This is just daft. Those are the two internationally-accepted measures for the success of any anticorruption effort. They are accepted academically & were the 2 I used for my PhD. The only other one: Public Education about corruption is measured using surveys. Short thread..
You use conviction-to-prosecution rate because the anticorruption agencies could just be catching people in a witch-hunt, doing shoddy or no investigations, and the courts will just keep throwing out the cases. Such an agency is a poorly-performing one.
The higher the conviction-to-prosecution ratio, the more effective the anticorruption agency is. The second measure is quantum of corrupt funds recovered. A key element of any anticorruption fight is to return monies stolen from government to the commonwealth.
That’s why places like the UK have a Proceeds of Crimes Act, which allows government to take everything you have, including your money, houses, cars, watches and even used clothing and dirty trainers. The items are auctioned and paid back into the Treasury for public projects.
Public education about the ills of corruption is important. That is why both EFCC and ICPC have public enlightenment programmes even for school children. However, the fact that everybody talks about the ills of corruption doesn’t mean that any anticorruption effort is working.
That’s is why the two measures of conviction and quantum of monies recovered are the two most commonly used measures for gauging the success of any anticorruption effort. End.
