Local Governance as a Mechanism to Combat Corruption: An Examination of the Concept and Mechanisms

The globalization of international relations has intensified interactions among various international actors and increased transnational flows. Local and regional phenomena have taken on an international dimension due to the prominent role played by modern media and communication technologies. This has led to the globalization of numerous social, political, economic, and cultural phenomena and values that were once considered exclusive to certain nations, peoples, and civilizations.

For example, the phenomenon of corruption was, until recently, confined to countries with liberal tendencies due to the free nature of economic activities on one hand and prevailing social values on the other. However, corruption is now prevalent even in countries known for upholding values and beliefs incompatible with corruption, such as Arab and Islamic countries. Given the dangers of this phenomenon to all sectors of states, these states have sought to adopt plans to combat it, which often fail due to their centralized nature, rendering them unable to monitor all the regions constituting these states, as well as their impotence in overseeing various national actors, including local government bodies and economic institutions. This has prompted the emergence of several alternatives to combat corruption, one of which is local governance based on a participatory approach to managing local affairs, involving stakeholders alongside local units.

This research aims to define the concepts of both corruption and local governance, as well as the role local governance can play in combating this dangerous phenomenon. It also seeks to clarify the importance of the local governance system amid the changes occurring at the international level in all fields.

The issue raised by this research is: How can a local governance system help mitigate the spread of corruption and its various manifestations at local and national levels?

Given that the research is purely theoretical, we have relied on a descriptive analytical approach to understand the concepts and characteristics of the study variables and analyze the relationships between them, according to the following plan:

1. Corruption: The Concept and Dimensions.
2. Combating Corruption through Local Governance.
3. The Role of Civil Society’s Popular Oversight in Fighting Corruption.
4. Partnership between the Public and Private Sectors and Its Role in Mitigating Corruption.

1. Corruption: The Concept and Dimensions:

Corruption is considered one of the oldest phenomena experienced by human societies and political systems, regardless of the constitutions governing their political, social, and economic lives. There is no country completely free from corruption in one form or another.

In this section, we will attempt to understand what corruption means, its causes, and its impact on societies and states.

1.1- Definition and Manifestations of Corruption:

Researchers have offered varying definitions of this phenomenon. Some have linked it to the cultural dimension, while others have connected it to variables in the prevailing social environment; some have even attributed a psychological aspect to it. Corruption is defined as an individual’s attempt to place private interests above the public interest, which they are entrusted to serve, or as behavior deviating from official duties for personal gain or familial favoritism, or as actions violating the law through practices that prioritize personal interests.

The 1997 Development Report defined corruption as the misuse of public power for private gain.

The World Bank has categorized activities deemed corrupt as follows: the misuse of public office for private gain typically occurs when a public servant accepts or solicits a bribe to facilitate the awarding of a contract or the processing of a public tender. It is also present when agents or intermediaries for private firms offer bribes to benefit from government policies or procedures, overcoming competitors and securing profits outside the framework of regulated laws.

Due to the difficulty in providing a unified definition of corruption, the United Nations General Assembly, in the UN Convention against Corruption adopted in Mexico in December 2002, merely listed behaviors considered corrupt, leaving member states to address the various forms that may arise in the future. The concrete manifestations of corruption are considered to be: bribery, embezzlement, abuse of power, misuse of office, and illicit enrichment.

Given the diverse connotations of corruption, it can be classified into types based on multiple criteria:

• By the affiliation of individuals involved: It can be classified into public sector corruption, which has a more significant impact due to the positions of its individuals who exploit their official positions for personal purposes, and private sector corruption, which involves the manipulation of financial resources and influence to change government policies and obtain specific privileges.
• By degree of organization: Corruption may be categorized into organized corruption, characterized by specific arrangements defining the amount of bribe and the type of services exchanged, and random corruption, which lacks specific regulation.
• By geographical scope: There exists international corruption that extends beyond a single state’s borders, linking multinational companies with governments and organizations within states. Local corruption, on the other hand, occurs within a single country, perpetrated by employees and members of various official departments.

