considered _efficient_ if it generates maximum reduction in the incidence of corruption (good targeting) and associated welfare gains at the least cost. The same data constraints noted above apply here. Efficiency would ideally be based on the cost of Bank-supported interventions in relation to outcomes at the level of corruption. In the absence of direct measures of levels of corruption, assumptions about changes in levels of corruption have to be based on changes in proxy measures. Therefore, the evaluation will focus on the relationship between the cost of anti-corruption interventions and changes in incentives.

_Sustainability._ OED defines sustainability as "the resilience to risk of net benefit flows over time" (see OED 2000, p.4). Assessment of sustainability would take into account political, economic, financial, social and external factors. In terms of anti-corruption activities, sustainable actions are likely to be those which change the expectations of accountability of public officials. Risk reduction in anti-corruption efforts, like risk reduction in financial management, is likely to be aided by diversification. In countries with limited restraints on corruption, anti-corruption activities which rely on a single office, official, or regulation face a high risk that benefits will be lost over time. Conversely, broad-based efforts to improve accountability, reduce the monopoly power of government, or create judicial independence are likely to create sustainable reductions in corruption.

**Table** 4: **Summary of Proposed Rating Factors for Anti-Corruption Programs**

|Relevance|*<br>Program objectives consistent with country's development priorities,<br>with Bank strategy<br>a<br>Program design underpinned by analytical work that recognizes country<br>specific public sector mission and values, opportunities and constraints<br>and an informed view of potential impacts of alternative actions<br>* Judgments as to (a) the degree to which the anti-corruption programs<br>were targeted to corruption drivers; (b) the relationship between those<br>drivers, corruption and welfare outcomes.|
|---|---|
|Efficacy|*<br>The extent to which the project's objectives were achieved, or expected<br>to be achieved, taking into account their relative importance in curtailing<br>corruption.|
||* Judgments to be made about the degree to which Bank supported<br>interventions have (i) reduced, (ii) had no impact, or (iii) led to an<br>increase in, levels of various forms of corruption in the country. As a<br>proxy focus on the relationship between Bank supported interventions<br>and changes in key corruption drivers.|
|Efficiency|*<br>generates most reductions in corruption and associated welfare gains for<br>the least cost<br>* targets corruption that has large costs|
|Sustainability|*<br>the resilience to risk of net benefit flows over time based upon an<br>assessment of political, economic, financiaf, social and external<br>influences|

This framework highlights the difficulty of an anti-corruption campaign - successful campaigns reduce the welfare of some public officials. In this environment, Bank staff have to operate opportunistically in pursuing anti-corruption policies. The implication is that anti-corruption campaigns cannot be applied uniformly in terms of either timeframe 11