Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
What explains longstanding UK non-compliance with international anti-bribery norms? Drawing on evidence from a comparative study of state compliance with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) anti-bribery Convention and building on the literature on ‘framing’ in Sociology and International Relations, this article identifies and illustrates the impact of strategic policy framing on UK anti-bribery policy in the years following the United Kingdom’s commitment to criminalize transnational business bribes, in 1997. The research examines the way in which anti-bribery proponents and opponents framed the practice of transnational bribery differently across four distinct policy contexts in the United Kingdom: international development and poverty reduction, domestic anti-corruption, strategic trade, and—following 11 September 2001—international anti-terrorism. The analysis shows that: (a) policy advocates’ choice of frame crucially affected the timing and scope of UK anti-bribery legislation and the extent of UK (non)compliance with international anti-corruption law; and (b) the expedient frame was not necessarily the most conducive to full compliance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ellen Gutterman (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: