Numbers, nuances and moving targets: converging the use of corruption indicators or descriptors in assessing state development

Abstract

This article is concerned with three issues: the convergence of donors over a shared development agenda, on why dealing with corruption is seen as a key aspect of the agenda, and the means to assess corruption within the context of monitoring development progress. The article reviews the genesis of the agenda, and why corruption is often used as an indicator or measure of progress. It distinguishes between two general approaches—quantitative indicators and qualitative descriptors—for assessing types and levels of corruption before considering methodological and interpretative issues relating to each approach. It suggests that, while each has a role, cognizance should be made of the awareness of the limitations of either for policy- or reform-related issues, particularly in terms of the exercise of political power or the nature and direction of development. The necessary convergence of the use of the two approaches has not been fully achieved to date and, until such time as a convergence is achieved, an over-reliance on one or other approach may not provide an effective basis for reform and aid initiatives, nor for assessing the progress and impact of both in delivering the development agenda.

The roles of transparency and trust in the relationship between corruption and citizen satisfaction

“…The definition of corruption in particular varies widely, hindering progress in understanding it. While suggesting an integrated theory of governmental corruption, Nas et al (1986) contend that 'one of the (2) difficulties with this topic stems from the lack of a widely accepted definition of corruption' (see also Doig et al, 2006). Transparency is similarly problematic, Florini (2007: 4) noting that 'there is no consensus on what the definition should be or how transparency should be measured', while Heald (2006: 40) suggests that 'the multiple directions and varieties of transparency and the mediating effects of habitat hinder defining and constructing indexes of transparency'.…”

Corruption and the curse of over-quantification

“…a researcher) tries to gain a deeper understanding of context, diversity, nuance and process (Bazeley and Jackson, 2013; Mason, 2002). Despite its lack of numerical precision, qualitative inquiry does not seek to reduce subject matter to numerical statements but instead provides more in-depth attention to the matter’s multiple dimensions (Doig et al , 2006).…”

Using numbers that do not count: how the latent functions of performance indicators explain their success

“…They tend to focus upon easily quantified dimensions of performance, thereby narrowing down the focus of policymaking and political debate to a small and often unrepresentative aspect of policy (Bevan and Hood, 2006;Pidd, 2005;Power, 1997;Termeer et al, 2013). Doig, McIvor and Theobald (2006) add to this that an overreliance on scores and rankings might overlook the fact that the phenomena they intend to depict are moving targets in terms of progress and direction. In the stress test, easily quantifiable risk areas such as credit and market risks have been addressed substantially, while areas that are more difficult to quantify, and difficult to pin down and define, such as operational risk, are less developed.…”