Corruption-Proofing: A Theoretical Framework for Anti-Graft in Africa

Dan Kuwali

doi:10.5772/intechopen.1015005

Abstract

Corruption remains one of the most insidious impediments to Africa’s governance, development, and democratic consolidation. This chapter conceptualises corruption-proofing as a transformative framework for institutional resilience and systemic integrity. While previous scholarship has focused primarily on reactive legal mechanisms, this discussion advances a proactive systems-based approach centred on Accountability, Responsibility, Monitoring, and Sustainability (ARMS) as key principles of governance transformation. The chapter interrogates the enabling conditions of grand corruption – including elite capture, weak institutions, opaque political financing, and global complicity – and proposes a whole-of-society strategy to prevent, deter, and ultimately neutralise corruption. Using a comparative, doctrinal, and systems analysis methodology, the discussion synthesises existing legal instruments such as the African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption (AUCPCC) and the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), drawing from regional experiences and case studies across sub-Saharan Africa. The chapter concludes that corruption-proofing requires a holistic, people-centric paradigm termed ‘condemn and commend’, anchored in structural deterrence, ethical leadership, and multi-level accountability. By commending integrity and condemning illegality, dismantling kleptocratic structures, and incentivising ethical conduct, African states can reclaim public trust and repurpose diverted wealth toward inclusive growth. Corruption-proofing governance is not merely about preventing wrongdoing but about re-imagining governance as a moral enterprise grounded in justice, transparency, and collective prosperity. The study recommends strengthening diagonal accountability through the media and civil society, institutionalising supranational enforcement mechanisms, and embedding transparency and integrity within national systems.

Keywords

ARMS strategy
condemn and commend
illicit financial flows
systems approach
whole-of-society

Author Information

Show +

Dan Kuwali *
- Law, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa

*Address all correspondence to: kuwali.d@up.ac.za

1. Introduction

Corruption is not merely a moral failure; it is a structural crisis that corrodes governance, erodes public trust, and perpetuates inequality [1]. Grand corruption, in particular, diverts substantial public resources into private hands, undermining democratic legitimacy and stunting socio-economic development [2]. Despite decades of reform and the proliferation of anti-corruption legislation across the continent, Africa continues to grapple with entrenched corruption because most interventions have targeted symptoms rather than systemic causes [3]. This chapter reframes corruption not simply as deviant individual behaviour but as a complex, adaptive system driven by institutional incentives, power asymmetries, socio-political cultures, and transnational economic networks [4].

The central theoretical contribution of this chapter is the concept of corruption-proofing governance, which is conceptualised as a proactive, system-oriented approach to strengthen institutional integrity and prevent corruption before it manifests. Drawing on governance theory, institutional economics, and human security, corruption-proofing integrates four interrelated pillars – Accountability, Responsibility, Monitoring, and Sustainability (ARMS) – designed to make governance structures inherently resistant to corruption. Unlike conventional anti-corruption strategies that primarily sanction wrongdoing, ARMS operationalises a design-based approach that addresses both human behaviour and institutional architecture to create corruption-resilient systems [5].

To explore corruption-proofing in Africa, this chapter adopts a multi-layered analytical approach that blends legal, institutional, comparative, and policy perspectives [6]. It draws on a doctrinal analysis of regional and international anti-corruption instruments, including the African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption (AUCPCC) and the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC), to examine the legal frameworks intended to promote integrity [7]. This legal lens is complemented by a comparative case study analysis, which highlights experiences from African countries such as Botswana, Rwanda, and Ghana, alongside global examples from Singapore and Nordic states, to illustrate how systemic design, leadership ethics, and cultural norms influence the prevalence and mitigation of grand corruption.

In addition, the chapter applies systems thinking and institutional analysis to unpack the structural drivers of corruption, including state capture, elite dominance, opaque political financing, and weaknesses in oversight mechanisms [6]. By considering corruption as a dynamic system rather than a series of isolated incidents, the analysis identifies both the incentives that sustain malfeasance and the institutional levers that can deter it [8, 9]. Finally, the chapter incorporates policy evaluation, drawing on empirical data, Transparency International (TI) indices, World Bank reports, and African Development Bank studies to identify practical, context-sensitive interventions that are actionable at both national and supranational levels [10].

Structurally, the chapter is organised to guide the reader from diagnosis to prescription. After this introduction, the second section examines the persistence of grand corruption in Africa, focusing on structural and socio-political factors that enable it, including elite capture, weak oversight, and transnational illicit financial flows (IFFs). The third section develops the theoretical foundations of corruption-proofing, situating the ARMS framework within the context of governance theory, institutional economics, and human security discourse. In the fourth section, the discussion operationalises corruption-proofing by illustrating how the four pillars – ARMS – can be implemented within African institutions. The fifth section draws lessons from comparative practice, presenting successes and failures in corruption-proofing across Africa and beyond, and highlighting the roles of leadership, culture, and technology. Finally, the sixth section presents a set of policy recommendations and a whole-of-society strategy to deter grand corruption, emphasising vertical, horizontal, and diagonal accountability, asset recovery, and measures to strengthen civic participation and institutional integrity [11].

The central thesis of this chapter is that sustainable mitigation of grand corruption in Africa requires systemic redesign of governance architectures rather than mere reactive enforcement. Corruption-proofing – through ARMS – demonstrates that integrity can be engineered into institutions, making ethical behaviour the rational, low-cost choice for public officials and creating a governance ecosystem in which corruption is structurally disincentivised [12]. By integrating legal, institutional, and social mechanisms, African states can move from episodic anti-corruption campaigns toward resilient, preventive, and inclusive governance capable of withstanding elite capture and transnational illicit flows [13].

2. Corruption defined

Corruption defies a single, universally accepted definition due to its multi-faceted nature, varying legal interpretations, and diverse societal perceptions [14]. At its core, corruption entails the abuse of entrusted power for private gain, whether within public institutions, private enterprises, or hybrid public-private contexts [15, 16]. The World Bank has expanded traditional definitions by replacing ‘public office’ with ‘trusted office’, thereby acknowledging that corruption is not solely a problem of the public sector but also occurs in the private sector, often in collusion with state actors [15, 17]. From a public choice perspective, corruption is understood as the manipulation or subversion of rules by unscrupulous actors to generate extralegal wealth or privileges for themselves [18]. Manifestations of corruption include bribery, extortion, nepotism, abuse of discretion, conflict of interest, and elite or state capture, among others [19–21]. These malfeasances must be distinguished from fraud, which involves deliberate deception for personal or financial gain [22].

This discussion emphasises political or grand corruption, which represents the ‘elephant in the room’ that undermines anti-corruption efforts against petty and administrative corruption [23]. Grand corruption, particularly pervasive in Africa, siphons off resources critical to human development and good governance, a reality reflected in the near-universal ratification of the AUCPCC and the UNCAC by African states, with only a few exceptions globally [7, 24, 25]. Both instruments oblige states to enact laws criminalising corruption, preventing its occurrence, detecting and investigating malfeasance, and punishing perpetrators (see, e.g., Article 18 [24] and Article 1(a) [25]). Yet, in practice, the political influence of elite kleptocrats frequently undermines enforcement, resulting in widespread impunity [26].

The purpose of this discussion is to explore strategies to prevent and deter grand corruption, particularly by curtailing the opportunities for political elites to divert public resources without legal or political consequences [27]. Central to this approach is a people-centric framework, which recognises that ordinary citizens – rather than elites – bear the brunt of corruption’s social and economic harms. This approach operationalises diagonal accountability, whereby non-state actors – including the media and civil society – exercise oversight and leverage their principal-agent authority to raise concerns, question governance, and demand transparency and accountability [28].

To address grand corruption effectively, the chapter employs systems thinking, recognising that corruption is embedded in complex social, political, and economic systems [29]. Systems thinking enables the identification of feedback loops that reinforce inequality and elite privilege, such as nepotism in employment and the preferential awarding of contracts to connected individuals, which consolidate wealth and access to opportunities [30]. Conversely, these dynamics exacerbate marginalisation and deprivation among the poor and minority groups. A systems approach, therefore, seeks to transform the culture and environment of corruption by eliminating structural enablers, cultivating moral and transformational leadership, promoting ethical role models through commend-and-condemn campaigns, and establishing transparent, accountable institutions across the governance spectrum [31].

3. Grand corruption: Diagnosis, measurement, and challenges of detection

The World Bank differentiates between isolated corruption, often localised or opportunistic, and systemic corruption, which is embedded in the structures of governance and power [17, 32]. Grand corruption, typically orchestrated by political elites, may involve state capture, embezzlement, and high-level bribery. It is distinct from administrative or petty corruption, which is more operational in nature and often carried out by lower-level bureaucrats, such as traffic officers or local officials [33].

Political corruption can be further divided into extractive and power-preserving corruption. Extractive corruption occurs when public officials use their positions to extract wealth for themselves, their families, and close associates through activities such as embezzlement and fraud [34]. Power-preserving corruption, by contrast, employs corruptly gained resources to consolidate political authority and secure party dominance, for example, by financing political campaigns or rewarding loyalists [34, 35]. Understanding these distinctions is critical for developing targeted, actionable anti-corruption strategies, as some forms of grand corruption evade conventional measurement tools, such as the TI Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), which captures perceptions rather than actual covert financial flows [36].

Grand corruption is inherently covert and complex, often executed by politically exposed persons (PEPs) who manipulate state mechanisms with impunity [37]. Its detection relies on identifying risk indicators, or ‘red flags’, including unexplained wealth, bid rigging, single-sourcing of high-value contracts, and the registration of accounts and companies in offshore tax havens. While PEP-linked transactions are not conclusive proof of corruption, they indicate heightened susceptibility to illicit practices, especially in sectors like defence procurement, infrastructure, healthcare, and energy, where procurement stakes are high.

Unlike petty corruption, which can often be addressed through standard law enforcement, political corruption requires systemic interventions, as elite kleptocrats can undermine anti-corruption institutions, manipulate oversight processes, and evade prosecution [38–40]. Criminal prosecution alone is insufficient; often, by the time legal remedies are applied, public resources have already been diverted, rendering asset recovery challenging and sometimes largely symbolic [26, 41, 42]. Grand corruption, defined as ‘the abuse of high-level power that benefits the few at the expense of the many and causes serious and widespread harm to individuals and society’, therefore necessitates preventive, people-centric, and systemic approaches [43].

4. Political economy of grand corruption in Africa

Africa remains the poorest continent, with persistent underdevelopment exacerbated by entrenched corruption [18]. Grand corruption is a major driver of inequality, limits access to essential services, discourages investment, and undermines state capacity [17, 44–46]. Despite symbolic efforts, such as the African Union designating 2018 as the ‘Year of Winning the Fight Against Corruption’, the continent is still widely perceived as the most corrupt globally [47, 48].

Sub-Saharan Africa dominates global corruption indices, with 6 of the 10 most corrupt countries located in the region, characterised by average CPI scores of 32 out of 100, reflecting widespread governance challenges [10, 49]. Approximately 90% of the continent’s population lives under very corrupt administrations, and IFFs drain over US$50 billion annually, further constraining economic and social development [50].

The AUCPCC, adopted in 2003 and in force since 2006, represents the continent’s normative response, establishing an Advisory Board on Corruption tasked with promoting ratification, implementation, and enforcement. To date, 44 of the 55 AU member states have ratified the convention, illustrating both progress and the limitations of collective action against corruption [51].

Corruption erodes social cohesion, institutional trust, and economic potential, rewarding the undeserving while penalising diligence and innovation [52, 53]. Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary-General, underscored that while corruption exists globally, its consequences are most devastating in developing countries, where the misappropriation of public resources directly harms the poor and vulnerable [54]. Political unrest, including the Arab Spring, has often been catalysed by corruption, reflecting its direct impact on peace, security, and societal stability [55].