While theoretical literature has differed in providing a specific definition of corruption, they have agreed on the most prevalent manifestations of corruption, which may vary in intensity and terminology based on the societal context:

• Bribery: The receipt of monetary compensation by an official or government employee to achieve gains that are unlawful and contrary to the laws and regulations benefiting the payer.
• Favoritism: Giving preference to specific parties in hiring and promotion cases, or in obtaining privileges without legal recourse or principles of equal opportunity.
• Embezzlement: The misappropriation of public funds under various pretenses.
• Extortion: Forcing individuals and institutions to pay a monetary compensation for services directly or indirectly related to the office held by the corrupt individual.
• Forgery: Manipulating information and distorting facts for personal gain.

2.1- Causes of Corruption Proliferation:

Like other social phenomena, corruption has factors that lead to its spread and infiltration, including:

• Economic Factors: Most manifestations of corruption occur due to the desire to obtain financial or material benefits (gifts, housing, cars, etc.), stemming from either low employee salaries or the absence of a system for incentives and rewards that encourages employees to exert more effort or uphold ethical standards in their work.
• Legal Factors: This refers to the weakness or absence of necessary legal measures to combat this phenomenon, as the legal aspect is vital in restricting behaviors that fall under corruption and determining corresponding penalties, which raises awareness among employees.
• Social Factors: The structure of the society to which the employee belongs, along with its characteristics and prevailing values, plays a crucial role in either encouraging or discouraging corruption. Social relationships significantly contribute to the spread of certain manifestations of corruption, such as favoritism and bribery.
• Administrative Factors: The large size of the administrative system, such as the public sector, and the increase in employees have an impact on the methods and quality of distributing goods and services to citizens. Ineffective administrative systems lead citizens to resort to illicit means to obtain or enhance public services. Additionally, bureaucratic bloat distorts the presumed relationship between employees and the administrative system, contributing to the spread of corrupt practices.

Moreover, the absence of transparency and the secrecy surrounding transactions and administrative systems, along with the denial of citizens’ access to information, are sufficient to foster corruption.

3.1- Impact of Corruption on the State and Society:

Corruption is a dual-variable phenomenon; it can be seen as both a dependent and independent variable. However, it is universally recognized as a negative phenomenon, acknowledged by thinkers in various fields of knowledge. It has never been seen as a positive phenomenon, with its consequences always proving detrimental. We will highlight the effects of corruption across various domains.

• Economic Domain: The side effects of corruption in the economic sphere are numerous. It leads to increased project costs and wasted time due to bureaucratic obstacles, disrupting the principles of fair competition, which subsequently affects economic system performance. Additionally, it facilitates the expansion of the parallel economy that evades regulatory laws. Corruption leads to the squandering of public funds through embezzlement or tax evasion.

Corruption negatively affects investment stimulation and capital flow due to extortion and bribery, resulting in a decline in the quality and quantity of public services that the public administration should provide, especially if administrative officials prioritize spending budgets earmarked for development on commercial projects and contracts linked to personal interests, rather than on developmental projects that serve the community and individuals.

• Administrative (Organizational) Domain: Various manifestations of corruption contribute to the emigration of qualified personnel from the administrative apparatus due to disappointment stemming from the unjust deprivation of privileges and promotions, which diminishes the efficiency and performance of the administrative system. This, in turn, reflects negatively on the relationship between citizens and the administration and encourages the deterioration of local public services offered to citizens by both the public and private sectors due to the absence of oversight.
• Social and Cultural Domain: The greatest danger is the transformation of corruption into a prevalent social culture among administrative bodies and citizens alike. Corruption manifestations may lead to citizens’ disengagement and apathy toward political life, thereby undermining active oversight of public sector performance, hindering developmental projects, reform initiatives, innovation, and creating a gap between political authority and society, which threatens to generate social, political, and economic crises.

