Global Integrity https://www.globalintegrity.org Tue, 16 Apr 2019 19:55:00 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.1.1 https://www.globalintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/favicon-new.png Global Integrity https://www.globalintegrity.org 32 32 Another successful year for Africa Integrity Indicators! https://www.globalintegrity.org/2019/04/16/another-successful-year-for-africa-integrity-indicators/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=another-successful-year-for-africa-integrity-indicators https://www.globalintegrity.org/2019/04/16/another-successful-year-for-africa-integrity-indicators/#respond Tue, 16 Apr 2019 19:44:04 +0000 https://www.globalintegrity.org/?p=23191 Marc-André Boisvert Catherine Easton Global Integrity is pleased to announce the release of provisional data for the seventh round of its Africa Integrity Indicators (AII), available here. This provisional data is available for public comment until May 31, 2019. We invite interested stakeholders to examine the data and share any feedback that can help increase …

The post Another successful year for Africa Integrity Indicators! appeared first on Global Integrity.

]]>
Marc-André Boisvert
Catherine Easton

Global Integrity is pleased to announce the release of provisional data for the seventh round of its Africa Integrity Indicators (AII), available here.

This provisional data is available for public comment until May 31, 2019. We invite interested stakeholders to examine the data and share any feedback that can help increase its quality and usefulness. Don’t be shy – We value your input!

Preliminary findings

Below are some of our preliminary findings, but stay tuned! In the upcoming weeks, we will be starting a conversation to better understand how our data could help support your work.

The independence of the judiciary is under threat: In several countries, notably Ghana and Kenya, governments have taken steps to hamper the independence of the judiciary.

Bypassing public procurement guidelines: While regulations are supposed to control public procurement, there is a surge of contracts awarded without competition in Liberia, Benin and Mauritania. In Kenya, allegations of corruption in public procurement are increasing.

Crackdown on the publication of information: While some countries made progress towards open publication of information (notably Ethiopia and Sierra Leone, with substantial improvement from last year), more countries regressed, experiencing more censorship and/or self-censorship of media organizations and citizens’ online content (social media, blogs, etc).

What is the Africa Integrity Indicators Project, anyway?

Every year since 2013, the Africa Integrity Indicators project assesses the state of governance and aspects of social development across all 54 African countries. It produces qualitative data through 102 indicators in 13 categories addressing transparency and accountability, as well as social development.

The Africa Integrity Indicators data is a stand-alone assessment published by Global Integrity. It presents snapshots of evidence for each indicator, providing a score, the justification, and supporting sources.

Our goal is simple: to build accurate and reliable data, with an interface that enables the data to be examined at the country level (say, by tracking a country’s progress over time with regards to one particular indicator), and at the subject level (say, by comparing different countries’ performance on one indicator).

We want our data to empower actors at the national and regional and international levels working to advance governance reforms, and to foster a discussion on how governance challenges can be tackled.

We also strive to be rigorous and transparent; you can find our methodology here.

What’s new this year?

Previous rounds have addressed both “in law” and “in practice” indicators. In this round, we decided to focus solely on the “in practice” indicators. This is because prior rounds have highlighted “implementation gaps,” or the lag between the adoption of regulations aiming to improve certain issues, and the actual improvement on the ground.

So this year, we are prioritizing citizen’s experience in practice. (Don’t worry, we’ll include updates on the laws every three years to make sure we capture big changes and continue to provide a basis for assessing the implementation gap, a measure which we continue to feel provides an important starting point for understanding whether and why gaps persist, and what might be done to close the implementation gap).

How is our data unique?

How can you use our data?

Our work has been used by several institutions. Data that we collect against a number of questions feed into the Ibrahim Index of African Governance and into the Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) by the World Bank. Through the WGI, the data also provides the Millennium Challenge Corporation with information that informs its decisions about country eligibility for Millennium Challenge Corporation compacts.

But you can use our data, too!

Our dataset is a practical entry point for research, advocacy and action:

  • Transparent: our methodology and sources are transparent, and data is open source;
  • Efficient: for each indicator, scores make it quick and easy to identify patterns across countries and across time;
  • Action-oriented: indicators are based on fact-based and country-specific qualitative research, which provides insight on what should be priorities for reforms.

Join the conversation!

We want to hear from you. Check out our preliminary data and give us your feedback. You have 2 months to help us improve our work!

If you have comments on specific facts and narratives or if you have suggestions related to the accuracy of our research, please contact us at aii@globalintegrity.org.

If you have general comments and suggestions about the usefulness of the data, how you use it, and how it can be improved, please submit your feedback in this form or the aforementioned email address. You can also connect with us on Twitter (@GlobalIntegrity).

The post Another successful year for Africa Integrity Indicators! appeared first on Global Integrity.

]]>
https://www.globalintegrity.org/2019/04/16/another-successful-year-for-africa-integrity-indicators/feed/ 0
Sept années de réussite pour les indicateurs d’intégrité en Afrique! https://www.globalintegrity.org/2019/04/16/sept-annees-de-reussite-pour-les-indicateurs-dintegrite-en-afrique/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=sept-annees-de-reussite-pour-les-indicateurs-dintegrite-en-afrique https://www.globalintegrity.org/2019/04/16/sept-annees-de-reussite-pour-les-indicateurs-dintegrite-en-afrique/#respond Tue, 16 Apr 2019 19:43:45 +0000 https://www.globalintegrity.org/?p=23198 Marc-André Boisvert Catherine Easton Global Integrity a le plaisir de vous annoncer la publication des données provisoires de la septième édition des Indicateurs d’intégrité en Afrique, disponibles ici. Jusqu’au 31 mai 2019, nous invitons experts et citoyens à examiner les données et à faire part de leurs commentaires afin de contribuer à en améliorer la …

The post Sept années de réussite pour les indicateurs d’intégrité en Afrique! appeared first on Global Integrity.

]]>
Marc-André Boisvert
Catherine Easton

Global Integrity a le plaisir de vous annoncer la publication des données provisoires de la septième édition des Indicateurs d’intégrité en Afrique, disponibles ici.

Jusqu’au 31 mai 2019, nous invitons experts et citoyens à examiner les données et à faire part de leurs commentaires afin de contribuer à en améliorer la qualité et l’utilité. Ne soyez pas timide, nous apprécions votre contribution!

Quelques conclusions préliminaires…

Vous trouverez ci-dessous certaines de nos conclusions préliminaires, mais restez à l’écoute! Dans les prochaines semaines, nous entamerons une conversation pour mieux comprendre comment nos données pourraient vous aider dans votre travail.
L’indépendance du pouvoir judiciaire menacée: Dans plusieurs pays, les gouvernements ont pris des mesures pour nuire à l’indépendance du pouvoir judiciaire, notamment au Ghana et au Kenya.