Thus, for Africa, combating grand corruption is not merely a legal or moral imperative but a matter of economic justice, social stability, and national survival. Unless African states adopt robust, systemic, and people-centric strategies to prevent and deter grand corruption, the vice will continue to constrain development, exacerbate inequality, and perpetuate cycles of poverty and instability [56, 57].

5. Factors promoting grand corruption in Africa

The persistence of grand corruption in Africa can be attributed to a convergence of greed, opportunity, and systemic weakness [58–60]. As greed is inherent in human nature, it thrives where institutional checks are absent. High levels of inequality concentrate resources and decision-making power in the hands of political and economic elites, fostering rent-seeking and patronage politics [61, 62]. This structural imbalance allows elites to shape policies that protect the status quo and perpetuate self-enrichment. Institutional weaknesses – such as the absence of ethical codes of conduct, lack of oversight, outdated regulations, and bureaucratic opacity – facilitate corruption by creating spaces for discretion without accountability [51, 63]. Monopoly control over essential services and public procurement fosters overpricing, while weak sanctions embolden impunity. Emerging technologies, including alternative currencies and online gaming platforms, further enable IFFs that obscure accountability and frustrate the tracing of illicit funds [64, 65].

Corruption is further entrenched through state and elite capture, whereby powerful individuals manipulate institutions to serve private interests [66]. Legislative oversight may be neutralised, the judiciary politicised, and audit institutions compromised. PEPs – those with access to state power and resources – often operate with impunity, aided by networks of family members and business associates [67]. This elite immunity erodes public confidence and undermines the effectiveness of enforcement agencies.

Moreover, weak regulatory regimes around political party financing, conflict-of-interest disclosure, and religious contributions allow rent-seeking to infiltrate public life [68]. A culture of corruption, coupled with a lack of coordination among law enforcement agencies, fosters complacency and normalises graft [69]. Finally, international complicity – through opaque offshore banking systems, lax global financial regulations, and weak mutual legal assistance – creates fertile ground for grand corruption to flourish beyond national borders [70–72].

Corruption-proofing refers to the deliberate design and implementation of systems, institutions, and governance cultures that minimise the opportunity for corruption by default [51, 63, 72–74]. Unlike traditional approaches that rely primarily on punitive measures, corruption-proofing emphasises prevention, resilience, and systemic integrity. It recognises that corruption is not solely a moral failing of individuals but a structural phenomenon enabled by institutional weaknesses, misaligned incentives, and opaque power networks. As such, effective corruption-proofing requires a holistic, systems-thinking approach that encompasses the identification of structural vulnerabilities, the mapping of power relations, and the embedding of deterrence mechanisms at every level of governance.

At the conceptual core of corruption-proofing is the ARMS framework, which operationalises systemic anti-corruption strategies through four interlocking principles:

Accountability – ensuring that public officials, political leaders, and institutions are answerable to the citizenry and that there are predictable consequences for misconduct [75, 76]. This principle emphasises transparency, enforceable obligations, and mechanisms for citizen oversight, fostering a culture where abuse of power is neither tolerated nor invisible.
Responsibility – cultivating ethical leadership, integrity, and conscientious decision-making at all levels of governance [77, 78]. Responsibility underscores the role of personal and collective ethical standards, professional codes of conduct, and moral exemplars, reinforcing the idea that leaders are stewards of public trust rather than personal gain [75].
Monitoring – establishing continuous oversight and evaluation systems that track compliance, detect anomalies, and generate real-time, accessible data for decision-makers and civil society [79, 80]. Monitoring includes technological solutions, audit regimes, whistleblower protection, and independent institutional review processes to ensure that corruption risks are identified and addressed proactively [81, 82].
Sustainability – embedding anti-corruption values, norms, and mechanisms into long-term governance and development processes to ensure enduring resilience [80, 83, 84]. Sustainability involves the institutionalisation of ethical practices, educational programmes, civic engagement, and policy continuity to prevent regression once leadership or political priorities change.

The ARMS framework is theoretically grounded in systems theory and the collective-action model [85, 86]. Systems theory posits that corruption is sustained not only by individual opportunism but also by interlocking structural incentives, reinforcing loops, and feedback mechanisms within governance systems [9, 87, 88]. The collective-action model further explains why corruption persists even when societal actors recognise its harms: when non-compliance appears widespread and enforcement is weak, rational actors may perceive participation in corruption as unavoidable or profitable [11, 89].

Accordingly, corruption-proofing requires structural transformation rather than moral exhortation alone. This entails redesigning incentive structures to reward compliance, empowering oversight institutions, mobilising civil society and media as active monitors, and promoting social norms that stigmatise corrupt behaviour [89, 90]. By integrating these systemic, preventive, and people-centric strategies, corruption-proofing seeks to reorient governance from reactive punishment toward proactive resilience, making corruption costly, difficult, and socially unacceptable by default [91].

6. The ARMS framework: Operationalising corruption-proofing

The ARMS framework represents a comprehensive blueprint for operationalising corruption-proofing in complex governance systems. By integrating preventive, systemic, and people-centric strategies, ARMS seeks to embed integrity into institutional design, leadership culture, and citizen engagement. Each component addresses distinct yet interdependent aspects of governance, collectively creating an environment where corruption is costly, detectable, and socially unacceptable. The framework reflects a synthesis of systems theory, collective-action models, and contemporary governance practice, offering actionable strategies to deter grand corruption in Africa and beyond.

6.1 Accountability

Accountability is the cornerstone of corruption-proofing, encompassing the obligation of duty-bearers to be held accountable for their decisions, actions, and use of public resources. Effective accountability is multi-dimensional, combining vertical mechanisms, such as citizen oversight and participatory governance, with horizontal mechanisms, including inter-institutional checks, judicial review, and parliamentary scrutiny. In many African contexts, vertical accountability is weakened by low civic literacy, political patronage, and fear of reprisal. At the same time, horizontal mechanisms are often undermined by executive dominance, politicised institutions, and limited enforcement capacity [69].

Notably, Malawi’s Public Finance Management Act (2022) aims to enhance horizontal accountability through performance-based budgeting and independent audits conducted by the National Audit Office [92, 93]. Yet, persistent capacity gaps and delayed reporting cycles limit its deterrent potential. In Kenya, the judiciary’s assertive stance in high-profile corruption cases – such as those against senior public officials in the National Youth Service scandal – demonstrates the power of judicial accountability when institutions act autonomously [94–96]. Meanwhile, South Africa’s Zondo Commission on State Capture has exemplified institutional courage and transparency, demonstrating how public inquiries can restore trust and provide a moral compass in the reconstruction of post-capture governance [97, 98].

Operationalising accountability, therefore, requires multi-level ecosystems, integrating open-data platforms, civil society monitoring, parliamentary oversight, and independent audit institutions. When effectively implemented, accountability not only deters misconduct but also restores public trust and reinforces the social contract between the state and citizens.

6.2 Responsibility

Responsibility extends beyond legal compliance to encompass ethical stewardship and moral leadership. It implies that public officials and political elites internalise integrity as a professional and personal obligation, rather than merely a formal requirement. Cultivating responsibility demands values-based education, leadership training, ethical codes of conduct, and performance evaluation systems that link integrity to career progression and professional recognition.

Rwanda’s public service reforms provide a vivid example of institutionalised responsibility. Through the Imihigo performance contracts, senior officials pledge annual development targets that are publicly evaluated, thereby linking leadership responsibility directly to measurable outcomes [99, 100]. Similarly, Ghana’s Office of the Special Prosecutor represents an effort to embed moral responsibility at the apex of state accountability by ensuring that even high-ranking officials are not immune to prosecution [101]. These models illustrate how responsibility, when institutionalised, can transform bureaucratic ethos into a culture of ethical excellence.

By bridging the gap between compliance and conscience, responsibility transforms governance from a reactive framework of punishment to a proactive culture of ethical decision-making, thereby reducing opportunities for corruption at both individual and institutional levels.

6.3 Monitoring and evaluation

Monitoring entails continuous, evidence-based oversight of governance processes, ensuring transparency, accountability, and timely detection of corruption risks. Effective monitoring leverages digital technologies and real-time data analytics, such as e-procurement systems, open-budget platforms, and citizen feedback portals, to track public resource management and procurement integrity. These innovations enable governments to institutionalise objective metrics and automated reporting, while simultaneously empowering citizens to participate actively in governance [102].

Kenya’s Integrated Financial Management Information System (IFMIS) and Malawi’s recently adopted Public Sector Reforms Monitoring Framework demonstrate how digital tools can curb procurement fraud and enhance financial transparency [103, 104]. Likewise, Ghana’s Open Data Initiative has empowered journalists and civic groups to track irregularities in public expenditure. South Africa’s use of the Auditor-General’s real-time audits during the COVID-19 pandemic further illustrates how continuous oversight can expose misappropriation before it metastasises into systemic graft [105, 106]. By transforming oversight from episodic audits to continuous vigilance, monitoring disrupts the structural conditions that allow grand corruption to persist.

6.4 Sustainability

Sustainability ensures that corruption-proofing measures endure beyond political cycles, leadership changes, or temporary reform initiatives. This requires embedding anti-corruption principles into constitutional frameworks, national development plans, and fiscal governance systems, alongside the creation of resilient institutions that can maintain integrity under pressure.

Rwanda’s long-term Vision 2050 and its integration of anti-corruption benchmarks into national development targets exemplify sustainability through institutional continuity [107, 108]. Malawi’s incorporation of anti-corruption strategies into its Malawi 2063 blueprint further reflects a recognition that corruption-proofing must be part of long-term development architecture, not a transient political agenda [109, 110]. Similarly, South Africa’s National Anti-Corruption Strategy (2020–2030) institutionalises reform through a multi-stakeholder implementation council to ensure continuity across administrations [111].

Sustainable corruption-proofing also involves cultivating long-term civic engagement, reinforcing ethical norms, and ensuring that governance reforms are institutionalised rather than dependent on individual champions [112]. By prioritising durability and resilience, sustainability transforms anti-corruption measures from episodic interventions into permanent systemic safeguards against elite capture and grand corruption.

Collectively, the ARMS framework operationalises corruption-proofing by aligning incentives, embedding ethics, enhancing oversight, and ensuring institutional resilience. Its systemic orientation acknowledges that corruption is not merely the result of individual malfeasance but a product of structural weaknesses, asymmetric power, and inadequate social accountability. Across Africa, the differentiated experiences of Malawi, Kenya, South Africa, Rwanda, and Ghana underscore that corruption-proofing succeeds where the ARMS pillars are localised, institutionalised, and sustained by political will and citizen vigilance. By implementing ARMS holistically, governments can create environments where corruption is systematically deterred, detected, and socially condemned, thereby protecting public resources, promoting equitable development, and reinforcing democratic legitimacy.

7. Comparative insights: Lessons from practice

Comparative experiences offer critical lessons for designing effective anti-corruption strategies, highlighting how institutional design, leadership commitment, and socio-political contexts shape outcomes. By examining successful and instructive cases across Africa and beyond, this section identifies practical principles for operationalising corruption-proofing, demonstrating that enduring integrity emerges from systemic, preventive, and culturally embedded approaches rather than ad hoc punitive interventions.