2. Combating Corruption through Local Governance:

Understanding local governance clearly and effectively cannot be achieved without addressing the transformations and multiple factors that led to the emergence of this concept. It is also necessary to mention the difficulties faced in establishing a specific definition of governance, while diversifying the various definitions proposed by several organizations and thinkers to identify the areas where all perspectives on the concept of local governance converge.

1.2- From Local Rule to Local Governance:

Several reasons have led to the emergence of the concept of local governance, both theoretically and practically. It reflects the developments in the role of government on one hand, and it has been influenced by various methodological and academic changes on the other.

The main practical reasons include:

• Political Reasons:
  • Globalization as a process, involving:
    • The globalization of democratic values and human rights.
    • The increasing role of NGOs at both national and international levels.
    • The globalization of liberal ideas and market economy, alongside the rising influence of the private sector.
    • Intensified international interactions and information flows.
  • The inability of government institutions to adapt to the increasing demands of societies.
  • The bloating of bureaucracies and the inefficiency of government administration due to outdated methods and techniques.
  • Weak institutional and administrative structures lacking accountability and transparency.
  • The persistence of a security state phenomenon that curtails basic freedoms and suppresses other societal actors.
  • The failure of the state to perform its fundamental tasks, such as fulfilling the needs of its citizens and leading developmental processes, as well as ensuring security and peace, leading to citizens’ loss of trust in governmental institutions, especially in underdeveloped countries.
  • Political instability in developing countries, characterized by the dominance of ruling elites and their reluctance to provide civil society with space for political participation.
  • The unsuccessful democratic transitions in many newly independent states.
  • The diminishing gap between national governance and societal governance and the approaching relationship between the state and society in the post-Cold War period.
  • The accumulation of a political accountability legacy focused on monitoring the actions and performance of political authority.
• Economic Reasons:
  • The financial crises plaguing national states from time to time, hindering their ability to address such crises, necessitating the involvement of new actors to assist in public policy formulation and execution.
  • The shift to a market economy model and the adoption of liberal frameworks, transforming perspectives on the roles of both the state and the private sector in political and economic life.
  • The spread and prevalence of corruption in several nations that require effective mechanisms to combat it.
• Social Reasons: These represent a significant factor leading to the emergence of local governance:
  • Declining living standards of individuals in developing countries across health, education, and financial spheres, along with decreasing human development levels.
  • Unemployment resulting from privatization processes and their social repercussions.
  • The spread of illiteracy, especially among women in developing nations.

From the above, it is evident that the state, as an institutional structure in the third world, has become incapable of meeting its citizens’ needs solely, due to reliance on traditional methods in carrying out its tasks. This has necessitated the involvement of new actors in governance to overcome the manifestations that led to functional failures, amid various international changes impacting the internal variables of developing countries.

From a cognitive perspective, the following shifts have effectively shaped the concept of local governance:

• The emergence of development concepts, including political development, comprehensive development, and sustainable development with new dimensions and levels.
• The development of modern liberalism at the end of the 1980s, emphasizing individual freedoms and personal economic choice.
• Numerous studies emphasizing the importance of establishing democratic values, human rights, and transparency.
• UNDP reports since 1990 that heavily focus on the human factor in the development process.
• Changes in the concept of public administration at the end of the 1980s in terms of models, with trends emphasizing government management by regulators rather than bureaucracies, and reengineering government to enhance efficiency.

Projects to modernize the state through New Public Management, distinguished by building relationships between administration and citizens based on client-oriented principles following an economic rationale, have also been discussed.

