Chapter 8. Cultivating a culture of integrity across society in Argentina

8.2.1. The Anti-Corruption Office could take an active role in communicating to citizens their roles and responsibilities for respecting public integrity.

Citizens are well aware of corruption and its prevalence in society. As such, raising awareness is not a question of educating about the existence of corruption, but rather about how to break the cycle. To break the cycle however, the responsible anti-corruption communications body must first have a clear understanding of what to communicate, using evidence rather than impressions. This entails understanding what the main corruption and integrity challenges are, and devising a clear, measurable and impactful strategy for communications.

In terms of the context, in Argentina the number of people reporting to have paid a bribe in the past 12 months is less than 10 per cent of the population over all sectors (except for police services) (Table ‎8.1). With the exception of police services, in Argentina the range is lower or equal to the LAC range.

In turn, surveys suggest that citizens reject integrity breaches, such as cheating on ones’ taxes, avoiding the fare on public transport and accepting social benefits that one is not entitled to (Figure ‎8.1).

Figure ‎8.1. Strong rejection of rule-breaking norms

Percentage of respondents stating “never justifiable”

Note: OECD Average includes Australia, Chile, Estonia, Germany, Japan, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Slovenia, Korea, Spain, Sweden, Turkey and the United States.

Source: World Values Survey, Wave Six (2010-2014).

A gap exists however between the rejection and the justification of integrity breaches for various reasons. For example, the recent Latino Barometer found that 35 per cent of the respondents would tolerate a certain amount of corruption as long as the problems of the country are solved (as comparted to the LAC average of 40 per cent) (Latinobarómeter, 2017[3]).

Justifying the corrupt acts of politicians was another finding by the Centro de Opinión Pública of la Universidad de Belgrano, with 55% of respondents stating that a corrupt politician was acceptable or tolerable if they solved important problems in the country or improved the economy (Centro de Opinión Pública de la Universidad de Belgrano, 2013[4]). A recent finding by the same group found that 54% of respondents felt that Argentina was more tolerant of political corruption as compared to other countries (Centro de Opinión Pública de la Universidad de Belgrano, 2016[5]).

Moreover, a trust gap exists between Argentine citizens and public institutions. As shown in Figure ‎8.2, the majority of citizens express low levels of trust for major institutions (National Congress, political parties, the judiciary and the national government). With exception of trust in the judiciary, the values are slightly better than the regional average, but still reflect a high level of distrust. Coupled with poor service delivery, the low trust levels could have contributed to clientelism’s entrenchment across the country, with the political parties seen as more effective in meeting the needs of the population than the state (see chapter 7).

Figure ‎8.2. Percentage of respondents expressing little / no confidence

Note: LAC average includes: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela.

Source: Latinobarometer 2017, http://www.latinobarometro.org/latOnline.jsp.

In addition to justification of corruption, public opinion about the effectiveness of anti-corruption reforms remains low: the 2017 Latinobarometer found that 64 per cent of Argentineans indicated that little to nothing had improved in the corruption situation over the previous two years (while in the LAC region 62 per cent had a similar concern) (Latinobarómeter, 2017[3]). Moreover, the recent Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer found that 41 per cent of citizens felt that corruption had increased over the previous 12 months (prior to when the survey was conducted) (Transparency International, 2017[2]).

Challenging the social norms that justify integrity breaches, the reliance on clientelistic systems, and the low perceptions of government effectiveness in the fight against corruption is necessary for implementing the Argentine government’s wider integrity agenda. Indeed, when the prevailing social norms justify corruption, legal and institutional reforms for integrity will not be successful. Moreover, when surrounded by social norms that justify corruption, evidence has found that individuals are more tolerant to corruption breaches themselves (Fisman and Miguel, 2008[6]; Barr and Serra, 2010[7]; Gachter and Schulz, 2016[8]). A coordination problem emerges, with citizens feeling discouraged in attempting to overcome corruption.

