[EAI Roundtable] Meeting to Discuss Realizing Democratic Values and Preventing Corruption

YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XMNmiraOg

Alina Mungiu-Pippidi, Professor at the Hertie School in Berlin, discusses the current global landscape concerning anti-corruption and lessons learned from European Union cases. She explains that governance reform must be domestically led, not aid-driven, in a context where integrity remains stagnant despite democratic advancements. Furthermore, she emphasizes the paramount importance of understanding local contexts and conditions, and fostering an environment where activists can lead anti-corruption efforts, thereby igniting the spark of reform.

Ekaterina Lysova, Director for Eurasia at the Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE), explains CIPE's mission to strengthen societal democracy through private enterprise and market-led reforms. She stresses the importance of nurturing anti-corruption activists to create a level playing field and lay the groundwork for governance reform, arguing that while meaningful change is challenging, the global anti-corruption movement is raising awareness of corrupt practices and laying a positive foundation for good governance.

The East Asia Institute (EAI) held a meeting on January 30th to explore measures for realizing democratic values and eradicating corruption. Professor Alina Mungiu-Pippidi of the Hertie School in Berlin and Director for Eurasia Ekaterina Lysova of the Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE) presented on strategies for democracy support initiatives and anti-corruption efforts in Europe. Participants including National Assembly members Cho Jung-hoon and Ha Tae-keung, Professor Kim Geoseong of Sangji University, Professor Kim Nam-kyu of Korea University, Professor Kim Jeong of the University of North Korean Studies, KBS Director Kim Jong-min, Professor Yoo Jong-sung of Gachon University, Secretary-General Yoo Han-beom of Transparency International Korea, EAI Senior Fellow Lee Sook-jong, Head of the Political and Legislative Affairs Team at the National Assembly Research Service Jeon Jin-young, Professor Cho Won-bin of Sungkyunkwan University, Senior Secretary Choi Jae-hyuk of the People's Solidarity for Participatory Self-Governance, and Professor Han Sung-min of Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, all anti-corruption policy experts, discussed measures to prevent sophisticated forms of power-based corruption and enhance integrity, as well as methods for effectively establishing anti-corruption systems in recipient countries within the framework of Official Development Assistance, with the aim of reflecting these outcomes in national policy. ■

Video Transcript

The European Union's bilateral or multilateral aid is the largest among aid recipients worldwide. The scale of EU assistance is most important. Secondly, the promotion of anti-corruption values is inherent in the EU's foreign policy strategy. We support agreements such as the Cotonou Agreement, an economic development aid agreement that encompasses all countries from the Asia-Pacific to Africa. Conditions for good governance aid have been established previously. Our corruption-related indicators are very weak.

For instance, there is the Corruption Perception Index, which calculates based on various factors. The World Bank index is similar to the Corruption Perception Index but includes more comprehensive information, such as from renowned experts, corporations, and public opinion surveys. When these are aggregated, significant statistical noise is generated. If there are any statisticians here, you will understand what I mean. We gather various data, but we do not know why a particular score is derived from each statistical data set. The scores are not transparent.

Just as we have no way of knowing why the Economist Intelligence Unit, one of the highly credible indicators, gave a score of 5 instead of 2 for a specific figure. Therefore, we must trust their judgment. These are all judgment-based scores. They also lack specificity. Every year, the media publishes national rankings related to the Corruption Perception Index. Generally, this provides a good opportunity for those who do not support the government to say, 'Korea is falling behind Japan' or 'Korea is ahead of Japan.'

However, such rankings are often meaningless. This is because we do not know precisely what it means to be 'better than Japan' or 'not better.' Furthermore, due to statistical noise, most of the changes that occur happen within the probabilistic margin of error of our confidence in the scores. Looking at the figures over the past 30 years, there is no clear change globally. This is also true when examining statistics that divide countries worldwide by income level or continent.

This is generally because reforming national governance is not easy. Improving the quality of governance can be considered more difficult than changing the regime itself. Since 1989, pluralism and democracy, which recognize diversity, have advanced, but there has been no change in government regulation and corruption-related figures. This is because improving governance is difficult. It is even more difficult to achieve this through external factors. This applies whether the actor is foreign aid or even a foreign power. The first lesson is that governance reform entails significant difficulties, as governance is related to the complex balance of power within a nation.

Since there are no good indicators to measure good governance, it is also difficult to determine if changes are due to external factors. Even for locals to drive change is difficult. There is no readily available good method. The EU has not successfully achieved good governance reform. The performance of countries like Bosnia and Morocco, which receive excessive aid, in achieving good governance has not been good. As you can see on the website, while Morocco may have improved, Bosnia is experiencing stagnation.

Our anti-corruption aid has also not worked successfully. While it has not achieved a certain level of effectiveness, aid can be considered effective overall, as countries develop in proportion to the money they receive from the EU. South Korea's governance is closely related to government development and digitalization. South Korea is one of the good examples I present. South Korea has passed what we call a 'critical juncture' in institutional theory. South Korea has resolved various conflicts in a positive direction.

However, transferring these experiences is not as simple as transferring an app or a simple trick. Imitation can lead to positive results. If a particular country wants to imitate another, for example, if Korea wants to compete with Japan, the support of lawyers trained in Japan or economists with experience in the United States would be helpful. However, these must all be domestically led. In other words, for imitation of good cases to bring about change, domestic institutions must lead the process; meaningful change is difficult to achieve under conditional aid.

Conditional aid or external pressure is unlikely to bring about substantial effects on anti-corruption.