 |
|
|
Subscription is free and allows you to receive email newsletters, alerts, and
to access a comprehensive member directory and network with other development professionals.
Sign-up here
|
|
|
|
|
| Special The requested resource (/editor/default/) is not availableReport |
|
|
|
The requested resource (/editor/default/) is not available
| Points of View: E-Government |
Introducing information technology to government services is one way to enhance public sector transparency.
The Development Gateway asked four e-government experts across sectors the question “How do online government tools promote transparency?” The following composite interview (see Contributors, to right) raises issues ranging from the impact of e-government on transaction cost to citizen familiarity with technology.
|
|
|
 Should e-government play a central role in developing transparency
and accountability? |
 Kaleil Tuzman, United States
Absolutely. E-government is fundamentally about visibility, accessibility
and extensibility, and these are the core ingredients for transparency in government. However, e-government is just a tool, and transparency
depends as much on how that tool is used as it does upon its mere existence. Government agencies have to be motivated to distribute
information online, and automate processes that are otherwise subject to corrosive, corruptive influences. I am familiar with many
government agencies, both in the U.S. and abroad, who adopt e-government programs with a lot of fanfare, but due to the restriction of information
provided to the portal or due to the lack of back-end integration of electronic processes into the front-end portal, little actually
changes in terms of the citizen’s visibility into the bureaucracy. Moreover, accountability is not an issue for e-government. No one ever got
indicted by the internet, a friend of mine is fond of saying. But a lot of people have been indicted based on what was made available by or distributed
through the internet. The point is that the democratic institutions in question need to hold government actors accountable, and e-government
can help that to happen more easily.
Too little attention is paid, in my view, to the beneficial effects (in terms of transparency in particular) of electronifying
processes as opposed to information. It is easy to conceptualize the beneficial dynamic of civil society and the media being able to access
government information online (about bidding processes for public works projects, for example, or the names of people and institutions with certain
types of business licenses), but it’s not as obvious what happens when you put the actual public works project procurement bidding online, or automate
the process of obtaining a business license. This is when the magic really occurs. By diminishing the one-on-one human interaction and subjective
decision-making that can induce corruption, the process itself is made transparent and the field is leveled.
|
Tom Riley, Canada
E-government programs, to be
successful, must have laws and regulations mandating transparency and
accountability, creating privacy, information, transparency and accountability
laws. Openness laws are the linchpin of good e-governance and successful
e-government delivery. Governments should be the leaders in developing
transparency and accountability in the countries and jurisdictions over which
they rule. Transparency and accountability mechanisms should be developed in the
form of legislation, regulation and policy. This is a major undertaking as the
problem does run deep in many countries. Anti-corruption laws need to be passed
that include the forming of overseeing bodies that will have the power to
investigate officials in governments and in the private sector who are involved
in corruption. This means that the commitment has to come from the top of
government, at the political level, to bring this about. Currently, many
international funding organizations take steps to add riders to contracts,
regarding corruption, when monies are donated. There are many international
organizations who fight corruption. Most countries in the developed world have
anti-corruption laws with serious sanctions for offenders. As has been recently
shown from the financial scandals in large corporations, the ultimate penalty
for corruption is criminal charges laid against senior executives in the
companies. These individuals have been brought before the courts and, when found
guilty, jail sentences have been levied. This sends a message that the
government is taking the issue seriously.
Brazil, Costa Rico, Peru and
Mexico—four countries recently with serious corruption scandals—are prime
examples of governments taking a zero tolerance approach to pilfering of
government funds or accepting bribes. The results have been high profile trials
of former heads of state and ministers. Many countries are realizing that
corruption has serious effects on the economic health of the country, in
eradicating poverty and in creating an equal and just society for all.
Transparency laws are also important and these should include freedom of
information laws, privacy laws, anti-corruption laws, and policy and regulations
for high ethical standards for those who work in the public sector.
