The role of a national integrity system in fighting corruption¹

Cultural specificity versus institutional universalism: a critique of the National Integrity System (NIS) methodology

“…As has been noted, it was one of the hopes of the NIS approach that lessons from one country could be applied to others (see [8]: 521). In part, this was based upon an understanding of the fundamental similarities of countries; and thus, as we have just seen, the NIS methodology treats countries as if they are all essentially comparable, with the default expectation being that the same institutional pillars will be the most important elements through which integrity systems can be evaluated.…”

“…The aims and scope of the NIS As set out elsewhere (Brown & Heinrich, this issue), the idea of a National Integrity System (NIS) evaluation was first proposed by Jeremy Pope in a Transparency International Sourcebook, published in 1996, and further elaborated the following year by Pope along with Petter Langseth and Rick Stapenhurst ( [8]; see also [9]). They argued ( [8]: 521) that while each country or region is unique in its own history and culture, its political system, and its stage of economic and social development, similarities in a national integrity system do exist and lessons learned are often transferable.…”

“…This core understanding of similarities between countries led Langseth et al [8] to propose an ostensibly universal system for evaluating integrity in a range of countries.…”

“…They argued ( [8]: 521) that while each country or region is unique in its own history and culture, its political system, and its stage of economic and social development, similarities in a national integrity system do exist and lessons learned are often transferable.…”

“…The core elements of this system were 'public sector anti-corruption strategies, watchdog agencies, public awareness and participation, accountability of the courts, roles of the media and the private sector, and international cooperation' ( [8]: 521). This list was not intended to be prescriptive ( [9]: 318), although in practice approaches since 1997 have largely followed the lead of Langseth et al These core elements are conceptualized as 'pillars', as in a Greek temple, with each standing in support of the overarching integrity system.…”