. The Institute does this by empowering others with knowledge, skills, and resources, as well as by its direct involvement in conflict zones around the globe.

Board of Directors

J. Robinson West (Chair), Chairman, PFC Energy, Washington, D.C.

George E. Moose (Vice Chair), Adjunct Professor of Practice, The George Washington University, Washington, D.C.

Anne H. Cahn, Former Scholar in Residence, American University, Washington, D.C.

Chester A. Crocker, James R. Schlesinger Professor of Strategic Studies, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.

Kerry Kennedy, Human Rights Activist

Ikram U. Khan, President, Quality Care Consultants, LLC., Las Vegas, Nev.

Stephen D. Krasner, Graham H. Stuart Professor of International Relations at Stanford University

Jeremy A. Rabkin, Professor of Law, George Mason University, Arlington, Va.

Judy Van Rest, Executive Vice President, International Republican Institute, Washington, D.C.

Nancy Zirkin, Executive Vice President, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Washington, D.C.

Members Ex Officio

James N. Miller, Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

 Michael H. Posner, Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor

 Ann E. Rondeau, Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy; President, National Defense  University

Richard H. Solomon, President, United States Institute of Peace (nonvoting)

Contact

United States Institute of Peace

Education and Training Center/ Domestic Programs

1200 17th  Street NW

Washington, DC 20036

www.usip.org

education@usip.org

The international community has been paying increasing attention to corruption and how to control it. For one thing, international institutions, governments, donors, aid workers, and peacebuilders all realize that corruption has very high costs for society, but particularly in states emerging from conflict. Not only can corruption keep states in cycles of violence by funding armed groups and criminal networks, but it can also prevent the development of effective institutions of governance. When money and resources available to government are diverted by corrupt officials instead of being channeled for the benefit of citizens, the clock turns back on social and economic development. This, in turn, can create further instability. In these ways, corruption, governance, and conflict are all linked. But, corruption exists everywhere in some form and can be pervasive in some societies. Rooting it out is more difficult than it would seem.

What Is Corruption?

Almost everyone who studies it would agree that corruption is difficult to define and nearly impossible to measure. When a high-level government official steals millions of dollars for his/her own personal gain, it’s relatively easy to identify that as corruption. But, what if your neighbor gave preferential treatment to a friend or relative in her business dealings? Is that corruption? What if a parent made a donation to a school in order to prevent the expulsion of a child? What if you live in a conflict-ravaged country where food supply is limited and you pay the officials a little bit of money under the table to get extra rations to feed your hungry family? Corruption exists at many different levels. And, some would argue that a definition for corruption is impossible because it is a concept that is culturally determined and varies from one society to another. For example, gift-giving to officials may be expected in one country and prohibited by law in another. For the purpose of this guide, corruption involves the misuse of power by those who hold it—people who, in their official position, exploit the power with which they are entrusted by seeking private gain.

The private gain obtained by corrupt public officials, who have been entrusted with guiding and implementing public policy and service, is at the expense of both the common good and of those who don’t “cheat the system.” In this sense, corruption is widely viewed as an immoral practice and is increasingly condemned around the world. Even those compelled to participate in corrupt systems in order to survive are frequently fed up with the role that corruption may play in their daily lives. Corruption creates a system whereby money and connection determines who has access to public services and who receives favorable treatment. Kofi Annan, former Secretary General of the United Nations, put the cost of corruption succinctly in his Foreword to the 2004 United Nations Convention Against Corruption. Calling corruption an “insidious plague that has a wide range of corrosive effects on societies,” he added that it diverts funds intended for development, undermines the ability of governments to provide basic services, feeds inequalities and injustice, and discourages foreign aid investment.”1

These practices have particular repercussions in countries emerging from conflict because monies that are needed for development of, for example, roads, utilities, education, health care, and transportation, are diverted by greed and desire to survive and get ahead in a broken system.

What Are the Costs of Corruption?

There are many economic and social costs associated with corruption, not to mention links to criminal operations and violence. On the financial front, the World Bank has attempted to attach a monetary figure to the extent of bribery (which does not include the embezzlement of public funds or the theft of public assets). Based on worldwide economic data compiled in 2001-2002, the World Bank estimated that the amount of money paid in bribes globally was some $1 trillion.3

want to see their business continue. A booming cocaine trade is also breeding corruption in West Africa, particularly in places like Guinea-Bissau which, notes the UN, “is saddled with high-level corruption and a near-total absence of the rule of law, allowing cocaine gangs to operate with impunity.”5 In other words, criminals involved in drug trafficking are bribing public authorities so that they can operate without interference.

Finally, corruption has links to conflict. Although corruption is not likely to be the only factor responsible for the destabilization of a country, it can have a major impact on undermining the government—and public confidence in governing institutions—which, in turn, can become a driver of conflict. The links between corruption, governance, and conflict are complex and interrelated, and they are a reality in many countries. For example, in the Caucasus, corruption and conflict are intertwined in the states and breakaway regions. Corrupt rulers, powerful and contending clans, and networks of elites who have a shared stake in corruption in states such as Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan have used “state power to intrude into the economy with impunity” and created “violence and protection” markets.6 As a result, governing institutions are weak and there is a pervasive insecurity. While nationalism and ethnic loyalties have also played a part in conflicts in the Caucasus, links to corruption are intertwined with these and have contributed to the region’s instability. Charges of widespread corruption were at the heart of the public demonstrations that led to the overthrow of Kyrgyzstan’s President Kurmanbek Bakiyev in March 2010.

Where Is Corruption Most Prevalent?

Corruption is very widespread and, because of its diverse forms, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to measure. Nathanial Heller, Managing Director at Global Integrity, compares measuring corruption to “trying to measure a black hole. You can’t measure it because you can’t see it,” he adds.7 Global Integrity, therefore, does not measure corruption, but rather assesses its opposite. That is, it examines the anti-corruption and good governance institutions, mechanisms, and practices that are in place. On this basis, the countries it identified in 2008 as not having these elements and, thus, being at “serious risk for high-level corruption” included Angola, Belarus, Cambodia, China, Georgia, Iraq, Montenegro, Morocco, Nicaragua, Serbia, Somalia, the West Bank, and Yemen.8

And, there are other corruption indices that are commonly referenced and provide a global picture. Since 1995, Transparency International has published an annual Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) that ranks the countries of the world according to “the degree to which corruption is perceived to exist among public officials and politicians.” It measures how corruption affects people where they live, such as how much they might have paid in bribes over a given period, for example. The latest CPI in 2009 draws on 13 different polls and surveys from 10 independent institutions. Countries with the lowest scores—or the perceived highest levels of corruption—included Somalia, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Sudan, Iraq, Chad, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Iran, and Haiti.9

Transparency International notes that “Fragile, unstable states that are scarred by war and ongoing conflict linger at the bottom of the index…. demonstrate[ing] that countries which are perceived to have the highest levels of public-sector corruption are also those plagued by long-standing conflicts, which have torn apart their governance infrastructure.” Indeed, some of the top states on the list of the Fund for Peace’s Failed State’s Index10 are the same as those on the CPI, such as Somalia, Sudan, Chad, Iraq, Afghanistan, Myanmar, and Haiti. Among others, these states show sharp economic declines, little government legitimacy, a deterioration of public services, and arbitrary applications of the rule of law.

In many of these cases, systemic corruption exists—that is where corruption has become a key part of the economic, social, or political order and where the major institutions of government are captured by corrupt individuals or groups. It’s interesting to ponder whether corruption like this exists because the state has failed, or whether corruption among elites has led to state failure. Whichever is the case, the link between corruption and failed states is a strong one.

Corruption—especially when it is prevalent in society—poses a threat to the larger social fabric. Why? Because it undermines the trust and shared values that make a society work. People pay taxes and offer allegiance to a government in return for security and essential public services, notes Raymond Gilpin at U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP). But, he adds, when those in government start to use public money for their own personal benefit and services start to collapse, then there is a breakdown of trust. Judicial, legislative, and executive branches of government also become compromised.

What Forms of Governance Are Likely to Be More Corrupt?

Corruption tends to be more prevalent in autocratic systems (where one person rules with unlimited authority), or oligarchies (rule by a small group of elites). As Minxin Pei from the Carnegie Endowment clarifies, corruption does exist in democracies, but it “is fundamentally different from the massive looting by autocrats in dictatorships. That is why the least corrupt countries, with a few exceptions, all happen to be democracies, and the most corrupt countries are overwhelmingly autocracies… That corruption is more prevalent in autocracies is no mere coincidence. While democracies derive their legitimacy and popular support through competitive elections and the rule of law, autocracies depend on the support of a small group of political and social elites, the military, the bureaucracy and the secret police.”11

A dictatorship is an autocratic form of government and, historically, there are numerous examples of corrupt dictatorships. Take Mohamed Suharto, the president of Indonesia from 1967 to 1998. He reportedly embezzled $15 to 35 billion from state coffers. Suharto’s rule was very centralized and his government was dominated by the military. Although he maintained stability over an extensive region and boosted economic growth, his authoritarian regime was marked by renowned corruption and widespread discontent. Mobutu Sésé Seko, the president of Zaire (present-day Democratic Republic of the Congo) from 1965 to1997, also embezzled some $5 billion.12 Mobutu stayed in power by fostering a broad patronage network, handing foreign-owned firms over to relatives and associates, and publicly executing political rivals. Centralized systems like these rely on the support of a cadre of powerful elites, but the majority of the population has little political influence or other rights.

One-party states may also have higher potential for corruption because of the lack of “checks and balances” on their rule. Vietnam is an example of where one-party rule has led to systemic corruption and little accountability, notes Nathanial Heller at Global Integrity. All political organizations are under the control of the Vietnamese Communist Party. There is no independent media, or legally recognized opposition parties. In systems like Vietnam’s, adds Heller, everything goes through the party, which determines who gets promoted and where contract money goes.13 Without checks on a highly centralized form of governance and without a strong public voice that applies pressure on the government, transparency and accountability may be difficult to accomplish. Vietnam has been moving to a free-market economy. Hence, its government acknowledges, more work needs to be done to combat corruption in order to attract foreign investment.

Is Corruption Lower in Democracies?

