A campaign against corruption must go beyond words, indeed beyond new laws.
Institutional adjustment is needed to limit the scope of corruption (and more generally, to enhance efficiency).
A rough formula holds: we will tend to have corruption when there is monopoly plus discretion minus accountability.
Therefore, by "structural reforms" we mean actions that: o Limit monopoly: promote competition in the public and private sectors, avoid monopoly-granting regulations when possible (especially exchange controls and quantitative restrictions on imports), open the economy to international competition, and so forth.
o Clarify official discretion: simplify rules and regulations via "bright lines," help citizens learn the way the system is supposed to work (through brochures and manuals, help desks, laws and rules in ordinary language, publicity campaigns, the use of citizen service-providers, etc.
), improve oversight of officials' actions, and so forth.
o Enhance accountability and transparency: private-sector involvement in many ways, including citizen oversight boards, hot lines, ombudsmen, inquiry commissions, etc.
; the systematic generation and dissemination of information about public service effectiveness; external audits; self-policing by the private sector; clear standards of conduct and rules of the game; greater competition and openness in bidding, grant-giving, and aid projects.
Institutional adjustment builds on the insight that systems are corrupt, not just people.
Corruption is a label covering many different phenomena, and within each category of corrupt activities are many questions of degree.
The beginning of wisdom in an anti-corruption effort is to disaggregate.
It is impossible to avoid ethical questions when one speaks of corruption.
And yet, this is what successful reforms must try to do.
They must focus on corruption as a crime of economic calculation.
They must analyze systems rather than condemn individuals, understanding the formula corruption = monopoly + discretion - accountability.