7.1 Botswana: Institutional culture and elite consensus

Botswana is widely recognised as a relative success story in African anti-corruption efforts. While not entirely free of patronage, the country’s governance performance is strongly shaped by a professionalised bureaucracy, institutional norms promoting transparency, and an elite consensus around ethical standards [113]. The independence of key oversight institutions, coupled with consistent enforcement of rules, has fostered a culture of accountability. Botswana illustrates that institutionalised integrity, rather than the charisma of individual leaders, underpins sustainable corruption-proofing, providing a valuable model for African states seeking to strengthen systemic resilience against grand corruption.

7.2 Ghana: Democratic accountability and institutional reform

Ghana’s experience underscores the importance of democratic consolidation and institutional reform in advancing anti-corruption objectives [114, 115]. The establishment of the Commission on Human Rights and Administrative Justice (CHRAJ) and the Economic and Organised Crime Office (EOCO) has enhanced investigative and prosecutorial capacity. At the same time, reforms in public financial management and digitalisation – such as the e-procurement system and the Ghana Integrated Financial Management Information System (GIFMIS) – have improved transparency in government operations [116]. However, Ghana’s case also demonstrates the limits of reform in the absence of political will and societal intolerance for corruption [117]. The persistence of patronage politics and selective enforcement underscores the need for robust institutions to be complemented by civic vigilance, non-partisan oversight, and a culture of accountability to achieve lasting integrity [118].

7.3 Kenya: Reform under political pluralism and persistent patronage

Kenya’s anti-corruption trajectory reflects both the opportunities and constraints of reform within a politically pluralistic environment [119]. The country has introduced an array of legal and institutional mechanisms – including the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC), the Public Procurement Regulatory Authority, and the Public Finance Management Act – to enhance transparency and accountability. Judicial activism and media scrutiny have also exposed high-level corruption, demonstrating the power of civic oversight in a competitive democracy [120]. However, the coexistence of multiple power centres and ethnicised political patronage networks has often undermined enforcement [121]. Despite strong laws and donor-supported reforms, anti-corruption agencies have frequently been politicised or weakened by executive interference [122]. Kenya’s experience reveals that pluralism alone does not guarantee integrity: without bipartisan commitment, institutional protection, and an active citizenry, formal reforms risk becoming symbolic rather than transformative [120, 123].

7.4 Rwanda: Centralised rent management and executive resolve

Rwanda demonstrates the role of strong executive leadership and centralised management in deterring corruption [123]. The government’s decisive anti-corruption campaigns, streamlined public service management, and stringent oversight have significantly reduced opportunities for misappropriation [124, 125]. However, Rwanda’s model raises important questions regarding sustainability, pluralistic accountability, and the balance between effective enforcement and inclusive governance [126]. While centralisation can enhance compliance in the short term, long-term resilience depends on institutional embedding and citizen engagement to prevent the concentration of power from becoming a new source of vulnerability [127, 128].

7.5 Singapore and the Nordic countries: High-trust, transparent societies

Singapore and the Nordic nations exemplify the efficacy of high-trust societies, robust institutional frameworks, and comprehensive oversight mechanisms [129, 130]. In these contexts, corruption is rendered costly and socially unacceptable through transparent public-sector practices, meritocratic recruitment, independent auditing, and strong civic norms [131, 132]. These cases underline that preventive corruption-proofing thrives in environments where systemic integrity is embedded culturally, legally, and procedurally, demonstrating the interplay between social norms and institutional design in reducing both petty and grand corruption [102, 133].

Comparative insights reveal four interrelated principles underpinning effective corruption-proofing. First, integrity systems must be institutionalised and resilient – anchored in robust laws, professional bureaucracies, and empowered oversight bodies rather than dependent on the charisma or goodwill of individual leaders, as illustrated by Botswana and Ghana. Second, anti-corruption strategies are most effective when they are preventive, systemic, and culturally embedded, aligning formal institutions with prevailing social norms to make integrity both a legal and moral expectation, as demonstrated by Singapore and the Nordic countries.

Third, democratic accountability and pluralism, while essential for legitimacy, must be balanced with coherent enforcement and political will, since Kenya’s experience shows that institutional innovation can be undermined by patronage and fragmented authority in the absence of cross-party commitment. Fourth, centralised control and strong leadership, as in Rwanda, may yield rapid gains but must eventually give way to participatory governance and civic ownership to ensure long-term sustainability. Collectively, these lessons reinforce the value of the ARMS framework, showing that comprehensive corruption-proofing requires ARMS with context-specific adaptations that align institutional design, political dynamics, and societal norms within diverse governance environments.

8. Legal and policy recommendations

Effective corruption-proofing requires translating theoretical insights and comparative lessons into actionable policies. While legal frameworks provide the foundation, enduring integrity is achieved through systemic reforms that embed transparency, accountability, and ethical norms into the structures, processes, and cultures of governance. The following recommendations, grounded in the ARMS framework and global best practices, provide a roadmap for policymakers to deter grand corruption while promoting sustainable, people-centred governance.

8.1 Embed integrity in constitutional and policy design

Anti-corruption principles must be constitutionally entrenched to ensure their durability beyond electoral cycles and political fluctuations. This includes guaranteeing structural independence, operational autonomy, and dedicated funding for oversight institutions, such as anti-corruption commissions, audit offices, and ombudsman agencies. Embedding integrity at the constitutional level reinforces the rule of law, reduces opportunities for elite interference, and institutionalises preventive mechanisms that are resilient to political pressure [69].

8.2 Ethical leadership development

Sustainable corruption-proofing relies on cultivating ethical leaders across public and private sectors. Public administration curricula, civil service training programmes, and executive leadership development should systematically integrate modules on ethics, integrity, and governance accountability. Mentorship programmes, values-based performance appraisals, and codes of conduct reinforce personal responsibility and cultivate a culture where ethical decision-making is standard practice rather than optional [112].

8.3 Leverage technology for transparency

Digital tools and e-governance platforms are essential for reducing discretion, increasing transparency, and enabling real-time public oversight. Innovations such as e-procurement systems, open-budget portals, and citizen feedback mechanisms institutionalise accountability by making information accessible and verifiable. Technology empowers both institutions and citizens to detect anomalies early, convert transparency into actionable intelligence, and deter corrupt practices before they materialise [102, 134].

8.4 Foster participatory governance

Deepening accountability requires inclusive, multi-stakeholder engagement. Civil society, academia, media, and professional associations should be actively empowered to track budgets, monitor procurement, and evaluate policy implementation. By leveraging their principal-agent role, non-state actors serve as additional oversight layers, increasing the cost of malfeasance for elites and reinforcing the principle that governance is a shared societal responsibility [11].

8.5 Adopt the ARMS framework in policy planning

The ARMS framework provides a structured methodology to embed corruption-proofing into policy and planning. Governments should incorporate measurable ARMS indicators into national and regional strategies, budgetary planning, and performance evaluation. By aligning planning and evaluation with these principles, states can shift from episodic enforcement to systemic prevention, ensuring that anti-corruption efforts are continuous, evidence-based, and institutionally reinforced.

These recommendations collectively demonstrate that combating grand corruption requires a shift from reactive prosecution to proactive, systemic governance reforms. They emphasise structural integrity, ethical leadership, participatory oversight, and the integration of ARMS principles into institutional design. In doing so, they offer a practical pathway for states to transform governance cultures, protect public resources, and promote equitable development.

9. Conclusion

Corruption-proofing governance in Africa is neither a utopian ideal nor a distant aspiration – it is a pragmatic and urgent imperative for democratic consolidation, inclusive development, and social justice. As the comparative experiences of Botswana, Ghana, Kenya, and Rwanda demonstrate, institutional design, political commitment, and civic participation must work in tandem to transform integrity from an exception into a systemic norm. Legal and regulatory reforms, though indispensable, cannot, by themselves, overcome the deep-seated cultures of patronage and impunity that undermine governance across much of the continent. They must be reinforced by ethical leadership, civic empowerment, and sustained enforcement that transcends political cycles [135].

The ARMS framework offers both a conceptual lens and an operational pathway for embedding resilience against corruption. It calls for governance systems that are preventive rather than reactive, ensuring that transparency and integrity are built into institutional routines rather than imposed as afterthoughts. By realigning incentives, strengthening oversight, and cultivating societal intolerance for malfeasance, the ARMS approach reframes anti-corruption as a development-driven and justice-oriented agenda rather than merely a compliance exercise.

Reactive and punitive approaches to corruption have consistently failed to disrupt its structural entrenchment or diminish its adaptive resilience within governance systems. This analysis advances the paradigm of corruption-proofing governance – a framework that moves beyond the reactive containment of malfeasance to re-envision governance itself as a normative and ethical enterprise, founded on the principles of justice, transparency, and collective flourishing. Corruption-proofing entails the deliberate design, institutionalisation, and internalisation of governance architectures, administrative processes, and civic cultures that inherently deter, disincentivise, and increase the cost of corrupt behaviour. It seeks to make integrity the path of least resistance and corruption an irrational choice.

The point is that corruption-proofing demands a whole-of-society approach. State institutions must partner with civil society, the media, and citizens to foster an environment where integrity is commended, illegality is condemned, and accountability is collective. Realising this vision demands a holistic, whole-of-society approach – one that operationalises diagonal accountability through the active participation of the media, civil society, and transnational networks; institutionalises supranational enforcement and oversight mechanisms; and embeds transparency and integrity as core design logics rather than peripheral aspirations within national and international governance systems.

At the normative core of this model lies the commend-and-condemn strategy – an ethos that fosters an ethical public sphere in which integrity is not merely encouraged but institutionally rewarded, illegality is publicly and unequivocally repudiated, and accountability is embraced as a shared legal, ethical, and civic responsibility. The effective realisation of this strategy is undergirded by the ARMS principles, which collectively constitute the operational grammar of corruption-proof governance. These principles require that all stakeholders – states, corporations, and individuals – be held answerable for their conduct, exercise their mandates with responsibility and foresight, and be subject to rigorous, transparent, and continuous monitoring designed to sustain ethical governance over time.

Disrupting entrenched kleptocratic networks and rewarding ethical behaviour can rebuild public trust, enhance institutional legitimacy, and redirect squandered resources toward equitable growth and human security. In this sense, corruption-proofing governance is not only about protecting systems from decay but about reimagining governance as a shared moral and developmental enterprise – anchored in integrity, sustained by vigilance, and driven by collective responsibility.

Acknowledgments

The author acknowledges the use of Grammarly for language refinement, Google Scholar for sourcing relevant references, and ChatGPT for assisting with citation alignment.

Author

Dan Kuwali is an Extraordinary Professor of International Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria; a Visiting Scholar at the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, University of Lund; and a Senior Research Fellow at the African Institute of South Africa (AISA), Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC).