Corruption exists in all societies and some would argue that you can minimize it, but never eliminate it anywhere. Despite this, a democratic system of government has some built-in mechanisms that keep corruption in check. Democracy is defined by USIP as “a state or community in which all members of society partake in a free and fair electoral process that determines government leadership, have access to power through their representatives, and enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties.” It is generally accepted that strong democracies have lower levels of corruption, largely because those who are ruled give the government the legitimacy to govern and therefore the citizens can hold the government to greater transparency in its operations.

However, even when a state has free and fair elections and calls itself a democracy, it may still be emerging from conflict, transitioning from authoritarian rule, or be guided by loyalties to one’s own clan, tribe, or interest group. A state may also have a political culture that lends itself to corrupt practices. In Russia, for example, there is a preference for cultivating access to influential people rather than adhering to formal and legalistic procedures and norms. Such a political culture continues to proliferate corruption and, as countries like Russia have transitioned to market economies, corruption has particularly benefited the well-connected and newly rich.14

In states transitioning from one form of governance to another, corruption may actually increase. “When authoritarian control is challenged and destroyed through economic liberalizations and political democratizations, but not yet replaced by democratic checks and balances and by legitimate and accountable institutions, the level of corruption will increase and reach a peak before it is reduced with increasing levels of democratic governance,” suggests a paper on corruption prepared in 2000 for the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation.15 Many countries in the former Soviet Bloc, for example, have transitioned from Communism to multiparty democracies over the past 20 years, but corruption is still rife in many. In Bulgaria, for example, a variety of legal reforms have been put in place to combat corruption. However, corruption remains prevalent in the judiciary, and the European Union has recently suspended funding for apparent fraud and misuse of funds.

A democratic system does not guarantee a society that is free from corruption. Petty corruption tends to be far less prevalent in strong democratic systems with more open systems of governance, but one can still find plenty of examples of political corruption at high levels or of money influencing politics. These include scandals involving questionable party financing, the selling of political influence to the biggest donors, and politicians using connections to line their own pockets. Campaign finance reform continues to be a subject of much debate in the United States, where the electorate remains concerned about moneyed special interests having undue influence over legislators.

Another example from the West was the high-level corruption of political parties in Italy, which led to a number of scandals in the 1990s. The political party in power made sure that its members dominated government positions. Its members in key positions awarded government contracts to businesses for a price of a bribe, then, gave the money to the party. Among other illicit activities, funds for large infrastructure projects were funneled into party coffers.16 Transparency International’s Corruption Index 2008 shows that many of the least corrupt countries are democracies. However, countries with less democratic, more authoritarian systems of governance, such as Singapore, United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain are also some of the least corrupt.

Also, democracy is not a panacea for problems related to corruption and conflict. A rule by majority can neglect the needs and desires of minorities, marginalize them, and thus contribute to the rise of separatist movements and even violent rebellions, even with many political parties. And, it takes a long time to establish a solid democracy in societies transitioning from conflict to peace.

What Structures Help Prevent Corruption?

“Good governance” principles can make it more difficult for corruption to take root. Of many requirements of good governance, some key components are participation, accountability, transparency, and rule of law. (See box in Good Governance.) It is the combination of the principles that can help stem corruption and build a stable society. And, in a system where rule of law prevails, citizens have an equal standing under the law regardless of their political affiliation, social status, economic power, or ethnic background. Public participation greatly helps mitigate conflict because there are legitimate public forums and mechanisms for peaceful debate. Public participation in politics (through elections, political parties and civil society organizations) can provide a check on the government and keep political authorities accountable. Such accountability is enhanced by the rule of law, which encompasses the processes, norms, and structures that hold the population and public officials legally responsible for their actions and impose sanctions if they violate the law.

Good Governance

More open and representative governing systems that allow for a high level of civic participation typically have more vibrant civil society organizations that can publicly reveal the abuses of corrupt officials and put their political futures at risk. Civil society describes groups of civilians that work voluntarily (vs. by the mandate of the state) and the organizations that are thus formed to advance their own or others’ well-being. It can include civic, educational, trade, labor, charitable, media, religious, recreational, cultural, and advocacy groups. A strong civil society can protect individuals and groups against intrusive government and influence government behavior, protecting the marginalized and furthering the interest of the governed.

Elections provide an important method of public participation in governance and give legitimacy to a government chosen by the people. Free and fair elections also have the effect of holding leaders accountable because, if they misuse their office, they can be voted out of it by citizens during the next election cycle. Given a choice, citizens are not likely to vote for incumbents whom they believe are corrupt or ignore corruption, and can vote candidates into office who are running on anti-corruption platforms.

Public accountability remains one of the most important mechanisms to control

corruption. Can officials (elected or otherwise) be exposed to public scrutiny and

criticism for not meeting standards and for wrongdoing? Or, perhaps more importantly,

can they lose their jobs or be put in jail? Susan Rose-Ackerman notes that “Limits on the power of politicians and political institutions combined with independent monitoring and enforcement can be potent anti-corruption strategies.”17

thus helping to ensure greater transparency and accountability.

Rule of Law

Most policymakers would agree that having “rule of law” tradition is one of the most effective ways to keep corruption in check. A state can operate under many different  forms of governance, from autocracy to democracy, and remain stable and free of internal violence, but having widespread respect for rule of law in place ensures that all persons and institutions, public and private, including the state itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly announced, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and consistent with international human rights norms and standards. While no country is

immune from corruption, it tends to be more common in societies where there is not a strong commitment to the rule of law.

In a system where the rule of law has broken down, there is little transparency in government operations and public officials have a lot of discretion in the way that they carry out their duties. It is more likely that government funds will be used for personal benefit, that services will be disrupted, and that citizens will have few avenues of recourse to lodge complaints, or receive justice. In such circumstances, citizens may revolt (violently or non-violently), or perhaps protest in other ways, like evading paying taxes—believing that there in no point in doing so when they expect the money to go into the pockets of corrupt officials and not to the services that they use (like roads, hospitals, or schools). Tax evasion remains a big problem in countries like Russia, where economic uncertainty after the fall of the Soviet Union led to poverty, corruption, new waves of crime, and a growing distrust of authorities. Tax evasion is also prevalent where there is no rule of law because too often tax collection is either not enforced impartially or equitably. And, in some societies, instead of paying taxes (a legitimate contribution to support government services), citizens will save their money for bribes since that may be a more effective means of ensuring they receive services.

Where Is Progress Being Made Globally?

Many governments around the world have anti-corruption laws on their books, but if they are not enforced, they may have little impact on reducing corruption. Those committing corrupt acts must ultimately be brought to justice. Governments need to send “a signal that the existing culture of impunity will no longer be tolerated,” says the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), whose Threshold Programs aim to tackle corruption in several countries.21 They point to work in the Philippines, where the government is focused on stepping up enforcement efforts and significantly increasing the corruption conviction rate. Tanzania too, notes MCC, is “reducing the backlog of pending corruption cases to ensure that violators who are caught are brought to trial in a timely manner.”

Anti-corruption measures can be punitive in nature, focusing on legal prosecution for crimes committed, or preventive, focusing on making sure that corruption does not happen in the first place through practices like implementing accounting controls and regular audits. Both of these are covered in the United Nations Convention against Corruption, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2003, entered into force in 2005, and currently has 140 signatories. This legally binding instrument requires states to develop independent anti-corruption bodies and transparent procurement systems, criminalizes certain offenses, and puts measures in place for states to cooperate more closely with each other on fighting corruption. There are also a variety of similar agreements at regional and global levels, including the African Union, the Organization of American States and the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development)—for example, making it illegal to bribe foreign public officials. Such agreements have contributed to a stronger international consensus about corruption and its costs and have increased the number of cases brought before judicial bodies. Critics, however, point out that effective monitoring processes are still lacking and that it remains difficult to track payments that are made through intermediaries (rather than directly). Too often, these conventions are not self-enforcing and require enforcement by national authorities. Common standards have been agreed to by the international community, but greater enforcement at the national level, more compliance by private companies, and greater public education and pressure from civil society groups, are needed.

Anti-corruption campaigns are likely to be more successful when they are backed by strong leadership at the highest levels of government. Although news reports on corrupt heads of state in Africa are common, there are also examples of African leaders who have made fighting corruption central to their administrations. Seretse Khama, the president of Botswana from 1966 to1980, did not tolerate a culture of corruption in his government and put strong measures in place against it. Officials who misappropriated funds were prosecuted. With state resources used to build the country’s infrastructure, Botswana underwent rapid economic and social progress during his term in office. The current president of the Republic of Rwanda, Paul Kagame, has also exercised “leadership from the top” in fighting corruption. He has professionalized the police force, required all public officials to post earnings statements, and has imprisoned officials caught pilfering public funds.22 There is a long history of corruption in Liberia, which will take time and effort to address. However, President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, who took office in early 2006, has launched various efforts to tackle corruption, including protections for those providing information on stolen assets, improving financial management and accountability, and prompt payments for government employees.

Liberia also has an Anti-Corruption Commission, tasked to investigate potential acts of corruption and carry out a public education campaign to highlight its work and shame corrupt officials, but like many other similar institutions in developing countries, it does not have enough staff and resources to be truly effective. While such commissions have had strong enforcement powers and worked very well in wealthier countries like Singapore and Hong Kong, they have not been as successful elsewhere. One of the major critiques of such commissions is that they are encouraged by international donors, but often do not have political support—or capacity—locally.

In addition, there is often resistance among countries in the developing world because they equate anti-corruption campaigns or conditions placed on international donations as attempts by the developed world to “govern other countries like a colonial power,” in the words of Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni. He and other developing world leaders and economists often charge the donor countries as using anti-corruption requirements as a way to dictate to poorer countries economic, political, and foreign policy decisions.

More successful initiatives have been ones like the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI). Now a global activity supported by companies, countries, civil society, and international organizations, EITI has improved transparency and accountability in the extractive sector, e.g., oil, gas, and minerals. It does this by verifying and publishing both company payments and government revenues from these resources. By making these processes more transparent, the ultimate goal is to see that these natural resources become a means of development rather than a cause of poverty and conflict. EITI has become the global standard in this particular industry, with many hoping to apply the model of international cooperation to other sectors.

