Corruption: is the right message getting through?

12th August 2015

A couple of years ago, Cote d’Ivoire’s government erected striking black and orange billboards around Abidjan that carried messages like “It destroyed my region” and “It killed my son”.

The plague the government was trying to raise awareness about was not disease, poverty, or even war; it was corruption. Even for those unable to read the slogans, the alarmist orange on gloomy black was evocative of menace. Unfortunately, it was also sufficiently reminiscent of the visual branding of telecoms company Orange to convince quite a few Abidjanians that they were looking at mobile phone network adverts.

The awareness-raising agenda now has a prominent role in many anticorruption programs. Anticorruption billboards and posters appear in major cities across the developing world, usually less cryptic than Abidjan’s, and they are just the tip of the iceberg. Anticorruption sessions feature in secondary school curricula. Anticorruption-themed pop music and events sing out in lyrics and act out on stage the ways people can resist corruption and limit the damage it does. In some countries, even the youngest children are not overlooked; on a trip to Fiji last year I was given a few cute anticorruption cartoon bookmarks that were being distributed by the anticorruption commission to primary school students.

The message is being pushed out, but what impact is it having? Gauging effectiveness is always a tricky business when it comes to anticorruption. And, sadly, one of the strongest messages from a recent DFID evidence paper is that the available evidence does not make it entirely clear what impact many anticorruption interventions have had—including efforts to involve civil society.

Corruption’s global profile has certainly been raised; as recently as the late 1980s, it would have been impossible to publish a whole book about the international effort to quell corruption.

Yet corruption’s global profile has certainly been raised. A 2010 BBC World Service survey of citizens in 26 countries found that corruption was then the world’s most frequently discussed global problem. Though a bit dated, the statistic remains significant; even as recently as the late 1980s, it would have been impossible to publish a whole book about the international effort to quell corruption. And, as I understand it, raising the profile of corruption is intended to inspire citizens to demand loudly that the government cleans up – so loudly that they cannot be ignored.

So the question has to be asked: once awareness is raised, does it in fact create a groundswell of anticorruption civic resistance?

This question has inspired a new pilot research project from the Developmental Leadership Program. As project leader, I aim to gauge whether and how different awareness-raising messages influence citizens’ beliefs about what to do when they encounter corruption. We particularly want to address concerns that awareness-raising efforts might be backfiring, raised in recent years mainly by those researching under the ‘corruption as a collective action problem’ framework.

The argument goes that when there is a pervasive expectation across society that everyone is engaging in corruption, most citizens will be inclined to swim with the tide rather than perhaps find they are struggling against it alone. So if anticorruption messages give people the perception that corruption is more widespread than they would have otherwise thought, the messages may actually be reducing their willingness to fight it rather than firing them up to confront its perpetrators.

When people think that corruption is becoming a growing problem, they tend to be less willing to report it, protest against it or join civic anticorruption organisations.

Little research has so far been done to test this notion, but there is already some worrying evidence. For example, in a recent DLP paper, my co-author Linda Alvarez and I do indeed find that when people think that corruption is becoming a growing problem, they tend to be less willing to report it, protest against it or join civic anticorruption organisations.

The new study will test what impact different awareness-raising messages might be having, using a survey-experiment. Working with the Regional Economic Development Institute in Jakarta, we will recruit 1,000 survey participants who will be randomly assigned to five groups. Each group will be asked to read one anticorruption awareness-raising message (except for the control group, which will not read any message). There are four messages:

  • how and where to report corruption;
  • recent achievements by the government in controlling corruption;
  • recent high-profile corruption scandals;
  • details about the prevalence of corruption at the local level.

After reading their message, all respondents will then answer the same questions about their perceptions of corruption, and their willingness to report or otherwise fight corruption.

The data will be scrutinised to see whether and how different messages provoked different reactions in the follow-up survey questions. The hope is that this research will begin to answer two questions: Do certain messages heighten worries about corruption, while others ease them? And do some messages ignite the activist spirit, while others dim it? 

One thing is certain, however. As corruption awareness-raising programmes proliferate, we urgently need to know whether anticorruption messages are provoking much more serious unintended consequences than a little accidental PR for a mobile phone company. 


Image: Road signs in Côte d'Ivoire ["I started the racketeering that killed my son."] (Photo: jbdodane, Flickr)


Leave a comment

The views expressed in Opinions posts are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of DLP, the Australian Government or DLP's partner organisations.


Caryn Peiffer

Caryn Peiffer

DLP Research Fellow Dr Caryn Peiffer has written DLP papers on the politics of state-business relations, reform coalitions for growth, and on corruption. Caryn examined the determinants of bribe payments as part of the Global Experience of Corruption project (University of Strathclyde). She has carried out research for Transparency International, DFID, AFD, and SIDA, and has worked in India, Zambia and Botswana.

