Corruption has emerged high on the agenda of multinational development agencies, private firms, and policy-makers. This increased interest in the phenomenon of corruption has produced a multitude of policy prescriptions, reform initiatives, and conferences. The world is not short of ideas on how to tackle corruption. While good intentions abound, we currently know little about their likely success.

Being short of empirical evidence and profound experience, there is clearly no theory available that allows us to put the various approaches for reform into comparative perspective. How should bureaucrats be punished? How should administrative procedures be reformed? How far should parliamentarians be held accountable to the public? What piece of information should be made publicly available? Is transparency always helpful? Is it possible to reward honesty? Can corruption be effectively fought by focusing on technical and organizational issues? What role should be assigned to civil society? How far can we expect bureaucrats to follow their narrow self-interest as opposed to ethical considerations? How much of our resources should we spend for improving the judiciary? How should we deal with whistle-blowers?

A recent cohort of anticorruption activists requests high levels of integrity as part of a moral crusade against corruption. Standard policy recommendations embrace the “strengthening” of diverse legal foundations and procedural guidelines. They include the “promotion” of integrity in various sectors, or they relate to “capacity building” in the public administration. These and similar buzzwords repeatedly enter topical guidebooks by various donor agencies, consultancies, and multilateral institutions.