Des marchés publics plus opaques: Alors que la réglementation est censée contrôler les marchés publics, les contrats passés sans concurrence se multiplient. Au Libéria, au Bénin et en Mauritanie, les règles sont contournées en octroyant plus de contrats dits de gré-à-gré. Au Kenya, les allégations de corruption dans les marchés publics se multiplient.

Répression de la publication d’informations: Tandis que certains pays ont amélioré l’accès aux informations publiques (notamment l’Éthiopie et la Sierra Leone, avec un progrès substantiel par rapport à l’année dernière), nous observons davantage une régression, avec de nombreux pays subissant davantage de censure et / ou d’autocensure des médias et du contenu en ligne des citoyens (médias sociaux, blogs, etc.).

Qu’est-ce que le projet d’indicateurs d’intégrité de l’Afrique?

Chaque année depuis 2013, notre projet évalue l’état de la gouvernance et les aspects du développement social dans les 54 pays africains. Ainsi, nous produisons des données qualitatives au moyen de 102 indicateurs portant sur 13 catégories, traitant de transparence et de redevabilité, mais aussi de développement social.

Les données forment une base autonome publiée par Global Integrity. Elle présente, pour chaque indicateur, un score, une justification et les sources consultées.

Notre objectif est simple: créer des données précises et fiables, avec une interface permettant une consultation par pays (par exemple, en suivant les progrès d’un pays au fil du temps pour un indicateur particulier), et par sujet (par exemple, en comparant la performance de différents pays pour un même indicateur).
Nous voulons que la recherche responsabilise les acteurs aux niveaux national, régional et international, et qu’elle stimule la réflexion sur la manière dont les questions de gouvernance peuvent être résolues.
Nous nous efforçons également d’être rigoureux et transparent. Voici notre méthodologie complète (en anglais).

Quoi de neuf cette année?

Les cycles précédents ont traité à la fois des indicateurs «de droit» et «de pratique». Pour ce cycle, nous avons décidé de nous concentrer uniquement sur les indicateurs de pratique.

Au cours des cycles précédents, nous avions noté des écarts dans la mise en oeuvre des lois. Nous avons donc décidé pour cette ronde d’approfondir cette question en mettant en exergue l’expérience citoyenne. Nous voulons donc produire un outil pour initier un dialogue sur la persistance de l’écart entre les lois et leur application, sur ses causes et sur ce qui peut être fait. (Ne vous inquiétez pas, nous inclurons des mises à jour sur les lois tous les trois ans pour capter les changements).

Qu’est-ce qui rend nos données uniques?

Comment pouvez-vous utiliser nos données?
Notre travail est utilisé par plusieurs institutions. Un certain nombre d’indicateurs alimentent l’Indice Ibrahim de la gouvernance en Afrique et les indicateurs de la gouvernance mondiale (WGI) de la Banque mondiale. Par le biais du WGI, les données fournissent également à la Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) des informations qui l’aident dans ses décisions relatives à l’éligibilité des pays aux contrats MCC.

Mais vous pouvez aussi utiliser nos données!

Notre ensemble de données est un point d’accès pratique pour la recherche, le plaidoyer et l’action:

  • Transparent: notre méthodologie et nos sources sont transparentes et les données sont en open-source.
  • Efficace: pour chaque indicateur, les scores permettent d’identifier rapidement et facilement les tendances entre pays et dans le temps;
  • Orienté vers l’action: les indicateurs sont basés sur des recherches qualitatives factuelles, spécifiques à chaque pays, ce qui permet de mieux comprendre quelles devraient être les priorités pour les réformes.

Rejoignez la conversation!
Consultez nos données préliminaires et partagez vos commentaires. Vous avez 2 mois pour nous aider à améliorer notre travail!

Si vous avez des commentaires sur des faits et des évènements, ou si vous avez des suggestions concernant l’exactitude de nos recherches, veuillez nous contacter à aii@globalintegrity.org.

Si vous avez des commentaires généraux et des suggestions sur l’utilité des données, comment vous les utilisez et comment elles peuvent être améliorées, veuillez envoyer vos commentaires à l’adresse électronique susmentionnée ou par le biais de ce formulaire. Vous pouvez également nous rejoindre sur Twitter (@GlobalIntegrity).

The post Sept années de réussite pour les indicateurs d’intégrité en Afrique! appeared first on Global Integrity.

]]>
https://www.globalintegrity.org/2019/04/16/sept-annees-de-reussite-pour-les-indicateurs-dintegrite-en-afrique/feed/ 0
Transparency: From revolution to evolution https://www.globalintegrity.org/2019/04/11/transparency-from-revolution-to-evolution/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=transparency-from-revolution-to-evolution https://www.globalintegrity.org/2019/04/11/transparency-from-revolution-to-evolution/#respond Thu, 11 Apr 2019 13:53:36 +0000 https://www.globalintegrity.org/?p=23175 The transparency and accountability agenda has come a long way from the heady days of 6 or 7 years ago when enthusiasm, including mine, about the revolutionary potential of transparency – and data – reached its peak. At that time, the emphasis was on establishing global norms on the disclosure of information, and encouraging countries …

The post Transparency: From revolution to evolution appeared first on Global Integrity.

]]>
The transparency and accountability agenda has come a long way from the heady days of 6 or 7 years ago when enthusiasm, including mine, about the revolutionary potential of transparency – and data – reached its peak. At that time, the emphasis was on establishing global norms on the disclosure of information, and encouraging countries to sign up to those norms. The theory of change was that the data being made available – data about foreign aid, data about budgets, and data about extractives revenues for instance – would be used by citizens and civil society organizations to hold governments to account. This would then drive progress towards more effective governance and better development outcomes.

Over time, important questions began to emerge about whether and under what circumstances transparency would actually lead to accountability and better development outcomes, what preconditions might be necessary for progress to be made, and what obstacles might hinder progress along this path (see for instance Tiago Peixoto, 2012; Tom Carothers and Saskia Brechenmacher, 2014; Stephen Kosack and Archon Fung, 2014; and, more recently, John Gaventa, 2019). Such questions and concerns steadily nudged the evolution of the agenda towards one which gives greater emphasis to not just making data available, but also to thinking carefully about the quality of the data, and, most importantly, who might use the data, in what ways, and to what end.

This has been a hugely important step forward, and has been accompanied by increased, albeit patchy, recognition of: the value of starting with particular service delivery or sectoral challenges (see, for instance “Governance and Sector Outcomes” by Derick W Brinkerhoff and Anna Maria Wetterberg), rather than data and data-related tools; and, of the fact that political economy dynamics – the patterns of winners and losers from potential governance reform – play a major role in determining whether policy commitments are effectively implemented. Data, in this version of the agenda, may support progress to more effective governance, but only when users are able to deploy data in ways that help to shift the political dynamics of the systems that hold problems in place.

