Skip to main

Impact case study database

The impact case study database allows you to browse and search for impact case studies submitted to the REF 2021. Use the search and filters below to find the impact case studies you are looking for.
Waiting for server

Shaping ways to combat corruption

1. Summary of the impact

Professor Heywood’s research has been highly influential in helping to shape the global agenda of how corruption is understood and combated.  Based on detailed analysis of shortcomings in how corruption has conventionally been conceptualised and measured, Heywood has developed and advocated alternative approaches that have had increasing resonance amongst policy-makers and practitioners. Heywood’s research has impacted: a) the growing focus on sector-specific approaches, reflected in DFID’s [now FCDO] evolving approach to anti-corruption, the UK’s Anti-Corruption Strategy and the development of CurbingCorruption.com, an initiative to support anti-corruption policy-makers and practitioners; b) the growing emphasis on the need to focus on positive-facing integrity, reflected in the commitment of international organisations such as the World Bank and OECD to ‘rethink corruption’ and their approaches to how it can most effectively be addressed.

2. Underpinning research

The core research is a series of studies published by Heywood over recent years [1-6], funded by various UKRI and EU awards and supplemented by the major DFID [FCDO] anti-corruption evidence research programme he has headed (Phase I: GBP3,600,000, 2015-18 with the British Academy; Phase II: GBP5,500,000, 2018-21 with Global Integrity, a Washington DC-based NGO). The research is informed by the fact that despite a dramatic increase over recent decades in awareness of the cost and the damage caused by corruption, there is widespread frustration that anti-corruption interventions led by international bodies, individual governments and NGOs alike have had very limited impact.

Heywood’s research has addressed fundamental issues that underpin both the analysis of corruption and resulting approaches to policy design aimed at combating it, as well as proposing new approaches that have gained traction with policy-makers and practitioners.  There are three specific dimensions to this work: measurement [1,2], scale and focus [3,4], and integrity management [5,6].

In the course of his research, Heywood has shown, first, how existing attempts to measure corruption have been seriously undermined by conceptual and methodological shortcomings [2], leading to the emergence of a ‘corruption trap’ whereby overseas development aid is made increasingly dependent on the prior implementation of reforms that are impossible to achieve without that very aid [1].  This highly-cited research has been further developed in Heywood’s calls for new and innovative methods and approaches to measuring corruption, focusing both on greater disaggregation and a wider range of indicators, that are increasingly being explored by international NGOs [3,4].

Second, the overwhelming focus of corruption analysis and policy at the level of individual nation states is out of step with the reality of how corruption operates in practice in its various dimensions, and also fails to recognise changes in the architecture and accountability structures of states themselves [3].  In particular, the ‘methodological nationalism’ that has characterised most studies of corruption has led to anti-corruption interventions that are pitched at the wrong level to be effective and that reflect a misunderstanding of the sector-specific nature of corrupt practices [4]. The need to refocus beyond just national jurisdictions is being increasingly adopted by international agencies, such as the World Bank, OECD and Transparency International, further underlined by the revelations of the Panama and the Paradise Papers, as well as the ‘Lux Leaks’, the ‘Lava Jato’ Oderbrecht scandal and the FinCEN Files.

Third, there is a need to recalibrate approaches to fighting corruption away from ever-greater reliance on compliance mechanisms based on national-level anti-corruption strategies, looking instead at how to develop more comprehensive integrity management systems at appropriate geographical scale and sectoral specificity [5,6]. Much of this research has been conducted under the auspice of the multi-partner EU FP7 ANTICORRP programme (2012-17), the largest single award in the social sciences granted under the scheme, in which Heywood led a work package exploring the development of integrity management systems. The focus on integrity offers an alternative, more proactive and positive-facing means of promoting high standards in governance. An ESRC grant on integrity management approaches in the UK, Hong Kong and China – in addition to the ANTICORRP award – supported much of this work, that has influenced a growing emphasis on integrity, notably in the OECD’s strategic approach to combating corruption and in UK anti-corruption advocacy.

3. References to the research

Publications:

Measurement

  • [1] Heywood, P.M. ‘The Politics of Perception: Use and Abuse of Transparency International’s Approach to Measuring Corruption’ (with S. Andersson), Political Studies 57:4 (2009) DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2008.00758.x

  • [2] Heywood, P.M. ‘“Close but no Cigar”: the measurement of corruption’ (with J. Rose), Journal of Public Policy 34:3 (2014) DOI: 10.1017/S0143814X14000099

Scale and focus

  • [3] Heywood, P.M. ‘Rethinking Corruption: Hocus-Pocus, Locus and Focus’ in Slavonic and East European Review 95:1 (2017) DOI: 10.5699/slaveasteurorev2.95.1.0021

  • [4] Heywood, P.M. ‘Combating Corruption in the Twenty-First Century: New Approaches’, Daedalus 147:3 (2018) DOI: 10.1162/daed_a_00504

Integrity management

Grants:

2018-21: Global Integrity/DFID ACE Partnership Programme Director, Phase II [PI] [Total award GBP5,500,000; UoN portion to support Director GBP240,000]

2017-18: ESRC Impact Acceleration Award ‘Combating Corruption in C21: the Need for New Approaches’, GBP30,000 [PI], supplemented by awards of GBP10,000 from the U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Center (Norway), and GBP6,000 from Adam Smith International, UK.

