Introduction
Although corruption is a difficult challenge to solve, many municipalities in Ukraine have managed to make strides in implementing anti-corruption policies and principles of integrity in their activities. What enables these changes?
This article will focus on the key role of communication in creating the so-called “political will” to fight corruption — joint anti-corruption commitment between key local players (government, civil society and business) combined with a shared understanding of the problem and agreement on effective decision-making. As for the methodology, this article is based on an in-depth study of the process of anti-corruption reforms in six cities of Ukraine in 2015–2020, that, according to anti-corruption NGOs, had the “political will” to overcome corruption (Fig. 1).
Fig. 1. Mapping of cities where the anti-corruption policymaking processes were studied in 2015–2020.
Through decades of research in the social sciences, we know that communication fosters a joint commitment to solving complex problems. Indeed, our study of six cities that have seen positive changes in their anti-corruption policies also revealed the important role of communication between key local players such as local self-government, local civil society, businesses and international partners. Notably, despite significant differences in organisational approaches to structuring anti-corruption policies, communication in these cities had the following functions:
- encouraging initial commitments;
- transforming commitments into real decisions and policies;
- persuading relevant stakeholders, especially veto-wielding actors, of the need to change policy over time (see Figure 2).
Fig. 2. Communication functions aimed at fostering political to reduce levels of corruption in local self-government bodies.
These communication functions shape stakeholder preferences, develop mutual trust and are important for developing viable policy solutions.
Keep in mind that these communication functions are not a linear process: no need to start with showcasing the benefits and gradually move to the validation of operational solutions through persuasion. In the studied cases, the development of operational solutions often marked the starting point of communication as actors realised and formulated benefits and exchanged pros and cons of operational solutions.
How communication drives initial commitment to anti-corruption reforms
Highlighting the benefits of the reform to stakeholders
In the studied cities, eradication of corruption as such was not the main goal of the cooperation of the stakeholders. For many, fighting corruption means investigating and bringing the culprits to justice. Instead, discussions and interactions focused on achieving local collective benefits and improvements, and poor governance was seen as an obstacle to this goal. Positively framing the benefits, such as local economic growth or the city’s national reputation, builds confidence that everyone is seeking these positive outcomes and helps avoid blame. This, in turn, contributes to the involvement of both politically and economically influential stakeholders in cooperation.
Voicing and recognising mutual obligations
When stakeholders publicly declare their commitment to reform, they establish a relationship of accountability. In other words, by publicly pledging to do something, the parties give the other party a reason to be held accountable for the promises they made. Thus, commitments made only in private between small groups of actors have much less potential for transformative change.
Ensuring mutual accountability
Our research revealed numerous examples of how the public and the business community, or even agencies representing other branches of power or, for example, local political opposition, can pressure local self-government to follow through with their own reform promises, as well as formal procedures and decisions. Forums and (press) conferences, as well as publications in local media, are important platforms for implementing this accountability.
How communication helps make anti-corruption commitments achievable
To achieve and track progress, commitments have to be translated into specific policies and (technical) solutions.
Determining aspects of the problem and prioritising issues that need to be resolved
Through dialogue, stakeholders assess the impact of corruption on local businesses and government activities and identify specific forms and schemes of corruption that are common in specific sectors. Rather than identifying the culprits, the goal was to map schemes and loopholes, as well as to reorganise processes to reduce corruption risks. Some of these communication processes took on the format of a dialogue between officials of the initiating administrative unit who acted as whistleblowers describing the “weaknesses” of the procurement process or the “price” of issuing a building permit. In some — but not all — cases, these interviews were part of a formal corruption risk assessment (CRA) and involved end-users such as businesses or monitoring NGOs.
Development of operational solutions
This function was meant to complement policy decisions with expertise and, crucially, to adapt them to the activities and daily routines of stakeholders in hopes of enhancing compliance. Communication formats varied between discussions in working groups, bilateral conversations and dialogue between local self-government bodies and donors, while public events or round tables were not brought up as platforms for such negotiations. Local authorities would occasionally develop operational solutions without the involvement of other stakeholders.