At Global Integrity, we’ve been pleased to play our part in the evolution of the transparency and accountability agenda. Our work focuses on exploring whether and how open processes of governance can support the cycles of locally-led innovation, learning and adaptation that are needed to address complex governance-related challenges, with support for the use of data a central strand of our efforts. This has included our support for Mexican partners’ efforts to use data to follow the money, for instance in Durango, and our ongoing work with the Transparency and Accountability Initiative on the use of data to tackle corruption in Nigeria and Colombia.

We’ve also taken the opportunity to engage with key actors including the World Bank, DFID, the Open Society Foundations, the International Budget Partnership (see also Tom Carothers and Saskia Brechenmacher, 2018, on “revisiting the foundational assumptions of fiscal transparency and accountability work”), the Open Contracting Partnership and the Open Data Charter as regards their approaches to tackling governance-related challenges, and the ways in which transparency might help.

The increased attention given to problems, users and use is very much a step in the right direction. And the wider acknowledgement that governance-related challenges are about power and politics is very welcome. However, important questions continue to be raised about the value of transparency and open governance, and their purchase on what are fundamentally questions of power and politics (see for instance, David Booth’s valedictory lecture from 2018). These are questions which merit serious consideration from champions of transparency and open governance. The core question is perhaps whether and how transparency, participation and accountability might support the emergence of effective, feasible and context-sensitive approaches to governance reform?

Questions of this sort are being given careful consideration in a variety of fora. In the extractives sector, for instance, these questions are live issues: in the work that the Brookings Institution, the Natural Resource Governance Institute, and Results for development are leading on “Leveraging transparency to reduce corruption”; in the International Finance Corporation’s work on “from disclosure to development”; in the increased attention being given to the use of data by the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, the Executive Session on the Politics of Extractive Industries, and others; as well as in various initiatives to harness the power and potential of open data to tackle corruption (see also our chapter on open data, accountability and anti-corruption, penned by Jorge Florez and Johannes Tonn, for the forthcoming State of Open Data Report).

However, peering towards the horizon, and beyond the confines of an agenda that starts with transparency, we see a new frontier coming into focus. This frontier can be seen, in different ways, in the work of Lant Pritchett and colleagues on Deals and Development, and in the work of Mushtaq Khan and colleagues at the SOAS Anti-Corruption Evidence Research Consortium (SOAS-ACE), the sister programme to the Global Integrity Anti-Corruption Evidence Programme.

For instance, a project in Bangladesh funded via SOAS-ACE explores whether it might be possible to leverage transparency about the quality and pricing of identical formulations provided by different companies, to get the support of a second tier of pharmaceutical companies for changes to the ways in which pharmaceuticals are priced, and to address the issue of big players offering illegal incentives to doctors to prescribe more expensive drugs. Involving participants from the pharmaceutical sectors seeks to make reform politically feasible.

In this sort of example, one does not start with transparency and data; instead, changes to the informational environment are considered as one way of working with incentives in order to shift the prevailing power dynamics and thereby address the governance-related challenges around a particular problem or challenge. This, we feel, is a hugely important step forward. It’s an approach that starts with problems, pays attention to the power dynamics in particular places, works actively to identify politically feasible reforms, and then and only then considers whether changes to the informational environment brought about by increased transparency might help to create coalitions for reform that can shift the dynamics that would otherwise hold problems in place.

Such an approach would put political economy dynamics and patterns of incentives – the things that drive governance-related challenges – at the center of analysis and action. The key question then would be whether and how cycles of politically-engaged learning, focused around particular sectoral problems, and strengthened by a richer informational environment, can support the identification of ways forward that have the potential to win the support of at least some of the powerful players, provide opportunities for new players, and thereby build a winning coalition for reform.

Working out what this sort of approach might look like in practice won’t be easy; starting with complex problems is harder than starting with data, tools, or illusory blueprint solutions. Beyond the mainstream of the transparency and accountability agenda, progress is being made, in different ways, including through the work of SOAS-ACE, the problem-focused work of the Building State Capability team at Harvard University, the pioneering work of Yuen Yuen Ang on How China Escaped the Poverty Trap, the approach to supporting reform taken by the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, and through the efforts of Global Integrity and other organizations building bridges between open government and adaptive development.

Taking this next step – starting with problems, engaging with political economy dynamics, taking incentives seriously, and considering whether and how a richer informational environment can support the emergence of winning coalitions for reform – has the potential to transform not only the transparency and accountability agenda, but the wider anti-corruption and governance agendas. We’re excited to be part of this evolution and look forward to exploring the potential of transparency and open governance to shift the incentives and political dynamics that hold particular sectoral and service delivery challenges in place.

The post Transparency: From revolution to evolution appeared first on Global Integrity.

]]>
https://www.globalintegrity.org/2019/04/11/transparency-from-revolution-to-evolution/feed/ 0
Practical support to address problems, politics and incentives – Annual Report 2018 https://www.globalintegrity.org/2019/02/27/practical-support-to-address-problems-politics-and-incentives-annual-report-2018/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=practical-support-to-address-problems-politics-and-incentives-annual-report-2018 https://www.globalintegrity.org/2019/02/27/practical-support-to-address-problems-politics-and-incentives-annual-report-2018/#respond Wed, 27 Feb 2019 15:26:01 +0000 https://www.globalintegrity.org/?p=23051 For those of us keen to support progress towards more open governance, 2018 was a challenging year. The politics and incentives that all too often drive the rich and the powerful to act in their own short-term interests, make the road towards more open and effective governance a very bumpy one, full of obstacles, in …

The post Practical support to address problems, politics and incentives – Annual Report 2018 appeared first on Global Integrity.

]]>
For those of us keen to support progress towards more open governance, 2018 was a challenging year. The politics and incentives that all too often drive the rich and the powerful to act in their own short-term interests, make the road towards more open and effective governance a very bumpy one, full of obstacles, in the US and globally. Supporting those at the sharp end of navigating the obstacles, and addressing governance-related challenges, requires much more than promoting transparency and extolling the virtues of openness.

As this edition of the Integrity Insider details, over the course of 2018 we provided practical support to local partners around the world as they tackled governance-related challenges. This included supporting partners in Kenya, as they sought to improve the provision of agricultural extension services to local farmers, and helping government officials and citizens in Durango, Mexico, in their efforts to track the flow of public resources.

Informed by our country-level work, and that of other organizations, we also sought to nudge the evolution of the governance agenda. This included providing detailed feedback on new strategies by DFID and OSF, setting out how the fiscal transparency agenda might be strengthened, and continuing to build bridges between the opengov and adaptive development communities. We have been pleased to see the open data, and the governance agendas, focus increasingly on problems, politics, and incentives, and the use of data to inform cycles of action and learning to address those problems, in line with the direction we’ve been heading.