2015-18: British Academy/DFID ACE Partnership Programme Leader, Phase I [PI] [Total award GBP3,600,000; UoN portion to support Leader GBP117,516]

2014-15: The Netherlands Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations: ‘Good Practices in Employee Surveys on Integrity’ EUR25,000 (jointly with Dr W. van Doreen) [PI] (Consultancy)

2014-16: European Commission DG Home Affairs: ‘TACOD: Promoting Open Data as a Tool to detect and prevent corruption in Europe. Analysis of law, practice, public perception and impact in 4 pilot EU countries’ (with 5 partner institutions) EUR463,553 [Co-I; UoN portion EUR45,000]

2012-14: European Commission: technical assistance and support for establishing and coordinating a network of local research correspondents on corruption (LRCC-TAS, comprising 28 EU country experts) EUR4,000,000 [Co-I: UK expert] (Consultancy)

2012-17: European Commission 7th Framework Programme: ‘ANTICORRP: Anticorruption Policies Revisited: Global Trends and European Responses to the Challenge of Corruption’ (20 partner institutions) EUR7,999,182 [Co-I; UoN portion: EUR270,000]

2011-13: Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) and the Hong Kong Research Grants Council: ‘Redesigning the Integrity Management Framework in the UK, Hong Kong and China Public Services’ (jointly with Professors T. Gong and I. Scott) GBP105,000 [PI; UoN portion GBP77,041]

4. Details of the impact

Professor Heywood’s work [1-6] has significantly contributed to shaping the international agenda of current policy debates about how we should understand and combat corruption. Corruption carries a very significant cost, not just in financial terms (around 5% of global GDP according to some estimates) but also in terms of a loss of trust between citizens and institutions – both in the public and private sector. The failure of concerted anti-corruption efforts over recent decades to have a significant impact is held to have contributed to the rise of anti-system politics across the globe, posing real challenges to systems of governance and accountability. The need to address corruption effectively is therefore ever more urgent.

Heywood’s pathway to impact has been explicitly to move from detailed analytic research towards close engagement with policy-makers and practitioners in order to influence their approach. The Head of the UK Government Joint Anti-Corruption Unit (JACU) confirms that ‘ Heywood has truly been a leading player in connecting policy-makers and academics working on corruption and anti-corruption’ [a]; the Lead Public Sector Specialist at the World Bank states ‘ Heywood is indeed one of the very few scholars in the field of corruption research who strives to make his research relevant for us working in the policy arena’ [b].  Heywood’s policy focus has been reflected, for instance, in his selection to lead a multi-million-pound DFID [FCDO] programme designed to generate practical anti-corruption evidence and his appointment to the Board of Trustees of Transparency International’s UK chapter (TI-UK) where he chairs the Advocacy and Research Committee; further examples include his nomination to the Transparency Interational International Council, and his involvement in an innovative web-based initiative, CurbingCorruption.com, aimed directly at government officials tasked with tackling corruption.

In regard to his work on measurement [1,2] of corruption as well as its scale and focus [3,4], Heywood has contributed to the design of government policy both nationally and internationally.  Following the UK Anti-Corruption Summit of May 2016, he has been a strategic adviser to both JACU and DFID [now FCDO] in the UK, influential in the development of their respective anti-corruption strategies: ‘ Heywood has played an important role in advising the UK government (…) in designing its strategy’ [a]; ‘ Heywood’s knowledge, and framing of it for DFID (…) have been instrumental (…) at both the academic level and the policy influencing level. It is very likely his contribution will be informing DFID’s work on anti-corruption for some time to come’ [c].  These governmental strategies have incorporated key aspects of his work [1-4], including the need to differentiate more carefully between particular forms of corruption and to develop more targeted responses: ‘ His insights on the conceptualisation of corruption, and refreshing way of looking at the field, was particularly useful to our [DFID] team to shift away from narrowly orthodox ways’ [c] ‘ Heywood was particularly helpful in guiding our thinking around the definitions of corruption and our way of conceptualising the problem’ [a]. These are reflected in the UK Government’s first ever ‘Anti-Corruption Strategy 2017-2022’ [i] and in the 2016 International Development Committee Report on ‘Tackling Corruption Overseas’, in which Heywood is extensively cited [f].