International organizations can put pressure on countries to attempt to
eradicate corruption. However, the recent scandal at the United Nations on the
food for oil program, and the alleged millions of dollars that supposedly went
to UN officials, illustrate that the problem lies within the culture of
organizations and countries alike.
|
Jerzy Szeremeta, United Nations
For the
forthcoming "Age of Knowledge" (or rather "Age of Responsibility") we have to
repair the social institutions of democracy and market. This hinges on repairing
relations between governments and citizens and opening up avenues for the
citizens to play much more active roles in policy making. The currently existing
democracies feature groups with narrow encompassing interests that, exactly due
to inactivity of people as citizens, manage to use public power and public
resources to their own advantage. As for the markets, they are addicted to
clearing while producing negative externalities, this being their historic
rather than inherent feature. All this too often translates into denied
developmental opportunities for people and into degradation of the biosphere. If
we put the newly acquired skill of mass-production of knowledge into this
institutional environment, by under-development of two main assets of the
knowledge society, people and information - this institutional environment would
suffocate the potential to mass-produce and mass-utilize knowledge; and, it
would remain insensitive to marketing knowledge-based products with high risk
factor, potentially endangering human life and life in general. The goal of high
quality and safety of life for all people everywhere can be secured exactly by
employing revitalized democracy as a means for resolving the emerging tension
between technology (ICT and the technique to mass-produce knowledge) and
society. Such revitalized democracy must be based on vastly improved
deliberative resources of citizens. This involves inter alia their access to
information crucial from the point of view of genuine participation.
All
this goes way beyond transparency as an anti-corruption vehicle for the sake of
financial accountability. Transparency lowers the cost and greatly increases the
quality of democracy. It increases the pool of information that can be
creatively reflected upon by the citizens in the process of mass-production of
the knowledge "to maintain developmental equilibrium" - a key ingredient of
well-informed political participation. At the same time, as mentioned in the
2003 UN World Public Sector Report, the idea that people will need an abundance
of information in the future is an incomplete thought. What they will need is an
abundance of reliable, accurate and authoritative information that is relevant
to their needs. And they also must be able to trust the source that provides
such information. More often than not, they will be unable to personally test
its quality. The government can certify information it provides according to
well-recognized methodological standards. It is well placed to avail itself of
methodological principles and to ensure that information that it presents
conforms to them. The release of public information should be de-politicized by
removing any possibility of private control over how, when and where it is
released. A legislated framework of principles and criteria for reporting public
information would protect its release from private interests. The government
should organize itself for the release of information that in its structure does
not follow the current organization of public administration by sector (e.g.
health, education, defense, economy, environment, immigration etc.), but by
outcomes or agreed developmental objectives that serve the adopted developmental
goal (e.g., human development). In many cases, this would move the release of
information from being misleading by being incomplete to being immediately
usable and useful by being comprehensive.
In such a context, e-government
can become a most valuable tool. Just imagine an ordinary citizen who wants to
be politically active and is able to receive on demand a brief on any
politically important subject that is generated by an e-government application
and provides him / her with all the information needed, in a text that can be
read and easily understood in five minutes. ICT can facilitate this today. The
context for the application of e-government in such a role is still missing.
Laws and regulations to curtail corruption is the first step. The second step is
to have within any given jurisdiction a government campaign denouncing
corruption and making it clear that corruption will not be countenanced.
The third, and most important, is changing the culture itself. This is
the most difficult step. Transparency laws are essential for democratic
societies and societies moving towards democracy. Open government allows all
citizens to potentially be embraced in the workings of government. Openness is a
weapon to bring down corruption. Checks and balances in the political and
judicial forums are the keys to combating anti- terrorism and ensuring
accountability and transparency.
|
Harris Whitbeck-Piñol, Guatemala
Yes. Government
should be very active at it. Government gets its resources from people through
taxes and it should make reasonable use of them. Through accountability,
government can inform the people of the use of taxes and because of that, people
should have certainty that its money has been well used. In the midterm those
actions tend to make a better impression of the government on people and the way
it uses the taxes. Tax recollection duties are better performed and people are
more willing to pay them knowing their money is used the best way.
Efectivamente. El Gobierno debe tener un papel central en el tema.
Por su propia naturaleza el gobierno obtiene recursos de la población en general
a través de los impuestos, por lo que está obligado a hacer un uso razonable y
eficiente de los mismos.El hecho de desarrollar transparencia y rendir cuentas a
la población tiene un doble efecto: a) por un lado, al estar usando recursos que
ha obtenido de la población, informa del uso que le da a los mismos y b) el
publico al percibir esta actitud del gobierno, puede tener la certeza que sus
impuestos son bien utilizados. En el mediano plazo, estas acciones tienden a
mejorar la percepción que el público tiene del gobierno y la forma como este
utiliza los recursos y puede influir, a través de una forma natural, en que la
gestión de cobro de impuestos sea mas eficiente, al estar cada día más personas
proclives a tributar, conociendo que a esos recursos se les está dando un uso
razonable.
|
Steve Clift, United States
Absolutely. While many
view e-government in the light of service delivery, democratic governments are
something we all own as citizens. We are not just customers. Major institutions
from media and political parties to governments and corporations, have
transferred their often one-way nature to the Internet. This is a start.
