Square pegs and round holes? Challenges in assessing the EU-level integrity system

Abstract

Final study published as Perera et al. (2014) -see methodological annex.2 Abstract (as originally submitted)For over a decade now, Transparency International (TI) has undertaken National Integrity System (NIS) assessments to determine a country's effectiveness in fighting corruption, making recommendations for institutional or policy reform. The NIS approach evaluates key 'pillars' in a country's governance system, both in terms of their internal corruption risks and their contribution to fighting corruption in society at large, highlighting, amongst others, rules and practices regarding transparency and accountability. The TI EU Office has now embarked upon an assessment of the EU-level integrity system (EUIS) based upon the NIS methodology and focused around EU institutions. The difficulties in transposing this approach to the EU-level encompass a number of normative, analytical and empirical questions.The lack of a normative framework for a supranational system poses a particular challenge to the adaptation of the traditional methodology to the EU reality. While the NIS begins from accepted notions of an well-functioning liberal, democratic nation state, the development of the EU -through compromises between competing national interests, the gradual codification of residual practices and norms, and not least, internal institutional power plays -has led to an institutional system where traditional state functions are frequently shared, combined, blurred or at worst, absent. Mapping existing competences in the integrity system and identifying where critical roles -e.g. oversight or accountability relationships -might best lay are both normatively and analytically challenging.Further difficulties arise in identifying and delimiting research subjects beyond the core EU institutions. Alongside public institutions, the NIS methodology also evaluates non-state actors with roles in the integrity system -namely, the media, civil society, and the private sector. Settling upon satisfyingly comprehensive definitions of these actors at the EU level without entering into an analysis of 28 national systems needs careful consideration.Thus, the research is faced with the need to define where the national integrity systems end and the EU-level integrity system begins. This can be encapsulated in the question of what ethics rules should reasonably apply to a national diplomat or politician exercising duties within the Council: should there be a 'double-regime' for example, and if so, how could this be implemented effectively? How can integrity and corruption risks at the EU-level be captured adequately within the methodological framework and how can questions and empirical lines of enquiry be adapted accordingly? This paper will explore the nature of these challenges, the solutions reached, and lessons learned at a mid-point of the study.3