The OECD Recommendation on Public Integrity states that adherents should develop a strategic approach to mitigating public integrity risks in the public sector, most notably corruption. Some countries have opted for a single national integrity or anti-corruption strategy, although strategic integrity objectives may be located in several government documents owned by various authorities.
An effective strategic approach for public integrity should be based on reliable evidence to identify key public integrity risks, developed in consultation with key stakeholders through existing government procedures for strategy development, and adequately implemented and monitored.
In 2020, out of 24 OECD countries with data available, 20 (87%) had an integrity strategy in place. Only the Czech Republic, Mexico, Portugal and the United Kingdom had taken a comprehensive approach to the whole public integrity area by setting up an inter-institutional body to analyse public integrity risks. The integrity strategies of 11 of the 20 OECD countries (55%) were not based on a thorough problem analysis and integrity risk assessment. Only 7 countries out of 20 (35%) drew on a diverse set of data sources (including surveys and administrative data) when developing their integrity strategies to target the most harmful integrity risks (Figure 12.1).
Latvia, Poland and the Slovak Republic were the only countries that published their draft integrity strategy on their public consultation portal and only 8 of the 20 strategies (40%) underwent inter-governmental and public consultation. This means that many governments have not used their established, standard mechanisms to include inputs from citizens and non-state actors, including their public consultation portals. However, 7 countries out of 20 (35%) went beyond the minimum procedures by organising an extended public consultation process for at least one strategy, for example through open town hall-style meetings or social media outreach. Only six countries included non-state actors in the working groups mandated to develop or amend strategies (Figure 12.2).
Effective integrity strategies depend on proper monitoring. Out of the 20 countries with a strategy, 7 of them (35%) had included objectives with outcome-level indicators and targets, while an additional 3 (15%) only used outcome indicators. Tracking the implementation rate of activities contributes to effective monitoring, but most countries do not have these data. Online Table G.38 shows the average implementation rate for activities related to the strategic objectives for anti-corruption and public integrity. For the ten OECD countries that monitor implementation, the average implementation rate for the planned activities needed to meet the strategy’s objectives was 60%.
The indicator on “Adequacy of implementation structures and reporting” uses 15 criteria to assess whether the elements need for the implementation of the strategy and its action plan are in place. On average, OECD countries only met one-third of these criteria (Online Table G.38).
