5.3.2.7.4 REGISTRO DEL SONDAJE DLEP-A

The discussion has so far looked at the main components of the global anti-corruption framework, that is, the various institutions and techniques through which the international fight against corruption has been conducted. These are; the IFI and bi-lateral donor

conditionality that have made ―good governance‖ a pre-requisite for financial aid, international law, international NGO activism, and MNEs‘ efforts to ensure a level

business playing field. It would appear that good governance conditionality has played the

213 _{World Economic Forum, Partnering Against Corruption Initiative, http://www.weforum.org/issues/partnering-}

90

biggest role, with the other factors bolstering its efforts in one way or another. The

prominence of the good governance discourse in promoting anti-corruption globally is not surprising, given that this is the means that has the most ―teeth,‖ that is, the threat of reduced aid for failure to comply with conditionality. On the other hand, international law lacks an enforcement mechanism, while INGOs and MNE‘s similarly lack coercive means to back up their anti-corruption activism.

The expansion of the international framework against corruption through these various factors has led McCoy to opine that there is an emerging global anti-corruption culture or norm.214 A norm is defined as a standard of appropriate behaviour for actors with a given identity. They are underlined by a strong sense of ―oughtness.‖ Violation results in

disapproval or stigma whereas conformity attracts praise or is so taken for granted that it elicits no reaction.215 Norms are obeyed not because they are enforced, but because they are regarded as legitimate.216Common examples of international norms of inter-state behaviour include the prohibition of slavery and the right of self-determination as opposed to colonialism. Another example is the norm against racial inequality, which saw South Africa ostracised from the international community until the abolition of apartheid in 1990217.

214_{McCoy, J. L. (2001). "The Emergence of a Global Anti-corruption Norm." International Politics 38: 65-90.} 215

Finnemore, M. and K. Sikkink (2005). "International Norm Dynamics and Political Change." International Organization 52(04): 887-917.

216 _{Florini, A. (1996). "The Evolution of International Norms." International Studies Quarterly 40(3): 363-389} 217

91

International norm evolution has been attributed to the ―moral proselytising‖ of

―transnational moral entrepreneurs,‖ who motivated by empathy, altruism and ideational commitment, frame issues for debate and adopt a range of strategies to convince the public of the rightness of their cause.218 Organisations such as Transparency International are considered as moral norm entrepreneurs that exist solely for the purpose of promoting a particular norm. Such organisations then try to persuade state actors to endorse the norm. Endorsement by states usually results in the next stage of norm creation, whereby the norm becomes institutionalised in international law.

Institutionalisation defines what the norm is and what amounts to its violation. Once institutionalised at the international level, a certain critical mass of states must adopt the norm in order to achieve what political scientists have called a ―tipping point,‖ or

―threshold,‖ that is, a point at which more and more countries begin to adopt the norm and international and transnational norm influences become more important than domestic politics for bringing about norm change. At this stage, international socialisation through emulation and praise for conformists in contrast to ridicule for violators allows the norm to become more and more entrenched or internalised to an extent where conformity is taken for granted.219

218 _{Nadelmann, E.A. (1990) ―Global prohibition regimes: the evolution of norms in international society‖}

International Organisation 44:479-526.

219

92

McCoy suggests that the emergence of the global anti-corruption norm has been achieved through awareness raising, institutionalization through the development of legal and policy instruments, and global adoption, internalization, and adherence. She in turn attributes the facilitation of the process to the changing global environment, specifically the end of the Cold War and the spread of the principles of democracy and liberalism; social interactions and the information revolution that contributed to wide-spread diffusion of new information about the causes and costs of corruption, as well as strategies to

combat it; and internal processes within the nation-state, from an explosion of NGOs and a freer, more investigative media, to changing calculations among political leaders about the costs of corruption. However, she points out that the process is still incomplete and that in order for the norm to be said to exist, it will require both international organizations and domestic civil society actors to demand and monitor the implementation and enforcement of current commitments and to establish accountability.

Thus, from Finnemore and McCoy‘s analyses, it can be inferred that the global anti- corruption norm is at the third stage of evolution (institutionalisation), with indications that it is moving towards the tipping point or threshold. This can be inferred from the number of countries (140) that have ratified the UNCAC.220 This illustrates the significance of anti-corruption on the current global governance agenda.

220 _{United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, at http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CAC/signatories.html, last}

93