Technology and Corruption
Technology has established itself as a critical ally in the battle against corruption and the enhancement of governance, transparency, and accountability. The COVID-19 epidemic has demonstrated the mutually reinforcing nature of technology and anti-corruption measures, as well as the urgency of changes. Information and Communication Technology (hereinafter referred to as ICT) allows information flow between governments and citizens, as well as between agencies and citizens. Opening up government and including citizens may help.
Information asymmetries are reduced, processes are automated, public officials’ discretion is limited, and intermediaries and red tape are eliminated. Conversely, ICT may enhance corruption by providing additional avenues for deception. This is achieved by increasing access to databases that may be hacked or controlled, and by eliminating information asymmetries for those looking to pay critical officials. Given that ICT’s ultimate goal is to encourage information sharing, one way to assess how ICT impacts corruption is to examine how it affects the supply of government information or the demand for citizen information.
The digitalization of public services reduces direct citizen-government connection points. It automates procedures, preventing public officials from misusing discretion. Citizens’ desire for information can be met through creating technology. This involves digitalized public service delivery, where citizens may provide feedback on public officials’ performance.
In summary, both frameworks can have positive or negative effects on corruption, depending on the environment and enablers. Increasing investment in ICT may help reduce corruption, but excessive investment in ICT tends to worsen it, as monies diverted through an opaque procurement process are readily misappropriated. Weak nations’ ICT adoption is prone to the “concept-reality gap.
Use of Technology
-
 E-government and digital public services
Individuals and public personnel who utilize e-government technology must be usable. Sometimes they’re made for locals. This is good since they need residents’ acceptance to work. Crucially, it is public personnel who regularly embrace and use e-government technology. Rather than seeing it as a positive step toward a more equitable and efficient administration, authorities are more inclined to see it as a hindrance. As a result, both government servants and citizens must consider usability.
Define the tool’s intended purpose clearly and clearly communicate it to public personnel. Avoid parallel systems at all costs. Tools should be designed to enhance or replace existing workflows, not to work in tandem with them. These digitized public services must also be accessible to those without digital skills (e.g., seniors) or internet connection. This is a major issue for those building and implementing e-government systems.
-
 Crowdsourcing platforms
As stated earlier, crowdsourcing platforms must build partnerships with government bodies and obtain their support. If necessary, the reporter should be allowed to give up their anonymity and reveal their identify in order to be followed up on. This allows the project’s implementing partner to investigate claims and perhaps charge corrupt officials. An aspect that firms creating localized crowdsourcing systems should consider is IPaidABribe’s motivation to report dishonest authorities.
-
 Whistle-blower platforms
The effectiveness of whistleblowing platforms to prevent corruption is highly dependent on the existing accountability systems and legal framework. They must also balance the safety of the whistleblower, usefulness, and material quality. Local partners would not be able to filter through a large number of contributions. Instead, they want specific donations to pursue corrupt behavior.
As a result, submission systems should need lengthier questionnaires than strictly necessary. This should reduce the number of hasty or inaccurate submissions. Also, because these systems should be hosted on a local and decentralized server architecture, local technical competence is required to develop them.
-
Transparency platforms
As previously said, anti-corruption transparency platforms must do more than upset citizens. They also require government engagement, ensuring the accuracy of the data disclosed and the government’s readiness to respond to FOI requests. For example, platforms must ensure that public officials’ privacy rights are maintained to the extent needed by local law.
Public procurement and government contracts can be checked for abnormalities, conflict of interest registries may be independently evaluated, and beneficial ownership records can help expose public officials’ conflicts of interest. The data should be made available in an open format, allowing media and civil society leaders to easily analyze them. Connecting disparate data allows for study of beneficial ownership of companies participating in public procurement, for example.
-
 News reporting and distribution tools
These platforms are as easy to set up as a blog or a basic website. Most news websites now use social media to drive traffic. Their challenge is to stay involved in unfavorable media environments. Their coverage of anti-corruption reforms and corruption must include positive developments. Without it, they risk fostering pessimism and cynicism in their audience. Anti-corruption campaigns must also convey a sense of optimism for change.
-
DLT and blockchain technology
Weak anti-corruption uses of blockchain technology need prudence in its usage. Without a question, blockchain technology has the potential to improve public service delivery and establish trust in organisations. Smart contracts may be used to avoid manipulation and fraud.Â
Technology is vital to GDC’s work because it can track donor funds and promote transparency and accountability, potentially furthering the BMZ-backed International Aid Transparency Initiative.
However, the technology’s distinctiveness causes issues. To trust blockchain technology, government officials must understand it. A smart contract must be understood by all parties. The establishment of a contract enforcement system involves local technological expertise. This factor must be addressed while choosing project partners.
Conclusion
The sheer existence of these technology does not guarantee utilization. It also has no anti-corruption impact. The tools are heavily reliant on the information provided and require connectivity and ICT competence. And developing nations can’t take this for granted. Similarly, using ICT to fight corruption must include the digital divide between diverse socioeconomic classes. The effectiveness of ICT-based anti-corruption measures depends on their cultural and technological compatibility. It is also dependent on political parties, public administrations, and civil society organisations; it is unlikely to be effective on its own.
Published by: Aditya Negi
Edited by: Khushi Thakur