What Challenges Do Peacebuilders Face in States Emerging from Conflict?

In an environment of disorder, it is very difficult to put into practice even the simplest changes. Many of the policy prescriptions for rooting out corruption and establishing good governance are merely ideals for many states that are in the throes of conflict, or emerging from it. These fragile states, some of them nascent or struggling democracies, may face many hurdles in attaining anything close to a stable peace. Even if there is not outright violence being committed by armed gangs or warlords, there may be vast numbers of refugees, little (if any) government infrastructure, limited access to basic services, and scarce resources with which to rebuild.

Many of these states depend heavily on foreign assistance until they can get basic security in place, or the institutions of governance up and running. In that sense, peacebuilding and post-conflict reconstruction has been a “growth industry” for the international community, which finds itself with the complex task of trying to help rebuild war-torn or failed states. And, the process can take years. Peacebuilding was conceived in the context of post-conflict recovery efforts to promote reconciliation and reconstruction, but the term has now taken on broader meaning to include, among others, providing humanitarian relief, protecting human rights, ensuring security, establishing non-violent modes of resolving conflicts, fostering reconciliation, repatriating refugees, and aiding in economic reconstruction. International actors, bilateral donors, international and local civil society organizations, local governments, and private security agencies may all be involved in these processes.

There are many reasons why it is difficult to bring about a stable peace in a country that has been ravaged by conflict. While corruption is not the only benchmark related to fragility of a state, many of those involved in peacebuilding work are increasingly recognizing that corruption can be a major factor in preventing a stable peace from emerging. Why? It may not only keep conflict cycles going by enriching the gangsters, warlords, or individuals who are responsible for the conflict in the first place, but it can also prevent economic and social stability because corruption networks (by benefitting some at the expense of others) strengthen inequalities and divisions in society. “In conflicts where nepotism or patronage networks exclude vast swaths of the population from decisionmaking and access to resources, then corruption lies at the heart of society’s problems,” argue Cheyanne Scharbatke-Church and Kirby Reiling. “Corrupt networks themselves can reinforce the very divisions along lines of ethnicity, religion or class which feed the conflict cycle. If corruption is not addressed, the chances of that durable solution in the form of lasting positive peace remain slim.”23

Iraq offers a concrete example. Deep fissures remain in Iraq—particularly between Shiite and Sunni religious communities—and different factions in the transitional government are constantly jockeying for advantage, or seeking to reward their supporters. “In many of the key public ministries that should be playing a lead role in the country’s reconstruction,” notes Robert Looney, “rudimentary systems of accountability, internal controls and the rule of law are lacking.” Iraq’s Interior Ministry, he says, is driven by political factions. “It houses a myriad of competing police and intelligence agencies that pursue various political or sectarian agendas.” The costs of corruption are staggering. The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction asserts that Iraq has been losing $4 billion to corruption every year since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.24 A 2008 report by the U.S. Department of State further indicates that there is “a lack of transparency and widespread, severe corruption at all levels of government” in Iraq.25 Not surprisingly, public services declined, Iraqi citizens grew more disillusioned, and many wondered how foreign aid was really being used.

As those involved in strengthening fragile states work at the challenging task of building good governance by promoting participation, accountability, transparency, rule of law, and other such important components of what we believe contribute to a stable and just society, it’s clear that no quick and simple solutions exist. For example, independent media and access to information can foster transparency, accountability, and informed participation. However, free press could contribute to polarizing the weary and dissatisfied public when those who have ethnic, political, or social bias control and use privatized media outlets. And, a sudden increase in public awareness of corruptions that were once hidden may feed the existing public distrust of those who are governing. What’s more, in a country that has suffered through years of instability or conflict, people who are leaders and are representatives of the population may be all guilty of participating in corrupt acts or worse.

Are There Any Benefits to Corruption?

Despite the many problems caused by corruption, some argue that keeping corrupt systems in place may be necessary to guarantee stability in the short term. Corruption may be a way of life in many societies, or may be necessary to survival when the systems, institutions, and processes that should protect the safety and well-being of citizens are weak or completely lacking. In addition, corruption can be perceived as beneficial in a society where patronage networks ensure that some benefits are channeled down to the poorer members of the community. There are also some who argue that “grand” corruption is not always negative. They argue that it can help contribute to internal stability by creating or sustaining patronage networks and as an incentive for opposition movements to participate in the political and economic system. But such a system also helps sow the seed of discontent among the vast majority who do not benefit from such networks of patronage and corruption.

“Taking apart corruption networks can do more harm than good because they are part of the system,” says Daniel Serwer at USIP, who adds that rooting out corrupt individuals often needs to be done very carefully and over time. Sometimes, if this is done too abruptly when other institutions of governance aren’t yet in place, more violence can result. “Reformers need to ask what is likely to happen if they decide to upset established corrupt relationships or those based on intimidation and fear,” adds Susan Rose-Ackerman at a forum on corruption at Tufts University. “Unless care is taken, a sharp break with a corrupt status quo can breed instability and violence as those who benefited from the corrupt system struggle to maintain their position.”26 In Afghanistan, attempts to halt corruption associated with the production and trade of opium controlled by local warlords led to increased violence.

In order to secure at least some measure of stability, peacebuilders often find themselves in the unenviable position of having to work with or make deals with those perpetrating conflict, such as warlords or corrupt officials who make deals with those conflict entrepreneurs who profit from sustaining conflict and unstable conditions. In other words, curtailing and preventing violence by helping maintain some system of governance, even if broken and dysfunctional, may take priority over accountability and rule of law.

For example, warlords, and often the military commanders under them, often prefer to see a conflict continue. The conflict may give them access to valuable state resources (like gold or diamonds) and building corruption networks around these “spoils” keeps them in power. Such networks are often closely associated with other illicit—but

lucrative—trades in human trafficking, weapons, and drugs. However, sometimes peace agreements cannot be reached and peace sustained without including the bad guys and giving in to their terms. When a conflict comes to an end, warlords are not very inclined to give up their money or their power. And, trying to get rid of them may result in failed peace agreements and a rise in violence that inevitably results in civilian suffering and atrocities.

For these reasons, there may be an attempt to “buy off” potential peace spoilers. What that means in practice is that power-sharing arrangements are given to the parties in conflict, or they may be offered plum positions in a new government. Although this practice has been important for ending civil wars and creating a more secure environment for the populace in the short term, many are less optimistic about the long-term impacts. When potential spoilers have control of state resources or positions, it can increase corruption and make it that much harder to establish functioning governments. The mix of electoral politics and power-sharing arrangements in a peace accord can often lead to weak institutions and undermine accountability as each faction asserts control over its own territorial or institutional turf, which leads to different sets of rules and authorities. Individuals in these positions may reward their own political parties and support networks rather than distribute the resources of the state in an impartial manner. From a moral standpoint, citizens too may wonder where the justice is in a system in which those who have perpetrated a conflict are awarded with top positions. Thus, governmental figures and institutions have less credibility in the eyes of the populace, which makes governing harder and less effective.

After 2002 peace agreements in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the “main former rebel leaders were all made vice presidents in the government, granting them unfettered access to political and economic resources.”27 The result of such an arrangement, according to a report by the International Crises Group several years later, was that “state resources [were] siphoned off to fund election campaigns and private accounts. Between 60 and 80 per cent of customs revenues [were] estimated to be embezzled, a quarter of the national budget [was] not properly accounted for, and millions of dollars [were] misappropriated in the army and state-run companies.”28 Institutions of governance still remain very weak in the country—despite democratic elections held in 2006—and fighting still rages in the eastern part of the country.

Practitioners in the field are more than aware of the trade-offs between short-term stability and long-term peace. And, tolerating corruption may factor into this mix. “The relationship between corruption and peacebuilding is … characterized by a recurring tension between accepting (or even encouraging) forms of corruption in the short term to attain greater stability and the need to counter it in the longer term in order to lay the foundations for legitimate political institutions and sustainable economic development.”29

What Are the Pros and Cons of Foreign Involvement?

The first priority in stabilizing a post-conflict state is usually to meet a range of immediate needs (like food supply, security, and health care). Providing these services is absolutely critical and is an essential role that the international community can provide.

International peacekeepers too create the secure environment needed to get supplies to suffering populations. As a flood of foreign money and aid comes into the country that is in desperate economic condition, there can also be a rapid rise in corruption as citizens scramble for scarce resources and those with power and connections look for ways to

Development assistance often tends to be high in emergency situations and then to diminish substantially when donors move on to the next crisis. But, making a dent in problems like corruption takes a long time and lot of sustained investment in institutions, legal structures, and civil service reform. Outsiders can choose to ignore the corruption that exists (facing certain negative consequences down the road), deal with it directly (perhaps by putting punitive or preventive measures in place), or work with the host society to change customs and expectations. Local populations, however, may have very different ideas about combating corruption than do international peacekeepers. One-size-fits-all approaches rarely work, and neither “good governance” nor anti-corruption campaigns are likely to be successful if they are not locally driven, or do not take local realities and cultures into account.

Can Citizens Make a Difference?

There are all kinds of institutions and laws that can be put in place to combat corruption, but some of the most effective programs happen at very small scales. Citizens’ campaigns at the local level can, in fact, be one of the most effective ways to fight corruption. “No progress can be made until citizens are involved,” asserts Shaazka Beyerle with the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict.32 “To date, there has been an institutional approach to fighting corruption, but there has been a shift in thinking that this alone can’t make a dent. It’s important, but not enough. Civic organizations, neighborhood groups, and community networks all have to become involved,” Beyerle

added.

Examples of this include the youth-driven Mjaft! (“enough” campaign in Albania), which emerged in 2003 to “increase citizen participation, promote good governance, fight corruption and improve social justice. For the fourth year, the annual ‘I Vote’ report disseminates the results of civic monitoring of Albanian legislative activity.” In Paraguay, “Controlarios Ciudadanas has grown into a network of 70 citizen watchdog groups covering every province. They share expertise on filing criminal reports of corruption and getting information to the media about corrupt officials.” In 1997, over a six-week period in Turkey, the “One Minute of Darkness for Constant Light Campaign” mobilized approximately 30 million citizens in synchronized mass actions (like turning off lights and banging pots) to pressure the government to take specific measures to combat systemic corruption, including launching judicial investigations.

