Comments for Global Integrity https://www.globalintegrity.org Data, Learning Action for Open Governance Thu, 13 Jun 2019 17:24:48 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.2.1 Comment on Beating kleptocrats at their own game: Learning how to tackle kleptocracy more effectively by GuyChristian Agbor https://www.globalintegrity.org/2019/06/13/kleptocracy/#comment-1272 Thu, 13 Jun 2019 17:24:48 +0000 https://www.globalintegrity.org/?p=23412#comment-1272 Wonderful piece Elsa.

]]>
Comment on How to Reduce Corruption: Reflections, including from the Paris Integrity Forum by Mohd Nizam Mohd Ali https://www.globalintegrity.org/2019/05/30/reducecorruption/#comment-1020 Mon, 03 Jun 2019 21:10:59 +0000 https://www.globalintegrity.org/?p=23264#comment-1020 Great reflections and tips. I wish to be part of a mutual collaborative works across region. Dr Nizam Ali (nizam@integriti.my).

]]>
Comment on Islands of Integrity: Anti-Corruption Research to Guide the Way by Waldemar https://www.globalintegrity.org/2018/06/13/islands-of-integrity-anti-corruption-research-to-guide-the-way/#comment-749 Sat, 11 May 2019 11:50:12 +0000 http://www.globalintegrity.org/?p=20303#comment-749 For knowledge sharing I am sending article in which corruption is explained matter-of-factly and clearly. T think, that tekst may be helpfull for Your Team and conducted researach.
http://www.academia.edu/37741482/Corruption_as_a_net_of_influences_links_and_connections
“Internal Security Review” 2018, nr 19.
(available online open access)

kind regards,
dr Waldemar Walczak

]]>
Comment on M/E/L Maps – Supporting journeys to impact! by Jindra Cekan https://www.globalintegrity.org/2019/05/02/m-e-l-maps-supporting-journeys-to-impact/#comment-745 Tue, 07 May 2019 12:00:47 +0000 https://www.globalintegrity.org/?p=23210#comment-745 Alan that is great, thanks for sharing these resources. How I’d love communities to chart their expected impact(s) of projects at baseline (or better yet, to inform funding/ design) and compare them to implementers’. Warm regards from chilly Prague, Jindra
PS – maybe see you here in Oct for the IDEAS Conference?

]]>
Comment on Kicking off GI-ACE: 3 Anti-Corruption Themes & 14 Projects by Waldemar https://www.globalintegrity.org/2019/01/23/kicking-off-gi-ace/#comment-728 Wed, 06 Mar 2019 00:51:30 +0000 https://www.globalintegrity.org/?p=22119#comment-728 For better knowledge about corruption
https://www.academia.edu/37741482/Corruption_as_a_net_of_influences_links_and_connections

]]>
Comment on Kicking off GI-ACE: 3 Anti-Corruption Themes & 14 Projects by AYOMIKUN OLUGBODE https://www.globalintegrity.org/2019/01/23/kicking-off-gi-ace/#comment-726 Sat, 16 Feb 2019 23:20:37 +0000 https://www.globalintegrity.org/?p=22119#comment-726 This is a great initiative.
I’m the Founder at Inspired Youth Network, a not-for-profit organization in Lagos, Nigeria that promotes the participation of young people in the fight against corruption.

We will like to be a part of this initiative. How can we be involved?
Ayomikun Olugbode
olugbodeayo@gmail.com

]]>
Comment on Open Government beyond OGP: Reflections from Veracruz, Mexico by Michael Moses https://www.globalintegrity.org/2019/01/16/open-government-beyond-ogp/#comment-700 Tue, 29 Jan 2019 18:15:19 +0000 https://www.globalintegrity.org/?p=21806#comment-700 David – thanks for the comment, and my apologies for the delay in responding. To your questions (responses from me and Jorge):

You ask, “What was a concrete problem that was identified by citizens and how was it addressed by the 2016-2017 action plan? How have learnings from that process been incorporated into current discussions for a 2019-2020 action plan? Can you give an example of how this will happen with a specific commitment? How did the actors “learn about the distribution of power?”

Our partners at the Veracruz Access to Information Institute (IVAI) facilitated the 2016-2017 open government action plan process. It was pretty messy. The corrupt state government – and especially the executive branch – was the focal point of the action plan, with state agencies responsible for the design and implementation of open government commitments. And despite several commitments on public infrastructure, including on health infrastructure, state agencies made very little progress implementing those commitments.

IVAI learned quite a bit from that experience. Most importantly, they realized that relying on the state’s executive branch was not the best route for achieving success. So in the discussions around the new action plan, we, with INAI and GESOC, helped IVAI to identify and partner with municipal authorities, independent government agencies (like ORFIS, mentioned in the post), and non-governmental groups across the state, in order to develop and implement useful commitments that would address issues citizens cared about.

For example, ORFIS, a group of citizens, academics, and professional groups, jointly identified the poor state of public infrastructure across the state as an issue they wanted to address. Specifically, this multistakeholder group struggled to understand how much money was being spent on public works, what it was being spent on, on what basis spending decisions were made, and whether projects were being delivered effectively.