Challenging these social norms requires dedicated and targeted awareness campaigns, which should not only challenge existing norms, but also communicate and demonstrate the expected social norms. As noted in Chapter 2, one of the OA core mandates is to strengthen the ethics and integrity of the national public administration. The OA’s communication activities therefore focus on raising awareness of corruption and prevention tools within the public sector, and communicating these efforts to the wider society. These communication activities have two benefits: first, by communicating to public officials about their anti-corruption responsibilities, the OA helps initiate behaviour changes in the public sector. Second, by communicating the responsibilities of public officials to society, the OA raises society’s awareness of the higher standard of behaviour to which public officials must adhere.

The OA however could also use campaigns as a way to challenge corruption and generate integrity norms in society. As awareness campaigns and integrity training programmes aspire to create behavioural changes across society over a longer period, the appropriate institutional structure should be implemented to ensure continuity. To that end, a whole-of-society communications unit could be institutionalised within the OA under the Subsecretariat of Integrity and Transparency, and assigned responsibilities for conducting awareness raising programmes amongst Argentine citizens. Once established, the whole-of-society communications unit could develop a communications strategy that identifies a series of awareness raising campaigns and the appropriate timeline for each. For each of the campaigns, the strategy should identify the expected outcomes (e.g. attitudes or behaviours to change, skills to develop), the target audiences, the key messages and the communication channels (e.g. television, web, social media, print media) as well as the evaluation mechanisms (e.g. opinion surveys, web analytics, participation in events, number of complaints submitted, etc.).

As there is widespread justification for integrity breaches in society, the strategy of awareness-raising should be twofold. The first aim should be to generate community responsibility, building on the widespread rejection of corruption and focusing on corruption’s costs for the economy and society (see Figure ‎8.3). The awareness raising campaigns should not sensationalise the issue and instead employ credible and authentic evidence, to enable recipients to identify with the core messages (Mann, 2011[9]). Moreover, the awareness raising campaigns should challenge the justification of unethical behaviour and create a link between one’s own integrity and the wider public benefit. While the vast majority of people do not like to harm others (Camerer, 2011[10]), in the case of corrupt behaviour the damage done often remains abstract and not directly linked to another individual, thereby facilitating justification (Barkan, Ayal and Ariely, 2015[11]). Challenging these behavioural caveats therefore requires linking awareness-raising to actual dilemmas where citizens understand how their actions can have a negative impact on the wider goals of the community.

Figure ‎8.3. Behaviour changing campaigns success factors

Source: (Mann, 2011[9]).

The second aim should be to increase citizens’ agency by developing individual motivation and encouraging action (see Figure ‎8.3). This should go beyond communicating about the prevalence of corruption and the government’s efforts to prevent it and offer tangible solutions for citizens to uphold public integrity. Indeed, evidence has found that small norm prompts can positively influence the actions of an individual who is faced with a corrupt scenario (Köbis et al., 2015[12]). This could be accomplished for example by offering different solutions (such as how to report corruption or how to partner with public officials to uphold integrity) and identifying alternative behaviours to corruption. Box ‎8.1 provides an example of the awareness raising campaign in Peru, which identified small changes Peruvians could make to support a culture of integrity.

The OA could therefore consider developing an awareness campaign that communicates success stories from effective behaviour changes throughout the government. The campaign could highlight “everyday ethical public officials” who have helped change the way their team works for integrity in the Argentine government. The campaign could focus on a core set of values that these officials’ exhibit and what it means for them to fulfil their public role with integrity. The officials pledge to honour these values as a matter of respect towards the public they are serving and ask the citizens to return this respect by trusting them to serve in the public interest (Box ‎8.2).

Government entities responsible for delivering services in areas susceptible to fraud and corruption, such as tax collection and distribution of social assistance, could also leverage awareness raising programmes to build capacity for integrity amongst citizens. Through Memorandum of Understanding, the OA could partner with entities that deal with areas susceptible to corruption and fraud, including, but not limited to: the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Security (Ministerio de Trabajo, Empleo y Seguridad), the Ministry of Health (Ministerio de Salud) and the Ministry of Social Development (Ministerio de Desarrollo Social), to develop and implement integrity and anti-corruption awareness raising programmes for citizens in their respective areas. Such programmes should be tailored to the specific high risk areas (unemployment insurance fraud, health insurance fraud and other types of social benefit fraud, etc.), identifying the roles and responsibilities for citizens in respect of that area.