Initiatives that give journalists and citizens more access to government information is particularly important to ensure transparency. A grassroots effort in India has been behind the passage and support of the Right to Information Act. The legislation, passed in 2005, requires public officials to provide information to citizens in a timely manner and certain government records are now computerized and proactively published. This legislation enables all Indian citizens to obtain details of any publicly funded scheme, project, or institution. To date, the act is being effectively used by hundreds and thousands of Indian citizens and has resulted in a number of indictments of officials.

Ultimately, citizens must be able to trust their governing institutions, and governing institutions should provide the security and services that citizens need. When corruption is rampant, there can be no trust, and security and services also suffer. Corruption tends to be endemic and most detrimental in states that are transitioning from one form of governance to another or fragile from violent conflict. And, trying to root it out too abruptly may lead to more violence and instability. Then again, if corruption is allowed to fester in those societies, strong and effective governance can be difficult to establish and social and economic development will be hindered.

With respect to the impact of corruption on peacebuilding, practitioners wrestle with making difficult choices on when and where to tolerate corruption. As countries in transition struggle with stability, the ties among corruption, governance and peaceful development have come into focus. Growing understanding of fragile states and these ties have led to some new ideas and approaches in how outsiders can or should help. These approaches span from helping to establish good governance to incorporating the power of civic involvement into their work. However, application of these ideas and approaches continue to be challenging in as many ways as there are complex conflicts and fragile states.

Certainly, peacebuilders—foreign and domestic; individuals, organizations, and governments—have very important roles to play in addressing corruption and establishing good governance in order to prevent conflict and strengthen regional and international security. We hope this study guide contributes to your deeper understanding of issues presented here as well as encourages innovation and involvement.

Notes begin on page 50.

The asterisk (*) connotes definitions from non-USIP outside sources

Accountability: The notion that individuals who commit crimes against humanity should be held accountable for their actions, either by the state they occurred in or by the international community. Political accountability means the responsibility or obligation of government to act in the best interests of society. Legal accountability concerns the mechanisms by which public officials can be held liable for actions that go against established rules and principles.

Autocracy: A system of government in which a single person has the authority and power to rule over others in a relatively defined boundary or territory.

* Bribery: Bribery is the act of offering someone money, services or other valuables, in order to persuade him or her to do something in return. Bribery is corruption by definition. Bribes are also called kickbacks, baksheesh, payola, hush money, sweetener, protection money, boodle, gratuity, etc. Bribery is widely criminalized through international and national laws. Active bribery refers to the offense committed by the person who promises or gives the bribe; as contrasted to “passive bribery,” which is the offense committed by the official who receives the bribe.

* Checks and Balances: Usually refer to the institutional mechanisms for preventing power abuse. Often, they are constitutional controls whereby the three branches of government (executive, legislative and judiciary) and other state institutions have powers over each other so that no single branch will dominate.

Civil Society: A collective term for nongovernmental, mostly non-profit groups that help their society at large function while working to advance their own or others’ well -being. It can include civic, educational, trade, labor, charitable, media, religious, recreational, cultural, and advocacy groups. A strong civil society, or “public space,” can protect individuals and groups against intrusive government. Some definitions do not consider the media, most of which is for profit, to be part of civil society but rather a tool that can promote civil society.

* Corruption: While there is not a universally recognized definition of corruption, many practitioners in the field use Transparency International’s definition, or “the abuse of entrusted power for private gain.” In international law, a person commits the criminal act of corruption when he or she “promises, offers, or gives” undue benefits to a public official “in order that the public official act or refrain from acting in the exercise of his or her official duties.” If a public official solicits or accepts such an undue advantage, that also counts as corruption.

Democracy: A state or community in which all members of society partake in a free and fair electoral process that determines government leadership, have access to power through their representatives, and enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties. Democracy building or democratization is the exercise of consolidating and strengthening institutions that help to support democratic government. These institutions may relate to rule of law initiatives, political party development, constitution building, public administration development, and civil society education programs.

Development: In general, development is the process of improving people’s lives. Originally, the term focused on the goal of greater economic prosperity and opportunity. But it now typically includes efforts at human development that take into account such issues as governance, education, the environment, and human rights.

Elections: The process by which citizens typically choose their representatives to the legislature and sometimes to the executive and judiciary branches. Voting systems vary widely, but most are either proportional or majoritarian. It is important to note that holding elections is only one part of democracy building.

* Embezzlement: The misappropriation of property or funds legally entrusted to someone in their formal position as an agent or guardian.

Failed State: A state that is unable to provide its citizens basic services, often because of war, genocide, corruption, mismanagement, or criminal threats. Some analysts use the term collapsed state to refer to a situation where national structures have essential y dissolved and there is a complete vacuum of authority. Conversely, a weak or fragile state may be on the verge of failure because of instability and weak governance.

* Favoritism: Refers to the normal human inclination to prefer acquaintances, friends, and family over strangers. It is not always, then, a form of corruption. However, when public (and private sector) officials demonstrate favoritism to unfairly distribute positions and resources, they are guilty of cronyism or nepotism, depending on their relationship with the person who benefits.

Foreign Aid: A technique of economic statecraft where aid is used as an instrument of policy in order to achieve certain goals. There are three main types of foreign aid—humanitarian, military, and development.

Governance: The exercise of authority to implement rules and policies in an effort to bring order to the social, political, economic, and judicial processes that allow a society to develop. Good governance involves a process that is informed and to a degree monitored by, and ultimately serves, all members of society, including civil society groups. Good governance also implies a level of accountability and transparency, both of which will help to ameliorate the risk of corruption, a corrosive and destabilizing practice.

* Grand Corruption: High level or "grand" corruption takes place at the policy formulation end of politics. It refers not so much to the amount of money involved as to the level at which it occurs, where policies and rules may be unjustly influenced. The kinds of transactions that attract grand corruption are usually large in scale and therefore involve more money than bureaucratic or "petty" corruption. Grand corruption is sometimes used synonymously with political corruption.

Instability: A situation in which tension and suspicion among parties run high, but violence is either absent or only sporadic. A “negative peace” prevails because, although armed force is not deployed, the parties perceive one another as enemies and maintain deterrent military capabilities. A balance of power may discourage aggression, but crisis and war are still possible.

* Nepotism: Usually used to indicate a form of favoritism that involves family relationships. It describes situations in which a person exploits his or her power and authority to procure jobs or other favors for relatives. Nepotism can take place at all levels of the state, from low-level bureaucratic offices to national ministries.

Oligarchy: A system of government in which authority and power over a relatively defined boundary or territory are concentrated among a small group of persons, clan, class, or clique.

Peacebuilding: Originally conceived in the context of post-conflict recovery efforts to promote reconciliation and reconstruction, the term peacebuilding has more recently taken on a broader meaning. It may include providing humanitarian relief, protecting human rights, ensuring security, establishing non-violent modes of resolving conflicts, fostering reconciliation, providing trauma-healing services, repatriating refugees and resettling internal y displaced persons, and aiding in economic reconstruction. As such, it also includes conflict prevention in the sense of preventing the recurrence of violence, as well as conflict management and post-conflict recovery. In a larger sense, peacebuilding involves a transformation toward more manageable, peaceful relationships and governance structures—the long-term process of addressing root causes and effects, reconciling differences, and normalizing relations.

* Patronage: Refers to the support or sponsorship of a patron (wealthy or influential guardian). Patronage is used, for instance, to make appointments to government jobs, promotions, contracts for work, etc. Most patrons are motivated by the desire to gain power, wealth, and status through their behavior. Patronage transgresses the boundaries of legitimate political influence, and violates the principles of merit and competition.

* Petty Corruption: The everyday corruption that takes place where bureaucrats meet the public directly. It’s a form of corruption which is pursued by junior or mid-level agents who may be grossly underpaid and who depend on relatively small but illegal rents to feed and house their families and pay for their children's education. Petty corruption disproportionately hurts the poorest members of society, who may experience requests for bribes regularly in their encounters with public administration and services like hospitals, schools, local licensing authorities, police, taxing authorities, and so on.

* Political Corruption: The term "political corruption" is conceptualized in various ways through the recent literature on corruption. In some instances, it is used synonymously with "grand" or high-level corruption and refers to the misuse of entrusted power by political leaders. In others, it refers specifically to corruption within the political and electoral processes. In both cases, political corruption not only leads to the misallocation of resources, but it also perverts the manner in which decisions are made.

Post-conflict Recovery: Also known as post-conflict reconstruction and war-to-peace transitions: The long-term rebuilding of a society in the aftermath of violent conflict. It includes political, socioeconomic, and physical aspects such as disarming and reintegrating combatants, resettling internally displaced persons, reforming governmental institutions, promoting trauma work and reconciliation, delivering justice, restarting the economy, and rebuilding damaged infrastructure. The term “recovery” has a broader connotation than reconstruction, which implies an emphasis on physical aspects.

Power: The ability to influence others to get the outcomes one wants. It may involve coercing them with threats, inducing them with payments, or co-opting them. Hard power refers to the use of military and economic means to influence the behavior of others through coercion or inducements. Soft power refers to the ability to attract or co-opt others through one’s values, policies, and performance to “want what you want,” in Joseph Nye’s words. The term smart power encompasses both hard and soft power, emphasizing the need to employ whatever tools— diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal, and cultural—are appropriate for the situation.

Power Sharing: A system of governance in which all major segments of society are provided a permanent share of power. Traditionally, that has meant coalition governments; protection of minority rights; decentralization of power; and decision making by consensus. Because of its emphasis on group rights and consensus, power sharing can lead to deadlock, so some analysts argue that it should be seen as a short-term measure that helps prepare a society for the transition to multiethnic parties.

* Public Official: As defined in international law, a public official is a “person who holds a legislative, executive, administrative, or judicial office” (appointed or elected). It also includes a person who “performs a public function” or provides a public service.