Transparency can be greatly enhanced through personalized access and e-mail
notification of happenings within government. The concept of information access
is now shifting to accessibility which means the "find the needle in the middle
of our haystack approach" no longer is sufficient. Government must make
information available to citizens on their terms to remain relevant and
competitive with other information providers in society.
|
 |
| One criticism of e-tools is that they are often used as
evidence for transparency where transparency may not actually exist. Have you
found evidence that supports or negates this point of view? |
Kaleil Tuzman, United States
Unfortunately, government actors often use e-government
implementation as a “cover” for taking substantive steps in combating corruption. If an e-government
implementation is not integrated into the workflow of a government bureaucracy, it can end up as a thin and irrelevant
veneer, like a coat of paint or a flashy billboard. Transparency can only be achieved by electronifying government processes
throughout—-from the user who logs onto a municipality’s website to explore re-zoning his land, to the administrator who goes into the
system to review the criteria for the application under a visible and published set of guidelines, to the neighbor who goes
online to view the status of the land zoning request.
|
Steve Clift, United States
Accountability only
comes with the use of information provided for transparency. Elected officials,
citizens, the media, and NGOs and others must actively utilize their remote
Internet access to budget, spending, grantmaking, contract, and permit or
licensing information. Whether the goal is improved government efficiency or
anti-corruption, the "sunshine" generated by an active base of users must also
be followed up with enforcement power. For example, if the delay in processing
adoption papers is known via an online system, it does little good if
administrative investigation is not taken against those who routinely delay
processing of applications.
|
Harris Whitbeck-Piñol, Guatemala
I am not aware of
an analysis about this. However it should be noted that having these
technologies can give people alternative ways of testing transparency in
government spending. An adequate legal framework should give certainty to the
electronic means and that will help government bring transparency to its work. I
can mention "Guatecompras", the internet
site where government makes all of its purchases. Through this kind of
electronic means, civic participation is allowed in the procurement process and
makes government purchases totally transparent.
No se ha hecho un
análisis de esta naturaleza, sin embargo se podría indicar que la existencia de
herramientas tecnológicas garantiza la existencia de métodos “alternativos” que
la población puede utilizar para medir la transparencia. Una adecuada
legislación le dará certeza jurídica a instrumentos electrónicos, que vendrá a
apoyar las acciones comprendidas por el gobierno en transparentar la gestión.
Basta señalar el caso de "Guatecompras"
donde el gobierno hace sus compras y que es el mejor ejemplo que apoya la
apertura, a través de este tipo de herramientas, incentiva la participación
ciudadana y mejora la gestión gubernamental.
|
Tom Riley, Canada
It is easy to put something up
on a website and present what are supposedly facts when in reality they are
there as a public relations ploy or mere propaganda. Transparency laws—ones that
actually work and allow access to government information—act as a counterfoil to
attempts to obfuscate facts presented as truth by the government. Transparency
laws are developed in society for the common good, to control the worst
appetites of human behaviour and to change the culture of a government for the
few to a government with the interests of all in the society. This is what we
can call a civil society.
|
Jerzy Szeremeta, United Nations
The context for
applying e-tools is absolutely crucial. In a wrong context, e-tools are
meaningless. As documented in the 2003 and 2004 UN Global E-Government Readiness
Surveys, while 92 percent of the 178 countries with web presence feature some
kind of archived information and can claim transparency on this account, only 6
percent of them provide relevant background information that facilitates
political participation. Even in some of them problems with timeliness and
clarity persist.
