Given definition of corruption as ‘use of public office for private gain’, this approach palces the public office at the core of the interaction framework and notes that the public officers/agencies interact with 3 types of actors: other public actors/agencies, private actors & companies; and consumers, civil society & its represnetative org.
QUALITATIVE - Expert input: mapping study of ‘corruption risks’ based on desk research / interviews (institutions, laws & regulations) Identify red flags QUANTITATIVE - Get feedback from water stakeholders: Nationwide ‘baseline survey’ on how water consumers and water providers experience & perceive corruption in the provision of water, in both rural and urban areas (COMPARE RESULTS!); or through buget/expenditure tracking to detect where unexplained leakages occur To assess impact: what is the amount of resources involved? What is the effect on org reputation/credibility? What is the impact on the general public / the poor? Important to note that petty corruption (one 1 to 1 basis) may seem to have a small practice, but if they occur very frequently (high likelihood), their combined impact may be high! (may also need to revise / add some ‘red flags’!) 3) Do survey results confirm the expert mapping?
They alert decision-makers, investigators or the public to the possibility of corrupt practices
![[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/tjworkshop-session3rus-100604034616-phpapp01/85/Tj-workshop-session-3-rus-1-320.jpg)
![Как «выглядит» коррупция в секторе водных ресурсов : Различия в масштабе и частоте ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()