2.2- The Concept of Local Governance:

Like other concepts in social sciences, the concept of local governance has encountered several challenges while scholars attempted to define it. The most significant challenges include:

First: The Translation Dilemma:

Translating the concept of governance from English and French into Arabic has faced multiple issues, primarily relating to the variety of translations and their failure to accurately convey the idea of governance. Some believed the term could be translated as “good governance,” but this definition is somewhat normative and ethical, reflecting human behavior rather than a political practice of state governance as an institutional structure. Some translated it as “government,” yet this translation was widely rejected due to its strong association with official authority. The Center for Studies and Consultations for Public Administration in Cairo adopted the phrase “Managing State and Society Affairs” as a synonym for governance, reflecting the actors involved, but if we accept this, it is essential to include the private sector as another active party in governance.

The United Nations has embraced the term “governance,” yet this term carries specific connotations in the Arab-Islamic political thought tradition, especially regarding the concept of governance belonging to God, as stated by Sayyid Qutb. Some Arab thinkers advocated for a single word translation to replace the complete phrase by translating governance as “rule.” Despite recognizing that the word “rule” does not encompass the communal aspect of governance, it confines it to the state.

Consequently, Dr. Abed Al-Jabri argues that translating governance into Arabic, capturing all aspects of the concept, is impossible and suggests pronouncing the word as it is in foreign languages while writing it in Arabic letters: “Kofraness,” similarly to “democracy.”

Second: The Definition Dilemma:

Defining local governance faces the same challenges as other definitions in social sciences: it is difficult to formulate a straightforward, clear, and inclusive definition that encapsulates all elements of the phenomenon and can be generalized across all communities.

Researchers often compromise the clarity of definitions in their pursuit of comprehensiveness or oversimplification, hindering a proper understanding of the phenomenon or reflecting the peculiarities of a specific society.

AR RHODES classified definitions that address local governance into six axes:

• First Axis: Studying the relationship between market mechanisms, government intervention, and public expenditure, primarily aiming to restrict government intervention and regulate public spending, representing indicators of a minimal state that only intervenes when necessary (l’état minimal).
• Second Axis: This concept emphasizes private organizations and business management.
• Third Axis: This advocates for the incorporation of business management principles into governmental administration by applying new values such as performance measurement, competitiveness, and treating the recipient as a client to ensure effectiveness and efficiency. However, this viewpoint overlooks the social aspect of the state as a service provider, disregarding profit.
• Fourth Axis: Local governance signifies good state and societal administration, extending the previous axis but connecting administrative and political aspects through focusing on democratic values and legitimate political institutions. This axis represents the concept introduced by the World Bank in 1989, based on administrative reforms, encouraging private sector and NGO involvement, and administrative decentralization.
• Fifth Axis: Public policies are seen as interactions between formal and informal actors at both national and local levels.
• Sixth Axis: Local governance consists of the management of organized networks among various institutions and organizations. While this axis encompasses all actors, it is general and imprecise, failing to clarify the meaning and intentions behind governance.

Third: The Model Dilemma:

This dilemma concerns the compatibility of the essence and ideas of local governance with all societies, as some believe it reflects a system of values that mirror a Western historical experience.

Mohammad Abed Al-Jabri posits that governance can only be achieved in the presence of political stability, legitimate and effective institutions, political pluralism, and peaceful transitions of power. However, he critiques governance for aiming to reduce the state’s role, worsening conditions in underdeveloped nations due to poor conditions. This also serves the interests of major states amid the ongoing changes known as globalization and the new international order and the dominance of multinational corporations over the international economy in the post-Cold War world.

Hence, it is challenging to find a general model of local governance applicable to every society based on its characteristics. Nevertheless, this does not justify the persistence of underdeveloped countries in their current state; rather, they must strive to find governance mechanisms tailored to their realities and characteristics.

Despite the preceding variables that hindered the establishment and definition of the governance concept, it is essential to highlight the significant contributions of international organizations in the field of local governance, particularly those of the World Bank and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

– The World Bank defines local governance as stemming from the idea of enhancing institutions, defining them as: a collection of formal (constitution, laws, organizations, and political system) and informal (trust in transactions, value system, beliefs, and social norms) regulations, individuals’ and organizations’ behaviors. The World Bank views local governance as “the manner in which authority is exercised to manage economic and social resources of any country for development.”

