This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Doig, A. Articles by Theobald, R. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

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

Fraud Management Studies Unit, Teesside Business School, University of Teesside, Middlesbrough, England

Stephanie McIvor

Teesside Business School

Robin Theobald

Westminster Business School, University of Westminster, London, England

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.

International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 72, No. 2, 239-252 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/0020852306064612


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?