Comparative approaches to the concept of corruption risks

COMPARATIVE APPROACHES TO THE CONCEPT OF CORRUPTION RISKS


Rakhmonov Bekzod Khasanovich
Chief inspector,
Anti-corruption Agency of the Republic of Uzbekistan
Email: [e-mail]
Phone: [phone]


Annotation: The article analyzes the theoretical aspects of the concept of corruption risks. The opinions of leading scientists on the concept of corruption risks have been studied. The article also provides information on the assessment of corruption risks and its importance in the fight against corruption.
Key words: corruption, corruption risk, decision, corruption risk assessment, convention, law, analysis, civil servant, corrupt act.

Corruption is recognized worldwide as an extremely dangerous social and legal phenomenon, generating problems and threats to the stability and security of the state, destroying the institutions and values of the rule of law, and causing significant harm to the development of the society, in connection with which the problem of combating corruption has become dominant in the national policy of many countries.

However, real counteraction to corruption is only possible if it is seen as a systemic phenomenon. The result of anti-corruption efforts should be the creation of such institutional and legal conditions that will not only effectively detect and punish corruption violations, but, above all, ensure their systemic prevention and avoidance.
According to the United Nations Convention against Corruption, the prevention and eradication of corruption is an obligation of all states. In particular, each member shall aim to establish and promote effective practices aimed at the prevention of corruption [1, P. 9].
The international anti-corruption organization Transparency International studied the level of corruption in 180 countries in 2021 and published a Corruption Perception Index (CPI) on a scale from 100 (very high level of corruption) to 0 (no corruption) [2]. In this CPI the countries were evaluated according to four main criteria:
1) the way in which business interacts with the government;
2) existence of anti-corruption laws and their implementation in the government
3) how transparent government services and procedures are;
4) whether there is public control of all of the above processes.
These evaluation indicators also show that the most effective method of fighting corruption is the adoption of measures to prevent corruption, or more precisely, the early detection and corruption risk assessment. Identification and corruption risk assessment make it possible to detect weaknesses in the system of governance, causing corruption of officials in all spheres of state activity.
Analyzing the legal studies, we encounter the problem of defining the concept of corruption risks. It should be noted that the concept of corruption risks as such has not been formed either in scientific studies or in the national legislation. The lack of a clear understanding of this term slows down the process of minimizing corruption risks. However, corruption risks are an official and legal term that is mentioned in some bylaws [3].
Most frequently, this concept is used in the context of combating corruption. Some authors believe that the terms corruption and corruption risk are interchangeable [4, P. 9]. Others define corruption risks as an assessment of the possibility of corruption [5, P. 74]. It is often common to define this term as a corruption problem.
Based on these definitions, we can see that the authors relied mainly on their own opinion and assessment, rather than on normative legal acts [6, P. 47].
In the field of public service, V.V. Astanin considers corruption risks as “the probability of corrupt behavior that may be caused by: non-compliance with duties, prohibitions and restrictions established for civil servants in connection with the passage of public service; implementation of powers in the exercise of professional activities of a public servant” [7, P. 3].
Based on this definition, corruption risks in the activities of executive authorities can be considered as the possibility of corrupt behavior of a particular public servant, or their group. This corrupt behavior in a public authority may be caused by: non-compliance with duties, prohibitions and restrictions established for civil servants and employees of executive authorities; exercise of powers in the performance of their official activities.
Tashina K.M. conducted a study in which she identified common features of all the definitions given by the authors of various scientific articles. Pursuant to her version, corruption risks are “conditions and circumstances that motivate and open the possibility of entering into corrupt relations” [8, P. 212].
V. Georgiev refers corruption risk to the degree of probability that corruption may occur along with the possible damages associated with corruption [9, P. 4].
Other authors describe corruption risk as conditions conducive to the emergence, development, implementation, and spread of corruption in service and professional activities [10].
Corruption risks are “a high degree of probability of illegally obtaining material benefits for personal purposes, being brought to legal responsibility, caught by law enforcement agencies with subsequent legal liability and other negative consequences provided for by current legislation” [11, p. 93].
When analyzing the definition of corruption risks, it should keep in mind that it consists of 2 terms: corruption and risk. Risk is the possibility of an unfavorable situation. Corruption – illegal use by a person in an official or duty position with the aim of obtaining tangible or intangible benefits in personal interests or in the interests of other persons, and an unlawful provision of such benefit [12].
Based on the above, we believe corruption risks should be understood as possibilities and conditions that motivate and open the possibility of entering into corrupt relations.
Corruption risk assessment is a modern anti-corruption method used in the prevention of corruption as part of a system of measures to counteract its manifestations in the authorities and organizations. This method is aimed at identifying and minimizing the corruption risks in the activities of authorities or organizations and is among the main tools for corruption prevention. In particular, it makes it possible to increase the impact of anti-corruption measures implemented in the organization on the causes and conditions of corruption, as well as on the suppression of real and probable corruption schemes.
At the same time, the implementation of the corruption risk assessment allows us to solve a number of practical problems, including the adjustment of the list of positions, which are associated with high corruption risks, to clarify the action plan to combat corruption in the government or organization, to focus the preventive work of responsible departments on the identified “critical areas”.
At the current time, the corruption risk assessment in international practice is carried out in two main directions (models):
a) at the level of legal regulation of the relevant types or areas of activity (assessment of corruption risks of legal acts and/or their drafts);
b) at the level of actual processes of carrying out such activities (identification of corruption risks in the organizational and managerial activities of public authorities and local governments, as well as other organizations, in order to identify relevant corruption practices, that is, varieties of corrupt behavior).
In worldwide practice, it is the first model that is recognized as the most effective application of assessment. This is due to the possibility of preventing the emergence of institutional preconditions for corruption deformations in administrative procedures. A more comprehensive corruption risk assessment is considered to be carried out by combining these two assessment models.
Corruption risk assessment could be the main tool for preventing corruption offenses in any state bodies, local governments, or organizations of any form of ownership. Since this method makes it possible to ensure that the measures used to fight corruption are consistent with the available means of committing corruption offenses.