They decided on a commitment to support the production and use of data on 16,000 public works projects in more than 200 municipalities throughout Veracruz. They also came up with several implementation ideas. These ranged from upgrading photographic public works reporting systems to strengthening participatory budgeting mechanisms. Process participants also mapped out potential obstacles, technical (like the feasibility of developing tools for improving the quality and quantity of published data) and political (such as a lack of willingness on the part of key municipal authorities, etc). This helped them get a handle on issues like power dynamics (and changes in power) they might need to try to address, and monitor, during implementation (more detail on the implementation process here: http://www.orfis.gob.mx/gobierno-abierto/).

You ask, “And what are they doing now that power structure of Veracruz’s state government has shifted from PAN to MORENA? You write: ‘partners have reflected on how things were going, and identified emerging lessons, they have then fed those lessons into course corrections, which have helped them stay on track for effectiveness and impact.’ Can you give a concrete example?”

As noted above, the previous action plan cycle faced many challenges – in large part due to being overly dependent on the state-level government. So for the new iteration of the action plan, IVAI worked very hard to apply that lesson. They’ve secured the engagement of independent agencies, like ORFIS, and municipal level actors, such as the city of Veracruz, as well as universities, electoral authorities, citizens, and civil society organizations. This has enabled them to sustain participation in and implementation of the new action plan, even as MORENA takes charge of the state administration.

You ask, “More broadly, you seem to be advocating for the OGPx model that Martin and Julie wrote about back in 2015. If so, what should OGP’s role be in franchising? Is there a coordinating role for the federal government? In Mexico, is there a role for Irma Sandoval and the federal government?”

I think our point is even broader than that.

Today, most of the formal support OGP provides in-country reformers is focused on helping government points of contact navigate OGP processes and procedures, under the assumption that compliance with those processes will lead to successful implementation and impact. And lots of evidence, including from OGP itself, indicates that that assumption often fails to hold.

I’ve written elsewhere (in this brief, from our L-MAVC work in 2016 and 2017, for example – https://www.globalintegrity.org/resource/lmavc-pb-2/) that OGP might be more effective if it instead did more to help local partners – in and outside of government – to work together to first understand, and then address, complex challenges in their local contexts.

And it’s doing just that in Veracruz – the OGP Secretariat is advising INAI, and helping to support the open government process that INAI is leading. This kind of approach, in which OGP is not requiring formal compliance with existing OGP processes or procedures, but simply offering guidance and support to interested local actors, seems to effectively facilitate open government innovation, even (or especially) in challenging contexts. Perhaps because it leaves lots of space for local actors to figure out what kinds of open government processes suit their particular situations.

I’m not sure how this kind of engaged, but very locally-led, process fits with the OGPx model – unpacking what that model would mean in practice is less than straightforward. The Mexican subnational experience certainly has some similarities with the Leaders’ Tier of the OGP Local program.

And with regard to Irma Sandoval and the federal government, providing space for INAI and others to continue encouraging state-level action on open government is obviously important. In terms of specifics, though, I think figuring out how to answer that question well would take several blogposts, or even a book, given the spying scandal and the complicated nature of Mexico’s OGP experience. It’s definitely something we intend to continue exploring, including with our Mexican partners, and beyond. We’d love to discuss how to do that most effectively.

]]>
Comment on Open Government beyond OGP: Reflections from Veracruz, Mexico by David Sasaki https://www.globalintegrity.org/2019/01/16/open-government-beyond-ogp/#comment-632 Thu, 24 Jan 2019 19:54:25 +0000 https://www.globalintegrity.org/?p=21806#comment-632 Michael, thanks for the post. For each of the three lessons you’ve extracted, it would be helpful if you could provide one anecdote. What was a concrete problem that was identified by citizens and how was it addressed by the 2016-2017 action plan? How have learnings from that process been incorporated into current discussions for a 2019-2020 action plan?

You write: “our partners in Veracruz have built regular cycles of action, reflection, and learning into their action plan process, so that they can find ways of navigating and shaping those dynamics, step by step, cycle by cycle.” Can you give an example of how this will happen with a specific commitment? How did the actors “learn about the distribution of power?” And what are they doing now that power structure of Veracruz’s state government has shifted from PAN to MORENA?

You write: “partners have reflected on how things were going, and identified emerging lessons, they have then fed those lessons into course corrections, which have helped them stay on track for effectiveness and impact.” Can you give a concrete example?

More broadly, you seem to be advocating for the OGPx model that Martin and Julie wrote about back in 2015. If so, what should OGP’s role be in franchising? Is there a coordinating role for the federal government? In Mexico, is there a role for Irma Sandoval and the federal government?

]]>
Comment on Kicking off GI-ACE: 3 Anti-Corruption Themes & 14 Projects by Mounir https://www.globalintegrity.org/2019/01/23/kicking-off-gi-ace/#comment-630 Thu, 24 Jan 2019 18:13:16 +0000 https://www.globalintegrity.org/?p=22119#comment-630 La traçabilité c’est la meilleur méthode pour comprendre les astuces de la corruption .

]]>
Comment on Kicking off GI-ACE: 3 Anti-Corruption Themes & 14 Projects by Nicoletta Parisi https://www.globalintegrity.org/2019/01/23/kicking-off-gi-ace/#comment-626 Thu, 24 Jan 2019 14:21:06 +0000 https://www.globalintegrity.org/?p=22119#comment-626 I am a member of the Council of ANAC (Italian Anticorruption Authority, see http://www.anticorruzione.it) and I ma very interested in your initiatives. I can not be in London for the kickoff of the Programme GI-ACE, but I’d like to be informed of its outcomes.
Thanks
Prof. Nicoletta Parisi

]]>