INDIA’S FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION THROUGH WEBSITE: A CASE STUDY OF I PAID A BRIBE WEBSITE

India’s Fight Against Corruption through Website: A Case Study of I Paid A Bribe Website

INDIA’S FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION THROUGH WEBSITE: A CASE STUDY OF

I PAID A BRIBE WEBSITE

Executive Summary

Corruption is major problem in India, which makes poor people’s live worse

through additional cost and delay in public service delivery. Poor people in

India pay $200 million dollar annually for free public services. This has been

reflected in major corruption measurements i.e. Transparency International’s

corruption perception index and Global Corruption Barometer, the World

Banks’s Governance Indicators, where India performed poorly.

In recent times, India experienced a surge of anticorruption initiatives by

government and civil society organizations. One such initiative named “I Paid

A Bribe”, a website founded by “Janagraha Centre for Citizenship” for bribe

reporting, drew considerable attention. The website was initially based in

India, later expanded to 14 more countries. This paper critically analyzed the

success and scope of I Paid A Bribe (IPAB) website which focuses on India.

The key issue the paper will explore is the effectiveness of IPAB in

addressing corruption in India. In other words, the potential of a website to

stimulate positive change in the fight against corruption. In doing so, the

paper will try to broaden the scope of IPAB to tackle corruption, where India

is seriously struggling. IPAB’s objective is to gather data on petty corruption,

inform citizens about bribery trends and provide government with corruption

information. The paper identified important stakeholders of IPAB’s program

along with their respective roles, level of influence and level of interest.

Md. Saidur Rahman of 18


Stakeholder analysis identified government as a key player with high interest

and influence in the anticorruption initiative, with citizens as another key

player with low interest ad influence.

IPAB’s core strategy is to collect, compile and analyze information from

different bribe reports submitted by the users and disseminate to wider

audience. IPAB collet four types of reports – I paid a bribe, I did not pay a

bribe, I met an honest officer and I don’t want to pay a bribe. IPAB also

produces location and sector specific data to show most corrupt places and

departments. The paper applied IPAB’s operations into two good governance

framework – one by Asian Development Bank and one by the World Bank – to

explore which of those areas are addressed by IPAB. While IPAB’s operation

responds to ADB’s framework effectively, its narrow objective limits it from

addressing WB framework, which had broader perspective.

By May, 2015, The total number of reports in IPAB website reached to 44,663

and the number of visitors to 4.5 million. However, IPAB’s success in

preventing corruption is very little; until now, only two departments of Indian

government brought some policy change influenced by IPAB’s operation.

Strengths of IPAB include, anonymous reporting, legal advice to its users,

recognition of honest officers, use of technology etc. The limitations IPAB

face are urban focus, low internet penetration, little influence in policy

change, no verification of information etc.



The paper identifies that IPAB, in spite of it limitation, has the potential to

become an effective force in the fight against corruption. The paper suggests

IPAB to broaden their mission, engage with all stakeholders, especially with

the government and public officials and adopt a good governance approach.

BACKGROUND:

Corruption is a major problem all around the world especially in developing

countries. Corruption increases the cost and delay the service what makes

poor people’s lives more difficult. In India, poor people pay about $200

million dollar a year to receive government services, which are completely

free (ADB 2013). The extensive corruption in India seriously disrupting many

developmental efforts, where weak enforcement and lack of commitment by

the government is failing to address the corruption problem strongly.

The latest Corruption Perception Index of 2014 by Transparency International

(TI), which explores how corrupt the public sector of a country is, placed

India at 85th position among the 175 countries with and score of 38 out of

1001 (TI 2014). According to World Bank Governance Indicators in 2013,

where control of corruption2 is one of the six indicators, India’s score for

controlling corruption is -0.563 and percentile rank is 35.89 (World Bank

2014). In Global Corruption Barometer 2013, another survey by TI to explore

1 Scores range from 0 (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean). Source: http://www.transparency.org/research/cpi2 Control of corruption reflects perceptions of the extent to which public power is exercised for private gain. This includes both petty and grand forms of corruption, as well as "capture" of the state by elites and private interests.3 Point estimates range from about -2.5 to 2.5. Higher values correspond to better governance outcomes.


http://www.transparency.org/research/cpi


public opinion on corruption, 31% respondents expressed their concerns over

increasing corruption for last two years4 (TI 2014). The survey also reported

political parties (86% of respondents) and police force (75% of the

respondents) as extremely corrupt5. All of these corruption measurements

identified India as one of the most corrupt countries in the world.