– The UNDP defines it as “the exercise of political, administrative, and economic authority to manage public affairs at all levels through mechanisms, processes, and institutions that enable individuals and groups to achieve their interests.” This definition emphasizes three pillars of local governance:

• Political Pillar: Related to public policy formulation and decision-making.
• Economic Pillar: Relating to decision-making on the economic side.
• Administrative Pillar: Involves the system of implementing these policies.

– According to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, local governance is defined as “establishing and promoting democratic institutions and encouraging tolerance in society as a whole.”

Researchers in the field of governance have also contributed to establishing the local governance concept:

– Definition by Bagnasco and Le Gelles: Local governance seeks to coordinate agents and social groups to achieve specific common objectives.
– Definition by Marcou, Rangeon, and Thiebault: Refers to new and effective forms of interactions between public sectors through which private agents, public organizations, and citizen groups contribute to shaping policies.
– Definition by Francois Xavier Merrien: Local governance represents a new form of governance where agents of different natures and public institutions participate mutually, sharing their resources, capabilities, and expertise to create a collaborative alliance based on shared responsibilities.**

All these definitions focus on three dimensions of local governance:

• The political dimension centered on respecting human rights and civil and political freedoms, with the state ensuring democracy and promoting political participation.
• The technical dimension emphasizing the efficient and transparent management of material and human resources in the community and enhancing decentralized local democracy.
• The economic dimension pertains to creating space for the private sector to engage in economic activities without granting the public sector any privileges, ensuring equality in rights and duties.

Local governance relies on the positive interaction of these dimensions, manifesting democracy and transparency as its primary pillars.

While there is no specific definition of local governance, it is generally agreed that local governance aims to achieve the public interest in society, constituting a system of community institutions representing all parties and groups. Local governance is premised on accountability, transparency, and participation through institutions, aiming for the ultimate goal of eradicating poverty and deprivation in all its forms and achieving sustainable human development and a high level of well-being.

3.2- Local Governance Actors:

As previously clarified, the most significant transition from the local governance and administrative decentralization system to the more complex system of local governance is represented by the emergence of new actors reflecting the elements of local governance that embody a participatory approach. The elements of local governance consist of the state, the private sector, and civil society. The government establishes the legal and political environment for exercising governance, while the private sector creates job opportunities and income for individuals, fostering a suitable economic environment. Civil society facilitates political and social interaction by mobilizing groups and individuals for active participation in economic, political, and social activities. The cornerstone of local governance lies in enhancing constructive and positive interactions among these three actors, as each actor embodies a pillar of local governance.

First: The State: It is an executive apparatus tasked with numerous functions and controls the exercise of power. The state is responsible for providing the stable and effective legal and legislative framework for the activities of both the public and private sectors while ensuring justice and market stability. Its paramount role is to focus on public services that private institutions cannot provide (sovereign services), including:

• Providing public goods: defense, public order, property protection, public health, education.
• Investing in infrastructure and public services.
• Implementing market economy mechanisms and promoting and coordinating the private sector.
• Protecting the environment and sustainable development components.
• Providing social assistance to deserving community segments.

However, upon examining the reality, it becomes evident that various factors hinder these functions, including:

• The growing demands of individuals and their increasing needs over time, which are challenging to meet efficiently and effectively.
• The difficulty in organizing private sector activities to achieve balance with governmental activities.
• The external challenges faced by the sovereignty of the state in economic, political, and social aspects.

Thus, the state is responsible for creating an appropriate environment that ensures the realization of local governance by enabling the participation of the private sector and civil society in the political process.

Second: The Private Sector: This includes economic, financial, and banking projects and all non-sovereign functions. International transformations have led to changes in economic systems, making private institutions play a significant role in the economic process, particularly in creating qualitative shifts and job opportunities, and ensuring interaction between the state and society. Moreover, the private sector can achieve economic development alongside social and political development, assisting the state in fulfilling its tasks amidst the challenges it faces by raising living standards through the activation and mobilization of the economic sector.

