What are the experiences of mainstreaming anti-corruption within donor agencies? Why has mainstreaming failed elsewhere? What role could a common political analysis tool play in ensuring that factors relevant for anti-corruption are exposed in various sectors? What role have incentives/incentive structures played in achieving such mainstreaming elsewhere? If so, what types of incentives are needed? How does organisational structure and leadership matter to mainstreaming anti-corruption? Would mainstreaming be enough to secure high level competency in anti-corruption or does effective mainstreaming also require access to more in depth anti-corruption expertise?
Given the cross-cutting nature of anti-corruption interventions, multilateral and bilateral agencies are increasingly moving away from stand-alone anti-corruption programming to mainstream anti-corruption as an integral dimension of the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of programmes and policies. In practice ,however, such efforts have often failed due to the dispersion of actors and interests, insufficient political will as well as lack of awareness, capacity, incentives, and effective coordination and monitoring of mainstreamed processes. Effective anti-corruption mainstreaming requires credible leadership, adequate internal structures, effective coordination and monitoring mechanisms, supporting organisational incentive systems, and need to be backed by adequate staffing, resources, skills and expertise.
Chêne, M. Mainstreaming anti-corruption within donor agencies. U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre, CMI, Bergen, Norway (2010) 11 pp. [U4 Expert Answer 231]