Read more

Related items

Innovation: transactional or transformative?

Given the fascination with 'innovation' in the field of development, it's time to discuss what the word might mean.

Opinion by Chris Roche23rd March 2015

Developmental leaders, 'dirty hands', and the dark side of collaboration

The ambiguities of supporting 'developmental leadership'

Opinion by Niheer Dasandi11th December 2013

Two remarkable transitions: lessons from Oman and Somaliland

Political settlements and international power structures

Opinion by Sarah Phillips20th July 2015

Inclusive political settlements: who and what gets included, and how?

First of six posts on political settlements by researchers, policymakers and practitioners.

Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal13th July 2015

Medellin - more than a miracle

From the most murderous city on earth to 'a new global standard for urban policy': the politics of change in the wake of crisis

Opinion by Cheryl Stonehouse4th March 2014

Identifying rebels with a cause (and effect)

'Power, politics and positive deviance' is the theme of DLP's 2016 annual conference.

Opinion by Chris Roche1st December 2015

Do donors have realistic expectations of their staff when it comes to 'thinking and working politically'?

Is learning to ‘think politically’ like learning a new language? 

Opinion by Heather Marquette9th June 2014

Authoritarianism, democracy and development

What does the evidence say?

Opinion by Tim Kelsall27th November 2014

Neither 'good guys' nor 'bad guys': Positive engagement with armed groups

Final post in a series on 'Power, politics and positive deviance', theme of DLP's 2016 Annual Conference.

Opinion by Suda Perera5th February 2016

#Feminism: Digital technologies and feminist activism in Fiji

Guest post on Devpolicy on DLP work with research partners at University of the South Pacific

Opinion by Tait Brimacombe14th March 2017

Masculinity and sexual violence in India

Will the shocking Nirbaya case shift attitudes?

Opinion by Martin Rew16th September 2015

What do we do on Monday? Political settlements in theory and practice

The value of the political settlements framework

Opinion by Edward Laws15th July 2015

International donors - aiding or abetting?

The 'donor's dilemma' is discussed in a new DLP paper.

Opinion by Niheer Dasandi10th September 2015

Is education a magic bullet for addressing corruption? Insights from Papua New Guinea

This post for Devpolicy unpacks the findings of a new Development Policy Centre / DLP paper 

Opinion by Grant Walton17th June 2015
Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal24th November 2014
Opinion by Luke Arnold25th May 2016

‘Crows who come in search of dollars’: NGO legitimacy in conflict zones

Do political dynamics affect NGO legitimacy more than performance?

Opinion by Oliver Walton19th August 2014
Opinion by Heather Marquette10th November 2014

The road to transparency in resource-rich Myanmar

Myanmar's EITI process and its contribution to broader reform

Opinion by Taylor Brown1st April 2016

Political analysis as the practical art of the possible

Bringing politics back into PEA - a new paper with Adrian Leftwich

Opinion by David Hudson24th July 2014

Corruption: is the right message getting through?

The unintended consequences of raising awareness of corruption

Opinion by Caryn Peiffer12th August 2015
Opinion by Dan Hymowitz3rd February 2017

Climate change and adaptation in the Pacific Islands: watering down women's security?

How women leaders are challenging a narrow adaptation agenda.

Opinion by Nicole George7th March 2014

Parliamentary strengthening: the IDC report

Having presented evidence to the UK's International Development Committee, what of the final report?

Opinion by Tam O'Neil9th February 2015

Corruption: do we target the servant or the paymaster?

Guest post for The Guardian on UK aid watchdog report

Opinion by Heather Marquette5th November 2014
Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal26th April 2016

Education, development, and the problem with consensus

Why rethink the international consensus on 'quality basic education for development'?

Opinion by Michele Schweisfurth7th April 2014

Overcoming premature evaluation

Guest post in From Poverty to Power

Opinion by Chris Roche15th November 2016
Opinion by Heather Marquette13th October 2015
Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal15th October 2015

Does talking about corruption make it seem worse?

Guest post for The Guardian's Global Development Professionals Network

Opinion by Caryn Peiffer5th February 2015
Opinion by Susy Ndaruhutse11th September 2014

Is developmental patrimonialism a dead end?

The first of two posts introducing a new DLP paper on growth and democratic transition

Opinion by Tim Kelsall27th September 2016

Security and justice – the mismatch between policy and practice

What hinders more politically nuanced security and justice programming?

Opinion by Shivit Bakrania21st July 2014
Opinion by Heather Marquette9th March 2015

The challenge of realising Pacific democracies' development potential

How can Pacific democracies deliver for their citizens?

Opinion by Julien Barbara8th July 2016

It's all about inclusion, but how?

Guest post for the World Bank

Opinion by Alina Rocha Menocal6th April 2016