No Easy Task: The MCC Tackles Corruption

On May 9, CSIS hosted a panel discussion to launch the Millennium Challenge Corporation's new paper on its role in the fight against corruption. CSIS President John Hamre gave a terrific introduction to the event reminding folks that there are measures other than getting the money out the door that are important for measuring the MCC's success--notably, the expectation of a sustained fight against corruption by MCA countries.The panel discussion was supportive of the MCC's approach, if somewhat cautionary. Some highlights:

• Frank Vogl of Transparency International: The donor community knows very little about curbing corruption in a game where there are very entrenched interests and clever individuals who are adept at gaming the system. Announcements of anticorruption reforms--and even initial actions on proposed reforms--are often part of a cycle that continues with actual steps toward reform turning to mere rhetoric, which is followed by the eventual exposure of corruption. The cycle begins anew when these allegations trigger new calls for anticorruption reform.
• Calisto Madavo of Georgetown University: The MCC's innovation is to apply best practices in combating corruption. However, improved governance and anticorruption reform--while they can be aided by donor support--ultimately must be internally driven. (Vogl touched on this point as well saying that the common donor practice of dealing exclusively with leaders is insufficient for bolstering a sustainable fight against corruption.)
• Vogl also cautioned that results in anticorruption reform come very slowly and are very difficult to measure. Indicators provide only an approximate measure, and short term results may not always translate into lasting successes.

The discussion got me thinking about what this means for the MCC:In terms of fostering an internal drive for reform, the MCC Effect component of the MCC's fight against corruption is about the incentives the MCC offers for an internal drive to improve--as measured by countries’ progress on the corruption indicator--with no (or minimal) input from the MCC. Threshold programs also try to tap into an internal drive against corruption by requiring countries to identify their main causes of corruption and design their program around this diagnostic. The MCC expects civil society engagement in the design process, and several of its Threshold programs include training in anticorruption monitoring for civil society organizations and journalists.But how can MCC encourage the sustainability of the anticorruption reforms it encourages? Two years (the duration of Threshold programs--the programmatic approach to MCC’s fight against corruption) are unlikely to be sufficient to record a visible and lasting impact on corruption. Probably one of the best chances the MCC has to continue monitoring the longer term impact of Threshold programs’ anticorruption reforms (beyond just tracking corruption scores) comes in those Threshold countries that go on to sign compacts and have to work within the MCC’s stringent fiscal and procurement transparency requirements. We'll be looking at Tanzania--likely to be the first country with an anticorruption Threshold program that goes on to sign a compact--to see how this plays out.