Numbers, nuances and moving targets: converging the use of corruption indicators or descriptors in assessing state development.

Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10149/58395
Title:
Numbers, nuances and moving targets: converging the use of corruption indicators or descriptors in assessing state development.
Authors:
Doig, A. (Alan); McIvor, S. (Stephanie); Theobald, R. (Robin)
Affiliation:
University of Teesside. Teesside Business School. Fraud Management Studies Unit; University of Teesside. Teesside Business School; University of Westminster. Westminster Business School.
Citation:
Doig, A., McIvor, S. and Theobald, R. (2006) 'Numbers, nuances and moving targets: converging the use of corruption indicators or descriptors in assessing state development.', International Review of Administrative Sciences, 72 (2), pp.239-252.
Publisher:
SAGE Publications
Journal:
International Review of Administrative Sciences
Issue Date:
2006
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/10149/58395
DOI:
10.1177/0020852306064612
Abstract:
This article is concerned with three issues: the convergence of donors over a shared development agenda, on why dealing with corruption is seen as a key aspect of the agenda, and the means to assess corruption within the context of monitoring development progress. The article reviews the genesis of the agenda, and why corruption is often used as an indicator or measure of progress. It distinguishes between two general approaches—quantitative indicators and qualitative descriptors—for assessing types and levels of corruption before considering methodological and interpretative issues relating to each approach. It suggests that, while each has a role, cognizance should be made of the awareness of the limitations of either for policy- or reform-related issues, particularly in terms of the exercise of political power or the nature and direction of development. The necessary convergence of the use of the two approaches has not been fully achieved to date and, until such time as a convergence is achieved, an over-reliance on one or other approach may not provide an effective basis for reform and aid initiatives, nor for assessing the progress and impact of both in delivering the development agenda.
Type:
Article
Keywords:
corruption; development agenda
ISSN:
0020-8523
Rights:
Subject to restrictions, author can archive post-print (ie final draft post-refereeing). For full details see http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/ [Accessed 11/01/2010]
Citation Count:
3 [Scopus, 11/01/2010]

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorDoig, A. (Alan)-
dc.contributor.authorMcIvor, S. (Stephanie)-
dc.contributor.authorTheobald, R. (Robin)-
dc.date.accessioned2009-04-01T10:50:58Z-
dc.date.available2009-04-01T10:50:58Z-
dc.date.issued2006-
dc.identifier.citationInternational Review of Administrative Sciences; 72 (2): 239-252-
dc.identifier.issn0020-8523-
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/0020852306064612-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10149/58395-
dc.description.abstractThis article is concerned with three issues: the convergence of donors over a shared development agenda, on why dealing with corruption is seen as a key aspect of the agenda, and the means to assess corruption within the context of monitoring development progress. The article reviews the genesis of the agenda, and why corruption is often used as an indicator or measure of progress. It distinguishes between two general approaches—quantitative indicators and qualitative descriptors—for assessing types and levels of corruption before considering methodological and interpretative issues relating to each approach. It suggests that, while each has a role, cognizance should be made of the awareness of the limitations of either for policy- or reform-related issues, particularly in terms of the exercise of political power or the nature and direction of development. The necessary convergence of the use of the two approaches has not been fully achieved to date and, until such time as a convergence is achieved, an over-reliance on one or other approach may not provide an effective basis for reform and aid initiatives, nor for assessing the progress and impact of both in delivering the development agenda.-
dc.publisherSAGE Publications-
dc.rightsSubject to restrictions, author can archive post-print (ie final draft post-refereeing). For full details see http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/ [Accessed 11/01/2010]-
dc.subjectcorruption-
dc.subjectdevelopment agenda-
dc.titleNumbers, nuances and moving targets: converging the use of corruption indicators or descriptors in assessing state development.-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.contributor.departmentUniversity of Teesside. Teesside Business School. Fraud Management Studies Unit; University of Teesside. Teesside Business School; University of Westminster. Westminster Business School.-
dc.identifier.journalInternational Review of Administrative Sciences-
ref.assessmentRAE 2008-
ref.citationcount3 [Scopus, 11/01/2010]-
or.citation.harvardDoig, A., McIvor, S. and Theobald, R. (2006) 'Numbers, nuances and moving targets: converging the use of corruption indicators or descriptors in assessing state development.', International Review of Administrative Sciences, 72 (2), pp.239-252.-
All Items in TeesRep are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.