References

1. Okoye JN, Okafor ND, Ojimba C. Corruption in the Nigerian public sector: Causes, consequences and sustainable solutions. International Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Research Studies. 2024;4(5):1109–17. https://www.multiresearchjournal.com/admin/uploads/archives/archive-1729856596.pdf
2. Muhammad I, Wasiu S, Ahmad M.Corruption and its impact on socio-economic development in selected countries of Africa. African Journal of Politics and Administrative Studies. 2023;16(2):23–46
3. Mkhize N, Moyo S, Mahoa S. African solutions to African problems: A narrative of corruption in postcolonial Africa. Cogent Social Sciences. 2024;10(1):2327133. DOI: 10.1080/23311886.2024.2327133
4. Pasculli L, Ryder N. Corruption in the Global Era. London: Routledge; 2019. DOI: 10.4324/9780429197116
5. Kuwali D. Constitutionalising human security: Social justice in an age of climate crisis. Paper presented at the 6th Int Social Justice Conf, Stellenbosch Univ, Cape Town Int Conv Centre; 2025
6. Kuwali D, editor. Corruption Proofing in Africa: A Systems Thinking Approach. London: Taylor & Francis; 2024. DOI: 10.4324/9781003326649
7. African Union. African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption. 2003. Available from: https://au.in/sites/default/files/treaties/36382-treats-0028-african-union-convention-on-preventing-and-combating-corruption-e.pdf [Accessed: 2026-April-27]
8. Goudie AW, Stasavage D. A framework for the analysis of corruption. Crime, Law and Social Change. 1998;29(2):113–159. DOI: 10.1023/A:1008369307796
9. De Almeida MP, Caldas LF, da Silva França BMB, Vasconcelos LA, Sandaker I. Behavioural systems analysis in understanding models of corruption control. Behavior and Social Issues. 2024;33(2):850–879. DOI: 10.1007/s42822-024-00175-4
10. Transparency International. CPI 2022 for Sub-Saharan Africa: Corruption Compounding Multiple Crises. Berlin: Transparency International; 2023. https://www.transparency.org/en/news/cpi-2022-sub-saharan-africa-compounding-multiple-crises [Accessed: 2026-April-27]
11. Mungiu-Pippidi A. The Quest for Good Governance: How Societies Develop Control of Corruption. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press; 2021. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781316286937
12. Kuwali D. Commend and condemn: Combating corruption in Africa. In: Kuwali D, editor. The Palgrave Handbook of Sustainable Peace and Security. Cham: Switzerland: Springer/Palgrave; 2022. p. 581–595. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-82020-6_33
13. Quah JST. Five success stories in combating corruption: Lessons for policy makers. Asian Education and Development Studies. 2017;6(3):275–289. DOI: 10.1108/AEDS-03-2017-0031
14. David IO.Corruption: Definitions, theories and concepts. Arab Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter). 2012;2(4):37
15. World Bank. Helping countries combat corruption: The role of the World Bank. In Poverty Reduction and Economic Management. New York: World Bank; 1997. p. 9–10. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/799831538245192753 [Accessed: 2026-April-27]
16. Keremis A. Anti-corruption in action: How is anti-corruption practiced in multinational companies? Frederiksberg, Copenhagen Business School, 2020. Available from: https://research.cbs.dk/en/publications/anti-corruption-in-action-practiced-in-mul/ [Accessed: 2026-February-22]
17. Bolatito AO. Corruption: An impediment to public service delivery in Africa. Twist. 2023;18(4):104–110. Available from: https://twistjournal.net/twist/article/view/82
18. Mbaku JM. Corruption in Africa: Causes, consequences and cleanups. Lexington Books. 2010. x. ISBN 073911316X, 9780739113165
19. Desta Y. Manifestations and causes of civil service corruption in developing countries. Journal of Public Administration and Governance. 2019;9(3):23–35. DOI: 10.5296/jpag.v9i3.14930
20. Vargas-Hernández JG. The multiple faces of corruption: Typology, forms, and levels. In: Stachowicz-Stanusch A, editor. Organizational Immunity to Corruption: Building Theoretical and Research Foundations. 111–117; 2010. DOI: 10.1108/978-1-61735-051-120251010
21. Morris SD. CESifo DICE Report. 2011. https://hdl.handle.net/10419/167031 [Accessed: 2026-April-27]
22. Kratcoski PC. Introduction: Overview of major types of fraud and corruption. Fraud and Corruption: Major Types, Prevention, and Control. 2018;3–19. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-92333-8_1
23. David-Barrett E, Philp M. Political corruption. In: Hall E, Sabl A, editors. Political Ethics: A Handbook. 2022. p. 170. DOI: 10.1515/9780691231310-010
24. Hatchard J. Combating corruption: Legal approaches to supporting good governance and integrity in Africa. In Combating Corruption. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2014. p. 2–7
25. United Nations. United Nations convention against corruption. Office on drugs and crime. New York; 2005. Available from: https://www.unodc.org/corruption/en/uncac/index.html [Accessed: 2003-October-31]
26. Nölke SE “Toward a more effective implementation of anti-corruption measures: Suggestions for the strengthening of existing frameworks and institution.” Discussion Paper. Canadian Task Force Against Global Corruption; Mar 2023. p. 5. https://wrmcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Toward-Effective-Implementation-Anti-Corruption-Sabine-Nolke-WRMC.pdf [Accessed: 2026-March-20]
27. Sarjito A. Political corruption and how to combat. Journal of Governance. 2023;8(4):563–582. DOI: 10.31506/jog.v8i4.20023
28. Lührmann A, Marcuardt KL, Merchkova V. Constraining government: New indices of vertical, horizontal, and diagonal accountability. American Political Science Review. 2020;114(3):811–820. DOI: 10.1017/S0003055420000222
29. Rothstein B, Varraich A. Making Sense of Corruption. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press; 2017. DOI: 10.1017/9781316681596
30. Stroh DP. Systems Thinking for Social Change. White River Junctions, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing; 2015. p. 60–61
31. Otusanya OJ, Lauwo SG. Corruption and socio-political economic structures: A case of Nigeria. Journal of Financial Crime. 2019;26(1):330–371. DOI: 10.1108/JFC-01-2018-0003
32. Valverde P, Fernandez J, Buenaño E, González-Avella JC, Cosenza MGC. Controlling systemic corruption through group size and salary dispersion of public servants. Heliyon. 2024;10(3):e2327133. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25148
33. Phillips RD, Dávid-Barrett E, Barrington R. Defining corruption in context. Perspectives on Politics. 2025;1–15. DOI: 10.1017/S153759272400286X
34. Amundsen I. Extraction and power preserving political corruption. In Amundsen Ieditor Political Corruption in Africa: Extraction and Power Preservation. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2019. p. 1–28. DOI: 10.4337/9781788972529
35. Lewis JS. Corruption perceptions and contentious politics in Africa: How different types of corruption have shaped Africa’s third wave of protest. Political Studies Review. 2021;19(2):227–244. DOI: 10.1177/1478929920903657
36. Dávid-Barrett E. Measuring grand corruption. In: Rotberg RI, Hampson FO, editors. Grand Corruption: Curbing Kleptocracy Globally. London: Taylor & Francis; 2024. p. 37–48. DOI: 10.4324/9781032719344
37. Hava E. Grand corruption: Strategies for preventing international impunity. Indonesian Journal of International and Comparative Law. 2015;2:481. http://www.ijil.org [Accessed: 2026-March-23]
38. Rotberg RI, Hampson FO, editors. Grand Corruption: Curbing Kleptocracy Globally. London: Taylor & Francis; 2024. DOI: 10.4324/9781032719344
39. Wolf ML. Combacting kleptocracy requires an International Anti-Corruption Court. In: Rotberg RI, Hampson FO editors. Grand Corruption: Curbing Kleptocracy Globally. London: Taylor & Francis; 2024. p. 270–278. DOI: 10.4324/9781032719344
40. Granillo MAC. Corrupting Accountability: Elite Control and Corruption Prosecution in Comparative Perspective. London: Taylor & Francis; 2017. DOI: 10.6082/uchicago.1467
41. Kotukov O, Kotukova T, Kozlov K, Makarenko O, Odyntsova O. The effectiveness of the national anti-corruption policy of Ukraine. Amazonia Investiga. 2023;12(66):304–313. DOI: 10.34069/AI/2023.66.06.28
42. Human Rights Watch. Nigeria: Corruption fuelling police abuses. Available from: https://www.hrw.org/news/2010/08/17/nigeria-corruption-fueling-police-abuses [Accessed: 2010-August-17]
43. Transparency International. “Grand corruption”. Available from: https://www.transparency.org/en/our-priorities/grand-corruption [Accessed: 2026-May-11]
44. Obicci PA. Corrupt elites, administrative cadres and public service in Africa: Islands of vanity. Journal of Management Science. 2025;15(1):42–82. DOI: 10.26524/jms.15.6
45. Namfukwe PM. Good governance and the digital age: Challenges and opportunities. International Journal of Academic Multidisciplinary Research. 2024;8(7):209–211. http://ijeais.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/7/abs/IJAMR240715.html
46. MacWilliam S, Rafferty M. From development and grand corruption to governance. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy. 2017;6(4):12–28. https://www.crimejusticejournal.com/article/view/881 [Accessed: 2026-April-11]
47. African Union. African Union to launch 2018 as the African anti-corruption year. 2018. Available from: https://au.int/en/pressreleases/20280122/African-union-launch-2018-african-union-launch-2018-african-anti-corruption-year [Accessed: 2026-February-12]
48. Ibrahim M. African Union summit: Fight against corruption at the centre stage. 2018. Available from: https://mo.ibrahim.foundation/news/2018/2018-africa-union-summit-fight-against-corruption-centre-stage [Accessed: 2026-March-12]
49. Messy MA. Corruption-inequality relationship in sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Economic Criminology. 2024;100087. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeconc.2024.100087
50. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Implementing the OECD principles for integrity in public procurement (2023). Available from: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/implementing-the-oecd-principles-for-integrity-in-public-procurement_9789264201385-en [Accessed: 2026-May-11]
51. Rose-Ackerman S, Palifka BJ. Corruption and Government: Causes, Consequences, and Reform. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2016. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139175098
52. Heidenheimer AJ, Johnston M, Levine V, editors. Political Corruption: A Handbook. (2nd ed.). Routledge; 1988. DOI: 10.4324/9781003575658
53. Lederman D, Loayza NV, Soarez R. Accountability and corruption: Political institutions matter. Economics and Politics. 2005. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0343.2005.00145.x
54. Rose-Ackerman S. International Handbook on the Economics of Corruption. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2006
55. European Commission. “Fighting corruption in the EU.” 2023 Available from: https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights_en [Accessed: 2026-May-11]
56. Jain AK. Corruption: A review. Journal of Economic Surveys. 2001;15(1):71–121. DOI: 10.1111/1467-6419.00133
57. Pellegrini L, Gerlagh R. Causes of corruption: a survey of cross-country analyses and extended results. Econ Gov. 2008;9:245–263. DOI: 10.1007/s10101-007-0033-4
58. Lederman D, Loayza N, Soares RR. Accountability and corruption: Political institutions matter. Economics and Politics. 2005;17(1):1–20. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0343.2005.00145.x
59. Johnston M. Syndromes of Corruption: Wealth, Power, and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005. p. www.cambridge.org/9780521618595
60. Treisman D. The causes of corruption: A cross-national study. Journal of Public Economics. 2000;76(3):399–457. DOI: 10.1016/S0047-2727(99)00092-4
61. Transparency International. Corruption Perceptions Index 2023. Berlin: Transparency International; 2023. https://www.transparency.org/en/cpiu/2020 [Accessed: 2026-March-15]
62. Quah JST. Curbing Corruption in Asia: A Comparative Study of Six Countries. Singapore: Eastern Universities Press; 2017. https://cir.nii.acjp/crid/1971712334820220331 [Accessed: 2026-April-20]
63. Lee J, Liu C. Public corruption and government management capacity. Public Performance & Management Review. 2022;45(2):397–427. DOI: 10.1080/15309576.2021.1985538
64. Shleifer A, Vishny RW. Corruption. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 1993;108(3):599–617. DOI: 10.2307/2118402
65. Lambsdorff JG. The Institutional Economics of Corruption and Reform: Theory, Evidence and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511492617
66. Andvig J, Fjeldstad O, Amundsen I, Sissener T, Soreide T. Corruption: A review of contemporary research. Bergen: Chr. Michelsen Institute; 2000
67. Olken BA, Pande R. Corruption in developing countries. Annual Review of Economics. 2012;4:479–509. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-economics-080511-110917
68. Mauro P. Corruption and growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 1995;110(3):681–712. DOI: 10.2307/2946696
69. Kaufmann D, Kraay A, Mastruzzi M. Governance matters III: Governance indicators for 1996–2002. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper. 2003;3106. DOI: 10.1596/1813-9450-3106
70. Transparency International. Corruption and the private sector. Available from: https://www.transparency.org/en/our-priorities/corruption-and-the-private-sector [Accessed: 2024 November 20]
71. Lučić D, Golubović N, Džunić M.Measuring corruption – Key issues, data sources and the most commonly used indicators. Facta Universitatis, Economics and Organization. 2016;13(1):101–115
72. Rothstein B. The quality of government: Corruption, social trust, and inequality in international perspective. University of Chicago Press, 2024. Available from: https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/Q/bo11632847.html [Accessed: 2026-May-11]
73. Rose-Ackerman S, Palifka BJ. Corruption and Government: Causes, Consequences, and Reform. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press; 2016. www.cambridge. org/9781107441095
