Writing an Effective Anticorruption Law
The note looks at effective anticorruption legal instruments. However, law enforcement measures are not the first or necessarily the preferred method of defense. An informed citizenry, a government imbued with a service ethic, and other measures can be more effective in combating corruption. But tailoring the law to improve enforcement capacity generally encompasses a variety of statutes that prohibit bribery, nepotism, conflicts of interest, and favoritism in the award of contract or the provision of government benefits. And writing such laws containing "bright-line rules" in contrast to those containing standards open to interpretation by enforcement agencies may make it easier to monitor compliance and enforcement, but also rob the law of flexibility. Such laws often must be simplified to the point of arbitrariness-making them harder to accept than broadly-worded standards, which often conform to intuitive social understandings. The cost of bright-line rules are often more than offset by their deterrence value and their value in facilitating monitoring in countries with weak enforcement agencies. However, no statute can avoid some open-textured provisions. When a section in an anticorruption law must leave something open to question, one way to reduce enforcers' discretion is to establish a procedure for obtaining advance rulings. Finally, the author recommends laws that help bring corruption to light, such as a freedom of information law.
| Summary: | The note looks at effective
anticorruption legal instruments. However, law enforcement
measures are not the first or necessarily the preferred
method of defense. An informed citizenry, a government
imbued with a service ethic, and other measures can be more
effective in combating corruption. But tailoring the law to
improve enforcement capacity generally encompasses a variety
of statutes that prohibit bribery, nepotism, conflicts of
interest, and favoritism in the award of contract or the
provision of government benefits. And writing such laws
containing "bright-line rules" in contrast to
those containing standards open to interpretation by
enforcement agencies may make it easier to monitor
compliance and enforcement, but also rob the law of
flexibility. Such laws often must be simplified to the point
of arbitrariness-making them harder to accept than
broadly-worded standards, which often conform to intuitive
social understandings. The cost of bright-line rules are
often more than offset by their deterrence value and their
value in facilitating monitoring in countries with weak
enforcement agencies. However, no statute can avoid some
open-textured provisions. When a section in an
anticorruption law must leave something open to question,
one way to reduce enforcers' discretion is to establish
a procedure for obtaining advance rulings. Finally, the
author recommends laws that help bring corruption to light,
such as a freedom of information law. |
|---|