Rule of Law: A principle of governance in which all persons and institutions, public and private, including the state itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly announced, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and consistent with international human rights norms and standards. The drafting of laws must be transparent, and they must be applied fairly and without arbitrariness. In addition, all persons must have access to justice—the ability to seek and obtain a remedy through informal or formal institutions of justice.

Social Contract: The notion that individuals and nation-states tacitly agree to a set of mutually binding stipulations and obligations. The social contract has long served as a philosophical foundation for understanding modern conceptions of citizenship and constitutionalism, whereby individuals willingly submit some of their personal freedoms to political authority in return for the general benefit of all members of a given society.

* Systemic Corruption: Occurs when corruption is an integrated and essential aspect of the economic, social and political system. Systemic corruption is not a special category of corrupt practice, but rather a situation in which the major institutions and processes of the state are routinely dominated and used by corrupt individuals and groups, and in which most people have no alternatives to dealing with corrupt officials.

* Transparency: Visibility or accessibility of information regarding government decision making and financial practices, such that stakeholders not only have access to the decision making process but also the ability to influence it. Transparency is considered an essential element of accountable governance, leading to improved resource allocation, enhanced efficiency, and better prospects for economic growth in general.

(* These entries are from the U4 Corruption Resource Centre Web site, used with permission.) Discussion and Investigation Activities

This section provides a variety of interactive exercises that can be used in a classroom or group setting to encourage discussion. We recommend that learners who are studying independently also review the questions and activities to frame their existing knowledge and further delve into the many complex issues that surround this study guide’s topic.

Discussion I:

Introduction to Governance and Corruption

Before reading “Governance, Corruption, and Conflict,” answer the following questions

individually or as a group.

Before You Begin

The goal of this discussion is to frame known cases in the context of corruption and governance to familiarize the learners with the role of governance and corruption on society. It will be helpful for learners to relate their existing knowledge to the topic. Conduct a brief discussion that is tailored to the knowledge level of the learners before assigning the reading.

For learners who have not had a course in government, the instructor should introduce the term governance and lead a discussion about the functions and workings of government and its role in society prior to the reading and discussions.

Governance

Describe governance.

What kinds of government services benefit you and your family?

Who has the authority to ensure equal access to services, the political process, and resources and ensure that your rights are upheld?

Are there channels through which you can influence how a government governs, what it decides, and how it implements its decisions?

Corruption

What are some examples of corruption, in addition to bribery?

Who participates in corruption?

What are some costs of corruption? Are there benefits?

What are some ways to fight corruption?

How does corruption affect governance?

How does corruption affect the relationship between citizens and government?

Discussion II:

Identifying Corruption and the Role of Governance in Conflict

After reading “Governance, Corruption, and Conflict,” answer the following questions individually or as a group.

1. What are the similarities and differences between the corruption discussed in the reading and

High school or college students buying exam questions?

A cashier at a convenience store who gives away free soda to his/her friends?

A business owner who only buys supplies from businesses that are owned by people from his church or temple?

A politician who promises to vote for particular legislation only if a lucrative job is arranged for a family member?

2. Describe policies, regulations, procedures, and structures of your government (local or national) that work to curb corruption. How do they work?

3. What circumstances and factors could make such measures unsuccessful?

4. What makes stable government difficult to establish after violent conflict?

5. Why is it important for a government coming out of conflict to address corruption?

6. For countries coming out of conflict, what are the dangers of not being able to establish good governance?

Activity I:

Analyzing Recommendtions

After reading “Governance, Corruption, and Conflict,” participate in the following activity.

Before You Begin

This activity can be done with cases other than Afghanistan. For Part I, ask students to research a selected country. For Part II, assign articles or multimedia news coverage and tailor the discussion questions accordingly. Some suggested alternate cases are Liberia, Indonesia, and Kazakhstan. Other case examples can be found in the reading.

Learning Objectives

Practice analyzing a conflict case.

Discover and define problems.

Understand the complexity of building strong governance in countries rebuilding after conflict.

Understand the broad range of participants who are involved in establishing stable governance.

Gain an enhanced understanding of conflict and peacemaking.

Time required: 2 hours

Part I: Group Research and Presentation

(40 minutes research, 20 minutes information sharing)

Learners research the conflict and challenges for Afghanistan in 2010 and answer the following questions individually or in small groups. After they have the answers, they share their findings with the entire group.

1. Who are the key actors in the political, economic, and social life of the country?

2. What are the grievances and objectives of the parties in Afghanistan that have conflicting goals, values, and needs?

3. What are some of the immediate challenges to peace in Afghanistan?

4. Identify three foreign countries and/or international development organizations that work to build stability in Afghanistan. (Facilitator may assign one country or organization to each group.) What are some of the needs that each group addresses? Who do they cooperate or coordinate with to accomplish their goals?

5. For each of the three actors, does their work contribute to improving governance, fighting corruption, or making the country more stable? If yes, how so? If no, why not?

Part II: Analysis of Recommendations

(10 minutes reading, 15 minutes discussion, 15 minutes small group discussion, 20 minutes presentation and large group discussion)

Read “An Open Letter from Transparency International to the Participants of the London Conference on Afghanistan on 28 January 2010.”

http://www.transparency.org/news_room/latest_news/press_releases/2010/2010_2601_afghan_open_letter_hlb

Step 1: Discuss as a group:

1. According to Transparency International, what are the three biggest concerns for Afghan people?

2. What does the letter urge the international community to do?

3. What are the ways that the letter says international community can assist in creating a culture in the public sector that respects integrity, transparency, and accountability?

Step 2: Divide into small groups, with each small group taking on one of the  recommendations. (These recommendations are answers to question 3 in Step 1.)

1. For each of its recommendations, brainstorm the following:

a. What would this accomplish?

b. Who must be involved?

c. How will those who are involved work together? Who should be in charge?

d. Do you think it is easy or difficult for these steps to be taken? Why?

e. Make your own prediction. Describe one possible scenario for peace in Afghanistan.

2. After the small group discussion, each small group presents its ideas to the bigger group.

Extension Activity

Ask the group if they have any other recommendations for building stability and fighting corruption in Afghanistan that have not been recommended in the letter. In small groups or individually, come up with solutions that are not in the letter. For each solution, answer the questions in Step 2, question 1.

In small groups or individually, research further one of the recommendations discussed in Step 2. Find out what has been done, who has been involved, what has worked, and what has failed or been difficult. Analyze the situation in Afghanistan in regard to that specific effort and what and how outsiders must work to build stability in Afghanistan. Share your findings and opinion by writing an op-ed for the local newspaper or the school paper.

Activity II: Simulation

All information contained in this simulation and portrayal of organization are

fictitious.

After doing the background reading in the study guide (pp.4-22), use the following simulation exercise. Directions on how to use the simulation follow the section on roles.

Learning Objectives

Understand the complexity of building strong governance in countries after conflict.

Increase their understanding of conflict and peacemaking.

Broaden their understanding of the relationship between government and international organizations.

Discover and define problems.

Develop concrete steps to resolve problems.

Understand multiple interests and perspectives.

Related Terms and Concepts

accountability, transparency, election, governance, political parties, national government, local government, international development organizations, nongovernmental organizations

Materials

Directions and debriefing questions for the activity facilitator.

A copy of the simulation scenario and one role card for each participant.

Simulation Directions

The scenario in this role-playing exercise allows learners to represent different perspectives about how to deal with corruption and build strong governance in a post-conflict country, as well as consider the responsibilities of members of the society and also the international community. In their roles, the participants will make recommendations for steps that should be taken to improve the chances that the country will move toward sustainable peace.

The exercise can help learners think through the many concerns and interests that come into play when there are competing needs and priorities and can provide them with a case to test some of their ideas about how the parties involved behave. After the role-play, use the debriefing questions on page 33 and 34 to explore additional ideas.

Required

A group of seven or more participants, including the group leader.

A copy of the simulation scenario for each participant.

A copy of one of the role cards for each participant.

Time required: One or two class periods (roughly 80 minutes). Preparations for reading and understanding the scenario and roles can be given as an overnight assignment to save class time.

Structure

Seven roles are included here. Each role can be assigned to multiple participants if the group is larger than seven. The members of each role will be a delegation from the organization they represent. The members of the delegations will need to meet prior to the panel session to come to an agreement about how they will play their role . We recommend that the instructor play the role of the moderator.

Procedure

1. Distribute the simulation scenario and a role to each participant. Explain to them that they will participate in a role-play exercise and that they will begin by reading the scenario you’ve distributed and studying their roles. The instructor or a facilitator will play the role of the UN representative and moderate the panel discussion.

Before convening the formal meeting to come up with recommendations, allow participants time to get familiar with their role. If more than one person is assigned each role, the group should be broken down into teams of participants playing the same roles (for example, all participants assigned to Role 2 should be in one team and Role 3 in another) to give participants an opportunity to help each other understand the problems and their roles. Within each group, the participants should discuss what they want to accomplish in their role, and what difficulties or dangers would result if they cannot accomplish their goals. Also, they should discuss the important issues, goals, and strategies from the perspective of their roles. (15 minutes)

1. Review the simulation background with the participants and clarify the task of the discussion panel for them. Tel them that you will play the role of the moderator for the panel meeting. Establish the guidelines for speaking listed in Role 1. (5 minutes)

2. Convene the panel meeting and begin the discussion. (35 minutes total)

a. Each member of the panel should state his or her role, interests, and stakes. At this point the different perspectives and interests should become clear to all of the participants. (10 minutes)

b. The participants should begin to discuss the issues, with the group leader serving as a moderator (Role 1). The moderator does not participate in the discussion, but only helps the group stay on topic. The participants should define the problems together, highlight key issues, and discuss solutions.

c. After some discussion, the moderator may choose to break the group into two—one group addressing governance, corruption, and the election and the second group addressing the issues of governance, corruption, and development. (25 minutes)

3. At the end of the role-play, the instructor or group leader should conduct a debriefing to help participants explore what they have learned. (20 minutes)

What happened and why?

What obstacles and challenges existed?

What worked and what didn’t?

What allowed for acceptable solutions or what made coming to good solutions difficult?

Additional Debriefing Questions

What additional information needs to be gathered about Froga and the conflict environment?

