In recent years, increased interest in understanding how social norms may play…
Top-down technical and regulatory approaches to tackling corruption implemented over recent decades have a very poor record of success.
In response, and taking account of the complexity of how corruption operates in practice and acknowledging the importance of understanding contextual factors, the GI-ACE programme is designed to generate world-class evidence to help inform practitioners’ efforts to deliver more effective anti-corruption outcomes in specific contexts.
Research undertaken is operationally relevant, problem-driven, rigorous, and actionable. The programme aims to help researchers communicate and share findings in ways that support practitioners designing and implementing more effective anti-corruption interventions.
The programme is focused on three priority areas to help inform practitioners:
- Addressing the international architecture that supports corrupt exchanges
- Promoting integrity systems in the public and private sectors
- Tackling corruption at subnational and sectoral levels
Examples include research projects that help identify malfeasance in public procurement, deter the theft of medicine, or determine whether ethics training can reduce corruption in the public sector.
The Anti-Corruption Evidence (ACE) programme is funded with UK aid from the British people,
and represents a £15 million investment from 2015–2021.
ACE is designed to produce new, operationally relevant research evidence on tackling corruption and, through this, support more evidence-based and therefore effective anti-corruption initiatives.
Investigating anti–corruption (not just corruption)
Focusing on real-world problems (not just concepts or theory)
Tackling the politics of anti-corruption (as well as the technical barriers)
Demonstrating impact (by measuring reduced corruption)
ACE is an Interdisciplinary programme, cutting across political science, economics, anthropology, sociology, and socio-legal studies. ACE’s research questions require a combination of research methods, and substantial fieldwork to generate new data, and some experimental methods. These are carried out through the sister programmes GI-ACE and SOAS-ACE.
Led by SOAS University of London, SOAS-ACE is a research programme consortium that takes an innovative, incremental approach to generate evidence on specific sectoral questions to help policymakers, businesses, and civil society adopt new, feasible, and high-impact strategies to tackle corruption.
With a dynamic portfolio of around 35 projects,SOAS-ACE works in the public and private sectors in three DFID-focus countries—Bangladesh, Tanzania, and Nigeria.
Phase 1 — British Academy
The British Academy ran the first phase (2016-18) of the portion of the Anti-Corruption Evidence programme now house with Global Integrity. The eight funded projects identified new initiatives to assist developing countries in efforts to tackle corruption and the negative impact it has on millions of people’s lives.
Select outputs from Phase 1 are available on the Resources page, including from three project that received funding to continue their work in the current phase.
Addressing the International Architecture that Supports Corruption
Explores the link between high-level corruption and the enabling international architecture that supports illicit financial flows, and the role of professional intermediaries — such as agents, accountants, and lawyers — facilitating purchases of property and luxury goods; exploitation of tax regimes; and the use of offshore facilities.
Promoting Systems of Integrity Management
Explores how integrity can be better understood and positively identified and promoted in both the public and private sectors so as to build effective models of integrity management—formal frameworks that ensure stakeholders proactively engage in ethical behaviour whilst also complying with legal norms.
Tackling Corruption at Subnational and Sectoral Levels
Explores variations in corruption at the subnational level and between different sectors. These variations are too often masked by the focus on nation–states as the general unit of analysis in studies of corruption and anti-corruption.