The awareness raising and identity forming measures suggested above (and Chapter 3) could be supported by behavioural interventions creating salience for moral norms and identities. Small cues, such as a pin public officials wear to indicate their adherence to integrity values, can refer back to the content of a campaign and create awareness for integrity values in the incident of interaction between citizen and public official. Playful referrals in the direct interaction between citizens and public officials can help to create a personal connection to the content of a reform of campaign. The success of such measures, however, depends crucially on the credibility of the content they are referring to.

8.3.1. The guidance prepared by the Anti-Corruption Office could emphasise how to go beyond cosmetic compliance programmes.

The private sector is a key partner in the public integrity system. On the one hand, firms that evade taxes, collude with each other, offer bribes or illegal political contributions, engage in procurement fraud, or seek to influence public policies exclusively in their favour at the expense of the public good reduce competiveness and create negative economic externalities, as well as undermine the legitimacy of government and trust in markets. On the other hand, the private sector can also be a force for good. Across sectors, it has been a driver for change, advancing corporate integrity reforms and reshaping the global integrity landscape (UNODC, 2013[15]). The public sector is advancing efforts to support integrity practices in companies, applying a range of tools from incentive regimes to mandating business integrity programmes.

Recognising the positive role that the private sector plays, the recent Law on Corporate Criminal Liability for Corruption Offences includes a provision for business integrity programmes. The law takes a risk-based approach, with Article 22 requiring companies to implement a business integrity programme based on the specific risks of their size and commercial and economic activity. Article 23 of the law requires the business integrity programme to contain three core elements – a code of conduct or ethics; rules to prevent unlawful acts during bidding, contract implementation or other interactions with the public sector; and regular training sessions on the business integrity programme for members of the company. As well, it proposes ten additional elements that could be included, depending on the company profile. The law also provides some incentives for company compliance. While not mandatory for all companies, a business integrity programme is a prerequisite for access to procurements over a certain threshold, including public works, public-private partnerships, and the contracting of goods and large-scale services (article 24). The existence of a business integrity programme may also help mitigate penalties for legal entities that breach the Law on Corporate Criminal Liability (article 9).

Decree No. 277/18 assigns responsibility to the OA for establishing principles and guidelines that translate articles 22 and 23 into practice for companies. The OA is preparing a set of integrity guidelines for the private sector (“Lineamientos de integridad para personas jurídicas”). Guidance for state-owned enterprises is already provided in the general directives that outline good governance guidelines for state owned companies (“Lineamientos de Buen Gobierno para Empresas de Participación Estatal Mayoritaria de Argentina”).

While the law is clear on the elements of the integrity programme, an ‘integrity culture’ perspective could inform the Guidance prepared by the OA. Often, compliance systems are cosmetic additions, implemented to respond to government requirements and get sanction ‘credit’ but failing to effectively prevent unethical behaviour (Langevoort, 2016[16]; Krawiec, 2003[17]). Coupled with this are findings from behavioural sciences that show that compliance systems focusing on control and sanction can crowd out intrinsic motivation for integrity, leading to diminished capacity for ethical behaviour (Lambsdorff, 2015[18]). These findings, supported by continued corporate malfeasance, have led to calls from the public sector to focus on ethical cultures. As Langevoort (2016[16]) states,

Building on recent research on effective organisational integrity cultures (see for example (Taylor, 2017[19])), the OA could include a chapter in the guidance it prepares that discusses how to build an integrity culture across the organisation. This could involve guiding companies to think about how the various levels of their organisation interact, and where aspects of the organisational culture could support or hinder ethical behaviour. Guidance could focus on issues like leadership example and commitment, rewards and bonus structures, organisational voice and silence factors, internal team dynamics, and external relationships with stakeholders (Taylor, 2017[19]). Table ‎8.2 identifies factors that could be leveraged to cultivate integrity.

8.3.2. The Anti-Corruption Office could consider developing guidance for independent verification of the quality of companies’ business integrity programmes

Verification can be a useful tool for governments to gain assurance on the existence and quality of a business integrity programme. Based on a set of pre-defined criteria, a verification process reviews the extent to which business integrity programmes meet the required standards. Such processes can either look at the suitability of the programme – that is, the extent to which it is designed to meet the desired outcomes, or the operating effectiveness of the programme over a specified period (Transparency International, 2012[20]). Benefits of a verification process include strengthening the programme by identifying areas for improvement, meeting future pre-qualification requirements, and enhancing the reputation of the company as one which is committed to high integrity standards (Transparency International, 2012[20]).