|
|
| What sectors of government are likely to benefit most in
terms of transparency from the implementation of e-government tools? Why would
this be? |
Kaleil Tuzman, United States
As my answers above imply, I am a big supporter of e-government
applications for areas where information exchange and transactional workflow meet. In these areas of government
activity—-including licensing and permitting processes, tax filings, non-criminal violations processing, case
management, etc.—there is not only a large opportunity for cost savings and efficiency improvements, but the ability to
monitor and safeguard money flows and coveted certification processes. It is in these areas where e-government can deliver a body
blow to corruption and favoritism. But for this salutary effect to hold, the actual enterprise software within the government
agency must be tied into the web-based front-end. You need to have seamless automation, from the entry point for the user to the administrative
interface on the back-end. Unfortunately, there is a tendency within government agencies to focus on areas that provide a lot of
media “flash” and little actual effect (in terms of transparency and accountability), in my view: e-voting, online census, information-only portals, etc.
|
Tom Riley, Canada
Any ministry that delivers
services directly to the public benefits the most. Ministries that deal directly
with the citizenry are subject to scrutiny and, most importantly, to be
effective in delivering their service, have to take into account the needs of
the citizen. If the government is transparent and open in their dealings with
the public they will get proper feedback from citizens which in turn increases
efficiencies within their own ministries. This process then helps the ministry
to create better programs to deliver their services and leads to economic
savings because of the useful feedback from the citizen. To be effective in
delivering an e-service it has to meet the needs of the citizen and not solely
the needs of a particular government ministry. The direct connection between a
government department and citizens, whether it be in the private sector, the
academic world, civil society or NGOs, unions or associations and the individual
citizen, eventually creates significant change in a society. This change is the
transfer of some of the traditional powers of government to groups and citizens
in society. This has already been acknowledged by the United Nations and some
countries who now recognize NGOs as a significant part of the power structure
and decision-making process of organizations or in some cases, countries. This
evolution is having long term consequences as devolved power through the sharing
of e-services entails the imparting of information and responses back from the
citizen. There are economic and administrative benefits for the government
ministry involved, in the short term, but in the long term it is the citizen who
will have the most benefits. When governments interact with the public with
e-services, the dynamics in society change over time as citizens then feel
closer to government though not necessarily at a conscious level.
|
Harris Whitbeck-Piñol, Guatemala
Benefits are
mutual. Government as well as civil society benefits. Electronic means help the
government work both internally and with external actors. Through these means,
people get faster attention to their needs, learn procedures, and find other
ways to interact with government officials. A government gets its work done
better and makes itself accountable to the public.
El beneficio se
puede considerar mutuo. Tanto el gobierno como la sociedad en general se
benefician del particular. Las herramientas de gobierno electrónico busca
facilitar la gestión gubernamental propia y su interacción con la sociedad. A
través del mismo, el ciudadano puede recibir respuestas más rápidas, agilización
en sus trámites, más y mejores canales de contacto con las oficinas de gobierno
y otros. El gobierno por su parte hace más eficiente su gestión y la hace objeto
de eventuales auditorias que el público pueda hacer. |
Steve Clift, United States
The hard truth is that
no company enters a government office to pitch an accountability tool. In the
United States a survey by the Center of Excellence in Government found that most
citizens wanted e-government to deliver accountability. That surprised everyone
except the citizens. In developed democracies where transparency and
accountability is often assumed, so little has been done to significantly open
up government in ways that would really expose wasteful spending or promote real
accountability. Without democratic intent and political desire to use
e-government tools to enhance democracy and public trust in government via
transparency, government as a whole will not benefit. Poland stands out as a
model with its Freedom of Information Act which embedded the proactive use of
the Internet into their rule of law with online information dissemination of,
not just access to, local government budget information. Within government,
Prime Ministers to Mayors and Local Councils to Parliaments will gain themost
from a more accountable and transparent administrative branch.
|
Jerzy Szeremeta, United Nations
Given the
appropriate context, all sectors of government would benefit in terms of
transparency from the implementation of e-government tools. Transparency allows
making better decisions by breaking up the narrow circles that apply themselves
to the task of policy making and, in case of failure, as a rule, make the wrong
choice: instead of broadening the circle involved in decision-making, they
increase the level of secrecy, a breeding ground for more failures.