Considering the widespread corruption in India, many interventions from

government, business and non-profit sector emerged over the years. I Paid A

Bribe was one such intervention initiated by a non-profit organization named

“Janagraha Centre for Citizenship” in 2010 (OWFI6 2011). I Paid A Bribe

(IPAB) is a website where users can report on retail or petty corruption

through anonymous identity. Later, identifying better accessibility and larger

mobile penetration, IPAB launched a text message based reporting system

where people can use cell phone to report on bribery. Since its inception,

IPAB expanded to 14 other countries like Pakistan, Syria, Kenya, Zimbabwe,

Liberia, Ukraine, Hungary, Serbia, Guyana, with 15 more countries following

soon. Each country has a different website, sometimes in their own

language. For the purpose of this paper, the analysis will refer to only IPAB’s

Indian website. In this website, users can provide information on paying

bribes, resisting bribes and meeting honest officers as well as they can ask

for information on different public service. The reports of bribery include

nature, number, pattern, types, location, frequency and values of the

4 http://www.transparency.org/gcb2013/country/?country=india5 Ibid.6 OWFI stands for OneWorld Foundation India.


http://www.transparency.org/gcb2013/country/?country=india


incidents they encountered when receiving public services7. IPAB’s unique

approach has received considerable attention from different types of

stakeholders. This paper will try to assess its success and explore the ways

to improve its effectiveness to fight corruption.

Problem Identification:

The paper will try to explore the effectiveness of IPAB in addressing

corruption in India. In other words, the paper will analyze the potential of a

website to fight against corruption. As recently Indian government

introduced e-governance to provide public services in many areas e.g.

acquiring license, paying taxes, clearing goods etc. (Chene 2009), using

information technology for anticorruption purpose finds its relevance under

the current circumstances The paper will also identify IPAB’s success,

strength and limitations so that IPAB can enhance its operations and expand

its impact.

IPAB’s Program Objective:

The objective of IPAB is to explore the dynamics of petty corruption, in other

worlds, bribery in daily life. IPAB’s “aim is not to identify people but to

identify problem”8. IPAB intends to collect information of bribe reports and

share it publicly, acting like an information hub for corruption activities.

7http://www.transparency.org/files/content/corruptionqas/ 376_technological_innovations_to_identify_and_reduce_corruption.pdf8 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/aug/19/corruption-india-anna-hazare


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/aug/19/corruption-india-anna-hazare

http://www.transparency.org/files/content/corruptionqas/376_technological_innovations_to_identify_and_reduce_corruption.pdf



Though IPAB’s objective is narrow, this paper is trying to expand its horizon

by considering IPAB’s potential to reach massive population and accumulate

large amount of corruption related information. IPAB identifies that

corruption has two sides: supply side, when citizens are interested to pay

bribe, and demand side, when public officials demand bribes (OWFI 2011).

The program addresses both sides through sharing information to both

stakeholders.

Stakeholder Analysis:

Several important stakeholders can be associated with IPAB’s operations.

Following table depicts different stakeholders and their roles related with

IPAB’s interventions:

Stakeholders Roles Level of Influence and Interest

1. Janagraha (Implementing Agency)

Implements IPAB’s operation

Manages IPAB website and provides funding

Works as information hub to collect and share information

High Interest; Low influence

2. Citizen Provides information on bribe

Receives information on bribe and legislation

Engages in paying bribes Participates in fighting

corruption

Low Interest; Low influence

3. Government Receives information on corruption

High Interest; High Influence



Enforce and regulates legislation

Takes actions against corruption

4. Public Officials

Opposes IPAB’s operation Engages in corruption

Low Interest; Moderate Influence

5. Civil Society Raise awareness against corruption

Advocate for policy change Make government

accountable Operates anticorruption

programs

High Interest; Moderate Influence

6. International Nongovernmental Organizations

Provides funding for anticorruption programs

Offers guidelines to address corruption

High Interest; moderate Influence

Source: Part of the stakeholder analysis is drawn from OWFI case study

(OWFI 2011).