Under the Law, certification by the government is not required. This is in line with other regimes that require business integrity programmes, such as Brazil and Mexico, where the government is only required to check that a programme is in place that has the required elements. In preparing the guidance for the private sector, the OA could suggest as a good practice that the companies required by article 24 to implement a business integrity programme provide verification of the business integrity programme by a reputable, independent third-party reviewer. The government of Argentina should avoid conducting any verification themselves, but may wish to set guidelines on the components of an effective verification. Good international practice shows that policy guidance can direct companies to obtain independent third-party assurance. For example, in the UK Adequate Procedures Guidance, the Ministry of Justice suggests that organisations consider obtaining external verification or assurance of their anti-bribery system (UK Ministry of Justice, 2010[21]). Similarly, under the Government of Canada’s Integrity Regime, in order to be reconsidered eligible for bidding following debarment, companies are required to provide certification by an independent, third party that integrity measures are implemented in their company (Government of Canada, 2017[22]).

Good international practice, such as the guidance provided by the UK, also includes a clarifying measure to remind companies that accreditation is not a magic bullet for preventing unethical behaviour (see Box ‎8.3). In suggesting external verification, the OA could also consider including language in the prepared guidance that clarifies to companies that certification does not eliminate the risk of integrity breaches. This clarification, accompanied with guidance on cultivating a culture of integrity in the private sector, should aim to move companies beyond a ‘tick the box’ approach to compliance.

8.4.1. The Ministry of Education and the Anti-Corruption Office could incorporate integrity and anti-corruption concepts into the curricula

As Argentina’s future, young people are a core audience for shaping the attitudes and behaviours towards integrity for the whole-of-society. Evidence has found that civic education programmes can increase the likelihood of young people rejecting corruption in government, as well as diminish their likelihood of accepting or participating in law-breaking activities (Ainley, Schulz and Friedman, 2011[23]; Fraillon, Schulz and Ainley, 2009[24]). To this end, incorporating integrity education into school curriculum is a key tool, as it equips young people with the knowledge and skills needed to face the challenges of society, including corruption.

Education about public integrity and anti-corruption can help challenge entrenched social norms that enable corruption to flourish. Such education can be found in the schools (e.g. in the existing curriculum or through extra-curricular activities), or through tools offered independently (such as initiatives by civil society organisations). Education about public integrity and anti-corruption generates new common knowledge about the expected norms and behaviours to prevent corruption. It also cultivates lifelong skills and values for integrity, encouraging young citizens to accept their roles and responsibilities for rejecting corruption.

Using education about public integrity and anti-corruption must however be understood as a long-term policy tool. Like many educational programmes, education about public integrity and anti-corruption builds on the knowledge and skills developed previously. It requires not only a robust curriculum, but also effective teachers who are capable of delivering the material, as well as modelling integrity. Moreover, success will also depend on youth seeing the integrity values upheld in their classrooms, their schools and their communities.

In Argentina, education about civic and ethical values is part of the National Education Law (Ley de Educación Nacional Nº 26.206). Although the provincial governments are primarily responsible for implementing education, the national Ministry of Education (MoE) in cooperation with the Federal Council of Education (Consejo Federal de Educación or CFE) defines common curricular standards and contents for all levels of compulsory education. Following the curricular framework established at the federal level, the provincial governments establish common curricular structures and contents. These structures and contents mirror the priorities of the federal level while also reflecting the social and cultural contexts of each province (Government of Argentina, n.d.[25]).

The Núcleos de Aprendizajes Prioritarios (NAP) or Priority Learning Centres are the common curricular structure elaborated by the MoE and the CFE. The NAP establishes the common curriculum standards for the core subjects for all initial, primary and secondary schools across Argentina. The NAP for civics and ethics education (Formación Ética y Ciudadana) is particularly useful for education about public integrity, as it offers space in the curriculum to reflect on integrity issues. At the primary level, the NAP for civics and ethics education identifies three learning areas: (1) ethical reflection; (2) historical construction of reality; and (3) citizenship, rights and participation. Together, these learning areas aim to build students’ knowledge and skills for assessing their personal values and the values of wider society. These learning areas also underscore the role of legal, moral and social norms, and the relationship between norms, forms of authority and respect for the rule of law. Moreover, the learning areas build skills to communicate respectively, and listen and understand different points of view.