The private sector can support local development in partnership with civil society by providing the necessary expertise and financing for local development projects, as it can penetrate deeper into the community than the state.

Additionally, the private sector plays a vital role in establishing transparency and combating corruption due to its ability to access and manage information effectively.

The state can strengthen and sustain the private sector by:

• Creating a conducive and stable economic environment.
• Encouraging productive investment opportunities by providing an appropriate legislative system and combating bureaucracy.
• Maintaining market competitiveness and regulating it through implementing relevant laws.
• Incentivizing the utilization and development of human resources.
• Facilitating equitable investment opportunities for impoverished classes and providing them with technical, material, and legal support.

Thus, the effectiveness of the private sector in shaping governance can only be realized when a suitable environment exists, necessitating the political will of the political system. The private sector cannot perform its tasks unless it establishes its presence in tandem with both the state and civil society.

Third: Civil Society: The emergence of civil society is linked to the European bourgeoisie in the 17th century, which, once it amassed wealth, did not hesitate to demand various civil and political rights from the state. It has been studied by many philosophers and thinkers, from Plato and Aristotle to Hegel and Marx, passing through Montesquieu, Locke, and Hobbes. Saad Eddin Ibrahim defines it as “a set of voluntary, free organizations that fill the public space between family and state to achieve the interests of their members, committed to values of respect, consensus, tolerance, and proper management of diversity and differences.” Civil society organizations include associations, unions, parties, clubs, cooperatives, and all non-governmental and non-heritage or family entities.

The importance of civil society lies in its ability to organize citizens for voluntary work in the public domain and promote values of civil engagement and participatory development by involving individuals in economic and social activities and organizing them into influential groups to affect public policies and secure access to public resources, especially for impoverished segments.

Civil society helps activate local governance by participating in public affairs and embedding values in democratic practices, deepening accountability and aiding the state in performing its duties by ensuring interaction between authority and social groups. It also supports equality and justice while fostering civic values, socialization, and political participation.

However, civil society activities may face certain challenges, including:

• The absence of sufficient financial and logistical resources to carry out effective activities.
• Dependence on governmental agencies for activity directions and decision-making.
• The lack of a supportive values and cultural environment, which prevents individuals and groups from interacting.

4.2- Standards of Local Governance:

The existence of the three actors alone is insufficient for embodying a local governance system. The practices and behaviors of these actors need to be characterized by a set of standards that are central to governance. Standards of local governance have varied based on the contributing parties involved.

– Local Governance Standards According to UNDP:

• Rule of law and institutional governance.
• Transparency.
• Responsiveness.
• Consensus-building.
• Effectiveness and efficiency.
• Equality.
• Accountability.
• Strategic vision.

– Local Governance Standards According to the World Bank:

• Participatory management.
• Sustainable management.
• Legitimacy and acceptance by individuals.
• Transparent management.
• Promoting justice and equality.
• Ability to develop resources.
• Encouraging gender balance.
• Tolerance and acceptance of dissenting opinions.
• Capability for mobilizing resources to achieve social objectives.
• Supporting self-regulatory mechanisms.
• Compliance with the law.
• Rational and effective use of resources.
• Fostering mutual respect and trust.
• Ability to identify national solutions and address them.
• Regulation over mere surveillance.
• Ability to address temporary issues.
• Service-oriented focus.
• A spirit of responsibility and facilitation.

– Local Governance Standards According to Arab Human Development Reports:

• Guaranteeing personal freedoms to expand choices.
• Achieving effective popular participation.
• Institutionalizing political activities.
• Sovereignty of the rule of law and ensuring its implementation.