IPAB’s Strategy:

IPAB’s core strategy is crowdsourcing information though anonymous

submission of bribe reports by citizens. IPAB collects four types of stories: I

paid a bribe, I did not pay a bribe, I met an honest officer and I don’t want to

pay a bribe (Bribe hotline)9. IPAB collects, compiles and analyzes data they

receive in the website, Later IPAB produce an objective and accumulative

reports and share among relevant stakeholders. In addition, IPAB prescribes

citizens and government in the matter of corruption. In their model, IPAB

went beyond exploring corruption by recognizing the honest officers. 9 http://www.bu.edu/actforhealth/Presentations/Civil_Society_Political_Petty_Corruption_Ukraine_India.pdf


http://www.bu.edu/actforhealth/Presentations/Civil_Society_Political_Petty_Corruption_Ukraine_India.pdf


Furthermore, IPAB produces location and department specific aggregate

data, which could be useful for policy makers to enforce stricter regulation in

specific geographic locations and government departments.

Applying IPAB’s Approach into Other Available Frameworks:

IPAB’s approach can be further analyzed putting it into existing frameworks

that are also trying to fight against corruption either directly or indirectly

under the overarching concept of good governance. In this paper, two

prominent frameworks by the Asian Development Bank and the World Bank

are used to analyze IPAB’s effort to address corruption, or even good

governance, effectively. Though IPAB’s objective is not to address these

frameworks, this paper is trying to match the scope of IPAB with these

anticorruption guidelines.

Asian Development Bank (ADB) identified four elements of good governance:

accountability, participation, predictability and transparency (ADB 1995). The

following table attempts to analyze relevance of IPAB in addressing this

framework.

ADB’S GOOD GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK

RELEVANCE TO IPAB

1. Accountability: This component can build capacity to hold public officials responsible for their actions. IPAB’s reports also carry the same job by revealing bribe incidents of government officials.1A. Public Sector Management

IPAB’s reports illustrates how public sector manages its operations. IPAB provides aggregated information of different sectors to identify most corrupt sectors and the amount



of bribe money for respective sectors.1B. Public Enterprise Management and Reform

IPAB’s reports will help to identify the entry level of corruption i.e. the lowest level of officers involved in corruption. It will also identify for which services most people pay bribes.

1C. Public Financial Management

IPAB provides its users information regarding different aspects of Right to Information Act from which citizens can ask local administrators to provide financial information for respective departments.

1D. Civil Service Reform IPAB’s reports recognizes the inefficiency of civil servants, which may be the result of incompetency or greed or necessity. Each reason can be addressed by recognizing the root problem, e.g. incompetency means civil service exam may be flawed, greed can be attributed to the motivation towards money and necessity can be referred to low salary structure of civil servants.

2. Participation: This element can empower government to obtain reliable information and citizen to monitor government actions. IPAB’s report and analysis will provide government information on corruption of its different sector and departments where citizens can monitor the performance of government services.2A. Participation of Beneficiaries and Affected Groups

IPAB engages a wide range of stakeholders e.g. people who pay bribes, people who fight bribes, people who recognize an honest officer and people who seek information on public service. Moreover, the information is available to everyone including bribe takers, citizens, policy makers, and others. Every group can participate be affected from the information in IPAB website.

2B. Public sector/private sector interface

IPAB’s focus is on public service delivery so it may not address the boundary of private service. However, it may address if private business are affected due to the corruption during licensing, tax payment etc. or itself involved in corruption.



