Corruption -broadly defined as the misuse of public office for private gains [1, 2] -costs every country a large amount of financial, political and social resources every year. Research on the causes, consequences and combat strategies of corruption are manifold and very revealing. Previous studies indicate, for example, that wellestablished democracies show lower levels of corruption than authoritarian regimes or young democracies [3][4][5][6]. At the same time, high levels of corruption undermine democracy. By diverting rare resources from disadvantaged people, it damages the rule of law, social justice and lowers the trust of citizens in political institutions and processes [7,8].The reciprocal democracy-corruption nexus has already been analyzed in several studies and is nowadays well-established [9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. Previous research shows that democracy does not guarantee clean and transparent governance at all and democratic systems are still fighting against corruption [16][17][18][19][20], even in countries that are often seen as almost free of corruption. Yet, frequent scandals like in the United Kingdom, Iceland, United States or Spain illustrate that corruption is a serious problem in nearly every state in the world (e.g. [21]).This Special Issue focuses on the relationship between corruption and the impact of democracy from diverse perspectives and different regions and countries around the world. Specifically, the following articles consider the role of democratic institutions in curbing corruption, the interrelation between democratic values and corrupt behavior, and the importance of corruption in democratization processes in post-conflict states. The findings of this issue illustrate that there is no 'one size fits all' solution for preventing corruption, yet there are certain mechanisms and elements in democratic and democratizing countries that support anti-corruption.Crime Law Soc Change

No abstract

Corruption in public procurement is widespread and particularly damaging to development objectives, as it undermines any state's duty to maximize the social and economic welfare of its citizens. Despite this, research on country-specific institutional arrangements meant to address this problem has remained scarce. This paper aims to fill this gap by analyzing particular anti-corruption components of the Ghanaian procurement system, and by discussing to what extent they are suitable to form a strong corruption deterrence mechanism. The study identifies three clusters of anti-corruption tools: (1) preventive measures: choice of tender method, publication of tender data, record keeping, and contract management; (2) enforcement mechanisms: compliance checks, audits, and review systems; and (3) scope and limitation of sanctions. In view of an envisaged legislative reform of the Ghanaian public procurement system, several recommendations can be drawn from the analysis. These are, in particular: adjusting the thresholds for procurement methods; facilitating access to tender information; integrating contract management provisions; building capacity in audit institutions; strengthening the administrative review system; and formalizing collaboration between the Public Procurement Authority and law enforcement organs. Based on national legislation and empirical data from World Bank reports and the Ghanaian Public Procurement Authority, the analysis also takes into account findings from expert interviews conducted with representatives of procurement authorities, the business community, and donor organizations in Accra in November 2014.

No abstract

No abstract