Similarly, the NAP at the secondary level (Ciclo Básico de la Educación Secundaria) provides opportunities to incorporate education about public integrity. According to the MoE, this NAP contains integrity-related elements, emphasising that the government is not alone in fighting corruption or ensuring integrity, but that unethical practices can exist across several sectors, thereby becoming a shared issue. As such, the NAP requires teachers to promote amongst students critical reflection skills about their political, economic and ethical roles and responsibilities as citizens. For example, one of the learning areas requires students to construct, validate and respect the norms that govern fair coexistence in the school community and society. The NAP also recommends that teachers draw from a variety of teaching disciplines, including education for peace, tax education, cooperative education, in order to strengthen students’ understanding of the ethical, legal, political, economic and cultural dimensions of social life.

In addition to the NAP for civics and ethics curriculum, the Anti-Corruption Office in cooperation with the educational community also developed specific anti-corruption educational materials in the late 2000s. The materials, which included a video and accompanying guide for teachers of the series ¿Y vos qué?, were developed to guide teachers in initiating debates in the classroom and encourage students to reflect on the issue of values. The programme focused on students in secondary school, as well as their families and teachers and contained the following four objectives:

• To create and promote social awareness of respect for the rule of law;

• To strengthen education in values, with the aim of preventing acts of corruption at all levels of social life;

• To disseminate among young people subjects related to public ethics and promote their debate (in the classroom as well as within the family)

• To train teachers to achieve continuity in meeting objectives

The materials were tested in a pilot phase over two years in secondary schools in select schools across Argentina through a series of workshops.

Nevertheless, this programme was not integrated into the core civics and ethics curriculum. Additionally, when offered, it was only to students in upper secondary school who participated. To that end, following a diagnostic evaluation of the programme, a key finding was the need to incorporate the anti-corruption programme into the official curriculum. This was identified as a pending objective. The findings also noted that there are no formal mechanisms to evaluate the knowledge obtained by students in this particular field.

The existing NAP civics and ethics curriculum provides a strong platform for educating on integrity values and norms. To strengthen the link between integrity and corruption prevention, the Ministry of Education could consider building on the structure of the OA’s anti-corruption education programme and mainstream it into the primary and secondary Civics and Ethics NAPs. To initiate this work, the MoE and OA could sign an agreement, which clearly lay out the roles and responsibilities for each entity to cooperate on developing and mainstreaming education for public integrity into the main curriculum. As the provincial Ministries of Education are responsible for adapting and implementing the national framework at the provincial level, the agreement should ensure that it assigns concrete responsibilities to the Federal Council for Education.

A key activity of the MoE could be to develop an Action Plan for the creation and implementation of the education for public integrity programme. The Action Plan should clearly identify the concrete tasks, responsible institutions, expected outcomes and timeframe, as well as indicators to evaluate impact. As the anti-corruption and integrity subject matter experts, the OA could play an advisory role to inform on the proposed content. The Action Plan could cover the following core activities: design of the curricular guidelines (e.g. a learning outcomes framework and teaching and learning materials), the teacher training process and the piloting and revision process. The Action Plan could also clearly lay out the process for mainstreaming the learning outcomes framework and the teaching and learning materials into the core curriculum, following the piloting and revision process. The Action Plan could also contain a provision to develop a monitoring and evaluation framework to assess the impact on students’ knowledge and skills (see Chapter 2).

As noted above, the curricular guidelines could contain a learning outcomes framework that identifies the core knowledge, skills and attitudes desired for Argentine students about public integrity and anti-corruption (see for example those presented in Table ‎8.3). The teaching and learning materials should be based on the learning outcomes framework, appropriately tailored to specific age groups and should include activities for students to apply their integrity knowledge in a tangible way. The Federal Council for Education could consider validating the learning outcomes framework and corresponding materials. Moreover, to support the Federal Council for Education in developing and disseminating these materials, the MoE could consider designating funds to education for public integrity within the existing budget for the Civics and Ethics NAP.