As 2019 rolls on, we look forward to providing problem mapping, data use, and strategy & learning support to front-line actors and their international partners as they address challenges around the management and use of public resources, and to sharing the insights and evidence generated from this work in order to inform policy and practice on governance and development. There are major challenges to address, but with a strengthened and more diverse team and board, and exciting new work underway, including through the Global Integrity Anti-Corruption Evidence Programme, we are up for the challenges and set to make 2019 our best year yet!

To read the full Integrity Insider/Annual Report for 2018 please see here

The post Practical support to address problems, politics and incentives – Annual Report 2018 appeared first on Global Integrity.

]]>
https://www.globalintegrity.org/2019/02/27/practical-support-to-address-problems-politics-and-incentives-annual-report-2018/feed/ 0
Wanted: Communications Lead https://www.globalintegrity.org/2019/02/26/wanted-communications-lead/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=wanted-communications-lead https://www.globalintegrity.org/2019/02/26/wanted-communications-lead/#respond Mon, 25 Feb 2019 22:36:39 +0000 https://www.globalintegrity.org/?p=22699 Communications LeadWe are seeking an experienced Communications Lead to join our small, dynamic team in Washington, DC, and support our work on cutting-edge governance programs around the world. The successful candidate will work closely with the Global Integrity Anti-Corruption Evidence (GI-ACE) program team and support the implementation of a multi-faceted anti-corruption research and policy engagement …

The post Wanted: Communications Lead appeared first on Global Integrity.

]]>

Communications Lead

We are seeking an experienced Communications Lead to join our small, dynamic team in Washington, DC, and support our work on cutting-edge governance programs around the world. The successful candidate will work closely with the Global Integrity Anti-Corruption Evidence (GI-ACE) program team and support the implementation of a multi-faceted anti-corruption research and policy engagement program. In addition, she/he will work across all programs of Global Integrity (GI), developing and supporting the implementation of an effective communications strategy. The Communications lead will be responsible for creating, managing and communicating content and messaging, and for strengthening the communications skills and capacity of other team members.

Role and responsibilities
The Communications Lead will be based at the Open Gov Hub in Washington, DC and will report to the Director for Integrity and Anti-Corruption with an approximate time split of 80% dedicated to the GI-ACE program and 20% dedicated to overall GI communications work.

The role requires proven ability to understand complex and nuanced governance and anti-corruption concepts, and the interest and drive to communicate these concepts in clear and accessible language to a variety of audiences in effective ways, making use of multiple platforms and tools. The successful candidate has first-rate skills in prioritizing and spinning multiple plates, is an outstanding collaborator, and keen to learn with the entire team as well as partners around the world to create and leverage communication products that generate impact.

She/he enjoys setting up, monitoring, and updating content across multiple communication platforms, while also digging into papers and policy briefs to identify key takeaways, do thorough copy editing and basic layouting to design effective communication outputs. The successful candidate will have:

  • Responsibility for GI-ACE communications work (80%); including managing and guiding communications work and supporting the creation of content and messaging across the program. This includes:
    • thinking through, developing and implementing important communications and advocacy-focused aspects of the GI-ACE theory of change
    • supporting the GI-ACE program team and its 14 worldwide partners (research teams based mainly in universities) in implementing and fine-tuning their communication strategies and outputs
    • identifying relevant communication opportunities and creating, placing and communicating content and messages
    • testing formats and platforms, tracking use and uptake of communication products, and reflecting with partners on the usefulness and impact of the GI-ACE program outputs.
  • Shared responsibility for GI communications (20%); including by managing the organization’s communications work and supporting the creation of content and messages across the organization. This includes:
    • developing and implementing a communications plan and providing leadership for special communication projects
    • ensuring initiatives and projects are clearly communicated to key audiences
    • managing and updating content across platforms (website, email) and social media channels on an ongoing basis
    • supporting the team in enhancing their communication skills by helping to write/ edit blogs and publications and by providing feedback and guidance.

The ideal candidate
The ideal candidate will be a strong collaborator, with solid writing, editing and proofreading skills, and experience in managing a variety of communications platforms using multiple formats such as podcasts, blogs, social media, video and traditional media.

She/he has a strong interest in making communication products more effective by strengthening the link between communications products and policy engagement strategies and by adapting to meet the expectations of key audiences. She/he is open to feedback while also having the patience to help other team members develop their skills. The following factors will strengthen an applicant’s candidacy:

  • Competencies
    • Excellent writing, editing and proofreading skills
    • Deep understanding of the media and communications landscape with a track record in generating and copy-editing communication products used in policy relevant research, i.e. advocacy products, policy briefs, infographics etc.
    • Proficiency in communications product design, including layout, graphics and formal/legal requirements
    • Experience in managing and updating content across media platforms, including traditional and social media outlets
    • Fluency in English is required, proficiencies in other languages (French, Spanish) is an asset
  • Attributes
    • Self-starter, who is happy to provide a first draft quickly and to iterate multiple times to perfect a particular communications piece on time
    • Technologically savvy and/or unafraid to dive into new processes and systems to test and experiment, focused on results in a fast-moving, hands-on environment
    • Sound judgment to drive communications initiatives, with excellent skills in stakeholder management, networking, and relationship building
    • Ability to spin multiple plates
    • Personal qualities of integrity, credibility, and commitment to Global Integrity’s mission
  • Experience
    • At least 5 years of writing and communications management experience, with a track record in producing concise and accessible communication products
    • Knowledge of governance and anti-corruption concepts and background in reading and summarizing academic publications
  • Qualifications
    • Relevant Bachelor's degree required; relevant advanced degree preferred
    • Right to work in the United States

About Global Integrity

Global Integrity’s vision is of a world in which people and organizations, in countries and communities across the globe, work together to improve governance, and solve complex social problems.

We support local partners - governments, civil society organizations and researchers - as they craft, implement and refine solutions to the complex problems they face. We then use the insights and evidence that emerge from our innovative work with local partners to engage with multilateral and bilateral development agencies, and other external actors, as we encourage them to operate in ways that prioritize the locally-led innovation, learning, and adaptation that is key to solving governance-related problems. We put this approach into practice across our work on integrity and anti-corruption, fiscal governance, and multi-stakeholder initiatives, as well as through our stewardship of at the Open Gov Hub.

About the GI-ACE program
Global Integrity has recently begun implementing phase two of the DFID-funded Anti-Corruption Evidence (ACE) Program, a sister program to the anti-corruption research program led by SOAS at the University of London. The overarching objective of the GI-ACE program is to support world-class multi-disciplinary research that informs the development of more effective policies and interventions to help reduce corruption in developing countries and address its negative impact on people’s lives. GI-ACE is designed to produce operationally relevant evidence on tackling corruption, with a focus on ensuring that the research outputs address practitioners’ needs to support more effective, evidence-based anti-corruption initiatives.