74. Treisman D. The causes of corruption: A cross-national study. Journal of Public Economics. 2000;76(3):399–457. DOI: 10.1016/S0047-2727(99)00092-4
75. Johnston M. Corruption, Contention, and Reform: The Power of Deep Democratization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2013. www.cambridge.org/9781107610064
76. Persson A, Rothstein B, Teorell J. Why anticorruption reforms fail—systemic corruption as a collective action problem. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions. 2013;26(3):449–471. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0491.2012.01604.x
77. Kaufmann D, Kraay A, Mastruzzi M. The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology and Analytical Issues. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law. 2011;3(02):220–246. DOI: 10.1017/s1876404511200046
78. Transparency International. How Corruption Affects Africa. Berlin: Transparency International; 2025
79. Svensson J. Who must pay bribes and how much? Evidence from a cross-section of firms. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2003;118(1):207–230. DOI: 10.1162/00335530360535180
80. Johnston M. Corruption, Contention, and Reform: The Power of Deep Democratization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2013
81. Akinsola K. Regulatory compliance and the role of corporate governance in preventing financial misstatements. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388653352 [Accessed: 2025-January-29]
82. Ogunsola KO, Balogun ED, Ogunmokun AS. Enhancing financial integrity through an advanced internal audit risk assessment and governance model. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Growth Evaluation. 2021;2(1):781–790. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/adebanji-samuel-ogunmokun/publication/390302889 [Accessed: 2026-February-12]
83. Sukoharsono EG. Strategies to improve the sustainability in promoting transparency, accountability and anti-corruption: An imaginary dialogue. International Journal of Accounting, Business and Society. 2018;26(1):39–54. DOI: 10.21776/ub.ijabs.2018.26.1.3
84. Doig A. Good government and sustainable anti‐corruption strategies: A role for independent anti‐corruption agencies? Public Administration and Development. 1995;15(2):151–165. DOI: 10.1002/pad.4230150205
85. Gold S, Muthuri JN, Reiner G. Collective action for tackling “wicked” social problems: A system dynamics model for corporate community involvement. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2018;179:662–673. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.197
86. Welch D, Yates L. The practices of collective action: Practice theory, sustainability transitions and social change. Journal of the Theory of Social Behaviour. 2018;48(3):288–305. DOI: 10.1111/jtsb.12168
87. Fratantuono MJ. Systems thinking in fighting corruption. In: Kuwali D, editor. Corruption Proofing in Africa: A Systems Thinking Approach. London: Routledge; 2024. p. 52–70. DOI: 10.4324/9781003326649
88. Yeboah-Assiamah E, Asamoah K, Osei-kojo A. Corruption here, corruption there, corruption everywhere: A framework for understanding and addressing public sector corruption in developing African democracies. Journal of Public Administration and Governance. 2014;4(3):186–204
89. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Government at a Glance. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2025. DOI: 10.1787/0efd0bcd-en
90. Devarajan S, Khemani S, Walton M. Civil society, public action and accountability in Africa. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 5733. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1895224 [Accessed: 2011-July-01]
91. Olasolo H, Palermo PG, Maclean RJB. The case for considering corruption as a central element of governance: Institutional and organizational corruption and complex corruption networks. International Criminal Law Review. 2025;25(2–3):217–246. DOI: 10.1163/15718123-bja10230
92. Montes GC, Cesar Albuquerque Bastos J, de Oliveira AJ. Fiscal transparency, government effectiveness and government spending efficiency: Some international evidence based on panel data approach. Economic Modelling. 2019;79:211–225. DOI: 10.1016/j.econmod.2018.10.013
93. Matala-Banda PTK. A Comparative Analysis of Public Financial Management in Malawi and South Africa using the Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability Assessment Framework. PhD diss. Stellenbosch University; 2023. https://scholar.sun.ac.za/server/api/core/bitstreams/94911e72-7d0f-44b8-9682-4c91fc4964ff/content
94. Obicci PA. Corrupt elites, administrative cadres and public service in Africa: Islands of vanity. Journal of Management Science. 2025;15(1):42–82. DOI: 10.26524/jms.15.6
95. Crombach L, Smits J. The subnational corruption database: Grand and petty corruption in 1,473 regions of 178 countries, 1995–2022. Scientific Data. 2024;11(1):686
96. Nyingi PN. Kenya wins a gold medal for corruption. Modern Research in Interdisciplinary. 2017;4:1–10
97. Kohn L. Integrity & accountability commissions of inquiry: A South African perspective. Utrecht Law Review. 2024;20(4). DOI: 10.36633/ulr.1045
98. Chipkin I, Swilling M, Bhorat H, Buthelezi M, Duma S, Friedenstein H, Mondi L, Peter C, Prins N, Qobo M, Jonas M, Haffajee F. Structuring the capture of the state. In Shadow State: The Politics of State Capture. Witwatersrand, South Africa: Wits University Press; 2018. p. 19–28. DOI: 10.18772/22018062125.10
99. Murasi I, Auriacombe CJ. The role of the imihigo as a performance management instrument in Rwanda. Administration Publica. 2022;30(2):108–129. Available from: https://journals.co.za/doi/pdf/10.10520/ejc-adminpub_v30_n2_a9 [Accessed: 2026-February-20]
100. Ndagij I. Imihigo/performance contract: A results of decentralization and effective tool for organizational performance, case study of Rwanda. Journal of Public Policy and Governance. 2022;6(1):116–141. DOI: 10.53819/81018102t4061
101. Amagnya MA, Akinlabi OM. Can We Truly Find a Solution to Ghana’s Corruption Problem? Policing and the Rule of Law in Sub-Saharan Africa. Assessing the Fight Against Corruption and the Effectiveness of the Office of the Special Prosecutor. In: Akinlabi OM, editor. Policing and the Rule of Law in Sub-Saharan Africa. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis; 2022. DOI: 10.4324/9781003148395-6
102. Joaquin ME, Greitens TJ. The ARRA websites through the lens of digital accountability and citizen engagement. In E-Governance and Civic Engagement: Factors and Determinants of E-democracy. IGI Global Scientific Publishing; 2012. p. 1–24. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-61350-083-5.ch001
103. Kulatunge MJP, Mahakalanda I. Digital technologies to eliminate malpractices in the public sector of developing countries-a literature review. Technology. 2024;5(2):34–54. https://www.seu.ac.lk/sljot/publication/v5n2/SLJoT_V5_ISS_02_004.pdf [Accessed: 2026-May-11]
104. Micheni E. Analysis of the critical success factors of integrated financial management information systems in selected Kenyan counties. Journal of Finance and Accounting. 2017;5(5):185–192. DOI: 10.11648/j.jfa.20170505.12
105. Dorasamy N. Oversight bodies’ role in financial sustainability in local governments. In: Dorasamy N, Kapesa T, editors. Financial Sustainability of Local Governments in Southern Africa. London: Routledge; 2024. p. 61–84. DOI: 10.4324/9781003498230
106. Nemuramba E, Tengeh R. Integrating real time audits in legislative oversight during times of crisis: A public finance accountability approach for Zimbabwe. International Journal of Business Ecosystem and Strategy. 2025;7(4):160–170. DOI: 10.36096/ijbes.v7i4.892
107. Rwigema PC. Social and economic development of Rwanda: From post-genocide recovery to program performance under the policy coordination instrument. Reviewed Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities. 2025;6(1):375–421. Available from: https://d1wqtxts1xzle.7cloudfront.net/124661442 [Accessed: 2026-May-11]
108. Perez-Guzman K, Imanirareba D, Jones SK, Neubauer R, Niyitanga F, Naramabuye FX. Sustainability implications of Rwanda’s vision 2050 long-term development strategy. Sustainability Science. 2023;18(1):485–499. DOI: 10.1007/s11625-022-01266-0
109. Chidzanja C, Kajoloweka C. Closing the loop: The role of external actors in corruption. In: Kuwali D, editor. Corruption Proofing in Africa: A Systems Thinking Approach. London: Routledge; 2024. p. 145–157. DOI: 10.4324/9781003326649
110. Kandala J, Moffat F. The effectiveness of the African Union’s anti-corruption mechanisms and the commitment to 2030 and 2063 development agendas. African Studies Quarterly. 2024;22(3):40–62
111. Ndlovu AS, Chelin R. Government of national (imp) unity or accountability: A new dawn for anti-corruption efforts in South Africa. Journal of Public Administration and Development Alternatives. 2025. Available from: https://hdl.handle.net/10520/ejc-jpada_v10_nsi1_a6
112. Andrews M, Pritchett L, Woolcock M. Building State Capability: Evidence, Analysis, Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2017. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747482.001.0001
113. Jones DS. Combating corruption in Botswana: Lessons for policy makers. Asian Education and Development Studies. 2017;6(3):213–226. DOI: 10.1108/AEDS-03-2017-0029
114. Asomah JY, Dim EE, Li Y. What influences the propensity to report corruption to relevant state authorities? Evidence from Ghana. Journal of Asian and African Studies. 2025;60(5):3240–3256. DOI: 10.1177/00219096241228786
115. Watkins TA. Public corruption in Ghana and its influence on monetary and fiscal policymaking. SSRN. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5324634 [Accessed: 2025-November-20]
116. Ofori M, Dogbatse FS. ‘We are only to appear to be fighting corruption… We can’t even bite’: Online memetic anti-corruption discourse in the Ghanaian media. Online Media and Global Communication. 2023;2(1):77–99. DOI: 10.1515/omgc-2023-2007
117. DeSouza M, Swanzy EK, Asumeng M. Should I accept or refute? Understanding the socio-organisational factors influencing corruption in Ghana’s public service. Public Integrity. 2025;27(3):274–286. DOI: 10.1080/10999922.2023.2290749
118. Gök A. Determinants of corruption: The case of sub-Saharan Africa. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi. 2021;76(2):523–546. DOI: 10.33630/ausbf.810698 [Accessed: 2026-April-11]
119. Mwangi J, Muna W. Slaying the dragon of corruption: Application of multiple-streams framework in anticorruption policy processes in devolved systems of government in Kenya. International Review of Public Policy. 2024;6(6):3. DOI: 10.4000/13gfs
120. Daud YM. A review of effectiveness of anti-corruption strategies and institutions in Kenya. African Journal of Commerce Studies. 2024;4(4):303–318. DOI: 10.59413/ajocs/v4.i4.5
121. Waweru N, Rahaman AS, Cots EG. Corruption networks and anti-corruption mechanisms: The case of Kenya. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. 2025. DOI: 10.1108/AAAJ-05-2024-7072
122. Waweru N, Rahaman AS, Garriga Cots E. Corruption networks and anti-corruption mechanisms: The case of Kenya. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. 2025;38(6):1546–1574. DOI: 10.1108/AAAJ-05-2024-7072
123. Oyamada E. Combating corruption in Rwanda: Lessons for policy makers. Asian Education and Development Studies. 2017;6(3):249–262. DOI: 10.1108/AEDS-03-2017-0028
124. Booth D, Golooba-Mutebi F. Developmental patrimonialism? The case of Rwanda. African Affairs. 2012;111(444):379–403. DOI: 10.1093/afraf/ads026
125. Oyamada E. Combating corruption in Rwanda: Lessons for policy makers. Asian Education and Development Studies. 2017;6(3):249–262. DOI: 10.1108/AEDS-03-2017-0028
126. Gumisiriza P, Mukobi R. Effectiveness of anti-corruption measures in Uganda. Rule of Law and Anti-Corruption Center Journal. 2019;2(2019):8. DOI: 10.5339/rolacc.2019.8
127. Rwigema PC. Evaluating political leadership performance and accountability mechanisms in Rwanda’s governance system. Reviewed of International Journal of Political Science and Public Administration. 2025;6(1):308–329. https://www.academia.edu/143570561/EVALUATING_POLITICAL_LEADERSHIP_PERFORMANCE_AND_ACCOUNTABILITY_MECHANISMS_IN_RWANDAS_GOVERNANCE_SYSTEM [Accessed: 2026-March-02]
128. Amegavi GB, Langnel Z. Political leadership and public sector ethics in Africa: A comparative study of Ghana and Rwanda. In: Reddick C, Demir T, Perlman BJ, editors. Public Sector Ethics. London: Routledge; 2025. p. 217–235. DOI: 10.4324/9781003416258
129. Paik Y, Warner‐Søderholm G, Huse M. In search of an institutional framework for anticorruption: Lessons from Scandinavia. Thunderbird International Business Review. 2019;61(2):105–118. DOI: 10.1002/tie.22028
130. Brezzi M, González S, Nguyen D, Prats M. An Updated OECD Framework on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions to Meet Current and Future Challenges. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2021. OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 48. DOI: 10.1787/b6c5478c-en
131. Quah JST. Preventing police corruption in Singapore: The role of recruitment, training and socialization. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration. 2006;28(1):59–75. DOI: 10.1080/23276665.2006.10779315
132. Rothstein B. Controlling Corruption: The Social Contract Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2021. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192894908.001.0001
133. Emma L. Cultural nuances and entrepreneurial success: A comparative analysis of high-trust and low-trust societies. 2024. Available from: https//researchgate/profile/Lawrence-Emma/publication/386080087/Cultural-Nuances-and-Entrepreneurial-Success-A-Comparative-Analysis-of-High-Trust-and-Low-Trust-Societies.pdf [Accessed: 2026-May-11]
134. Shpak Y, Bandura I, Primush R, Dokalenko V, Abdullayev V. Formation of anti-corruption consciousness of citizens as a direction of interaction of public authorities and institutions of civil society. International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security. 2022;22(3):17–22. Available from: https://dspace.chmnu.edu.ua/jspui/bitstream/123456789/2174/1/Shpak%20Y.%2C%20Bandura%20I.%2C%20Primush%20R.%2C%20Dokalenko%20V.%2C%20Abdullayev%20V..pdf [Accessed: 2026-February-15]