2C. Decentralization of public and service delivery functions

IPAB’s report will address if the corruption is concentrated in regional or local level of public sectors, which can provide a guideline for transfer of power to local level if necessary.

2D. Cooperation with nongovernment organizations

IPAB’s expansion to other countries and presence in national level policy dialogue complies with this subcomponent. However, IPAB does not have any specific strategy to coordinate with other civil society actors in addressing

3. Predictability: This component will clarify citizens a clear idea on available laws and regulations and inform them about consistent and effective information. IPAB addresses this issue through providing suggestion to its users on how to avoid bribes.3A. Law and Enforcement IPAB provides legal information to its users

who ask for information using bribe hotline, which, to some extent, enhances enforcement mechanism.

3B. Legal frameworks for private sector development

IPAB’s reports address the issue of corruption regarding acquiring license for business, access to utility, tax payment etc, which directly addresses legal issues exist in private sector development.

4. Transparency: This component will ensure accessibility and affordability of relevant information. IPAB’s information regarding corruption is free and available to its visitors. 4A. Disclosure of Information

IPAB’s reports make bribe incidents available to everyone. It also recognizes the good public service delivery by honest officers.

Even though, IPAB’s focus is not good governance, IPAB in above way, more

or less addresses all the ADB components of good governance.

The World Bank (WV) uses another framework to measure good governance.

The measure include six indicators and their relevance to IPAB’s operations

are as following:



WB Governance Indicators Relevance to IPAB1. Voice and Accountability: This captures the perception of citizen engagement in raising their concerns and holding government responsible for their actions.

IPAB provides a platform to the citizen to report on corruption which helps them to articulate their apprehension and inform about corruption to enforce accountability.

2. Political Stability and Absence of Violence: This captures perceptions on citizen’s reaction to government’s violent activities.

IPAB does not address the political situation or information on violent activities of the country.

3. Government Effectiveness: This captures the perception on quality of public services, civil service and degree of independence of government agencies and government’s legal and enforcement commitments.

IPAB captures the information of the quality of public services through bribe reporting. There is some political connection to corruption in social safety net programs, which can also be found out from bribe reports.

4. Regulatory Quality: This captures the perception of government’s ability in policy formulation and legal enforcement.

IPAB provides suggestion to its users on existing regulations to help them to avoid bribes. IPAB also points out at the best working enforcement mechanism, if it exist at all, to the users to receive public service.

5. Rule of Law: Captures the perception of people’s confidence in the legal environment of a country.

IPAB does not address this indicator effectively as its users are the ones who do not have trust in the country’s legal environment and asks for advice for best possible solutions. So, IPAB’s information will tell only half of the story/

6. Control of Corruption: This captures the perception of public power used for corruption.

IPAB’s bribe reports elaborately identify the misuse of public power (corrupt officers) as well good use of public powers (honest officers).

The above table illustrates that WB indicators are too broad for IPAB to

address. While one or two indictors can be relevant to IPAB e.g. control of



corruption and voice and accountability, the remaining indicators will not be

addressed by IPAB’s interventions.

IPAB’s Achievements:

Within few years, IPAB accumulated a large amount of data on petty

corruption. The total number of reports at IPAB website reached 44,663 by

May, 2015 and the total amount of bribe payment was 260.76 crore Indian

Rupee (USD 40.90 million) (IPAB 2015). Among the reports, 22,071 reports

were on paying bribes, 2693 were on fighting bribes and 911 were on honest

officers (IPAB 2015). According to the website, the most corrupt department

in India was police, which accounted for 17.6% of the bribe and the most

corrupt city was Bangalore, which accounted 13.7% of the reports (IPAB

2015). There was only one report on honest police officers. The traffic to IPAB

was also significant, which comprised 4.5 million visitors since its inception

to May 2015 (IPAB 2015). All the numbers indicate that the popularity and

the users of the website is increasing at a good pace.