|
|
| When it comes to increased transparency and efficiency in
government, do the costs of e-government justify the benefits? Why or why not
and who should bear the costs? |
Kaleil Tuzman, United States
I think the answer to this is--it really depends. In cases where a government
agency is automating a bureaucratic process that involves both information and money exchange (like licensing and permitting, tax
filings, violations processing, et al.), the cost is almost always justified. The mistake made by many e-government procurement
offices is the tendency to buy unnecessary, custom-built systems. In most cases, cheaper commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) software and portal
solutions are perfectly fine and can be modified to agencies’ specific needs. Paradoxically, the service and reliability of COTS systems are usually
better than expensive and bulky custom-built solutions, because the individual buyer usually benefits from a large user group and ongoing
enhancements. The cost of e-government should be borne, in my view, by the parties that benefit from its implementation. I think that many pricing
models are viable and appropriate—including traditional enterprise software licenses, user-borne (citizen or business)
fees, and third-party financing. |
Jerzy Szeremeta, United Nations
Response to this
question depends on the kind of society that we want to become. If this is a
Smart Knowledge Society, one that transforms its institutions to secure
limitless development of people and information, one that involves all people in
mass-production of all kinds of knowledge and one that pursues the goal of high
quality and safety of life, than the question about efficiency, as understood by
the New Public Management theory and practice becomes by and large irrelevant.
Yes, public resources can and should be invested into development of people as
active citizens and into providing these citizens with transparent access to
public information. Motivated by military and economic reasons, we have used
public money to build highways in many parts of the world and no efficiency
calculation was ever used to justify these decisions. This was the price of
security, economic growth, and a certain type of civilization. May we understand
the need of well-informed citizens' consent that hinges inter alia ongovernment
transparency for building our knowledge-based future. Then the discussion of
efficiency will become redundant. The cost will be treated as an equivalent of
adding to the pool of vital, indispensable resources.
|
Steve Clift, United States
E-government services
should reduce the cost of transactions. After initial up-front investments,
governments should consider a fee reduction for online transactions in order to
create an incentive for system use and uptake. This runs counter to early ideas
about extra convenience fees or attempts to maximize the recouping of the
investment required to install the system. While most e-government services
simply provide information, those that process transactions more efficiently
must be promoted heavily so governments can shift scare and valuable civil
servant resources to more pressing public challenges. I believe in
government-wide transaction systems with central sources of funding to ensure
collaboration. Most governments are content to allow their "silos" to build
systems with vastly different user interfaces. This is fine for niche services
and licenses, but when it comes to the services that most citizens use once
every year or so, integration and common look and feel is the name of the game.
|
Tom Riley, Canada
Yes, the costs of e-government
do justify the benefits, provided that the government makes these services cost
efficient and that the intended recipients get value from the services they
receive. Governments will always bear the majority of the costs as it is
taxpayer money funding the development of the services. Some countries do charge
fees for some services, following the private sector model, but this is not
widespread in governments around the world. In the case of medium and developing
countries implementing e-services, if funding comes from international
organizations, such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the
United Nations or the Commonwealth Secretariat, there needs to be an
accountability mechanism. Such a mechanism would include reports to the donor
agencies. This reporting would be on funds spent, detailed progress reports on
the evolution of e-government programs and when e-services programs are
launched, an assessment of the impacts of the program, and an assessment of the
cost benefits in doing these programs.
|
Harris Whitbeck-Piñol, Guatemala
There is plenty
of global evidence showing that transparency and efficiency of government are
improved through implementing e-government. Costs should be split between
government agencies of government that have their own e-government programs and
the specialized modernization agency of the government as well.
Efectivamente. Hay suficiente evidencia a nivel mundial que demuestra
que el implementar gobierno electrónico incrementa la transparencia y eficiencia
de Gobierno. Los costos deben ser canalizados a través de dos fuentesThe requested resource (/editor/default/) is not available internas:
a) las instancias de modernización del gobierno y b) las propias instituciones
al desarrollar sus programas de gobierno electrónico.
|
|
| Besides providing funding, what role should developed
countries and multilateral organizations play in supporting e-government
projects? |
Kaleil Tuzman, United States
As third-party funding providers, we must be sensitive to the internal
market dynamics—-both political and economic—-of the developing country in question. Some years ago, I was involved in one of the first
large-scale national e-government implementations in the developing world. Since the project was largely funded through the UNDP, there
was a set of standards and protocols that were set out a priori. As a result, the project emphasized certain areas of information
dissemination and transactional workflow (like public works bidding, voting and electoral districting, and business licenses) that were not
nearly as important to this country’s particular situation as other areas that were completely ignored—customs regulations and inspections, public
safety announcements, and vital statistics, for example. It’s not that the areas the UNDP set out as priorities were cheaper to implement or enhanced
the overall e-government user “community”. They were just admirable initiatives better suited for a different country context. The implementation
of e-government projects should be driven by local priorities and local users, even if externally financed. This is especially true when there is material
civil society and business sector input into the government’s scoping of the project.