[1] 1. Okoye JN, Okafor ND, Ojimba C. Corruption in the Nigerian public sector: Causes, consequences and sustainable solutions. International Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Research Studies. 2024;4(5):1109–17. https://www.multiresearchjournal.com/admin/uploads/archives/archive-1729856596.pdf

[2] 2. Muhammad I, Wasiu S, Ahmad M.Corruption and its impact on socio-economic development in selected countries of Africa. African Journal of Politics and Administrative Studies. 2023;16(2):23–46

[3] 3. Mkhize N, Moyo S, Mahoa S. African solutions to African problems: A narrative of corruption in postcolonial Africa. Cogent Social Sciences. 2024;10(1):2327133. DOI: 10.1080/23311886.2024.2327133

[4] 4. Pasculli L, Ryder N. Corruption in the Global Era. London: Routledge; 2019. DOI: 10.4324/9780429197116

[5] 5. Kuwali D. Constitutionalising human security: Social justice in an age of climate crisis. Paper presented at the 6th Int Social Justice Conf, Stellenbosch Univ, Cape Town Int Conv Centre; 2025

[6] 6. Kuwali D, editor. Corruption Proofing in Africa: A Systems Thinking Approach. London: Taylor & Francis; 2024. DOI: 10.4324/9781003326649

[7] 7. African Union. African Union Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption. 2003. Available from: https://au.in/sites/default/files/treaties/36382-treats-0028-african-union-convention-on-preventing-and-combating-corruption-e.pdf [Accessed: 2026-April-27]

[8] 8. Goudie AW, Stasavage D. A framework for the analysis of corruption. Crime, Law and Social Change. 1998;29(2):113–159. DOI: 10.1023/A:1008369307796

[9] 9. De Almeida MP, Caldas LF, da Silva França BMB, Vasconcelos LA, Sandaker I. Behavioural systems analysis in understanding models of corruption control. Behavior and Social Issues. 2024;33(2):850–879. DOI: 10.1007/s42822-024-00175-4

[10] 10. Transparency International. CPI 2022 for Sub-Saharan Africa: Corruption Compounding Multiple Crises. Berlin: Transparency International; 2023. https://www.transparency.org/en/news/cpi-2022-sub-saharan-africa-compounding-multiple-crises [Accessed: 2026-April-27]

[11] 11. Mungiu-Pippidi A. The Quest for Good Governance: How Societies Develop Control of Corruption. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press; 2021. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781316286937

[12] 12. Kuwali D. Commend and condemn: Combating corruption in Africa. In: Kuwali D, editor. The Palgrave Handbook of Sustainable Peace and Security. Cham: Switzerland: Springer/Palgrave; 2022. p. 581–595. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-82020-6_33

[13] 13. Quah JST. Five success stories in combating corruption: Lessons for policy makers. Asian Education and Development Studies. 2017;6(3):275–289. DOI: 10.1108/AEDS-03-2017-0031

[14] 14. David IO.Corruption: Definitions, theories and concepts. Arab Journal of Business and Management Review (OMAN Chapter). 2012;2(4):37

[15] 15. World Bank. Helping countries combat corruption: The role of the World Bank. In Poverty Reduction and Economic Management. New York: World Bank; 1997. p. 9–10. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/799831538245192753 [Accessed: 2026-April-27]

[16] 16. Keremis A. Anti-corruption in action: How is anti-corruption practiced in multinational companies? Frederiksberg, Copenhagen Business School, 2020. Available from: https://research.cbs.dk/en/publications/anti-corruption-in-action-practiced-in-mul/ [Accessed: 2026-February-22]

[17] 17. Bolatito AO. Corruption: An impediment to public service delivery in Africa. Twist. 2023;18(4):104–110. Available from: https://twistjournal.net/twist/article/view/82

[18] 18. Mbaku JM. Corruption in Africa: Causes, consequences and cleanups. Lexington Books. 2010. x. ISBN 073911316X, 9780739113165

[19] 19. Desta Y. Manifestations and causes of civil service corruption in developing countries. Journal of Public Administration and Governance. 2019;9(3):23–35. DOI: 10.5296/jpag.v9i3.14930

[20] 20. Vargas-Hernández JG. The multiple faces of corruption: Typology, forms, and levels. In: Stachowicz-Stanusch A, editor. Organizational Immunity to Corruption: Building Theoretical and Research Foundations. 111–117; 2010. DOI: 10.1108/978-1-61735-051-120251010

[21] 21. Morris SD. CESifo DICE Report. 2011. https://hdl.handle.net/10419/167031 [Accessed: 2026-April-27]

[22] 22. Kratcoski PC. Introduction: Overview of major types of fraud and corruption. Fraud and Corruption: Major Types, Prevention, and Control. 2018;3–19. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-92333-8_1

[23] 23. David-Barrett E, Philp M. Political corruption. In: Hall E, Sabl A, editors. Political Ethics: A Handbook. 2022. p. 170. DOI: 10.1515/9780691231310-010

[24] 24. Hatchard J. Combating corruption: Legal approaches to supporting good governance and integrity in Africa. In Combating Corruption. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2014. p. 2–7

[25] 25. United Nations. United Nations convention against corruption. Office on drugs and crime. New York; 2005. Available from: https://www.unodc.org/corruption/en/uncac/index.html [Accessed: 2003-October-31]

[26] 26. Nölke SE “Toward a more effective implementation of anti-corruption measures: Suggestions for the strengthening of existing frameworks and institution.” Discussion Paper. Canadian Task Force Against Global Corruption; Mar 2023. p. 5. https://wrmcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Toward-Effective-Implementation-Anti-Corruption-Sabine-Nolke-WRMC.pdf [Accessed: 2026-March-20]

[27] 27. Sarjito A. Political corruption and how to combat. Journal of Governance. 2023;8(4):563–582. DOI: 10.31506/jog.v8i4.20023

[28] 28. Lührmann A, Marcuardt KL, Merchkova V. Constraining government: New indices of vertical, horizontal, and diagonal accountability. American Political Science Review. 2020;114(3):811–820. DOI: 10.1017/S0003055420000222

[29] 29. Rothstein B, Varraich A. Making Sense of Corruption. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ Press; 2017. DOI: 10.1017/9781316681596

[30] 30. Stroh DP. Systems Thinking for Social Change. White River Junctions, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing; 2015. p. 60–61

[31] 31. Otusanya OJ, Lauwo SG. Corruption and socio-political economic structures: A case of Nigeria. Journal of Financial Crime. 2019;26(1):330–371. DOI: 10.1108/JFC-01-2018-0003

[32] 32. Valverde P, Fernandez J, Buenaño E, González-Avella JC, Cosenza MGC. Controlling systemic corruption through group size and salary dispersion of public servants. Heliyon. 2024;10(3):e2327133. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25148

[33] 33. Phillips RD, Dávid-Barrett E, Barrington R. Defining corruption in context. Perspectives on Politics. 2025;1–15. DOI: 10.1017/S153759272400286X

[34] 34. Amundsen I. Extraction and power preserving political corruption. In Amundsen Ieditor Political Corruption in Africa: Extraction and Power Preservation. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2019. p. 1–28. DOI: 10.4337/9781788972529

[35] 35. Lewis JS. Corruption perceptions and contentious politics in Africa: How different types of corruption have shaped Africa’s third wave of protest. Political Studies Review. 2021;19(2):227–244. DOI: 10.1177/1478929920903657

[36] 36. Dávid-Barrett E. Measuring grand corruption. In: Rotberg RI, Hampson FO, editors. Grand Corruption: Curbing Kleptocracy Globally. London: Taylor & Francis; 2024. p. 37–48. DOI: 10.4324/9781032719344

[37] 37. Hava E. Grand corruption: Strategies for preventing international impunity. Indonesian Journal of International and Comparative Law. 2015;2:481. http://www.ijil.org [Accessed: 2026-March-23]

[38] 38. Rotberg RI, Hampson FO, editors. Grand Corruption: Curbing Kleptocracy Globally. London: Taylor & Francis; 2024. DOI: 10.4324/9781032719344

[39] 39. Wolf ML. Combacting kleptocracy requires an International Anti-Corruption Court. In: Rotberg RI, Hampson FO editors. Grand Corruption: Curbing Kleptocracy Globally. London: Taylor & Francis; 2024. p. 270–278. DOI: 10.4324/9781032719344

[40] 40. Granillo MAC. Corrupting Accountability: Elite Control and Corruption Prosecution in Comparative Perspective. London: Taylor & Francis; 2017. DOI: 10.6082/uchicago.1467