A survey by Janagraha, the implementing agency of IPAB, revealed that 36%

of the users accessed the site to read bribe reports, 27% reported about paid

bribes on the website and 34% visited the website to know how to avoid

paying bribes (Anna & Simon 2012). Moreover, the survey found that 21%

respondents avoided paying bribes using the information from IPAB website

and 65% respondents received important information on fighting bribes



(Anna & Simon 2012). Only 5% of the respondents reported that the

information did not resist them from paying bribe (Anna & Simon 2012).

In spite of IPAB’s success in data collection and sharing information, very

little success can be contributed to actual policy change. One such example

included when Department of Transport of government of Karnataka warned

twenty of its officials based on IPAB reports (IPAB 2012). Some changes in

operations of the motor vehicle department e.g. online application for

license, automated driving test tracks etc. took place due to IPAB reports

(Klitgaard 2012). Similarly, Department of Stamps and Registration made

some changes in land registration based on reports in the IPAB website

(Anna & Simon 2012).

IPAB’s Strengths:

IPAB’s strengths can be attribute to several areas. First, the website works as

catalyst and information hub for fostering systemic change. Second, IPAB

informs citizens about their rights and available legal mechanism to enforce

those. Third, IPAB also has strong presence in popular online social network

platform where they inform and engage youth on the fight against

corruption. Fifth, IPAB values honesty in public services through its reports

on honest officers where almost no formal incentive available for such

performance. Sixth, people can use both internet and cell phone to access

and use the website. Seventh, the anonymous reporting protects its users

from any backlash from respective government employees and departments.



IPABS’ Limitations:

IPAB faces several challenges in their operation. First, the users of the

website are “informed and powerful citizens”, mostly urban citizens, who

know about the tool and do not feel threatened by the corrupt officials they

reported about (Wittemyer 2014). Second, the internet penetration in India is

relatively low despite the rapid increase, which makes IPAB inaccessible to a

vast group of people (Anna & Simon 2012). As of March 2014, only 68% of

Indian population resides in rural areas who do not have broadband internet

access and 3% household in India own a personal computer (Vian 2014).

Third, the platform failed to influence a significant reform in the government

(Wittemyer 2014). Fourth, the language of the website is English which

further restricts its access where majority of population do not speak English.

Fifth, the authenticity of reports is questionable due to anonymous reporting.

In addition, IPAB faced structural barrier to operate in some countries, e.g. in

China. The Chinese government shutdown the website on the ground that it

was not registered with relevant authorities10. This raises concerns about

their operations within India as well. Sixth, IPAB does not have any

mechanism to involve public officials within their existing framework to

reflect upon the widespread bribery expressing their side of stories. Seventh,

no clear strategy to involve civil society actors are currently available within

IPAB’s strategy, which deprives IPAB’s efforts from their valuable input.

Program Implications:

10 http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-06/17/content_12723800.htm


http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2011-06/17/content_12723800.htm


As it is already stated earlier, IPAB possesses a narrow objective and intends

to work as an information generation website. However, the paper identifies

its potential to broaden their objectives and engage actively to fight against

corruption. IPAB already has developed a critical mass on anticorruption

issues and they can step forward to assume larger role in policy and ground

level. IPAB can have better impact in fighting corruption if it can adopt

following measures:

Broader Objectives: IPAB needs to broaden their objectives from being

only information hub. IPAB needs to realize that collecting information

may not reduce corruption by default. It requires better commitment to

produce effective result. IPAB needs to focus in the areas where they can

utilize the information to reduce corruption actively.

Engage with Government: IPAB’s one of the goals is to provide

information to government to identify bribe prone areas. But, there is no

clear and effective mechanism in the place which will ensure that

government is using the information of IPAB website to address

corruption. IPAB needs to devise such mechanism where they can connect

with government’s anticorruption initiatives to improve their performance.

For an example, IPAB can collaborate with government’s anticorruption

cell to produce annual corruption statistics named “the State of

Corruption”.

Engage with Other Civil Society Organizations: IPAB needs to collaborate

with other organizations working on anticorruption. At present, IPAB does



not have a definitive plan to collaborate with other civil society

organizations to develop joint programs or agendas where both can

enhance their effectiveness utilizing others’ knowledge and experience.