What are some concerns for the Frogan government? Minorities? International actors?

What are some of the conflicts that exist among the members of society that make building strong governance and fighting corruption difficult?

How are the public and various groups likely to respond to these recommendations? For example, citizens (Toki, Yuso, other minority groups), NGOs, local governments, warlords, factionalists, foreign investors, Frogan businesses, political parties, international development organizations.

What are the considerations in terms of priorities? How would you prioritize your recommendations?

Simulation Scenario

Today is the seven-year anniversary of the day that a peace agreement was signed to end ten years of violent conflict in Froga. This small , mountainous country is proud of its ancient cities, vast timber resources, and world-class religious education system but has been ravaged by years of civil war. Each day, Frogans become more disillusioned by what the peace agreement has failed to deliver—justice, political voice, economic stability, and social welfare. Corruption undermines reform and development at every level, and factionalists and warlords are exerting their influence by taking advantage of the gaps in government leadership. An election is scheduled for next year, presenting the country with a major opportunity toward improvement or continued descent into failure. You are participating in a discussion panel to help a UN special commission come up with recommendations for steps that should be taken to improve the situation in Froga.

Conflict

Many factors fueled the ten-year conflict, but two major sources were ethnic tension and disputes over natural resources. Froga has more than eight ethnic groups, and the two largest groups are the Toki and the Yuso. Toki is the larger group of the two. Before and during the conflict, Tokis had complete control of the national government. All profits from timber extraction went to the national government and to cities and towns where Tokis are a majority, and these profits lined the pockets of Toki government officials and business owners. The Yuso and other minority groups who inhabit lands from where timber was extracted did not see any of the profits come back to their communities. Tired of the economic disparity and political marginalization, the minority groups rose up violently against the national government. Over the years, the rebel leaders became warlords, establishing control over towns and cities, using force and violent coercion to recruit members for paramilitary groups, and using any means to bring in profits to maintain their power. The Toki military also took part in illegal activities for profit, such as selling illegal timber, and mercilessly punished and even killed anyone who was suspected of sympathizing with the rebels.

Peace Agreement

To end the violent conflict with a peace agreement, a deal was made to give the top leaders on both sides protection from prosecution for their crimes and to give them leadership positions in the interim government. The peace agreement put into power an interim national government, with national elections scheduled every four years. The peace agreement required that the national government reflect the demographic make-up of the general population. One of the consequences has been that political parties tend to reflect the ethnic make-up of the country and tend to promote the narrow interests of the group rather than a broader national interest.

Problems

The interim government was seen by the public to be corrupt, ineffectual, and catering to the very people who prolonged the violent conflict, benefited financially from it, and committed violence against civilians. It was hoped that the election held three years ago would give government leaders a clear mandate for reform and legitimacy, but allegations of voter fraud and electoral violence by an “independent” election commission headed by members of the ruling Toki party dashed that hope. Currently, the national legislature has far more Toki than Yuso representatives. Six other smaller ethnic groups are also represented. The Toki party, although in a coalition with other smaller parties, nevertheless controls the most senior positions in the government, including the Prime Minister’s Office. Furthermore, the public sees the country’s government officials of all ethnicities as being solely interested in holding on to power. Hampered by corruption and disorder, the local governments have also disappointed the public. Any level of trust Frogans had for positive change is being eaten away, leaving gaps that are being fil ed by factionalists who are again polarizing populations in their bid for power. This is compounded by the government’s staggering commercial taxes, which prevent business investment and local development. The ill -trained and poorly paid police collect “taxes” and bribes and allow criminal activities to increase.

Hope

For people living in the cities and towns dispersed across Froga, a strong national government has never been their experience. These towns historically had functioned with minimal interference by the national government, but since the conflict has left their living conditions worse than before the conflict, they would like to have the support of the national government to rebuild and restore order. The rampant lawlessness has taken a toll on all Frogans. Your task is to make recommendations for how to improve governance, make headway in development in Froga, and help lay the groundwork for the second round of national and local elections that will take place next year.

Simulation Roles

Role 1. Moderator (representative of the UN Commission who will facilitate discussion)

You want to make sure the recommendations from this group are constructive and will lead to improved governance, make headway in development in Froga, and help lay the groundwork for the next year’s second round of national and local elections. In order for the recommendations from this group to be useful to the UN Commission, the recommendations must come from the group, not the moderator. The moderator should not favor or disapprove of recommendations or the participants.

You will begin the meeting by welcoming the participants and stating the purpose of the meeting. Ask the participants to introduce themselves and their organization. Establish guidelines for speaking. Suggested guidelines are:

a. Raise your hand and wait your turn to speak. Do not interrupt the person who is speaking.

b. Give the speaker full attention.

c. When speaking, speak with respect for yourself and your audience. Do not use offensive or pejorative language.

d. Remember that this is a forum to bring out problems, consider solutions, and make a range of recommendations.

You will first allow the group as a large group to express their concerns and ideas. This discussion should lead to the participants’ addressing one another’s concerns and revealing points that have to be addressed in the recommendation. After some discussion, the moderator may choose to break the group into two, one group addressing governance, corruption, and the election and the second group addressing the issues of governance, corruption, and development. The two groups should come together again and put their recommendations for approval to the large group.

During the discussion, you will:

Make sure all the participants have fair chances to speak.

Not judge or evaluate the recommendations; it’s up to the participants to do that.

Not take sides on issues or show favoritism.

Not steer conversations toward discussion and negotiation.

Role 2. Minister of Interior (Frogan government arm that manages infrastructure and internal security)

You want to convince the development organization to channel money for development through the national government. When the national government is largely left out in development and aid delivery, it’s difficult to build capacity and expertise for implementing national policies and delivering services. You have been working very hard to increase transparency and accountability. You also want government officials to be involved with the aid organization so they can put into practice what they have been learning in their transparency and accountability training courses. Not being consulted and involved in local development projects weakens the presence and reach of the national government.

You will want to win support for your recommendations from the Coalition of Minority Political Parties, Small and Medium Enterprise Council, and negotiate with the International Development Organization for funding and the Association of Local NGOs for support and delivery of services.

You want to:

Carefully balance the concerns about corruption with the importance of strengthening the central government.

Assure the Coalition of Minority Political Parties that the central government believes it’s important that minorities are treated fairly.

At the same time, you don’t want to create such transparency that your party’s supporters will no longer see continued benefits from supporting the government and its policies.

Role 3. International Development Organization (outside organization that funds activities such as food distribution, health services, election coordination, and business development)

You don’t see how a stable national government can be established without transparency and accountability. If you increase the funding for projects that involve the national government and even directly fund government projects, you would help bolster the government’s position; however, since there is so much corruption in national government you want to continue to work through your contractors, local nongovernmental organizations, and corrupt, but more manageable, local government. Once you see improved transparency and accountability, you are willing to channel more funds through the national government or in cooperation with it.

All sectors of Frogan society depend on your funding and look to you to use your influence to help Frogans. You would like to see the government increase transparency and direct much of the profits from natural resources to developing small and medium businesses. You want them to hold officials who take bribes in place of taxes and proper licensing fees accountable. Transparency and accountability will allow businesses to be dealt with fairly and prosper, and the government to collect taxes for revenue.

You want:

Government to take concrete steps to reduce corruption.

The next election to be a success so that Froga can attract foreign private investment.

Role 4. Association of Local NGOs (Frogan non-profit organizations that deliver humanitarian and economic services)

You have a wide network that delivers basic health and health education services throughout Froga. You don’t trust any government official’s word and know that the national election officials turned a blind eye to electoral violence and ballot stuffing in the last election. You already have access to vehicles in remote places that could be used to transport people to polling stations. You want to convince the international development organization to use your organization because you will be more dependable and the cost will be lower than dealing with the national government. You are convinced that the locals will not cooperate and get on a bus sent by the government. The Coalition of Minority Political Parties could be your ally in the panel. While you don’t trust the National Election Committee to do a good job in the next election on its own, you want to win the cooperation of the National Election Committee.

You want:

The national government to take concrete steps to reduce election corruption.

To take steps to maximize participation from the minority groups and ensure the safety of minority voters.

Role 5. National Election Committee (Frogan government arm that plans, organizes, and manages election)

As a member of the Toki political elite, you want to strengthen your party’s grip on power. However, you resent the accusation that you allowed electoral violence and ballot stuffing. And, it’s not your fault that it is difficult to get Yuso and other minority groups to register because so many of them live in remote villages that are difficult for election officials to reach. You think the problem to be solved is for the minority groups to be transported to the polling stations, which will cost money that the government does not have. You will ask the United Nations for funding to do so in the next election, and it is important for the money to flow through the government to build capacity and expertise as well as gain the trust of the public.

You want:

To maintain control over all aspects of conducting the elections.

To remain sensitive to the desire of the minority groups to participate in the election and to do it in a safe environment.

The International Development Organization to increase funding that will flow directly through the national government to help you conduct a successful election. It’s the only way for the national government to improve its credibility with its citizens.

Role 6. Frogan Small and Medium Enterprise Council (lobbies for anti-corruption measure that promotes investment and business development)

A successful election could help attract foreign money despite Froga’s immediate problems. Froga is unattractive to foreign investors, who could bring in badly needed funds that would create jobs and a local tax base. Lack of law and order along with bad infrastructure makes doing business in Froga difficult. Also, a murky tax structure makes taxes seem arbitrary and unpredictable. Your members are tired of paying off government officials, thugs, the police, and the military for protection.

You want the election to result in a better business environment. An unsuccessful election will mean more instability and a poor business environment. A better business environment will mean more wealth for the Frogan people and more revenue for the government. Your members are leaders in their communities and you can organize a large number of voters to support the parties that will support law and order, infrastructure development, and transparent tax and government processes.

You want:

The national government to take concrete steps to increase security for businesses and citizens.

More funding devoted to small and medium business development.

Increasing transparency (e.g., improved tax structure) and accountability.