[41] 41. Kotukov O, Kotukova T, Kozlov K, Makarenko O, Odyntsova O. The effectiveness of the national anti-corruption policy of Ukraine. Amazonia Investiga. 2023;12(66):304–313. DOI: 10.34069/AI/2023.66.06.28

[42] 42. Human Rights Watch. Nigeria: Corruption fuelling police abuses. Available from: https://www.hrw.org/news/2010/08/17/nigeria-corruption-fueling-police-abuses [Accessed: 2010-August-17]

[43] 43. Transparency International. “Grand corruption”. Available from: https://www.transparency.org/en/our-priorities/grand-corruption [Accessed: 2026-May-11]

[44] 44. Obicci PA. Corrupt elites, administrative cadres and public service in Africa: Islands of vanity. Journal of Management Science. 2025;15(1):42–82. DOI: 10.26524/jms.15.6

[45] 45. Namfukwe PM. Good governance and the digital age: Challenges and opportunities. International Journal of Academic Multidisciplinary Research. 2024;8(7):209–211. http://ijeais.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/7/abs/IJAMR240715.html

[46] 46. MacWilliam S, Rafferty M. From development and grand corruption to governance. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy. 2017;6(4):12–28. https://www.crimejusticejournal.com/article/view/881 [Accessed: 2026-April-11]

[47] 47. African Union. African Union to launch 2018 as the African anti-corruption year. 2018. Available from: https://au.int/en/pressreleases/20280122/African-union-launch-2018-african-union-launch-2018-african-anti-corruption-year [Accessed: 2026-February-12]

[48] 48. Ibrahim M. African Union summit: Fight against corruption at the centre stage. 2018. Available from: https://mo.ibrahim.foundation/news/2018/2018-africa-union-summit-fight-against-corruption-centre-stage [Accessed: 2026-March-12]

[49] 49. Messy MA. Corruption-inequality relationship in sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Economic Criminology. 2024;100087. DOI: 10.1016/j.jeconc.2024.100087

[50] 50. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Implementing the OECD principles for integrity in public procurement (2023). Available from: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/governance/implementing-the-oecd-principles-for-integrity-in-public-procurement_9789264201385-en [Accessed: 2026-May-11]

[51] 51. Rose-Ackerman S, Palifka BJ. Corruption and Government: Causes, Consequences, and Reform. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2016. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139175098

[52] 52. Heidenheimer AJ, Johnston M, Levine V, editors. Political Corruption: A Handbook. (2nd ed.). Routledge; 1988. DOI: 10.4324/9781003575658

[53] 53. Lederman D, Loayza NV, Soarez R. Accountability and corruption: Political institutions matter. Economics and Politics. 2005. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0343.2005.00145.x

[54] 54. Rose-Ackerman S. International Handbook on the Economics of Corruption. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar; 2006

[55] 55. European Commission. “Fighting corruption in the EU.” 2023 Available from: https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights_en [Accessed: 2026-May-11]

[56] 56. Jain AK. Corruption: A review. Journal of Economic Surveys. 2001;15(1):71–121. DOI: 10.1111/1467-6419.00133

[57] 57. Pellegrini L, Gerlagh R. Causes of corruption: a survey of cross-country analyses and extended results. Econ Gov. 2008;9:245–263. DOI: 10.1007/s10101-007-0033-4

[58] 58. Lederman D, Loayza N, Soares RR. Accountability and corruption: Political institutions matter. Economics and Politics. 2005;17(1):1–20. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0343.2005.00145.x

[59] 59. Johnston M. Syndromes of Corruption: Wealth, Power, and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005. p. www.cambridge.org/9780521618595

[60] 60. Treisman D. The causes of corruption: A cross-national study. Journal of Public Economics. 2000;76(3):399–457. DOI: 10.1016/S0047-2727(99)00092-4

[61] 61. Transparency International. Corruption Perceptions Index 2023. Berlin: Transparency International; 2023. https://www.transparency.org/en/cpiu/2020 [Accessed: 2026-March-15]

[62] 62. Quah JST. Curbing Corruption in Asia: A Comparative Study of Six Countries. Singapore: Eastern Universities Press; 2017. https://cir.nii.acjp/crid/1971712334820220331 [Accessed: 2026-April-20]

[63] 63. Lee J, Liu C. Public corruption and government management capacity. Public Performance & Management Review. 2022;45(2):397–427. DOI: 10.1080/15309576.2021.1985538

[64] 64. Shleifer A, Vishny RW. Corruption. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 1993;108(3):599–617. DOI: 10.2307/2118402

[65] 65. Lambsdorff JG. The Institutional Economics of Corruption and Reform: Theory, Evidence and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511492617

[66] 66. Andvig J, Fjeldstad O, Amundsen I, Sissener T, Soreide T. Corruption: A review of contemporary research. Bergen: Chr. Michelsen Institute; 2000

[67] 67. Olken BA, Pande R. Corruption in developing countries. Annual Review of Economics. 2012;4:479–509. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-economics-080511-110917

[68] 68. Mauro P. Corruption and growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 1995;110(3):681–712. DOI: 10.2307/2946696

[69] 69. Kaufmann D, Kraay A, Mastruzzi M. Governance matters III: Governance indicators for 1996–2002. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper. 2003;3106. DOI: 10.1596/1813-9450-3106

[70] 70. Transparency International. Corruption and the private sector. Available from: https://www.transparency.org/en/our-priorities/corruption-and-the-private-sector [Accessed: 2024 November 20]

[71] 71. Lučić D, Golubović N, Džunić M.Measuring corruption – Key issues, data sources and the most commonly used indicators. Facta Universitatis, Economics and Organization. 2016;13(1):101–115

[72] 72. Rothstein B. The quality of government: Corruption, social trust, and inequality in international perspective. University of Chicago Press, 2024. Available from: https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/Q/bo11632847.html [Accessed: 2026-May-11]

[73] 73. Rose-Ackerman S, Palifka BJ. Corruption and Government: Causes, Consequences, and Reform. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press; 2016. www.cambridge. org/9781107441095

[74] 74. Treisman D. The causes of corruption: A cross-national study. Journal of Public Economics. 2000;76(3):399–457. DOI: 10.1016/S0047-2727(99)00092-4

[75] 75. Johnston M. Corruption, Contention, and Reform: The Power of Deep Democratization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2013. www.cambridge.org/9781107610064

[76] 76. Persson A, Rothstein B, Teorell J. Why anticorruption reforms fail—systemic corruption as a collective action problem. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions. 2013;26(3):449–471. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0491.2012.01604.x

[77] 77. Kaufmann D, Kraay A, Mastruzzi M. The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology and Analytical Issues. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law. 2011;3(02):220–246. DOI: 10.1017/s1876404511200046

[78] 78. Transparency International. How Corruption Affects Africa. Berlin: Transparency International; 2025

[79] 79. Svensson J. Who must pay bribes and how much? Evidence from a cross-section of firms. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2003;118(1):207–230. DOI: 10.1162/00335530360535180

[80] 80. Johnston M. Corruption, Contention, and Reform: The Power of Deep Democratization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2013

[81] 81. Akinsola K. Regulatory compliance and the role of corporate governance in preventing financial misstatements. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388653352 [Accessed: 2025-January-29]

[82] 82. Ogunsola KO, Balogun ED, Ogunmokun AS. Enhancing financial integrity through an advanced internal audit risk assessment and governance model. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Growth Evaluation. 2021;2(1):781–790. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/adebanji-samuel-ogunmokun/publication/390302889 [Accessed: 2026-February-12]

[83] 83. Sukoharsono EG. Strategies to improve the sustainability in promoting transparency, accountability and anti-corruption: An imaginary dialogue. International Journal of Accounting, Business and Society. 2018;26(1):39–54. DOI: 10.21776/ub.ijabs.2018.26.1.3

[84] 84. Doig A. Good government and sustainable anti‐corruption strategies: A role for independent anti‐corruption agencies? Public Administration and Development. 1995;15(2):151–165. DOI: 10.1002/pad.4230150205

[85] 85. Gold S, Muthuri JN, Reiner G. Collective action for tackling “wicked” social problems: A system dynamics model for corporate community involvement. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2018;179:662–673. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.11.197

[86] 86. Welch D, Yates L. The practices of collective action: Practice theory, sustainability transitions and social change. Journal of the Theory of Social Behaviour. 2018;48(3):288–305. DOI: 10.1111/jtsb.12168

[87] 87. Fratantuono MJ. Systems thinking in fighting corruption. In: Kuwali D, editor. Corruption Proofing in Africa: A Systems Thinking Approach. London: Routledge; 2024. p. 52–70. DOI: 10.4324/9781003326649

[88] 88. Yeboah-Assiamah E, Asamoah K, Osei-kojo A. Corruption here, corruption there, corruption everywhere: A framework for understanding and addressing public sector corruption in developing African democracies. Journal of Public Administration and Governance. 2014;4(3):186–204

[89] 89. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Government at a Glance. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2025. DOI: 10.1787/0efd0bcd-en

[90] 90. Devarajan S, Khemani S, Walton M. Civil society, public action and accountability in Africa. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 5733. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1895224 [Accessed: 2011-July-01]

[91] 91. Olasolo H, Palermo PG, Maclean RJB. The case for considering corruption as a central element of governance: Institutional and organizational corruption and complex corruption networks. International Criminal Law Review. 2025;25(2–3):217–246. DOI: 10.1163/15718123-bja10230

[92] 92. Montes GC, Cesar Albuquerque Bastos J, de Oliveira AJ. Fiscal transparency, government effectiveness and government spending efficiency: Some international evidence based on panel data approach. Economic Modelling. 2019;79:211–225. DOI: 10.1016/j.econmod.2018.10.013

[93] 93. Matala-Banda PTK. A Comparative Analysis of Public Financial Management in Malawi and South Africa using the Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability Assessment Framework. PhD diss. Stellenbosch University; 2023. https://scholar.sun.ac.za/server/api/core/bitstreams/94911e72-7d0f-44b8-9682-4c91fc4964ff/content

[94] 94. Obicci PA. Corrupt elites, administrative cadres and public service in Africa: Islands of vanity. Journal of Management Science. 2025;15(1):42–82. DOI: 10.26524/jms.15.6

[95] 95. Crombach L, Smits J. The subnational corruption database: Grand and petty corruption in 1,473 regions of 178 countries, 1995–2022. Scientific Data. 2024;11(1):686

[96] 96. Nyingi PN. Kenya wins a gold medal for corruption. Modern Research in Interdisciplinary. 2017;4:1–10

[97] 97. Kohn L. Integrity & accountability commissions of inquiry: A South African perspective. Utrecht Law Review. 2024;20(4). DOI: 10.36633/ulr.1045

[98] 98. Chipkin I, Swilling M, Bhorat H, Buthelezi M, Duma S, Friedenstein H, Mondi L, Peter C, Prins N, Qobo M, Jonas M, Haffajee F. Structuring the capture of the state. In Shadow State: The Politics of State Capture. Witwatersrand, South Africa: Wits University Press; 2018. p. 19–28. DOI: 10.18772/22018062125.10

[99] 99. Murasi I, Auriacombe CJ. The role of the imihigo as a performance management instrument in Rwanda. Administration Publica. 2022;30(2):108–129. Available from: https://journals.co.za/doi/pdf/10.10520/ejc-adminpub_v30_n2_a9 [Accessed: 2026-February-20]

[100] 100. Ndagij I. Imihigo/performance contract: A results of decentralization and effective tool for organizational performance, case study of Rwanda. Journal of Public Policy and Governance. 2022;6(1):116–141. DOI: 10.53819/81018102t4061

