românăThe Integrity Pact (IP) is a tool developed by Transparency International (TI) to help governments, businesses and civil society fight corruption in public contracting. It consists of a process that includes an agreement between a government or government agency (‘the authority’) and all bidders for a public sector contract, setting out rights and obligations to the effect that neither side will pay, offer, demand or accept bribes; nor will bidders collude with competitors to obtain the contract, or bribe representatives of the authority while carrying it out.
An independent monitor who oversees IP implementation and ensures all parties uphold their commitments under the IP brings transparency and invaluable oversight to all stakeholders in a contracting process, from the authority to the public.
What are the advantages and limitations of implementing IPs?
A key advantage of the IP is that it can be implemented within the regular authority of contracting officials and bodies. Essentially a collaborative tool, the IP builds on trust and is therefore constructive. As IPs emphasise prevention they lack the side-effects of other corruption control tools, which can sometimes cause fear and distrust. Other advantages include:
- The implementation of desirable standards without additional legal reform
- The provision of a channel for managing dissent
- Increased credibility and legitimacy of the process through the monitor’s independent and expert insights
- Reassurance to all stakeholders that this corruption prevention aspect of the process runs well, without adverse political pressures
- Active civil society contribution to the integrity of the process.
The monitor’s work focuses only on the prevention of corruption. An expanded monitor-function, e.g. overseeing contractor compliance with national labour laws, would require significant additional resources.
IPs have some limitations. Among the most significant are:
- It cannot rule out corruption 100 per cent. Complementary approaches need to strengthen an IP’s impact, such as effective intervention of control agencies and the timely prosecution of criminal offences
- If not managed carefully, like any mechanism, IPs can be subject to abuse and be used for ‘window dressing’. Less than optimal IP implementation can superficially look ‘good’ but will not deliver the same results.
What can Integrity Pacts not do? When are they not suitable?
Much of what IPs can do depends on their design, the activities implemented in the process of their application and the extent and coverage given to them. But there are also things that IPs cannot do:
- They do not entirely rule out corruption and without proper monitoring and careful implementation they may be not be as effective. When they incorporate sanctions, however, they can be applied for cases where corruption does appear
- IPs are not meant to change contracting rules, although their implementation can certainly facilitate discussions about necessary reform
- IPs do not change organisations themselves – but they can facilitate change
- IPs are aimed at changing behaviour during the contracting processes they are applied to, and may facilitate change beyond these processes, but more needs to be done to achieve such change
- They do not replace the role of control, oversight and regulatory agencies, but complement them
- The increased participation of different stakeholders, including civil society, in the IP process does not release the government from responsibility for decisions made during the contracting process
- Depending on how they are designed and at which stage of the contracting process they are implemented, IPs will work well for the actual tendering process and will have some impact on the previous stages, but are less effective if not fully in place by then. Specific transparency and accountability measures need to be in place during the budgeting and decision-making stages, to address corruption risks during those phases.
The impact an Integrity Pact can have
The results and impact of IP implementation are difficult to measure and identify, often because they mean that ‘nothing bad happened’. It is also often difficult to establish a causal relationship between ‘what was done’ and ‘what didn’t happen’. Measuring and observing the impact is nevertheless possible. There may also be cases where the corruption prevention objectives are fully achieved and yet, management problems cause delays and cost overruns. The anti-corruption focus and the normally limited resources available to the monitor do not allow a broad “all will go well” assumption.
Nevertheless, based on the experience of TI chapters in implementing IPs, observable indicators of success exist:
- Things run as planned: the requirements of the bidding documents were observed by the bidders; contractual agreements were upheld and enforced; and the project was successfully concluded
- The project was visible, transparent and accountable. Information was shared with the public, and the participation of stakeholders was not only possible, but effective
- Conflict and complaints related to the contracting process and contract execution were minimised or adequately managed
- There is an observable reduction in costs or prices compared to the original budget
- The strategy facilitates the improvement of processes or the undertaking of reforms that benefit future projects at organisational and institutional (legal) levels
- Corruption is detected and addressed, and savings are made as a result or damage is prevented.