Role 7. Coalition of Minority Political Parties (boosts the power of minority parties to represent minority interests)

You want to make sure that the election process is fair and that minority groups are able to get access to the polling stations without fear of violence. Members of your coalition who were once leaders of the rebellion still have the respect of the warlords and gang leaders who once fought along their side, but not enough to hold back the violence that will likely follow another fraudulent election. Two changes may help the situation:

1. Increase the portion of profits (free and clear of the national government’s corrupt measure that would diminish it) from all natural resources that goes to the impoverished provinces heavily populated by minorities; and

2. Ministries, in the next administration and in administrations thereafter, should reflect the country’s demographics and be headed by more minorities. For this fair trade, you will persuade your past comrades to refrain from violence, no matter the election result.

You want to:

•Leverage your support from the minority groups to win some favorable terms for the minority groups.

Be very careful that your emphasis on the party’s close ties with the warlords and gang leaders does not come across as a threat to instigate violence or your party’s tolerance for criminals.

•Make the group understand that the minority groups are well aware that the government is very corrupt and the corruption affects the disadvantaged minorities the most.

Resources

Articles

Anderson, Mary. "Thought Piece: Anti-corruption Mechanisms Causing Conflict?" The Nexus: Corruption, Conflict, & Peacebuilding Col oquium. Boston: The Fletcher School, Tufts University, 2007.

This article briefly examines various types of anti-corruption measures to determine which are best to address corruption in countries without leading to more corruption or conflict. Anderson tentatively suggests that people within their own societies can come up with the best solutions.

Church, Cheyanne. "Thought Piece: Peacebuilding and Corruption: How may they collide?" The Nexus: Corruption, Conflict, & Peacebuilding Col oquium. Boston: The Fletcher School, Tufts University, 2007.

In this short article, Church examines three ways that corruption and peacebuilding intersect: 1) Ignorance is Bliss: unintentional use of corruption to facilitate peacebuilding ends; 2) Buying the Peace: the use of corruption, explicitly or implicitly, to obtain an end to violence, general y but not exclusive to, high-level political interactions such as peace agreements; and 3) Part and Parcel: where peacebuilders and peacebuilding agencies are the corrupt actors

Holt, Victoria K., and Alix J. Boucher. "Framing the Issue: UN Responses to Corruption and Criminal Networks in Post-Conflict Settings." International Peacekeeping 15, no. 3 (2008): 20–32.

This article explores the links between UN peace operations and criminal networks. The authors argue that the United Nations as a whole needs to better integrate its capabilities to empower UN peace operations to effectively go after these criminals that can hinder peace processes.

Kemp, Walter A. "The Business of Ethnic Conflict." Security Dialogue 35 (2004): 43–59.

In this article, Kemp examines the relationship among crime, corruption, politics, and ethnic polarization and argues that many current conflicts rage on because at one party has a vested interest, economic or otherwise, in perpetuating the conflict and creating instability.

Le Bil on, Philippe. "Corrupting Peace? Peacebuilding and Post-conflict Corruption." International Peacekeeping 15, no. 3 (2008): 344–361.

Le Bil on asserts that many conflict-afflicted countries are also the most corrupt in the world; thus, peacebuilding efforts often attempt to address corruption. However, some of the primary tools of peacebuilding, which include democratization, can actual y lead to an increase in corruption.

Rose-Ackerman, Susan. "Corruption and Government." International Peacekeeping 15, no. 3 (2008): 328–343.

Rose-Ackerman points to the difficulty of addressing corruption in post-conflict environments but maintains that ant-corruption measures must be implemented because ignoring them would imperil efforts at peace. She recommends for the international community to encourage local leaders to speak out against corruption.

Shelley, Louise. "The Unholy Trinity: Transnational Crime, Corruption, and Terrorism." Brown Journal of World Affairs XI, no. 2 (Winter/Spring 2005): 101–111.

This article compares older criminal networks with ones that emerge from post-conflict environments. Shelley argues that while older criminal groups work within the institutions of the state, the more modern criminal networks thrive on instability and are more likely to align themselves with terrorist groups.

Warren, Mark E. "What Does Corruption Mean in a Democracy?" American Journal of Political Science 48, no. 2 (2004): 328–343.

Warren explores the relationship between democracy and corruption and comes to the conclusion that the presence of widespread corruption in a democracy signifies that a country lacks or is losing some of its democratic character.

Zaum, Dominik, and Christine Cheng. "Corruption and Post-Conflict Peacebuilding." Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies, 2008.

The authors argue that, contrary to popular belief, corruption in post-conflict environments may be a necessary evil in the short run to allow combatants to come to a political settlement and to complete such tasks as disarmament. Furthermore, they argue that corruption is primarily a political problem and that anti-corruption measures must reflect that reality.

Academic Reports

Blechinger, Verena. Corruption and Political Parties. Management Systems International, Washington, DC: United States Agency for International Development, November 2002.

This report focuses on corruption among political parties, including during election campaigns, activities within national parliaments, and party control over public assets and institutions.

Bolongaita, Emil. Control ing Corruption in Post-Conflict Countries. South Bend, IN: Joan B. Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, January 2005.

This report addresses the problem of corruption in post-conflict societies. The author argues that corruption is one of the biggest chal enges of a post-conflict environment, because opportunities for corruption are relatively high while risk of punishment is relatively low.

Boucher, Alix J. et al. Mapping and Fighting Corruption in War-torn States. Washington, DC: Henry L. Stimson Center, 2007.

This report serves as a lengthy literature review of how scholars have described and analyzed the problem of corruption in post-conflict environments as wel as tangible steps to address it.

Fund for Peace. The Effect of the Kimberley Process on Governance, Corruption, & Internal Conflict.  Washington, DC, 2006.

This report examines the successes and failures of the Kimberley Process, focusing specifical y on governance and corruption, and offers recommendations for improving the process such as linking foreign aid to compliance.

International Crisis Group. Escaping the Conflict Trap: Promoting Good Governance in the Congo. Brussels, 2006.

The report focuses on the pervasive corruption among the Congolese parliament, courts, military, and civil service and recommends that donor countries initiate new programs and apply political pressure to ensure that anti-corruption reforms are truly implemented.

Kaufmann, Daniel. Myths and Realities of Governance and Corruption. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2005.

In this piece, Kaufmann explores various aspects of governance and corruption in an attempt to dispel some of the more commonly held notions about the subject (Myth # 5: It takes generations for governance to improve).

Yehoue, Etienne B. Ethnic Diversity, Democracy, and Corruption. IMF Working Paper, Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund Institute, 2007.

In this report, Yehoue examines the relationship between ethnic diversity, democracy, and corruption. He suggests that at least initially, new democracies can actually lead to more corruption. However, as democracies mature, they become less prone to corruption.

Books

Collier, Paul. The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries Are Failing and What Can Be Done About It.  New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

In this book, Collier points out that the real crisis of global poverty and instability lies in a group of about 50 failing states (the bottom billion). These states are undergoing a struggle between reformers and corrupt leaders—and the corrupt are currently winning. What the bottom billion needs, Collier argues, is sustained support and engagement by the highly industrialized Group of Eight nations.

Fishman, Raymond and Edward Miguel. Economic Gangsters: Corruption, Violence and the Poverty of Nations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008.

This book uses the field of economics, a la Freakonomics, to profile various aspects of corruption and il icit activities and how government officials and bureaucrats use and misuse status and foreign aid for their own purposes.

Glenny, Misha. McMafia: A Journey through the Global Criminal Underworld.  New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2008.

This book charts the rapid growth in organized crime since the end of the Cold War. Interestingly, Glenny argues that global crime syndicates’ activities are fueled both by the poverty in the developing world and the relative affluence of Western nations, which seem to have an insatiable appetite for illegal goods.

Johnston, Michael. Syndromes of Corruption: Wealth Power, and Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Examining the strength or weakness of the state, as well as political and social institutions that sustain and restrain corruption, Johnston argues that there are four major syndromes of corruption among countries: Influence Markets (United States); Elite Cartels (South Korea); Oligarchs and Clans (Mexico); and Official Moguls (China).

Maass, Peter. Crude World: The Violent Twilight of Oil. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2009.

Maass profiles the entire globe, from Saudi Arabia to Equatorial Guinea, to examine oil’s impact on the countries that produce it and the countries that consume it. He asserts that oil, for both the producing and consumer, has a corrupting influence that has served to worsen existing global problems and create new ones.

O'Brien, Mitchel , Rick Stapenhurst, and Niall Johnston. Parliaments as Peacebuilders in Conflict-affected Countries. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2008.

This book surveys various themes and case studies (Afghanistan, Northern Ireland, South Africa, etc.) to lay out the proper role of parliaments in alleviating conflict, addressing issues of poverty, and creating oversight to foster governmental accountability and prevent corruption.

Rose-Ackerman, Susan. Corruption and Government: Causes, Consequences, and Reform. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

In this book, Rose-Ackerman argues that high levels of corruption can limit investment and growth, especially in developing countries, which in turn would lead to dysfunctional governance.

To tackle this program, the author suggests that the primary goal of any would-be reformer should be to reduce the gains from paying and receiving bribes.

Smith, Daniel Jordan. A Culture of Corruption: Everyday Deception and Popular Discontent in Nigeria.  Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007.

This book examines Nigeria’s pervasive culture of corruption to understand how everyday Nigerians navigate through the system. Smith argues that it is impossible to grasp Nigerian politics and ethnic nationalism and violence without first factoring the role of corruption and popular reactions to it.

Williams, Phil. Criminals, Militias, and Insurgents: Organized Crime in Iraq. Carlisle Barracks, PA: U.S. Army Strategic Studies Institute, 2009

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubid=930.

Williams examines how Iraqi criminal networks, al-Qaeda, and Sunni militias use corrupt activities to fund their campaigns of political violence throughout Iraq. He also traces the evolution of corruption and criminal activity since the U.S. military invaded the country in 2003.

Wrong, Michela. It’s Our Turn to Eat: The Story of a Kenyan Whistle-Blower.  New York: HarperCollins, 2009.

In this book, Wrong tel s the story of John Githongo, an anti-corruption czar under the Kenyan government of President Mwai Kibaki, who decides to go forward with evidence of corruption committed by his fellow colleagues, putting his safety at great risk.

