-
Public integrity is the glue that holds societies together. It is the consistent alignment of, and adherence to, shared ethical values, principles and norms for upholding, and prioritising the public interest over private interests in the public sector. Not respecting these values and rules undermines sustainable and inclusive development, and can endanger our democracies. As a key driver of trust in government, public integrity is crucial for ensuring the credibility and therefore the support for and success of policies.
-
-
Similar to other countries in the region and around the world, citizens in Ecuador consider corruption as one of the most crucial challenges of the country and their trust in government has almost halved between 2009 and 2018 according to the results of the Latinobarómetro surveys. Promoting integrity in the public sector is a necessary condition for responding to corruption and reversing this decline of trust. Currently, however, the institutional responsibilities for promoting integrity in Ecuador are fragmented and not clearly assigned. Furthermore, no mechanisms are in place to co-operate and define common goals and actions among institutions, resulting in a lack of a comprehensive strategy and vision to effectively address corruption. Rather than mainstreaming a preventive approach throughout the public sector, existing policies mostly focus on sanctioning corruption and do not address underlying systemic challenges.
-
This Chapter provides an introduction to the report. It highlights the growing perception and impact of corruption among citizens in Ecuador and its effects on the level of trust in government. The Chapter also illustrates the functions of the OECD and how it can support Ecuador in developing a sustainable response to corruption through its integrity standards and extensive regional experience.
-
This Chapter describes the responsibilities of key national actors with integrity-related functions in Ecuador, which are assigned to different branches of the State. It illustrates the co-operation mechanisms set up between them, and how the creation of a National Integrity and Anti-corruption System could address their limits and enable national dialogue and co-operation across state´s branches and levels of administration on public integrity. The Chapter also analyses the integrity objectives which have been formulated in the National Development Plan 2017-2021 and in the National Public Integrity and Anti-corruption Plan 2019-2023 but have not generated the expected impact. It thus considers how to develop, in a progressive and participative manner, a strategic approach steered by the National Integrity and Anti-corruption System and leading to a long-term integrity vision for Ecuador.
-
This Chapter analyses the institutional arrangements for integrity within the Executive branch of Ecuador, highlighting the challenges in defining leadership and recognising the role of key actors in building a culture of integrity. It highlights that rather than creating a new ad-hoc Secretariat, Ecuador could leverage the co-ordination role of the General Secretariat of the Presidency of the Republic and the existing integrity-related competences of the Ministry of Labour. The Chapter also describes the composition and functions of the Ethics Committees and Anti-bribery Committees within public entities and provides an overview of integrity policies. It finds that both the Committees and policies do not embrace a preventive approach and that the units in charge of organisational change and culture could play a greater role in promoting and mainstreaming a culture of public integrity at entity-level.
-
This Chapter provides an overview of the actions proposed in the report divided into two parts. The first table includes the recommendations aimed at laying the foundations of a public integrity system at the national level through greater co-operation and a strategic vision. The second table reports the recommendations related to the institutional arrangements for integrity within the Executive branch and its entities, where the role of preventive actors could be recognised and enhanced. For each recommendation, the tables clarify the responsible actors(s) and, when relevant, the envisaged execution term.
-