In developing the learning outcomes framework, focus should be given to utilising practical activities for students. Experiential evidence has shown that students who engage in practical integrity-related activities not only build the knowledge and skills to hold public officials accountable, but also indicate a stronger willingness to contribute to integrity efforts in their communities (OECD, 2018[26]; Integrity Action, 2017[27]). Such activities could be both in-class, games, role-play scenarios and debates (see for example Box ‎8.4 on Austria) as well as community-based projects. Community-based projects could take on a range of activities, such as real-life encounters with public officials, like the “everyday ethical individuals” mentioned in the previous section (see, for example Box ‎8.5 on Lithuania). Other activities could include requiring students to prepare and submit an access to information request or identify a specific public project in their community to monitor (see for example (Integrity Action, 2017[27])).

8.4.2. The National Teacher Trainer Institute could incorporate training on public integrity into the Jurisdictional Curriculum Designs

The successful implementation of education about public integrity is dependent upon teachers who can effectively deliver the curriculum in the classroom. Teacher training on anti-corruption and integrity concepts, as well as on how to address difficult social topics in the classroom, is therefore a crucial component to the curriculum efforts. Teacher training can equip trainee and experienced professionals with the skills, knowledge and confidence to counter contemporary social problems, such as corruption (Starkey, 2013[31]). Training on integrity and anti-corruption can also introduce normative standards to teachers, such as the norm that they have moral obligations to challenge corruption and help their students navigate the difficult ethical dilemmas they encounter. Teacher training can take many forms, ranging from courses taken during teacher trainee programmes and professional raining, to seminars and resource kits prepared by government institutions and/or civil society actors.

In Argentina, initial and continuing teacher training is enshrined in the National Law on Education and coordinated through the National Institute of Teacher Education (Instituto Nacional de Formación Docente or INFD). Within each province, the Jurisdictional Curriculum Designs (los Diseños Curriculares) for teacher training include a subject aimed at ethics and citizenship training, which address concepts such as conflict in society, norms and the role of the state. Currently, concepts related to public integrity and corruption prevention are not included. The INFD could develop guidelines for the provinces on including content related integrity and anti-corruption in the ethics and citizenship component of the respective Jurisdictional Curriculum Designs. The guidelines could suggest developing modules on concepts of corruption and integrity, as well as strategies for cultivating an open classroom environment and managing difficult conversations (see Box ‎8.6 and Box ‎8.7).

8.4.3. The Ministry of Education and the Anti-Corruption Office could partner with universities to mainstream integrity and anti-corruption throughout their degree programmes.

As future employees, post-secondary students need the knowledge and skills to comply with ethical requirements, as well as be able to confront integrity challenges as they arise. Evidence has found that integrating ethics education into university curricula can increase students exposure to a range of ethical issues and improve their ethical sensitivity, a critical component of the ethical decision-making process (Martinov-Bennie and Mladenovic, 2015[36]). Other evidence has shown that even short ethics programmes, consisting of three discussions, supported the development of ethical sensitivity amongst students (Clarkeburn, Downie and Matthew, 2002[37]). Such interventions can however be transitory, either due to the curriculum content or environmental influences. To counteract the transitory effect of ethics education, it is suggested that post-secondary course work be supplemented by experiential learning and immersion techniques to give students the opportunity to experience and practice ethical considerations (Bampton and Maclagan, 2005[38]; Christensen et al., 2007[39]).

Moreover, to be effective, training on integrity should not be limited to certain professions. While certain sectors are at a higher risk of corruption and fraud, integrity breaches can be found across all sectors. Furthermore, as employees are more likely to change careers multiple times, post-secondary students would be better served by integrity education which is mainstreamed across their curricular.

Together with the OA, the MoES could partner with universities to develop modules on integrity and anti-corruption and mainstream into existing courses, such as law, economics, business, engineering and architecture, and public administration. One possible way to achieve this could be through a MoU between the MoES, the OA and interested universities. The Anti-Corruption Academic Initiative (ACAD) contains extensive resource material which universities can draw upon to design their own modules (see Box ‎8.8). The OA could also encourage universities to sign up to the Poznan Declaration, which provides clear recommendations to universities for mainstreaming integrity and anti-corruption throughout their courses (see Box ‎8.9).