From the above, we conclude that the essential standards characterizing local governance, which are agreed upon in most writings, include:

• Sovereignty of the rule of law: to ensure equality and justice among all groups.
• Participation: which aids plurality and power alternation.
• Accountability: ensuring awareness of the implementation and success of public policies.
• Transparency: in adjudication and decision-making, to fortify mutual trust between rulers and the ruled.

5.2- Local Governance and Related Social Phenomena:

It can be noted that local governance, both as a concept and practice, is still newly emerging. It is built on normative human values closely aligned with other contemporary phenomena such as sustainable human development, democracy, and modern public administration.

• Local Governance and Sustainable Human Development:
  The focus on economic aspects in developmental efforts has led to weak growth rates, prompting countries to shift from investing in financial capital to human capital in the context of sustainable human development. This theory champions economic and social development centered around the individual as both origin and goal while addressing human and social dimensions as dominant elements. Sustainable human development integrates economic, political, social, environmental, and cultural aspects as a comprehensive plan for enhancing individual capacities and maximizing benefits. Its objectives include empowerment, cooperation, justice, and sustainability. No political system can achieve these goals without the explicit presence of local governance, as the latter can ensure substantial participation across all social segments, considering its diverse actors and distinguished standards. Local governance fosters communication between the political system and society to collaboratively identify fundamental objectives for sustainable human development and work towards achieving them.
• Local Governance and Local Development:
  Local development refers to policies and programs aimed at instigating desirable change within local communities to enhance living standards and improve income distribution systems. The core of local development lies in involving the local community and human elements as vital resources in the development process, which becomes more efficient over time. Moreover, local governance embodies local development by relying on civil society, whose crucial role in decentralization processes cannot be neglected as it identifies the goals societal segments aim to reach and how to pursue them.
• Local Governance and Democracy:
  Democracy is a governance system involving all members of society. It can take various forms depending on traditions, communities, and the history of each state. There is no single ideal model of democracy. A close examination of the standards underpinning local governance reveals that they echo the very values of democracy itself. Local governance requires establishing a legitimate government to strengthen the distinction of powers (separation of powers) and, consequently, enhance transparency and accountability in management. Political participation stands as a pillar of local governance, indicative of democracy. The relationship between democracy and local governance is theoretically synergistic; local governance cannot be achieved without at least a minimum degree of democracy, while practically, it is interlinked—democracy cannot be enhanced without continuous refinement in governance.
• Local Governance and Modern Public Administration:
  Public administration has been influenced by ongoing changes in political, economic, social, and value systems. Administrative bodies have found themselves unable to meet challenges, leading to calls for reforms within the context of modern public administration, which prioritizes performance monitoring, citizen focus as customers, transparency, and cost management. Implementing this administration style has transformed governance mechanisms and methods for managing state and societal affairs while reducing the state’s role.

Thus, modern public administration aligns closely with local governance mechanisms as both aim to serve citizens effectively while diminishing the state’s role in favor of other actors like civil society associations and the private sector.

This significant intertwining of local governance with most contemporary political phenomena arose during similar periods of emergence and resulted from the same factors that led to their appearance, sharing the common goals of lifting poor countries from underdevelopment and enabling them to meet challenges through their communities for their benefit.

3. The Role of Civil Society Oversight in Combating Corruption:

Local civil society plays a central role in combating corruption as it serves as a fundamental pillar of the governance system. It theoretically enjoys the independence necessary to exercise its oversight role over government and the private sector. The culture of citizenship is fundamentally based on the relationship of accountability that shifts individuals from a state of dependency to one of interest, participation, and contribution, justifying the right to oversight and accountability. Furthermore, civil society and its various formations possess the ability to observe the extent to which public facilities and private institutions fulfill their roles effectively. This benchmark determines the presence of corruption or lack thereof, as corruption directly leads to decreased administrative effectiveness and efficiency, while the latter’s proper function indicates the absence of functional disruptions that may arise from corrupt behaviors.