For an example, they can establish a network of anticorruption initiatives

where they can build capacity on different areas and expand their reach

to currently unexplored areas. They can also establish a common platform

(website) to share their information on corruption and reduce the number

of ineffective programs.

Engage Citizens: IPAB should provide an offline platform for its users and

others can participate actively in the fight against corruption. In

developing countries, consumers associations are not prominent. In this

case, IPAB can initiate a consumer association specifically for public

service.

Adopt Good Governance Approach: Corruption is a result of poor

governance system; therefore, corruption should be tackled in a

comprehensive manner. Currently, IPAB only addresses one aspect of

good governance, which cannot be solve without taking care of other

aspects of good governance, i.e. legal enforcement, public sector

management, structure of civil service etc, which, in some way,

perpetuate the corruption situation in the country. Comparing with ADB’s

framework, this paper identified that IPAB’s approach has a potential to

adopt a good governance framework and fight against corruption in a

comprehensive way.



Engage Public Servants: IPAB can include public servants within their

existing framework. Public officials are important stakeholders who are

missing from IPAB’s picture now. While corruption is largely due to

structural reasons, behavioral change among public official will motivate

them provide efficient service delivery. For example, IPAB can introduce

“IPAB’s Honest Officer Award” to recognize the honest officers reported by

its users.

Reference:

Asian Development Bank. (1995). Governance: Sound Development Management. Manila: ADB.

Chene, M. (2009). Overview of Corruption and AntiCorruption Corruption Efforts in India. Bergen: U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre. Retrieved from http://www.u4.no/publications/overview-of-corruption-and-anti-corruption-efforts-in-india/

Davies, A., & Simon, J. (2012). Citizen Engagement in Social Innovation – A Case Study Report. Brussels: European Commission, DG Research. Retrieved from http://youngfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/citizen-engage-in-soc-inno.pdf

I paid a Bribe. (2012). Quarterly Report 2011-12 (Quarter 2). Bengaluru: Janaagraha Centre for Citizenship and Democracy.

I Paid A Bribe. (2015, 4 May). I Paid A Bribe. Retrieved May 4, 2015, from I PAid A Bribe Website: http://www.ipaidabribe.com

Klitgaard, R. (2012). Social Media: A New Tactic in the Fight Against Corruption. Asian Journal of Public Affairs, 5(1), 8-12.

OneWorld Foundation India. (2011). ICT Facilitated Access to Information Innovations: A Compendium of Case Studies from South Asia. New Delhi: OneWorld Foundation India. Retrieved from http://access2info.asia/Access_to_information.pdf

Transparency International. (2014). Corruption by Country/ Territory. Retrieved May 5, 2015, from Transparency International: http://www.transparency.org/country#IND


http://www.transparency.org/country#IND

http://access2info.asia/Access_to_information.pdf

http://www.ipaidabribe.com/

http://youngfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/citizen-engage-in-soc-inno.pdf

http://youngfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/citizen-engage-in-soc-inno.pdf

http://www.u4.no/publications/overview-of-corruption-and-anti-corruption-efforts-in-india/

http://www.u4.no/publications/overview-of-corruption-and-anti-corruption-efforts-in-india/


Vian, T. (2014). Civil Society Monitoring of Political and Petty Corruption: Ukraine and India. WHO Technical Working Group on Good Governance in Pharmaceutical Sector. Retrieved from http://www.bu.edu/actforhealth/Presentations/Civil_Society_Political_Petty_Corruption_Ukraine_India.pdf

Wickberg, S. (2013). Technological Innovations to Identify and Reduce Corruption. Bergen: U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre/ Transparency International. Retrieved from http://www.transparency.org/files/content/corruptionqas/376_technological_innovations_to_identify_and_reduce_corruption.pdf






INDIA’S FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION THROUGH WEBSITE: A CASE STUDY OF I PAID A BRIBE WEBSITE

Documents

Transcript of INDIA’S FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION THROUGH WEBSITE: A CASE STUDY OF I PAID A BRIBE WEBSITE