Raising awareness in society of the benefits of integrity and reducing tolerance of violations of public integrity

• The Anti-Corruption Office could take an active role in communicating to citizens and firms their roles and responsibilities for respecting public integrity through awareness-raising campaigns.

• A whole-of-society communications unit could be institutionalised under the Subsecretariat of Integrity and Transparency, and assigned responsibilities for conducting awareness raising programmes.

• The Anti-Corruption Office could develop a whole-of-society communications strategy that identifies the target audiences, key messages, communication channels and expected outputs. The awareness raising campaigns should be tailored to the target audiences, generate community responsibility and increase a sense of agency, and encourage action.

• The Anti-Corruption Office could develop an awareness campaign that communicates success stories from effective behaviour changes throughout the government. The campaign could highlight “everyday ethical public officials” who have helped change the way their team works for integrity in the Argentine government. The officials pledge to honour these values as a matter of respect towards the public they are serving and ask the citizens to return this respect by trusting them to serve in the public interest.

• Through Memorandum of Understanding, the Anti-Corruption Office could assign the responsibility to other government entities that deal with high-risk areas, including, but not limited to, the Ministry of Labour, Employment and Security (Ministerio de Trabajo, Empleo y Seguridad), the Ministry of Health (Ministerio de Salud) and the Ministry of Social Development (Ministerio de Desarrollo Social), , to incorporate integrity and anti-corruption awareness raising campaigns for citizens in their respective areas.

• The awareness raising and identity forming measures could be supported by behavioural interventions creating salience for moral norms and identities.

Engaging with the private sector to uphold integrity in business activities

• The guidance prepared by the Anti-Corruption Office could emphasise how to go beyond cosmetic compliance programmes.

• The Anti-Corruption Office could consider developing guidance for independent verification of the quality of companies’ business integrity programmes.

Carrying out civic education on public integrity in schools

• The Ministry of Education and the Anti-Corruption Office could scale up the existing anti-corruption education programme for secondary students and implement it into the existing primary and secondary subject for Citizenship and Ethics Education (Formación Etica y Ciudadana). To achieve this, the Ministry of Education could sign an agreement with the Anti-Corruption Office that clearly lays out the roles and responsibilities of the Ministry of Education and the Anti-Corruption Office to cooperate on developing and mainstreaming education about public integrity into the main curriculum. The agreement should also ensure that it assigns responsibilities for implementation to Federal Council for Education.

• The Ministry of Education could develop an Action Plan for the creation and implementation of the education for public integrity materials. The Action Plan should clearly identify the concrete tasks, responsible institutions, expected outcomes and timeframe, as well as indicators to evaluate impact.

• The Action Plan could include the design of the learning outcomes framework, the design of the teaching and learning materials, the teacher training process and the piloting, integration and revision process. The Action Plan could also contain a provision to develop a monitoring and evaluation framework to assess the impact on students’ knowledge and skills.

• The learning outcomes framework should identify the core knowledge, skills and attitudes desired for Argentine students about public integrity and anti-corruption. The teaching and learning materials should be based on the learning outcomes framework, appropriately tailored to specific age groups and should include activities for students to apply their integrity knowledge in an applicable way.

• The National Institute of Teacher Education (INFD) could develop guidelines on including content related to integrity and anti-corruption in the ethics and citizenship component of the respective Jurisdictional Curriculum Designs. The guidelines could suggest developing modules on concepts of corruption and integrity, as well as strategies for cultivating an open classroom environment and managing difficult conversations.

• The Ministry of Education and the Anti-Corruption Office could partner with universities through a Memorandum of Understanding to mainstream integrity and anti-corruption throughout their degree programmes.

• The Ministry of Education and the Anti-Corruption Office could encourage universities to sign up to the Poznan declaration and utilise the teaching resources made freely available by the UNODC Anti-Corruption Academic Initiative (ACAD) to mainstream education about integrity and anti-corruption in all areas of the university curriculum.