Compensation and benefits

Global Integrity offers competitive compensation based on experience, skills and fit for the role. The salary for this role is expected to be between $75k and $90k depending on education, skills and experience. In addition, Global Integrity provides all full time employees with a comprehensive and very generous benefits package, including high-quality health, dental and vision policies, as well as a modest life insurance policy. GI currently pays 100% of the premiums associated with those benefits. Generous holiday and sick time are also provided. The organization also contributes to employees’ retirement accounts and provides for a transit benefit.

How to Apply
To apply, please submit a cover letter detailing relevant skills and experience, a publication list, three writing samples, and a resume. Applications from candidates who would strengthen our diversity and bring additional perspectives to the team are particularly encouraged.

Deadline for application: open until filled.
Applications will be reviewed on a rolling basis until the position is filled.

 

The post Wanted: Communications Lead appeared first on Global Integrity.

]]>
https://www.globalintegrity.org/2019/02/26/wanted-communications-lead/feed/ 0
Action, Learning, Impact – How Global Integrity Can Contribute to the Evaluation of the Open Government Partnership https://www.globalintegrity.org/2019/02/13/action-learning-impact-how-global-integrity-can-contribute-to-the-evaluation-of-the-open-government-partnership/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=action-learning-impact-how-global-integrity-can-contribute-to-the-evaluation-of-the-open-government-partnership https://www.globalintegrity.org/2019/02/13/action-learning-impact-how-global-integrity-can-contribute-to-the-evaluation-of-the-open-government-partnership/#respond Wed, 13 Feb 2019 14:53:09 +0000 https://www.globalintegrity.org/?p=22617 Who we are At Global Integrity, we support local change agents – governments and civil society organizations – in countries and communities around the world as they craft, implement and refine solutions to the complex problems they face. We help our partners more effectively close the gaps between policy commitments, their implementation, and impact. We …

The post Action, Learning, Impact – How Global Integrity Can Contribute to the Evaluation of the Open Government Partnership appeared first on Global Integrity.

]]>
Who we are

At Global Integrity, we support local change agents – governments and civil society organizations – in countries and communities around the world as they craft, implement and refine solutions to the complex problems they face. We help our partners more effectively close the gaps between policy commitments, their implementation, and impact.

We use the insights and evidence that emerge from our innovative work with local partners to inform and influence multilateral and bilateral development agencies, multistakeholder initiatives, international organizations, and other external actors, encouraging and supporting them to operate in ways that prioritize the locally-led innovation, learning, and adaptation that is key to solving governance-related problems.

For more on what we do, and why, see this recent blog.

Our experience with the Open Government Partnership

We know the Open Government Partnership (OGP) well. We enjoy robust partnerships with OGP stakeholders in many countries. We’ve helped many in-country stakeholders in Latin America, Africa, and Asia work out whether and how to engage with OGP, and supported their efforts to design and implement effective action plan commitments. From our office in the Open Gov Hub, where the OGP Support Unit is also located, we support collaborative learning and action – including on OGP – among many of the international organizations working to advance the open government agenda.

We are well positioned to contribute to the upcoming OGP evaluation. We will help ensure that each of the evaluation’s four objectives – enumerated below – are met.

Objective 1: Understand the effectiveness of the OGP process

We have been involved with OGP since its launch and have spent 8 years exploring the factors that shape the ways in which reform-minded actors – in-country CSOs and government agencies, as well as international organizations – are able to leverage the OGP platform, to drive progress on open governance (as in our Learning to Open Government work). We know how to produce rich, qualitative evidence – including through country case studies – on OGP experiences, and are well-placed to further explore whether and how OGP supports effective reform processes.

Objective 2: Assess the impact of National Action Plans

We’ve studied the implementation gap – the difference between policy commitments and what actually happens in practice – for a long time. We’ve helped partners in many countries unpack the causes of implementation gaps, and work out how they might close those gaps, to design and implement effective policy commitments that address citizen priorities (as in our Follow the Money work). Our expertise on these issues make us well-suited to help assess whether and how OGP action plans help deliver solutions to the problems that affect people’s lives, and work out how they might be improved.

Objective 3: Generate continuous and participatory learning

Supporting iterative, real-time processes of learning that inform action, support communities of practice, and strengthen the impact and effectiveness of our partners, is at the very core of what we do (as in our Learning to Make All Voices Count work). We know how to help partners produce and use real-time evidence, generate and share lessons, and make informed course corrections. We can ensure that the evaluation drives action by in-country reformers and international organizations, and helps to build the global evidence base on open governance.

Objective 4: Improve the capacity and efficiency of OGP supporting institutions

We regularly support external actors – including donors, INGOs, and MSI secretariats – in their efforts to strengthen their impact and effectiveness. We know how to tailor learning products to the needs and interests of key stakeholders (see this brief, from our L-MAVC work, for example). We know how to make the links between research and action (as in our GI-ACE program), and are well-placed to help the evaluation inform action on the part of OGP’s supporting institutions.

We’re excited about the OGP evaluation opportunity. We’re keen to ensure that the evaluation generates relevant lessons, informs action, and lays the groundwork for strengthening the impact of organizations working to support progress toward more open, accountable, and effectiveness governance across the world. Interested in working with us? Let’s chat – contact us @Globalintegrity, or email michael.moses@globalintegrity.org.

The post Action, Learning, Impact – How Global Integrity Can Contribute to the Evaluation of the Open Government Partnership appeared first on Global Integrity.

]]>
https://www.globalintegrity.org/2019/02/13/action-learning-impact-how-global-integrity-can-contribute-to-the-evaluation-of-the-open-government-partnership/feed/ 0
Stepping Back to Move Forwards – Announcing Our New Website https://www.globalintegrity.org/2019/02/05/stepping-back-to-move-forwards-announcing-our-new-website/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=stepping-back-to-move-forwards-announcing-our-new-website https://www.globalintegrity.org/2019/02/05/stepping-back-to-move-forwards-announcing-our-new-website/#respond Tue, 05 Feb 2019 17:18:41 +0000 https://www.globalintegrity.org/?p=22566 It’s been just over four years since we launched our new strategy at Global Integrity. That strategy responded to many of the lessons we’d learned from our earlier work on governance assessments, from conversations with our partners in countries and communities across the world, and from our engagement with emerging communities of practice like Doing …

The post Stepping Back to Move Forwards – Announcing Our New Website appeared first on Global Integrity.

]]>
It’s been just over four years since we launched our new strategy at Global Integrity. That strategy responded to many of the lessons we’d learned from our earlier work on governance assessments, from conversations with our partners in countries and communities across the world, and from our engagement with emerging communities of practice like Doing Development Differently, and Thinking and Working Politically. In it, we announced our intention to move beyond simply producing governance data. We wanted to do more, so that we could better help our partners learn how to address the complex governance challenges they cared about, particularly those related to corruption and the use of public resources.

