|**Program**|**Country's**|**Quality of**|**Governance**|<br>**Comments**|
|---|---|---|---|---|
||**Weak**|**Fair**|**Good**||
|Reducing Wage<br>Compression|Negligible|Negl.|Negligible<br>__________|More relevant as an incentive mechanism<br>for career development. May increase<br>corruption if the public sector viewed as<br>lucrative career option by greedy elements<br>of society.|
|Merit based civil<br>service|Low|Medium|High|May be derailed by bureaucratic processes<br>in highly corru pt societies.|
|Public Opinion<br>Surveys|Low|Medium|Medium|Public opinion surveys have served as a<br>useful tool in articulating citizens'<br>concerns (e.g. Bangalore scorecard).|
|Financial<br>accountability|Low|Low|Medium<br>I_________|Appropriate when democratic<br>accountability and a substantial<br>accounting/bookkeeping infrastructure<br>with some integrity are in place.|
|Parliamentary<br>oversight<br>_________________|Low<br>___|Medium<br>_________|Medium<br>__________|Parliamentary oversight can be helpful but<br>parliamentary micro-management not an<br>effective form of governance.|
|Reducing Public<br>Employment|Medium|Low|Low|May reduce opportunities for corruption.|
|Decentralization|Medium|Low|Low|May improve accountability and may<br>increase sense of social purpose for public<br>officials.|
|Client-based civil<br>service / Bureaucratic<br>culture _____|Medium|Medium|Low|Success depends upon service delivery<br>orientation of public service, reinforced by<br>accountability for results.|
|Economic policy<br>reform __I|High<br>_<br>l|Medium<br>=|Low|Reduces potential corruption by shifting<br>decision-making to the private sector.|
|Media and judicial<br>independence, citizen<br>participation<br>_|High|Medium|Low|Allows for detection, followed by<br>accountability.|
|Reducing Public<br>Sector Size|High<br>________________<br>________|Medium<br>____|Low|By reducing the number of govemment<br>activities, officials can focus on primary<br>I objectives of the state.|
|Rule of law|High|Medium|Low|I Essential for any progress.|

_Efficacy._ OED defines efficacy as to "the extent to which the project's objectives were achieved, or expected to be achieved, taking into account their relative importance." This requires measurement of the effect of a given set of anti-corruption activities on levels of corruption or corrupt activities. Of interest is the measurement of changes in levels of corruption as well as the degree to which observed changes can credibly be attributed to the anti-corruption interventions. Both these issues are subject to large measurement errors. Judgments need to be made about the degree to which Bank-supported interventions have (i) reduced, (ii) had no impact upon, or (iii) led to an increase in, levels of various forms of corruption in the country. For practical purposes, efficacy evaluation will need to focus on the relationship between Bank-supported interventions and changes in key corruption drivers.

_Efficiency._ OED defines efficiency as "the extent to which the project achieved or is expected to achieve, a return higher than the opportunity cost of capital and benefits at least compared to alternatives" (see OED 2000, p.3). An anti-corruption program is 10