[101] 101. Amagnya MA, Akinlabi OM. Can We Truly Find a Solution to Ghana’s Corruption Problem? Policing and the Rule of Law in Sub-Saharan Africa. Assessing the Fight Against Corruption and the Effectiveness of the Office of the Special Prosecutor. In: Akinlabi OM, editor. Policing and the Rule of Law in Sub-Saharan Africa. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis; 2022. DOI: 10.4324/9781003148395-6

[102] 102. Joaquin ME, Greitens TJ. The ARRA websites through the lens of digital accountability and citizen engagement. In E-Governance and Civic Engagement: Factors and Determinants of E-democracy. IGI Global Scientific Publishing; 2012. p. 1–24. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-61350-083-5.ch001

[103] 103. Kulatunge MJP, Mahakalanda I. Digital technologies to eliminate malpractices in the public sector of developing countries-a literature review. Technology. 2024;5(2):34–54. https://www.seu.ac.lk/sljot/publication/v5n2/SLJoT_V5_ISS_02_004.pdf [Accessed: 2026-May-11]

[104] 104. Micheni E. Analysis of the critical success factors of integrated financial management information systems in selected Kenyan counties. Journal of Finance and Accounting. 2017;5(5):185–192. DOI: 10.11648/j.jfa.20170505.12

[105] 105. Dorasamy N. Oversight bodies’ role in financial sustainability in local governments. In: Dorasamy N, Kapesa T, editors. Financial Sustainability of Local Governments in Southern Africa. London: Routledge; 2024. p. 61–84. DOI: 10.4324/9781003498230

[106] 106. Nemuramba E, Tengeh R. Integrating real time audits in legislative oversight during times of crisis: A public finance accountability approach for Zimbabwe. International Journal of Business Ecosystem and Strategy. 2025;7(4):160–170. DOI: 10.36096/ijbes.v7i4.892

[107] 107. Rwigema PC. Social and economic development of Rwanda: From post-genocide recovery to program performance under the policy coordination instrument. Reviewed Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities. 2025;6(1):375–421. Available from: https://d1wqtxts1xzle.7cloudfront.net/124661442 [Accessed: 2026-May-11]

[108] 108. Perez-Guzman K, Imanirareba D, Jones SK, Neubauer R, Niyitanga F, Naramabuye FX. Sustainability implications of Rwanda’s vision 2050 long-term development strategy. Sustainability Science. 2023;18(1):485–499. DOI: 10.1007/s11625-022-01266-0

[109] 109. Chidzanja C, Kajoloweka C. Closing the loop: The role of external actors in corruption. In: Kuwali D, editor. Corruption Proofing in Africa: A Systems Thinking Approach. London: Routledge; 2024. p. 145–157. DOI: 10.4324/9781003326649

[110] 110. Kandala J, Moffat F. The effectiveness of the African Union’s anti-corruption mechanisms and the commitment to 2030 and 2063 development agendas. African Studies Quarterly. 2024;22(3):40–62

[111] 111. Ndlovu AS, Chelin R. Government of national (imp) unity or accountability: A new dawn for anti-corruption efforts in South Africa. Journal of Public Administration and Development Alternatives. 2025. Available from: https://hdl.handle.net/10520/ejc-jpada_v10_nsi1_a6

[112] 112. Andrews M, Pritchett L, Woolcock M. Building State Capability: Evidence, Analysis, Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2017. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747482.001.0001

[113] 113. Jones DS. Combating corruption in Botswana: Lessons for policy makers. Asian Education and Development Studies. 2017;6(3):213–226. DOI: 10.1108/AEDS-03-2017-0029

[114] 114. Asomah JY, Dim EE, Li Y. What influences the propensity to report corruption to relevant state authorities? Evidence from Ghana. Journal of Asian and African Studies. 2025;60(5):3240–3256. DOI: 10.1177/00219096241228786

[115] 115. Watkins TA. Public corruption in Ghana and its influence on monetary and fiscal policymaking. SSRN. Available from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5324634 [Accessed: 2025-November-20]

[116] 116. Ofori M, Dogbatse FS. ‘We are only to appear to be fighting corruption… We can’t even bite’: Online memetic anti-corruption discourse in the Ghanaian media. Online Media and Global Communication. 2023;2(1):77–99. DOI: 10.1515/omgc-2023-2007

[117] 117. DeSouza M, Swanzy EK, Asumeng M. Should I accept or refute? Understanding the socio-organisational factors influencing corruption in Ghana’s public service. Public Integrity. 2025;27(3):274–286. DOI: 10.1080/10999922.2023.2290749

[118] 118. Gök A. Determinants of corruption: The case of sub-Saharan Africa. Ankara Üniversitesi SBF Dergisi. 2021;76(2):523–546. DOI: 10.33630/ausbf.810698 [Accessed: 2026-April-11]

[119] 119. Mwangi J, Muna W. Slaying the dragon of corruption: Application of multiple-streams framework in anticorruption policy processes in devolved systems of government in Kenya. International Review of Public Policy. 2024;6(6):3. DOI: 10.4000/13gfs

[120] 120. Daud YM. A review of effectiveness of anti-corruption strategies and institutions in Kenya. African Journal of Commerce Studies. 2024;4(4):303–318. DOI: 10.59413/ajocs/v4.i4.5

[121] 121. Waweru N, Rahaman AS, Cots EG. Corruption networks and anti-corruption mechanisms: The case of Kenya. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. 2025. DOI: 10.1108/AAAJ-05-2024-7072

[122] 122. Waweru N, Rahaman AS, Garriga Cots E. Corruption networks and anti-corruption mechanisms: The case of Kenya. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal. 2025;38(6):1546–1574. DOI: 10.1108/AAAJ-05-2024-7072

[123] 123. Oyamada E. Combating corruption in Rwanda: Lessons for policy makers. Asian Education and Development Studies. 2017;6(3):249–262. DOI: 10.1108/AEDS-03-2017-0028

[124] 124. Booth D, Golooba-Mutebi F. Developmental patrimonialism? The case of Rwanda. African Affairs. 2012;111(444):379–403. DOI: 10.1093/afraf/ads026

[125] 125. Oyamada E. Combating corruption in Rwanda: Lessons for policy makers. Asian Education and Development Studies. 2017;6(3):249–262. DOI: 10.1108/AEDS-03-2017-0028

[126] 126. Gumisiriza P, Mukobi R. Effectiveness of anti-corruption measures in Uganda. Rule of Law and Anti-Corruption Center Journal. 2019;2(2019):8. DOI: 10.5339/rolacc.2019.8

[127] 127. Rwigema PC. Evaluating political leadership performance and accountability mechanisms in Rwanda’s governance system. Reviewed of International Journal of Political Science and Public Administration. 2025;6(1):308–329. https://www.academia.edu/143570561/EVALUATING_POLITICAL_LEADERSHIP_PERFORMANCE_AND_ACCOUNTABILITY_MECHANISMS_IN_RWANDAS_GOVERNANCE_SYSTEM [Accessed: 2026-March-02]

[128] 128. Amegavi GB, Langnel Z. Political leadership and public sector ethics in Africa: A comparative study of Ghana and Rwanda. In: Reddick C, Demir T, Perlman BJ, editors. Public Sector Ethics. London: Routledge; 2025. p. 217–235. DOI: 10.4324/9781003416258

[129] 129. Paik Y, Warner‐Søderholm G, Huse M. In search of an institutional framework for anticorruption: Lessons from Scandinavia. Thunderbird International Business Review. 2019;61(2):105–118. DOI: 10.1002/tie.22028

[130] 130. Brezzi M, González S, Nguyen D, Prats M. An Updated OECD Framework on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions to Meet Current and Future Challenges. Paris: OECD Publishing; 2021. OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 48. DOI: 10.1787/b6c5478c-en

[131] 131. Quah JST. Preventing police corruption in Singapore: The role of recruitment, training and socialization. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Administration. 2006;28(1):59–75. DOI: 10.1080/23276665.2006.10779315

[132] 132. Rothstein B. Controlling Corruption: The Social Contract Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2021. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780192894908.001.0001

[133] 133. Emma L. Cultural nuances and entrepreneurial success: A comparative analysis of high-trust and low-trust societies. 2024. Available from: https//researchgate/profile/Lawrence-Emma/publication/386080087/Cultural-Nuances-and-Entrepreneurial-Success-A-Comparative-Analysis-of-High-Trust-and-Low-Trust-Societies.pdf [Accessed: 2026-May-11]

[134] 134. Shpak Y, Bandura I, Primush R, Dokalenko V, Abdullayev V. Formation of anti-corruption consciousness of citizens as a direction of interaction of public authorities and institutions of civil society. International Journal of Computer Science and Network Security. 2022;22(3):17–22. Available from: https://dspace.chmnu.edu.ua/jspui/bitstream/123456789/2174/1/Shpak%20Y.%2C%20Bandura%20I.%2C%20Primush%20R.%2C%20Dokalenko%20V.%2C%20Abdullayev%20V..pdf [Accessed: 2026-February-15]

Corruption-Proofing: A Theoretical Framework for Anti-Graft in Africa

Corruption - Theoretical, Empirical, and Policy Approaches

Abstract

Keywords

Author Information

Dan Kuwali *

1. Introduction

2. Corruption defined

3. Grand corruption: Diagnosis, measurement, and challenges of detection

4. Political economy of grand corruption in Africa

5. Factors promoting grand corruption in Africa

6. The ARMS framework: Operationalising corruption-proofing

6.1 Accountability

6.2 Responsibility

6.3 Monitoring and evaluation

6.4 Sustainability

7. Comparative insights: Lessons from practice

7.1 Botswana: Institutional culture and elite consensus

7.2 Ghana: Democratic accountability and institutional reform

7.3 Kenya: Reform under political pluralism and persistent patronage

7.4 Rwanda: Centralised rent management and executive resolve

7.5 Singapore and the Nordic countries: High-trust, transparent societies

8. Legal and policy recommendations

8.1 Embed integrity in constitutional and policy design

8.2 Ethical leadership development

8.3 Leverage technology for transparency

8.4 Foster participatory governance

8.5 Adopt the ARMS framework in policy planning

9. Conclusion

Acknowledgments

Author

References

Contemporary Determinants of Corruption in Colombia: A View from the Allocation of Public Goods and Services

Your cart

Corruption-Proofing: A Theoretical Framework for Anti-Graft in Africa

Corruption - Theoretical, Empirical, and Policy Approaches

Abstract

Keywords

Author Information

Dan Kuwali *

1. Introduction

2. Corruption defined

3. Grand corruption: Diagnosis, measurement, and challenges of detection

4. Political economy of grand corruption in Africa

5. Factors promoting grand corruption in Africa

6. The ARMS framework: Operationalising corruption-proofing

6.1 Accountability

6.2 Responsibility

6.3 Monitoring and evaluation

6.4 Sustainability

7. Comparative insights: Lessons from practice

7.1 Botswana: Institutional culture and elite consensus

7.2 Ghana: Democratic accountability and institutional reform

7.3 Kenya: Reform under political pluralism and persistent patronage

7.4 Rwanda: Centralised rent management and executive resolve

7.5 Singapore and the Nordic countries: High-trust, transparent societies

8. Legal and policy recommendations

8.1 Embed integrity in constitutional and policy design

8.2 Ethical leadership development

8.3 Leverage technology for transparency

8.4 Foster participatory governance

8.5 Adopt the ARMS framework in policy planning

9. Conclusion

Acknowledgments

Author

References

Continue reading from the same book

Corruption

Your cart