At the time, we weren’t quite sure what that more should mean, in practice. We knew that the work we wanted to do should help reform-minded actors craft and implement reforms that work in their contexts, rather than try to replicate one-size-fits-all, cookie cutter solutions. We also knew that we were well-placed to capitalize on our position at the heart of the Open Gov Hub in Washington DC, connecting in-country evidence and insights to the broader global development community. But we were not sure exactly how to do all of that, practically-speaking.

Today, four years on, we still have plenty to figure out. But we’ve come a long way. We’ve learned a lot about ourselves, our partners, and how we can most effectively support progress towards more open, effective, and accountable governance. We’ve come to understand that we best achieve our own goals when we help our partners – civil society organizations, governments, multistakeholder initiatives, donors, and others working towards more effective governance – achieve theirs.

This means that we’re most effective when we listen, rather than dictate our own agenda, or that of other external actors; when we work with partners to understand problems, rather than assume solutions; and when we tailor our support to help partners innovate, learn, and adapt as they tackle complex governance challenges in their contexts, rather than trying to impose cookie-cutter approaches designed in Washington DC.

Perhaps most importantly, we’ve come to see that our impact is greatest when our partners learn to navigate and shape the political dynamics and patterns of incentives that are at the heart of governance-related problems, and figure out, over time, how to attain their own goals. In other words, we make the most progress when we step back, and help our partners step forward.

We’ve also seen that we offer real value when we use the evidence and insights from our innovative work with partners to inform and influence the behavior of donors, international initiatives, and other organizations, to shape policy and practice on governance and development, and help ensure that locally-led, innovation, learning, and adaptation is center stage.

Today, after almost four years of action, reflection, and learning, we’re pleased to launch a new website. Our new site aims to capture and incorporate what we’ve learned, in order to more clearly set out what we do, and why. Some highlights:

We’re excited about our new website, and about this new distillation of how we work. But most of all, we’re excited about continuing to working with our partners – old and new – and supporting you to understand and address the governance-related challenges that matter to you. Want to discuss a challenge you’re facing? Get in touch. We’d love to speak with you.

The post Stepping Back to Move Forwards – Announcing Our New Website appeared first on Global Integrity.

]]>
https://www.globalintegrity.org/2019/02/05/stepping-back-to-move-forwards-announcing-our-new-website/feed/ 0
Kicking off GI-ACE: 3 Anti-Corruption Themes & 14 Projects https://www.globalintegrity.org/2019/01/23/kicking-off-gi-ace/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=kicking-off-gi-ace https://www.globalintegrity.org/2019/01/23/kicking-off-gi-ace/#comments Wed, 23 Jan 2019 15:43:35 +0000 https://www.globalintegrity.org/?p=22119 January 23, 2019 Paul Heywood – Programme Director, GI-ACE Johannes Tonn – Director, Integrity & Anti-Corruption The Global Integrity Anti-Corruption Evidence Programme (GI-ACE) supports 14 research partners around the world in generating actionable evidence that policy makers, practitioners, and advocates can use to design and implement more effective anti-corruption programmes. The Programme has three core …

The post Kicking off GI-ACE: 3 Anti-Corruption Themes & 14 Projects appeared first on Global Integrity.

]]>
January 23, 2019

Paul Heywood – Programme Director, GI-ACE
Johannes Tonn – Director, Integrity & Anti-Corruption

The Global Integrity Anti-Corruption Evidence Programme (GI-ACE) supports 14 research partners around the world in generating actionable evidence that policy makers, practitioners, and advocates can use to design and implement more effective anti-corruption programmes. The Programme has three core themes: addressing the international financial and legal architecture that enables different types of  high-level corruption to take place; exploring how to support effective integrity management as one approach to countering corruption; and combating corruption at different scales, including in distinct sectors and jurisdictional levels.

Happy 2019 on behalf of the entire GI-ACE team! We are excited to start the new year by organizing the GI-ACE inception workshop in London on January 28 and 29, bringing together all 14 grantees. The workshop serves as the official kick-off for the programme and will ensure we can explore opportunities for synergy and collaboration amongst the new research projects.

Most importantly, it will provide a space to learn about, reflect upon and further develop the overarching programme logic. A key aspiration of the Anti-Corruption Evidence programme is to ensure that innovative research is translated into actionable outcomes, informing the design and implementation of new, targeted initiatives. To achieve that aim, we will place major emphasis on promoting and supporting close relationships between researchers and practitioners, in line with a theory of change that will be elaborated during the inception workshop. More details on that theory of change to come in a blogpost next month!

It is increasingly well-recognised that most of the established, top-down technical and regulatory approaches to tackling corruption implemented over recent decades have a very poor record of success. Accordingly, there have been growing calls for more flexible and imaginative interventions that take account both of the complexity of how corruption operates in practice and also the importance of contextual factors, and to do anti-corruption, as well as development, differently Notably, there is an emerging recognition that we need to move beyond seeing corruption as a property of nation-states, amenable to both measurement and response at that level.

To that end, the GI-ACE programme is organised around three core themes that seek to move forward our understanding of how best to develop anti-corruption initiatives that can have a practical impact.

• Theme One: addressing the international legal and financial architecture supporting corruption


The first theme explores the link between high-level corruption and the enabling international architecture that supports illicit financial flows – for instance, in the banking sector, as well as the role of professional intermediaries such as agents, accountants and lawyers facilitating purchase of property and luxury goods, exploitation of tax regimes, and the use of offshore facilities.

Under this first theme, a team led by Dan Haberly of the University of Sussex will explore the effects of moves to create greater transparency in offshore secrecy jurisdictions to understand how they contribute to financial reform efforts. Jacqueline Harvey of Northumbria University will focus on how to meet the challenges of developing systems to increase transparency and trace beneficial ownership in Nigeria. The project led by John Heathershaw from the University of Exeter will assess the effectiveness of the international Anti-Money Laundering (AML) regime, looking at how to counter the use of shell companies in six jurisdictions in Africa and Asia and focusing particular attention on banking and real estate purchases. Finally, Thorsten Chmura of Nottingham Trent University is running a project based on experimental economics that looks at the interrelationship between the international anti-corruption legal architecture and local social norms and beliefs.

• Theme Two: Promoting integrity and systems of integrity management in the public and private sectors


Everyone is in favour of integrity, but too often it is understood in practice as simply an absence of corruption. We need to understand better how integrity can be positively identified and promoted in both the public and the private sectors in order to build effective models of integrity management – that is, the formal frameworks that ensure public officials and private corporations proactively engage in ethical behaviour, acting with honesty and fairness whilst complying with prevailing legal norms.

The second theme will see Mark Buntaine of the University of California, Santa Barbara, organise randomized field experiments to explore how civic expectations may be realigned to counteract corruption, focusing on western Uganda. Another project led by Jacqueline Klopp of Columbia University will run randomized controlled trials to explore the functioning of sauti (a mobile-based platform) in assisting traders to address corruption on the Kenya-Uganda border. Vanessa Watson of the University of Cape Town, meanwhile, will explore the link between urban planning and corruption, focusing on how to support the promotion of professional integrity as an anti-corruption strategy in Zambia and South Africa.

