Commitment

The OECD Recommendation of the Council on Public Integrity calls on adherents to “demonstrate commitment at the highest political and management levels within the public sector to enhance public integrity and reduce corruption, in particular through:

a) Ensuring that the public integrity system defines, supports, controls and enforces public integrity, and is integrated into the wider public management and governance framework;

b) Ensuring that the appropriate legislative and institutional frameworks are in place to enable public-sector organisations to take responsibility for effectively managing the integrity of their activities as well as that of the public officials who carry out those activities;

c) Establishing clear expectations for the highest political and management levels that will support the public integrity system through exemplary personal behaviour, including its demonstration of a high standard of propriety in the discharge of official duties.”

Questions for self-assessment:

1. Does the public integrity system define, support, control and enforce public integrity?

No definition of public integrity exists, and elements for supporting, controlling and enforcing public integrity are not in place.

Legislation is in place to define, support, control and enforce public integrity, but implementation is sporadic and limited.

Public integrity is supported through effective implementation of a strategic approach, high standards of conduct, leadership, capacity building, and open organisational cultures. Public integrity is controlled through risk management, and internal and external audit functions. Public integrity is enforced through a disciplinary system.

A clear definition for public integrity is communicated regularly. In addition to effective implementation of the core elements, a wide range of actors (e.g. finance, legal, internal control, human resource management and procurement) have a clearly defined role for public integrity, and regularly integrate public integrity into their daily functions. The core and complementary elements work together to ensure the integrity system is implemented and effective.

2. Does the legislative and institutional framework enable public sector organisations to take responsibilities for integrity?

Responsibility for public integrity is not clarified in neither the legislative nor institutional framework, and is not assigned to any organisation.

The legislative and institutional framework exists but in practice, public organisations do not actively implement the public integrity provisions.

The legislative and institutional framework assigns responsibility to one public organisation, who takes an active role in defining and supporting the integrity system. Other public organisations defer to them to take the lead.

The legislative and institutional framework clearly assigns responsibility to all public organisations, who each play an active role in implementing their responsibility as part of the broader system, as well as within their respective organisations.

3. Does the legislative and institutional framework enable public officials to take responsibilities for integrity?

Responsibility for public integrity is not assigned to any public official within either the legislative or institutional framework.

The legislative and institutional framework exists but in practice, public officials are not aware of their responsibility to implement the public integrity provisions.

The legislative and institutional framework exists and public officials are made aware of their responsibility to implement public integrity provisions through initial on-boarding tools.

The legislative and institutional framework clearly assigns responsibilities to all public officials to implement public integrity provisions, and tools (e.g. training, awareness raising, disciplinary regimes, etc.) are used to reinforce responsibility for upholding the provisions throughout their career.

4. Does the legislative and institutional framework enable political leaders in either the executive or legislative or both to take responsibility for integrity?

There are no explicit and codified expectations for political leaders in the legislative or institutional framework.

The minimum expectations are codified across different pieces of legislation but no mechanisms are in place to ensure implementation. Oversight of these expectations is low and politicised.

Standards are clearly codified in legislation, and rules of procedures contain all relevant standards. Some mechanisms, like codes of conduct tailored to the specific position (Prime Minister, President, Ministers, members of parliament), are in place to support implementation. Oversight measures are applied sporadically.

To support implementation of the standards at the highest political level, tailored mechanisms are in place and include:

Regular review of the standards to ensure relevance
Mechanisms to prevent and manage conflict of interest
Asset & interest declaration measures
Legislative transparency measures

Oversight measures ensure accountability, verification, enforcement and efficiency of the system.

5. Does the legislative and institutional framework enable senior public officials to take responsibility for integrity?

There are no explicit and codified expectations for senior public officials in the legislative or institutional framework.

The minimum expectations are codified across different pieces of legislation but no mechanisms to ensure implementation are in place. Oversight of these expectations is low and politicised.

Standards are clearly codified in legislation. Some mechanisms, like Codes of Conduct, are used to communicate all relevant standards. Oversight measures are applied sporadically.

To support implementation of the standards at the senior level, tailored mechanisms are in place and include:

Risk-based approach to assigning senior portfolios
Mechanisms to prevent and manage conflict of interest
Asset & interest declaration measures
Policies to prohibit or restrict secondary activities while in office
Pre-and post-public employment measures

Oversight measures ensure accountability, verification, enforcement and efficiency of the system.

6. Do the highest political and management leaders visibly support the public integrity system?

Leaders at the highest political and management levels do not demonstrate any support to public integrity. It is not a priority.

Leaders at the highest political and management levels express formal support during opportune moments (election campaigns, upon taking up a new appointment, etc.) and this is translated into some reforms, but these are short-term. Leaders rarely, if ever, engage stakeholders to help inform priorities. Resource for implementation are scarce.

Leaders at the highest political and management level translate their formal support into targeted reform strategies. There is a preference towards short-term reforms, but some long-term reforms are also identified. Leaders engage key stakeholders within government to help inform priorities, but do not involve external stakeholders. Leaders assign adequate resources to support implementation, but resources to support evaluation are scarce.

Leaders at the highest political and management level are actively engaged in translating their support into reform strategies that include both long and short term commitments, are informed by a range of evidence-based insights, and are regularly monitored. Key stakeholders from government, business and civil society help inform priorities, which are accompanied by evaluation measures and regular monitoring. Leaders ensure that adequate resources support implementation and evaluation of reforms.