Time and place for the trial lecture
13th of November 10:15am-11:00am in Gamle festsal.
The title for the trial lecture will be: Socio-legal approaches to state capture and transnational anti-corruption enforcement
The trial lecture and the disputation can also be followed by zoom.
Follow the trial lecture and disputation her
Adjudication committee
Professor Kristin Bergtora Sandvik, University of Oslo (Head of committee)
Associate Professor Rustamjon Urinboyev, Lund University (1. opponent)
Associate Professor Branislav Hock, University of Portsmouth (2. opponent)
Chair of defence
Vice dean Ivar Alvik
Supervisors
Professor Peter Scharff Smith
Dr. Eva Stambøl
Summary
Why are anti-corruption interventions in the Global South often ineffective? A common explanation is that these interventions are built on anti-corruption perspectives that significantly diverge from local contextual realities. As a result, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) recommends country-specific corruption diagnosis (research) and nationwide public consultation as a way of ensuring that interventions align with local realities. Through examining how South Africa developed its National Anti-Corruption Strategy for 2020-2030 (NACS), this dissertation demonstrates how despite broader consultations and country-specific corruption diagnosis anti-corruption interventions can still diverge from local realities.
When local knowledge carries less weight
Over one hundred diverse local actors actively participated in public consultation workshops conducted across the country during the formulation of the NACS. These actors described the causes of corruption in their communities and proposed ways of addressing them. Yet many of their proposals gave way to established transnational approaches to combatting corruption. The final strategy therefore reflected international models more strongly than many of the local understandings expressed during the consultations. The dissertation calls this epistemic marginalisation: local knowledge is present, but it is treated as less authoritative than established international models.
Why these findings are important
These findings challenge the common assumption that broader consultations and country-specific diagnosis are effective in aligning interventions with local realities. Local actors can therefore be invited to participate without their understanding of the problem carrying the same weight. The dissertation suggests that more consultation, on its own, will not necessarily produce anti-corruption policies that fit local realities. The pressing question is whose knowledge counts when problems are defined and solutions are chosen. A policy process can appear inclusive while still giving some participants' knowledge less influence than established international approaches. To make anti-corruption interventions more effective, policymakers therefore need to look beyond whether local actors were invited to take part. They also need to create an environment where these actors can genuinely shape how corruption is understood and what is done about it.
Why is South Africa’s case important?
South Africa already has an extensive anti-corruption system, follows international anti-corruption standards and has relatively strong institutional capacity. Yet systemic corruption persists. This makes it a useful case for showing that the problem lies not only in weak rules, limited resources or too little consultation, but also in how different kinds of knowledge are valued when policy is made. This also helps understand the persistent gap between sound anti-corruption rules on paper and what actually happens in practice.
Contact information: Thomas Duke Labik Amanquandor - Department of Criminology and Sociology of Law (IKRS)