• Theme Three:  Corruption at sub national and sectoral level


Studies of corruption and anti-corruption have generally focused on nation states as their unit of analysis, largely driven by attempts to understand the causes and effects of corruption by using country rankings as proxy dependent or independent variables. Whist this work has been valuable in identifying broad patterns, it can mask significant variation in corruption within countries, and between different sectors. We need to understand better how anti-corruption interventions can work both at sub-national level (regions and, especially, cities) and in sector-specific settings.

Under this theme, Gerhard Anders of the University of Edinburgh will lead a comparative study of law enforcement and the prosecution of high-level corruption in Nigeria, Tanzania and Malawi, looking at the effectiveness of particular legal tools. Claudia Baez Camargo of the Basel Institute of Governance will work with colleagues to develop an experimental approach to test behavioural interventions in the Tanzanian health sector, looking to harness social networks through ‘governance clubs’. Another project sees Amrita Dhillon of King’s College London explore different auditing mechanisms (top-down versus social) as tools to ensure effective public service delivery in Indian states. Finally, Ryan Jablonski of the London School of Economics will lead a team that evaluates different mechanisms, including the use of GPS tracking devices, to reduce drug theft in Malawi.

Extension projects from DFID-ACE Phase 1

In addition to the exciting new research projects outlined above, GI-ACE also includes three projects that were awarded follow-on funding from the first phase of the DFID-sponsored Anti-Corruption Evidence programme (2016-18). Liz Dávid-Barrett of the University of Sussex leads a team exploring the regulatory framework of donor recipient countries and their interaction with donor regulations, looking to extend their innovative analysis of ‘red flag’ risks revealed by the big data analysis of procurement. They are particularly interested in potential displacement effects.

Scott Newton of SOAS is working with colleagues to extend their exploration of how network-based governance systems based on informal practices impact on specific anti-corruption reforms, seeking to design ways to ensure these deliver more effective results than more formal mechanisms have managed. Finally, Jan Meyer-Sahling of the University of Nottingham is developing the work he and colleagues did on civil service management practices to focus specifically on ethics training in Nepal and Bangladesh, using randomized controlled trials to identify best practice interventions.

The post Kicking off GI-ACE: 3 Anti-Corruption Themes & 14 Projects appeared first on Global Integrity.

]]>
https://www.globalintegrity.org/2019/01/23/kicking-off-gi-ace/feed/ 4
Open Government beyond OGP: Reflections from Veracruz, Mexico https://www.globalintegrity.org/2019/01/16/open-government-beyond-ogp/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=open-government-beyond-ogp https://www.globalintegrity.org/2019/01/16/open-government-beyond-ogp/#comments Wed, 16 Jan 2019 08:59:37 +0000 https://www.globalintegrity.org/?p=21806 January 16, 2019 Michael Moses, Managing Director for Programs and Learning Our Program Officer at the Hewlett Foundation, David Sasaki, was tweeting recently about the Open Government Partnership (OGP), as part of the conversation spurred by this piece by Alex Howard. David, who knows Mexico very well having worked there for a number of years, …

The post Open Government beyond OGP: Reflections from Veracruz, Mexico appeared first on Global Integrity.

]]>
January 16, 2019

Michael Moses, Managing Director for Programs and Learning

Our Program Officer at the Hewlett Foundation, David Sasaki, was tweeting recently about the Open Government Partnership (OGP), as part of the conversation spurred by this piece by Alex Howard. David, who knows Mexico very well having worked there for a number of years, was curious about how to interpret the fact that Mexican states, like Veracruz, are creating open government action plans, even though they’re not officially part of OGP, while the US – a founding member of the Partnership – has failed to produce a new national action plan (NAP) in 2019.

Veracruz, to provide some background, is part of the “Open Government: Co-creation from the local” initiative1, organized by INAI, the National Institute of Transparency, Access to Information, and Personal Data Protection (See here for a post from the 2015 kick-off of the initiative, and here for a post from a 3-years-in reflection in April 2018). David concludes that the relative success of this open government initiative in Mexico, “could be interpreted positively … or negatively,” with regard to OGP as a whole.

I think Veracruz is a positive example. But before assessing whether the experience of Veracruz has negative or positive implications for OGP as a whole, I’d suggest there’s value first in reflecting on how things have played out in Veracruz, and the factors that have contributed to the relative success of open government work there, even in a local environment riddled with corruption and impunity. From our engagement in Veracruz2 – I’d suggest that three elements are key:

One, problems drive the process. Our partners in Veracruz – at the state level audit institution ORFIS, and in the local association of public accountants, among others – didn’t decide they wanted to do an open government action plan, and then go hunting for problems to which to apply that action plan. Rather, they worked with local citizens and groups to identify some key local challenges around public service delivery, and then developed a process to address those challenges, with the action plan providing a framework for mutual commitment and accountability.

Two, learning – including learning about the distribution of power – is at the center of the Veracruz approach to problem-driven action planning. Complex problems – corruption in public works, and local infrastructure failures – don’t have simple, technocratic answers. At their heart, they are about patterns of incentives and political dynamics. So 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.

Three, learning powers adaptation. When 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.

Veracruz – despite not being part of OGP – demonstrates how effective open government work can be done, even in the absence of high-level political commitment, or official OGP accreditation: through locally-led, problem-driven cycles of action, learning, and adaptation. The open government process in Veracruz isn’t a panacea – corruption is still rampant, violence is common – but it does provide at least a sliver of light in a somewhat dark governance context.

In contrast, the US NAP process – more technocratic, fueled mostly by high-level political commitment – lacks support from the Trump administration, and is effectively moribund at the national level (though there are plenty of examples of great open government work subnationally, including in Austin – part of the OGP local program).

So what’s the lesson here? I think it’s this: those of us working to address governance challenges should focus on facilitating the emergence of more Veracruz-like examples, in which local reformers are supported in crafting solutions to the problems that they prioritize. Conversely, let’s spend less energy on securing high-level political buy-in for processes in search of problems. Or, even better, let’s make sure that international initiatives that are established to promote more open and effective governance – OGP, EITI, and others – are totally focused on supporting locally-led efforts to address locally-prioritized problems, and explicitly designed to support the learning and adaptation through which more sustainable reforms might emerge.

*Many thanks to my colleague Jorge Florez, who leads Global Integrity’s work on open government, fiscal governance and data use in Veracruz, in 4 other Mexican states, and in many other places too, Alan Hudson, our Executive Director, and our partner Ricardo Valencia from INAI for generous feedback on this piece.


1 There are lots of positive stories from this initiative – check out the examples our friends at INAI have collated here.