Of particular note is Heywood’s emphasis on sectoral specificity [3,4], which has contributed directly to the establishment of  CurbingCorruption.com, a new initiative designed explicitly to support public officials and politicians planning anti-corruption reforms [g]. Although so far in existence for just two years, the website now occupies top place of over 9,500,000 results returned when searching Google for ‘curb corruption’, ahead of both Transparency International and the World Bank. As the lead editor of this site, Heywood has helped design a pragmatic multi-stage approach for developing reform strategies in specific sectors that has attracted significant policy interest: ‘ Heywood’s work on corruption at the sectoral level, notably through the website curbingcorruption.com, has facilitated our coordination across projects and thematic areas in the World Bank. (…) We promoted it at the latest International Anti-Corruption Conference, the world’s premier global forum for bringing together heads of state, civil society and the private sector, organised in Copenhagen in October 2018’ [b]. The World Bank’s 2020 Global Report on The Fight Against Corruption explicitly adopts an emphasis on sector and function-specific interventions, marking a significant shift from its previous approach [j].

An influential three-part workshop series organised by Heywood on ‘Rethinking Corruption in the 21st century’, hosted in London (July 2017), Washington DC (December 2017) and Accra (March 2019), brought together seventy-five leading policy-makers, practitioners and academics to address core issues, seeking to understand the shortcomings of past anti-corruption approaches and what can be done in the future [h].  The workshops attracted significant international interest and included participants from government agencies (UK, Germany, Australia, Norway), international bodies (World Bank, UNDP, Inter-American Development Bank), and NGOs (Transparency International, Partnership for Transparency Fund, Global Integrity, Oxfam).  They were described by JACU as ‘ a fantastic opportunity (…) to stimulate and challenge my views on corruption and (…) to be put in touch with stakeholders’ [a].  Emerging from the workshops was a series of co-produced concrete policy proposals, including on shifting policy attention to promoting integrity which has been increasingly embraced within global anti-corruption discourse, as well as proposed new frameworks to develop better strategy to inform reforms measures, understand the practical functions of corruption and to chart influence networks. These are available through the Global Integrity Anti-Corruption Evidence website [k].

Heywood’s work on integrity management [5,6] has contributed directly to the anti-corruption agenda of the OECD. At its 2016 Integrity Forum his report [5] commissioned by The Netherlands government (in its capacity of EU Presidency) was launched and helped influence the development of the OECD’s 2017 Recommendation on Public Integrity [l]. The Deputy Head of the Public Sector Integrity Division at OECD notes that ‘ his (Heywood’s) recommendation to move our work away from compliance-based approaches to the broader integrity agenda contributed to inform the new objectives of the OECD in this policy field. His research (…) has contributed to promote integrity management as a new way of preventing corruption, challenging conventional views within the policy community’ [d]. The OECD integrity focus is directly cited in Peru’s sector-based anti-corruption strategy, 2018-21, and Heywood was invited to Lima in 2019 by the Peruvian National Statistics Agency to advise on measuring corruption risks.

The Executive Director of Transparency International-UK attests that ‘ Heywood has been instrumental in shaping many of TI’s internationally-recognised measurement and research tools. (…) His strong recommendation to move away from a solely national focus to look at what happens internationally is now fully reflected in the organisation’s strategy’ [e]. TI is renowned for its Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), the methodology of which has been significantly reworked in recent years following critiques by Heywood and others [1,2]; the Government Defence Industry Index, compiled by TI-UK, has been organised in bands rather than as a ranked list, in line with his recommendation. Heywood has also been involved in providing academic expert commentary on the ongoing refresh of Transparency InternationaI’s global strategy, due to be adopted in 2021. In recognition of his knowledge and expertise in the field of anti-corruption, the Berlin-based Transparency International (TI)* Secretariat invited Heywood in October 2020 to join its newly established International Council, comprising global experts to support the activities and objectives of the worldwide TI Movement.

In summary, Heywood’s research has had extensive reach and impact in shaping the understanding, approach and strategy towards tackling corruption within governments, as well as major international bodies and leading NGOs.

*TI was ranked 8th worldwide amongst think tanks with the most significant impact on public policy in the  2018 Global Go To Think Tank Index, published by the Lauder Institute at the University of Pennsylvania.

5. Sources to corroborate the impact

a. Letter from Head of UK Joint Anti-Corruption Unit, Home Office
b. Letter from Senior Economist, World Bank
c. Letter from former Senior Anti-Corruption Adviser, DFID
d. Letter from  Deputy Head of Public Sector Integrity Division, OECD
e. Letter from former Executive Director, Transparency International UK
f. Report of House of Commons Select Committee on International Development on ‘ Tackling corruption overseas
g.  CurbingCorruption.com
h. Delegate list from international workshops on ‘rethinking corruption’
i. UK Anti-corruption strategy
j. World Bank Global Report 2020 – Enhancing Government Effectiveness and Transparency
k. ‘Rethinking corruption’ on the Global Integrity Anti-Corruption Evidence website
l. OECD Recommendation on Public Integrity

Additional contextual information

Grant funding

Grant number Value of grant
N/a £5,500,000
N/a £3,600,000
N/a £331,109
N/a £46,000
N/a £5,796,509
N/a £105,000