All recent Prime Ministers have promised greater openness in government. She has often seemed to want to reject the style of the Cameron core executive that preceded her, and has been a secretive Prime Minister , unenthusiastic about any forms of transparency that could damage her government — especially after the loss of her majority in the Commons in May inherited from David Cameron a series of ongoing anti-corruption reforms, as between and the UK sought to position itself as a global leader in anti-corruption at home and abroad. In the government published a wide-ranging anti-corruption plan, and followed this up with a government-wide strategy in late see below.
New in our projects
Some of these reforms appeared to lose momentum once Cameron resigned — perhaps as an unavoidable by-product of Brexit eating up parliamentary time, but perhaps also due to a lack of ministerial interest. The anti-corruption champion appointed by Cameron stepped down, and there was no replacement for more than six months.
Other Cameron-era global initiatives on making business more transparent have become mired in controversy or were delayed see below. Current strengths Current weaknesses The general climate around openness and transparency agendas in the UK is positive, with cross-party support.
- Watching Giants: The Secret Lives of Whales.
- Geopathic Stress & Subtle Energy.
- Essentials of Monte Carlo Simulation: Statistical Methods for Building Simulation Models?
A mixture of openness laws, executive instruments and technology have together created a flourishing openness ecosystem, with some strong forces pressuring for openness and preventing corruption. The Labour governments of — put in place a series of important openness reforms. The unusual conservatism of the Cameron—Osborne Prime Minister and Chancellor team —16 , plus the presence of the Liberal Democrats in the coalitional government with the Conservatives —15 , produced a further period of UK government activism on transparency issues, especially around private sector openness, though enthusiasm for making government more open dwindled.
Since momentum has been slowing, and public sector openness policies have especially appeared to slow down if not stagnate. Freedom of Information has important effects in increasing the openness of UK government and changing previously restrictive official cultures of secrecy. The legislation has frequently been lamented and queried by Whitehall mandarins and Westminster politicians, not least Tony Blair, who pushed through the law then regretted it. However, it has endured for 15 years and most attempts to increase restrictions have been fought off, while it has expanded in some areas.
There are already considerable exemptions under FOI legislation that allow government agencies to reject requests. There has been a notable decline in performance regarding FOI, with more requests refused over time and some reduction in the number of requests being made see below. There are also recent examples of high-level political resistance in Scotland and Northern Ireland in Public sector openness has increased in the digital age because large amounts of previously closed data and information can now be cheaply and effectively published online in forms that facilitate further analysis.
There has been a slowing in open data publication, with some promised information lagging well behind formal timelines see below. GDS has had its budget cut severely from on see our Audit of the civil service. Private sector openness policies designed to ensure that UK companies behave responsibly in developing countries have had some impact — for example, the UK has signed up to the OECD convention to curtail the bribery of foreign officials.
Greater business openness about gender pay inequalities have improved business social responsiveness. Progress on several other anti-corruption fronts has been limited. Policies designed to force more disclosure about the use of natural resources from companies with large extractive industry holdings are ongoing but controversial. Anti-corruption policies in government are well developed. Britain regularly scores highly as a country free of corruption, usually ranking 8 to 10 in perceptions of corruption out of states covered worldwide.
Nonetheless, organised networks of open government and anti-corruption activists have pushed for further reforms.
- Doing well by doing good (Essay).
- Political parties: the missing link in our constitution? - Corruption Watch;
- Why Trump Can’t Tweet His Way Out of This.
- How to Win American Scholarships: Avoid These 10 Mistakes & Go To College For Free!;
This involved a commitment to a UK government-wide anti-corruption plan and, later, an anti-corruption strategy. DfID have proved a high-profile champion. Devolved governments also have a series of openness initiatives in train. Despite claims of being corruption free, problems persist. In Northern Ireland, a major scandal involving a Renewable Heat Incentive RHI scheme was uncovered in late , with severe political consequences for the government. The MeToo campaign following allegations of harassment in Hollywood extended to the UK and led to new independent procedures, introduced in July see below.
Anti-corruption policies in business are complex to introduce, since business law has to be carefully tuned so as not to deter investment nor hinder UK success in international trade. The opening up of UK dependencies and overseas territories that are tax havens, begun under David Cameron, is ongoing. There is a lack of government support and interest in promoting openness or anti-corruption in business. A number of key anti-corruption policies appeared to have slowed down or lost momentum. There is a general push for secrecy around Brexit, while a lack of UK resources and perhaps declining powers of scrutiny outside EU law may increase the potential for domestic corruption.
Future opportunities Future threats The ongoing Whitehall commitments under the Open Government Partnership, plus experiments at devolved government level, offer opportunities for more transparency and anti-corruption activities. Local government is often a site of openness experiments and the new metro mayors may also offer an opportunity here. Brexit will take time, energy and attention away from many other reforms.
Leaving the EU may also have adverse effects on particular pieces of previously operating openness legislation, especially over environmental disclosures and information. A range of potential sources of political corruption, such as over expenses, lobbying and funding of party and referendum campaigns, have not yet been fully addressed.
Behind the headlines, FOI is primarily a local tool, and around four in every five requests goes to local government: in an FOI request even led to the mass resignation of one village council. Although most requests are for micro-political or small issues, FOI has had some unexpected benefits, such as leading to an online postbox finder.
The scope of the FOI law has also gradually expanded. Mr Epp and Mr Borghetto think another possible explanation should be considered. Rather than straightforwardly increasing pressure on politicians to do something about skewed income distributions, they suggest, rising inequality might instead boost the power of the rich, thus enabling them to counter the popular will.
The general public wants it increased. They are also more politically engaged than typical Americans: much more likely to have regular personal contact with elected officials, for example, and to give money to political campaigns. The relation between concentrated wealth and the political power of the rich is scarcely limited to political spending, or to America.
Read PDF Democracy Ltd: How Money and Donations have Corrupted British Politics
The rich have many means to shape public opinion: financing nominally apolitical think-tanks, for instance, or buying media outlets. Although their power may sometimes be used to influence the result of a particular vote, it is often deployed more subtly, to shape public narratives about which problems deserve attention.
Mr Epp and Mr Borghetto analysed bills brought before the parliaments of nine European countries between and Issues such as economic justice are crowded out. As their wealth increases, they have a greater ability to press politicians to emphasise some topics rather than others. The evidence that concentrated wealth contributes to concentrated power is troubling. It suggests that reducing inequality becomes less likely even as it becomes more urgent. It implies that a vicious cycle of rising inequality may be developing, with a loss of democratic accountability as a nasty side-effect.
Some social scientists argue that this is, indeed, the way of things. This is excessively pessimistic. The rich are powerful, but not all-powerful, or uniform in their determination to keep distributional policies off the agenda. And Western democracies still function.
Read e-book Democracy Ltd: How Money and Donations have Corrupted British Politics
If political leaders tried it, they might well find that redistribution is a winner at the ballot box. Join them. Subscribe to The Economist today. Media Audio edition Economist Films Podcasts. New to The Economist? Sign up now Activate your digital subscription Manage your subscription Renew your subscription. Topics up icon. Blogs up icon. Current edition.
Audio edition. Economist Films. The Economist apps.