Validation of proposed measures
Once the draft policy was developed, local self-government officials would regularly “reality-check” the proposed measures with relevant audiences, such as industry experts and potentially affected stakeholders. The authorities sought feedback through informal bilateral consultations, public presentations and round tables, as well as advisory bodies made up of experts and activists.
Securing change through ongoing persuasion of stakeholders
Persuasion is needed to galvanise support among key decision-makers or those responsible for implementing specific measures to move from rhetorical commitments to action. This function is vital when a draft regulation on a certain initiative needs political support or when political approval does not lead to actual implementation. In both cases, policy initiators provided stakeholders with custom arguments to retain their commitment. Next they used various platforms — from media publications and public events to informal bilateral conversations to convince those who could support or hamper their initiative.
Final discussion
The communication processes outlined here highlight a significant shift toward broader democratisation in Ukraine. First, compared to the top-down models of communication between the government and the public that existed in post-Soviet Ukraine before the Revolution of Dignity of 2013–2014, the public clearly feels empowered to demand that politicians keep their promises. Respondents often reported controversy and disagreements in conversations about anti-corruption policies, which is perhaps inevitable in a sensitive issue such as corruption. Second, discussions on anti-corruption policies have been resolved with arguments and persuasion rather than through power or coercion (although the latter was present as well), which indicates the smoothing of hierarchies between the government and the public, as characteristic of democracies. For this reason, multilateral platforms introduced in two of the six studied cities are a potentially useful solution that would enable the sustainability of communication around solving local problems, which also contributes to the political will to implement anti-corruption policies.
The showcased models of interaction between the government, business community and civil society, which contributed to the shaping of political will, remain relevant even during Russia’s full-scale invasion — as a practice of resistance. However, they will also be relevant when developing new solutions for the attraction and use of international technical assistance funds in municipalities in order to develop democratic policies for their use with integrity.
Recommendations for improving communication efforts
To support both anti-corruption political will and democratisation in general, policymakers and international donor aid should focus on three directions:
- Support multilateral platforms that aim to identify collective benefits (e.g., a vision of socio-economic development and/or revitalisation). A complex issue such as corruption must be solved with the participation of all stakeholders — the government, civil society and business community — that must put trust in their mutual commitments. Regular interactions help to overcome mistrust between these groups. Second, such interactions need to be ongoing, and platforms must be institutionalised. Third, to ensure willingness to cooperate, collective benefits must be presented as positive outcomes for all stakeholders. The negative connotations of “fighting corruption” by persecuting offenders can hinder coordination.
- Identify and support those actors who can facilitate communication about anti-corruption policies and invest in the further strengthening of their facilitation skills. Facilitators can be commissioners for anti-corruption policy, integrity sectors, local development agencies or project teams that act professionally as bridges between the government, civil society and business community. They need institutional support (accommodation, salaries) for long-term work, as well as technical support in facilitation techniques and methods, conflict resolution and stakeholder communication management.
- Support data collection and analysis skills among employees of local self-government bodies and their institutions, enterprises and organisations. Functions such as the identification of aspects of the corruption problem, as well as the development and verification of measures, require authorities to systematically evaluate their processes and alternative solutions, which requires the collection and/or processing of qualitative and quantitative data. Methodological expertise can often be outsourced, but local self-government officials must be able to determine what data they need, assess their quality and account for the findings in the policymaking process.
This publication is an excerpt from the study co-authored by Marsha Grimes and Oksana Hus. The full version of the study, jointly conducted by the University of Gothenburg, the Interdisciplinary Anti-Corruption Research and Education Centre at the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy (NaUKMA) and the Kyiv School of Economics with the support of the Swedish International Centre for Local Democracy, is available here, and the summary in Ukrainian is available here.