|
Steve Clift, United States
In the past, I've
always considered myself a technology agnostic. With e-government services,
particularly those involving complex transactions like the payment of taxes or
the protection of private data in legacy systems, proprietary or open source -
use what works best for your government. However, with e-democracy technology
developments, the 5 percent of e-government that helps citizens have a better
say in how their taxes are spent, open source is the way to go. From e-mail
response systems for elected officials to e-parliament tools, mulitlateral
organizations and developed countries should pool their resources into an open
source e-democracy network. The UK Local E-democracy National Project,
established by the Office of Deputy Prime Minister, recently funded the open
source release of a tool from New Zealand called GroupServer. As a lead consultant
for this UK project, it become clear that the many-to-many interactive tools
required for citizen participation in local democracy could also be used for
online communities of practice. In this case we deployed GroupServer to both
encourage local citizens in UK pilot cities to discuss local issues as well as
practitioners from around the world to exchange knowledge on webcasting via an online community
of practice. Now any e-government project, anyone for that matter, can download
and use the GroupServer tool. This approach will enable more governments and
citizens to access e-democracy tools at a lower cost with shared feature
development through an emerging developer community.
|
Harris Whitbeck-Piñol, Guatemala
It is important
that governments of the first world cooperate not only in providing funds to
developing countries but also in providing technical cooperation, through
sharing experiences and giving companies in the less prepared governments in
terms of e-government. This “collateral” cooperation can be directed through
direct fund assignments, sending experienced people and even sharing technical
tools.
Es importante que los gobiernos de países desarrollados
cooperen no solo en proveer de fondos, sino también en capacitación técnica,
compartir experiencias y acompañamiento en los procesos de implementación en los
gobiernos menos desarrollados en materia de gobierno electrónico. Esta
cooperación “colateral” puede efectuarse a través de fondos, enviar personal
técnico de apoyo y hasta compartir herramientas informáticas.
|
Tom Riley, Canada
Offering service and expertise.
Sending e-government experts for long term contracts to the donor country.
Educational programs online, training and whatever else is needed to ensure a
successful evolution of the local e-government program.
|
Jerzy Szeremeta, United Nations
Both can
facilitate intelligent, well-informed, serious global debate about our shared
future. Then the need for institutional transformations will become clear,
contexts for applying e-government solutions will become fully developed and
e-government deployment in such contexts will give meaningful results.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The requested resource (/editor/default/) is not available
|
 Kaleil Isaza Tuzman, co-founder and CEO of govWorks. NEW! |
 Steven Clift, consultant named to “The 25 Who Are Changing the World of Internet and Politics”, U.S. |
 Thomas Riley, executive director of Commonwealth Centre for Electronic Governance, Canada |
 Jerzy Szeremeta, ECOSOC and a principal author of the 2003 World Public Sector Report 2003 “E-Government at the Crossroads”, United Nations |
 Harris Whitback-Piñol, Commissioner for State Reform, Decentralization and Civic Participation, Guatemala |
- Ronald MacLean-Abaroa, former mayor of La Paz and a co-founder of Transparency International, Bolivia
- Hugo Maúl Figueroa, Presidential Commissioner for Transparency and Anticorruption, Guatemala
- Ramadhan S. Mlinga, Executive Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Central Tender Board, and Vincent Kihiyo, Prevention of Corruption Bureau, Tanzania
|
- Muslehuddin Ahmed, founding chairman of Civic Watch-Bangladesh and the Foundation for Education and Development
- Londa Esadze, coordinator of Georgia’s TraCCC Money Laundering Programme
- Eduardo Bohórquez, director of Transparencia Mexicana
- Codru Vrabie, executive director of Romania’s chapter of Transparency International
- S. J. Chavda, secretary of Tanzania’s Front Against Corrupt Elements
- Geir Sundet, from Tanzania’s Research on Poverty Alleviation
|
 How did Development Gateway members respond to our Public Sector Transparency Survey questions?
|
| How does global transparency measure up? Charts and graphs on how transparency measures up. Click here. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Email this page 
Sign-up