You are hereHome ›
Prior to the establishment of the Anti-corruption and Civil Rights Commission (ACRC) in 2002, successive governments in Korea implemented extensive anti-corruption institutional reforms. While these efforts reduced the level of corruption, it remains relatively high compared to other G20 countries. Nevertheless, the major institutional reforms implemented from1993 to 2007 helped lay a solid foundation for the ACRC to carry out its functions and combat corruption effectively. The aim of this review is to examine the ACRC’s effectiveness based on closed-end diagnostic questionnaires along with in-depth interviews with the ACRC division management and other relevant personnel and other pertinent parties. The ACRC’s effectiveness is evaluated based on indicators that may be used to assess the effectiveness of preventive Anti-corruption Authorities (ACAs) and the prerequisite conditions necessary for the success of ACAs. The findings of the review show that the ACRC has employed several innovative instruments to fight and prevent corruption effectively. Moreover, it has managed to track the level of corruption and initiate corrective measures to combat corruption-prone areas. Since its establishment in 2002, high-level political support for the ACRC has been constant and strong, as evidenced by implementation of complementary anti-corruption reforms, consistent budgets, implementation of ACRC- suggested codes of conduct and other anti-corruption corrective measures by the central government, local governments, parliament, and government cooperation and enterprises. However, because the ACRC currently focuses more on middle and lower-level public officials it does not cover all aspects of the public sector. In order to do so, its activities should also target high-ranking officials. Furthermore, in addition to combating petty corruption, it must also make efforts to fight and prevent grand corruption as well. Moreover, it should try to include the private sector in its target group, given the fact that one of the main sources of corruption in Korea is related to close ties between business and government.
What are the main functions and operations of your agency?
QUESTION #11 FROM OUR SURVEYS
- A review of the literature on ACAs indicates that there is no standard approach or model when it comes to the establishment of an ACA and the definition of its mandate.
- Some ACAs have been created from scratch, while others have built on existing ombudsman offices, special units within police departments, or justice departments.
- The ACAs included in this initiative are no different. The majority of ACAs have some preventive and investigating functions, but prosecution is carried out by less than half.
Apr 09, 2015
The Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime (DCEC) was established in September 1994 under the Corruption and Economic Crime Act Model and staffed by the former members of the Hong Kong agency and local personnel. The Directorate is an... Read More
OF COUNTRIES HAVE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION LAWS
FROM OUR COUNTRY CROSS-ANALYSIS
The existence of anti-corruption laws is the first step in addressing corruption and creating an enabling environment for ACAs to operate effectively. Anti-corruption laws and regulations such as freedom of information, conflict of interest legislation, whistle-blower protection and financial disclosure, can facilitate the investigative and prosecution functions of ACAs.
For this reason, many countries have introduced this type of laws, as the data collected highlights. This may appear encouraging for the seemingly widespread existence of a comprehensive legal system in support of ACAs activities. It is however important to stress that the data presented capture the existence of the laws (“de jure” system) and not whether the laws are implemented (“de facto”).