Our open government work in Mexico was supported initially by the Omidyar Network’s Governance and Citizen Engagement team (now called Luminate), and more recently by OSF’s Fiscal Governance Program. It involved close collaboration with INAI, IMCO and GESOC, as well as local partners at state and municipal levels.

The post Open Government beyond OGP: Reflections from Veracruz, Mexico appeared first on Global Integrity.

]]>
https://www.globalintegrity.org/2019/01/16/open-government-beyond-ogp/feed/ 2
Más Datos, Menos Corrupción? https://www.globalintegrity.org/2018/12/21/mas-datos-menos-corrupcion/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=mas-datos-menos-corrupcion https://www.globalintegrity.org/2018/12/21/mas-datos-menos-corrupcion/#respond Fri, 21 Dec 2018 08:54:19 +0000 https://www.globalintegrity.org/?p=21800 December 21, 2018 Ania Calderon – Executive Director, Open Data Charter Agustina DeLuca – Network Director, Open Data Charter Alan Hudson – Executive Director, Global Integrity ***This blog is also published by the Open Data Charter on December 21, 2018. *** Read the blog in English En abril de 2018, los Jefes de Estado de …

The post Más Datos, Menos Corrupción? appeared first on Global Integrity.

]]>
December 21, 2018

Ania Calderon – Executive Director, Open Data Charter
Agustina DeLuca – Network Director, Open Data Charter
Alan Hudson – Executive Director, Global Integrity

***This blog is also published by the Open Data Charter on December 21, 2018. ***

Read the blog in English

En abril de 2018, los Jefes de Estado de las Américas firmaron la Declaración de Lima “Gobernabilidad democrática contra la corrupción”, donde se comprometieron, entre otras cuestiones, a promover el “establecimiento de un Programa Interamericano de Datos Abiertos, en el marco de la OEA, con el objetivo de fortalecer las políticas de apertura de información, e incrementar la capacidad de los gobiernos y ciudadanos en la prevención y el combate a la corrupción”. Sobre la base de ese compromiso y de la 48ª Asamblea General de la OEA de junio de 2018 que dispuso el establecimiento del Programa, la OEA convocó un taller de dos días la semana pasada en Washington DC, con el objetivo de explorar cómo se vería ese amplio compromiso en la práctica y comenzar el diseño del Programa Interamericano de Datos Abiertos para Combatir la Corrupción.

Luego de los comentarios iniciales de los colegas de la OEA, el taller comenzó con las lecciones aprendidas durante las experiencias del trabajo en contextos locales para combatir la corrupción mediante el uso de datos, compartidas por la Carta Internacional para los Datos Abiertos, La Alianza para las Contrataciones Abiertas, ILDA y el Sistema Nacional Anticorrupción de México. Aquí hay algunas citas inspiradoras de sus experiencias:

“Para tener una política de datos abiertos exitosa, es necesario tener el problema que se quiere abordar bien identificado, abordar las prioridades y capacidades locales, y crear coaliciones de múltiples actores interesadas, incluyendo productores y usuarios de datos que puedan apropiarse y aprender del proceso”. Ania Calderón, Carta Internacional de Datos Abiertos.

“No se trata sólo de abrir los datos, sino también de tener ciclos de aprendizaje, problemas concretos, procesos inclusivos y compromisos sólidos respaldados por recursos y capacidades institucionales”, Georg Neumann, Alianza para las Contrataciones Abiertas.

“Al poner en práctica la Guía de Apertura sobre Anticorrupción en México, tuvimos un enfoque evolutivo, que comenzó con seis conjuntos de datos clave y luego se amplió la escala. Es crucial involucrar a los ciudadanos, las organizaciones y las comunidades que pueden utilizar los datos publicados y mostrar su impacto”. Enrique Zapata, el Sistema Nacional Anticorrupción de México.

“La hipótesis de que la publicación de datos ayudará a enfrentar la corrupción es demasiado simple. Sin embargo, considerar ciertos conjuntos de datos y su uso por parte de actores clave del gobierno y las OSC para detectar posibles riesgos podría demostrar el uso positivo de esos datos. Creemos que este programa puede ser un gran paso para explorar el uso y análisis de los datos anticorrupción en la región y probar qué sirve y qué no”, Silvana Fumega, ILDA.

Pero, ¿más datos equivalen a menos corrupción? Después de un intercambio muy inspirador, todos llegamos a la conclusión de que definitivamente no es así. Los datos por sí solos no son suficientes; debemos considerar medidas adicionales como la creación de capacidades institucionales, acuerdos locales, mejores marcos legales y buenos mecanismos de rendición de cuentas. Pero también es importante agregar flexibilidad, aprender de las experiencias y establecer un proceso evolutivo para el éxito del programa, dado que no sabemos qué funcionará en diferentes contextos.

Considerando estas primeras intervenciones, nos arremangamos y comenzamos a imaginar con bloques de lego cómo se vería un programa exitoso hacia 2021. Terminamos con una visión compartida que contiene:

  1. un marco regional en la forma de un Programa Interamericano de Datos Abiertos para Combatir la Corrupción (PIDA) siguiendo la Guía de Apertura de Datos Anticorrupción de la Carta Internacional de Datos Abiertos, implementada por los países de las Américas, teniendo en cuenta los diversos desafíos a los que se enfrenta cada uno y los diversos niveles de avance de cada uno respecto a sus políticas de apertura de datos
  2. un enfoque particular en los desafíos específicos relacionados con la corrupción, priorizados por actores locales;
  3. un objetivo marco, que consiste en fortalecer la apropiación y las capacidades de los actores locales mientras buscan utilizar datos abiertos para abordar los desafíos específicos seleccionados en cada contexto.
  4. ciclos de monitoreo, evaluación y aprendizaje en tiempo real que informan y mejoran los esfuerzos para utilizar datos abiertos para elaborar soluciones a los desafíos relacionados con la corrupción.

Próximos pasos
Ahora, los 35 estados miembro de la OEA tienen que aprobar un programa más detallado en su próxima Asamblea General, que será organizada por Colombia en junio de 2019. Una vez firmada, comienza la acción.

Estamos muy emocionados de ver lo que este programa puede lograr. El taller, que reunió a organizaciones y organismos internacionales del continente, fue inspirador, creativo y divertido, y nos dejó un gran optimismo sobre el potencial del programa y emocionados de ser parte de él. Creemos que será crucial prestar especial atención a los diferentes niveles de progreso que tienen los países, y desarrollar un programa que satisfaga sus diferentes necesidades y capacidades, trabajando con socios locales para abordar los desafíos específicos que presenta la lucha contra la corrupción.

The post Más Datos, Menos Corrupción? appeared first on Global Integrity.

]]>
https://www.globalintegrity.org/2018/12/21/mas-datos-menos-corrupcion/feed/ 0