It is frequently advanced that the global anti-corruption programme acquired prominence after the former president of the World Bank, James Wolfensohn’s “Cancer of corruption” speech on October 1 1996 at the Annual Meetings Address. The speech was initially titled “People and Development”. However, it became famous for its stance against corruption.
The “Cancer of corruption” speech came at a time when an international norm of corruption, harmful to society, economic development, as well as stable democracy, emerged. Corruption was no longer considered a “grease” lubricating rigid bureaucracy.
International conventions followed with the UN Convention against Corruption in 2003, which was a milestone. Regional organisations, such as the European and the African Unions, have adopted similar conventions and developed the legal framework to strengthen anti-corruption policies.
The World Bank itself generated a financial incentive for borrowers when it included progress in the fight against corruption as one of the “governance assessment criteria” for the provision of loans.
The UN Convention underscored the role of civil society and organisations, such as Transparency International (TI), which is itself a coalition of international civil society organisations, piloted research and estimations of global corruption to formulate ethical credos in public administration and policy advice.
Among its activities, TI’s Corruption Perception Index (CPI), which measures citizens’ perception of corruption, is widely used by many countries to determine the level of corruption and is likely to influence multinational companies' decisions of where to invest as corruption increases risks and a tax on profits. Countries where corruption is prevalent acquire fewer foreign direct investments.
The CPI’s reputation has not inhibited scrutiny of its methodology which underpins the results. Notably, those who criticise the CPI state there are various definitions and understandings of what constitutes unethical behaviour which researchers who compile the perceptual corruption indices consider.
There are also concerns about the philosophy of the TI, which results in biased reporting and accuses the latter of having certain national chapters that pursue political agendas, while simultaneously ignoring unethical conduct in developed countries and appearing to have questionable relationships with other multinational businesses.
Furthermore, TI is urged to determine the role and origin of bribe givers because, in selected instances, the latter are dominated by foreign individuals who contribute towards the country’s poor rankings, while their countries of origin are highly ranked. Despite its shortcomings, the TI’s CPI remains a “force to be believed” within anti-corruption circles.
The 2024 CPI was released on February 11 2025. For the seventh year in a row, Denmark heads the ranking, with a score of 90. Denmark has specifically been an ideal model in terms of controlling corruption and notably, almost every country has sought to “get to the Denmark” standard. TL Denmark attributes the exercise of integrity and the proficiency of the public service in the country to a strong culture of public administration.
Another explanation lies in the development of a multiparty system, that is, no party comprises a majority but enters into shifting coalitions. This has led to a centripetal political system where the government-bearing parties, both left and right, have developed consensus not only on core values related to the welfare system, old age care and free education but that civil and public servants must remain politically neutral. The Danes have impeccably demonstrated that the government of national unity in SA could solve the challenges faced by the country.
The analysis of the latest CPI links corruption with the climate crisis, one of the most pressing challenges of our time, driven by a web of interconnected factors. TI notes with concern that corruption undermines climate action by misdirecting resources, enabling harmful practices and stifling progress. SA is ranked 82 out of 180 countries.
TI is urging SA, which will be hosting the 2025 G20 leaders’ summit, to advocate increased climate finance commitments from G20 countries that do not conflate debt repayments, private financing and loans as a substitute for direct mechanisms to mitigate the climate crisis. Furthermore, SA must strengthen oversight mechanisms to ensure domestic corruption does not interfere with such crucial international processes.
Another concern highlighted by the TI was the threats to activists. It is reported that corruption makes it more difficult for people to speak out against climate change. Land and environmental defenders who are frequently at the forefront of the fight against the climate crisis are particularly exposed to violence, intimidation and even murder in countries where levels of corruption are high.
By extension, this could be linked to the dangers confronted by any individual who dares to expose corrupt activities. The protection of whistle-blowers remains an area which requires our undivided attention. There should be ongoing efforts to enhance the whistle-blower protection programme in SA.
Anti-corruption reforms require co-ordination, co-operation and consensus by all stakeholders. The clarion call for joint sectoral anti-corruption initiatives in countries such as SA is not far-fetched but must be persistent and likely costly in both financial and manpower resources. There are long-term payoffs to be realised to manage the scourge decisively.
- Mphendu is a public servant, writing in his personal capacity.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.