Online Reports & Resources

Freedom House—http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=1

Founded in 1941, Freedom House is an independent organizations that advocates, measures, and monitor the extent of democratic change and freedoms around the world

FRONTLINE/World The Business of Bribes: An Investigation into International Bribery http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/bribe/

This special feature investigates case studies of bribery and corruption in countries such as Nigeria, Bangladesh, and Britain and the people who, risking their safety, tried to expose the il icit practices.

FRONTLINE documentary “Black Money”—http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/blackmoney/

This investigative report by Lowel Bergman exposes instances when multinational corporations make secret payments to governments to illicitly win favor and gain business contracts without fair competition.

FRONTLINE Tehran Bureau – “An Administration Plagued by Fraud and Corruption –

Muhammad Sahimi—

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2010/03/ahmadinejad-and-his—

men-embodiments-of-fraud-and-corruption.html

This article, written in opposition to the current Iranian regime, highlights the extent of fraud and corruption of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the administrations that he has headed, and the people close to him.

Global Integrity – http://www.globalintegrity.org/

Global Integrity is an independent non-profit organization that tracks governance and corruption around the world. It releases a yearly report detailing the extent of accountable and democratic governance in countries around the world.

Los Angeles Times: Mexico Under Siege: The drug war at our doorstep –

http://projects.latimes.com/mexico-drug-war/#/its-a-war

This webpage contains the Lost Angeles Times’ special feature on the Mexican drug war, including over 40 articles on corruption among the Mexican government, military, and police that impedes the fight against the drug cartels.

United States Agency for International Development’s Office of Democracy and Governance Anti-Corruption webpage— http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/democracy_and_governance/technical_areas/anti-corruption/

This website contains information on USAID Office of Democracy and Governance’s programs and publications that guide their global efforts to combat corruption.

Transparency International—http://www.transparency.org/

Transparency International is a global anti-corruption advocacy group that has national offices in 90 countries. It produces the annual Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) as wel as the Bribe Payers’ Index (BPI) and the Global Corruption Barometer (GCB).

U4 Anti-corruption Resource Center—http://www.u4.no

This webpage, which seeks to promote an informed approach to anti-corruption efforts, contains policy briefs, reports, and case studies of corruption and best practices to combat it from the Christian Michelsen Institute based in Bergen, Norway.

Vision of Humanity—http://www.visionofhumanity.org/index.php

This website contains the Global Peace Index (GPI), which is the first index that ranks countries in terms of its peacefulness and identifies some of the key drivers of peace around the world.

World Bank Institute: Governance and Anti-Corruption

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/WBI/EXTWBIGOVANTCOR/0,,menuPK:1740542 pagePK:64168427piPK:64168435~theSitePK:1740530,00.html

This website is a World Bank resource page on the subjects of governance and anti-corruption. It contains information on World Bank programs, research papers, quantitative data, and new articles relating to issues of governance and anti-corruption.

World Bank Blog: Governance Matters —http://blogs.worldbank.org/governance/

This World Bank blog on governance and anti-corruption serves as an independent forum for scholars and the public to discuss and share information on topics ranging from ways to strengthen rule of law institutions to the use of foreign aid for corrupt practices.

Online Classroom Resources

Carnegie Council: Fighting Corruption – Multinational Corporations (MNCs) and the Enforcement of Global Human Rights Norms http://www.cceia.org/education/002/lessons/be/be-03-01

This lesson plan introduces students to the effects that corruption has on governance, international business, and human rights.

EDsitement: The Presidential Election of 1824: The Election is in the House http://edsitement.neh.gov/view_lesson_plan.asp?id=549

This lesson plan examines the controversy surrounding the 1824 U.S. Presidential Election, which is commonly called the “corrupt bargain,” in which Andrew Jackson won the popular vote but lost the presidency to John Quincy Adams in the House of Representatives using the candidates’ campaign rhetoric, an analysis on the Electoral Col ege, and the politics surrounding the decision in the House of Representatives.

PBS Global Connections – Liberia: Private Profits and Public Policies

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/globalconnections/liberia/educators/uspolicy/lesson1.html

This lesson plan analyzes the historical economic factors shape U.S. and Liberian foreign policy through the examination of the sometimes il icit trade in diamonds, timber, rubber, and guns.

PBS Nightly Business Report: Video #21—The Philippines: Corruption and the Economy

http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/research/educators/060106_21a/#2

This lesson plan is designed for students to investigate the role of corruption in the Philippine government and the effect of it on the country’s economy.

Notes

1 Retrieved Feburary 3, 2010 from the UN Office on Drugs and Crime.

http://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/UNCAC/Publications/Convention/08-50026_E.pdf

2 Retrieved February 1, 2010 from Global Integrity.

http://report.globalintegrity.org/globalindex/findings.cfm

3 Retrieved February 3, 2010 from the World Bank.

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:20190187~menuPK:34457

pagePK:34370piPK:34424~theSitePK:4607,00.html

4 Retrieved February 3, 2010 from the UN Development Programme.

http://www.undp.org/governance/docs/AC_PN_English.pdf

5 Retrieved February 3, 2010 from the United Nations.

http://www.un.org/en/events/tenstories/08/westafrica.shtml

6 Michael Johnston, “Corruption and change in the Caucasus: Wil reform bring conflict or peace?” in New Routes, a Journal of Peace Research and Action, 3-4/2009. Life and Peace Institute, Uppsala, Sweden. Pages 14-16. http://www.life-peace.org/sajt/filer/pdf/New_Routes/NR93_4.pdf

7 Interview with Nathanial Heler on January 27, 2009.

8 Retrieved February 4, 2010 from Global Integrity. (Note: Global Integrity uses in-country journalists, academics, and researchers to compile its data, but does not have resources and programs in every country.) http://report.globalintegrity.org/globalindex/findings.cfm#WatchList

9 Retrieved February 4, 2010 from Transparency International.

http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2009/cpi_2009_table

10 Retrieved February 4, 2010 from the Fund for Peace.

http://www.fundforpeace.org/web/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=99&Itemid=140

11 Retrieved February 6, 2010 from Forbes.com. http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/22/corruption-economics-bribes-biz-corruption09_cx_mn_avb_de_0122corrupt_land.html

12 Global Corruption Report 2004, Transparency International. Retrieved February 8, 2010. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0921295.html

13 Interview with Nathanial Heler on January 27, 2009.

14 Arnold Heidenheimer and Michael Johnston, eds. Political Corruption, Concepts and Contexts (Third Edition). Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ, 2002. Pages 535–527.

15 Chr. Michelsen Institute and the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, “Research on Corruption, a Policy Oriented Survey.” Retrieved on February 8, 2010.

http://www.icgg.org/downloads/contribution07_andvig.pdf

16 Donatella dela Porta and Alberto Vannucci, “Corrupt Exchanges and the Implosion of the Italian Party System” in Political Corruption, Concepts and Contexts (Third Edition). Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ, 2002. Pages 717–737.

17 Susan Rose-Ackerman in Corruption and Government, Causes, Consequences, and Reform.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 1999. Page 143.

18 Retrieved February 9, 2010 from UNESCO. http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php—

URL_ID=5205&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

19 World Bank, Technical Paper Number 259, Civil Service Reform in Latin America and the Caribbean. Retrieved on February 9, 2010.

http://books.google.com/books?id=gB5RzNHZjhIC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_v2_summar y_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false 20 See World Bank reference above.

21 Milennium Challenge Corporation, Building Public Integrity through Positive Incentives: MCC’s Role in the Fight against Corruption (Issue Brief). Retrieved February 10, 2010. http://www.mcc.gov/mcc/bm.doc/mcc-issuebrief-corruption.pdf

22 Robert I. Rotberg, “Leadership Alters Corrupt Behavior,” in Corruption, Security and World Order. World Peace Foundation and American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Cambridge, MA, 2009. Pages 341–358.

23 Cheyanne Scharbatke-Church and Kirby Reiling, “Lilies that fester: Seeds of corruption and peacebuilding,” in New Routes, a Journal of Peace Research and Action, 3-4/2009. Life and Peace Institute, Uppsala, Sweden. Pages 4–9.

24 Robert E. Looney, “Reconstruction and Peacebuilding Under Extreme Adversity: The Problem of Pervasive Corruption in Iraq” in International Peacekeeping, Vol. 15, No. 3, June 2008, Routledge, London, 2008. Pages 424–440.

25 Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, U.S. Department of State. Human Rights Report 2008. Retrieved on February 12, 2010.

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/nea/119116.htm

26 Susan Rose-Ackerman, “Good Governance & the Fight against Corruption.” From proceedings of forum held on 12-13 April, 2007 at the Fletcher School, Tufts University, Boston, MA. Retrieved on January 7, 2010. http://fletcher.tufts.edu/corruptionconf/publications.html

27 Christine S. Chen and Dominik Zaum, Corruption and Post-Conflict Peacebuilding, Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies, The City University of New York, 2008. Retrieved on February 14, 2010. http://www.statesandsecurity.org/_pdfs/Zaum.pdf

28 Retrieved on February 14, 2010 from the International Crisis Group.

http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=4276&l=1

29 Chen and Zaum, ibid.

30 Philippe Le Bilon, “What is the Impact: Effects of Corruption in Post Conflict.” From proceedings of forum held on 12-13 April, 2007 at the Fletcher School, Tufts University, Boston, MA. Retrieved on January 7, 2010. http://fletcher.tufts.edu/corruptionconf/publications.html

31 See Amy Margolies, “Peacebuilding and Anti-Corruption: Room for Collaboration” in New Routes, a Journal of Peace Research and Action, 3-4/2009. Life and Peace Institute, Uppsala, Sweden. Pages 34–37. This article talks about Wolpe’s work with the Burundi Leadership Training Program (BLTP), an initiative of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Peacebuilding efforts at BLPT focus on strengthening the social cohesion that is the essential bedrock of fighting corruption.

32 Phone interview with Shaazka Beyerle on February 3, 2010.

33 Daniel Jordan Smith, “The Paradoxes of Popular Participation in Corruption in Nigeria,” in Corruption, Global Security and World Order. World Peace Foundation and American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Cambridge, MA, 2009. Pages 285–287.

34 Phone interview with Shaazka Beyerle on February 3, 2010.