This study is a preliminary research which finds a model which can evaluate outcome of international cooperation appropriately and understand corruption problems in ASEAN region before seeking a practical way to strengthen anti-corruption international cooperation with ASEAN. This study has the following three purposes. Firstly, this study is to grasp issues in anti-corruption international cooperation by examining previous studies of condition of success for anti-corruption policy and corruption problems in ASEAN region. Secondly, this study is to improve understanding of anti- corruption policy and regulations of Thailand that is central market in ASEAN region and has accelerated anti-corruption movement. Thirdly, this study is to propose a comprehensive index model which can compare a degree of corruption of countries with different economic development levels as basis to strengthen anti-corruption international cooperation among ASEAN countries.
In chapter 2 that addressed issues of anti-corruption international cooperation, condition of success for anti-corruption policies, effect of anti-corruption policies, factors which influence ASEAN anti-corruption policies, ASEAN anti-corruption agreement and enterprise activities were examined. Main contents in each subject are as follows.
In order for anti-corruption policies to succeed, an organization for preventing corruption that can direct anti-corruption policies at a national level should be established and such organization should be equipped with political independence. In order for such organization to perform mission of exposing corruption effectively with expertise and persistence, political leaders’ strong will to push ahead with anti-corruption policies is required. Strong anti-corruption will at a political level serves as a path which allows human resources and material resources to be invested in such organization and provides engine that allows anti-corruption policies to persist.
Because anti-corruption policies have been implemented around public sector, its positive effect is more noticeable in public sector than private sector. Enterprises with lots of interchange of business can realize anti-corruption value better because they should satisfy high level of ethical standard which the government requests. Meanwhile, objective corruption level and subjective corruption level which enterprises perceive influenced outcome of enterprises with different strength.
Recent studies on ASEAN countries found that ‘economic freedom’, and ‘transparency of public administration’ influenced outcome of anti-corruption policies. On the other hand, there is a gap between ‘citizens’ recognition of anti-corruption organizations’ and objective outcome of anti-corruption policies.
ASEAN countries are promoting regional anti-corruption international cooperation based on ASEAN convention against corruption (ASEAN-PAC). Discussion of importance and need of anti-corruption activities and efforts towards self-purification by private enterprises in ASEAN region has been made very actively recently. Main activities of ASEAN-PAC include encouraging and supporting private sector’s anti-corruption activities.
Enterprises in ASEAN region are required to pursuit profits in corrupt national environment and cope with pressure of corporate social responsibility (CSR). Moreover, risk that new corruption occurs crossing the border becomes higher as regional integration level is enhanced due to the establishment of ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), strong cooperation among anti-corruption organizations in ASEAN members is required.
In chapter 3 that addresses anti-corruption laws and policies in Thailand, anti-corruption laws and anti-corruption organization in Thailand were overviewed and systems for preventing corruption in public sector, monitoring corruption, protecting and rewarding whistleblowers were examined and a difference between South Korea and Thailand in anti-corruption policy environment was examined.
In 1999, National Corruption Coping Committee (NCCC) was established through Framework Act on The Prevention of Corruption whose name was changed to National Anti Corruption Committee (NACC) in 2008. Framework Act on The Prevention of Corruption requires politicians and public officials to report their assets to NACC. NACC has authority to investigate whether public officials have accumulated unusual wealth in violation of Thai laws.
Despite NACC, independent committee with such strong authority, in Thailand, corruption has not disappeared. This is mainly due to Thailand culture with high level of tolerance towards corruption, patronage relationship found in public procurement sector and dispersed network between anti-corruption relationships in Thailand.
There are no significant differences between anti-corruption laws and policies in Thailand and those in South Korea. The fact that constitution in Thailand has had provision of ‘restraint of corruption’ since shows Thai government’s will to cope with corruption problems at a national level after recognizing the problems. NACC in Thailand has stronger authority of investigation than Anti-Corruption & Civil Rights Commission in South Korea. However, NACC is unable to investigate corruption of government agencies because military dictatorship dominates NACC and makes bad use of corruption exposing.
In such a situation which Thailand’s political situation has not been improved, effectiveness of cooperation between South Korea and Thailand in anti-corruption such as public institution integrity assessment system training. Thailand introduced public institution integrity assessment system but corruption cases in public sector has increased. Such a gap is mainly due to public institution integrity assessment concentrating on measuring symptom of corruption.
In chapter 4 that finds an alternative to Transparency International’s corruption perception index (CPI) assessment system, problems of current CPI assessment system were examined and Integrity Index as new index that complemented such problem was proposed.
Limits of CPI are as follows. Firstly, CPI focuses on grasping present state of corruption. Secondly, there may be difference in recognition of degree of corruption in assessing respondents’ corruption level. Thirdly, it is difficult to apply general theory of relationships between transparency, democratization and economic development to CPI assessment result. Fourthly, there exists deviation because data used by countries are different. Fifthly, various elements which are related to corruption have not been reflected in CPI. Sixthly, CPI alone is limited in securing policy level effectiveness to improve integrity.
Integrity Index model that complemented limit of CPI assessment system was proposed. Integrity index is calculated by combining corruption control index that contains system restraining corruption and CPI that focuses on understanding existing corruption. This is a useful index in preparing system to reduce corruption through corruption control index complementing CPI that focuses on grasping existing corruption. Integrity index was obtained by standardizing average value of corruption control index among twenty eight countries to which both corruption control index and CPI are applied and then adding up standardized CPI scores by countries.