Coordinating the Enforcement of Anti-Corruption Law: South American Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most pressing challenges in anti-corruption law is whether and how to coordinate enforcement across multiple agencies, that is to say, under conditions of institutional multiplicity. One approach is modular enforcement, which involves dividing responsibility for enforcement among multiple institutions that are able, but not required, to coordinate their activities. The relatively impressive performance of Brazil’s anti-corruption agencies around the beginning of the twentieth century has been attributed to this kind of institutional modularity. We examine whether other similarly situated countries adopted the Brazilian approach. Specifically, we compare the extent to which the modular approach to anti-corruption enforcement was reflected in the national anti-corruption institutions of Brazil and five other South American countries as of 2014. We find little evidence that Brazil’s neighbors adopted the modular approach and suggest a variety of political, intellectual and institutional factors that may limit the attraction of institutional modularity outside the Brazilian context. Our analysis also demonstrates the value of an approach to comparative legal analysis which extends beyond the judiciary and the police to cover the full range of institutions involved in law enforcement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".