On the other hand, civil society propagates awareness more broadly than the designated legal units operating to combat corruption. This means the number of civil society organizations at the decentralized local level allows for deeper penetration into local units, in contrast to anti-corruption bodies that are often centralized. It is unreasonable to expect corruption-fighting bodies to exist at every local unit.

Local civil society organizations can also raise individuals’ awareness regarding the risks of corruption, prioritizing corruption combat as a matter of significance, thereby instilling social values that counteract corruption and its manifestations.

Moreover, the efforts of civil society to instill civic values among individuals are likely to enhance citizens’ sense of responsibility towards public funds. The engagement of civil society with skilled scientific and practical capacities—given its voluntary nature—permits the mobilization of these capabilities to combat corruption.

4. The Partnership Between the Public and Private Sectors and Its Role in Mitigating Corruption:

All literature studying this topic has provided its unique definition of Public-Private Partnership (PPP), emphasizing the various interactions and collaborations between the public and private sectors concerning their human, financial, administrative, organizational, technological, and knowledge resources on bases of participation, commitment to objectives, freedom of choice, shared responsibility, and accountability to achieve economic and social objectives that concern the largest segment of society, bearing long-term implications for its aspirations.

From the definition, it is clear that the partnership concept is modern, multifaceted, and increasingly important, concurrently intersecting various administrative, organizational, cooperative, economic, social, and legal dimensions.

With regard to corruption, the partnership between the private and public sectors could eliminate some of its manifestations by addressing underlying causes. Administrative bloat, for example, diminishes in the presence of PPPs due to the private sector’s ability to transcend issues related to the structural aspects of public sector administration. It is common knowledge that the private sector is more inclined towards delivering better public services than public facilities, influenced by commercial standards and programs and its transactions with citizens based on customer relationships.

Additionally, this partnership preserves public funds by generating financial revenues for local units through external contracts (Contracting Out). Private sector entities typically exhibit a greater degree of transparency than public facilities, thereby shielding them from corruption due to better management of information concerning operational procedures.

Conclusion:

In conclusion to this research, we can assert that corruption is a multifaceted phenomenon, due to its diverse manifestations and types and its connection to multiple factors, making it perilous to the future of states and peoples. On the other hand, the concept of local governance—despite being the result of Western intellectual endeavors—features a range of foundations and characteristics rendering it applicable in all nations in varying forms, enabling it to combat corruption and reduce its prevalence through a participatory approach that allows several actors, alongside national and local governments, to hold accountable and oversee the performance of entities responsible for providing services and achieving development while enhancing their efficiency in fulfilling their tasks.

Consequently, states suffering from widespread corruption in various domains and levels should adopt local governance and establish its principles and foundations within their local administrative systems, organizing the relationship between official and unofficial actors to ensure that both the state and society collaboratively tackle this dangerous phenomenon, supporting local civil society and refining its role in overseeing the performance of local units, while also involving the local private sector in financing, implementing, and monitoring diverse projects within these units, ensuring transparency in their management and accountability within the framework of the rule of law.

References

Controlling Corruption
Author: Robert Klitgaard
This seminal work provides a framework for designing anti-corruption policies, enriched with case studies demonstrating how policymakers have successfully addressed corruption challenges.

Handbook on Corruption, Ethics and Integrity in Public Administration
Editor: Adam Graycar
This comprehensive handbook examines the common factors that lead to corrupt environments and proposes strategies for building integrity within public administration globally.

Corrupt Cities: A Practical Guide to Cure and Prevention
Authors: Robert E. Klitgaard, Ronald Maclean-Abaroa, H. Lindsey Parris
Focusing on urban settings, this guide offers practical tools and strategies for diagnosing and combating corruption at the city level, drawing from real-world examples.

Combating Corruption: Legal Approaches to Supporting Good Governance and Integrity in Africa
Author: John Hatchard
This book explores legal frameworks and approaches to enhance good governance and accountability in African states, providing insights applicable to broader contexts.