Alexandra Habershon

“Public Office, Private Interests: Accountability through Income and Asset Disclosure” examines the objectives, design features, and implementation approaches that can contribute to the effectiveness of an income and asset disclosure (IAD) system, and enhance its impact as a prevention and enforcement tool. It draws on detailed case studies that are published in a companion volume: “Income and Asset Disclosure: Case Study Illustrations” The companion volume “Income and Asset Disclosure: Case Study Illustrations” includes case studies of the IAD systems in Argentina, Croatia, Guatemala, Hong Kong SAR, Indonesia, Jordan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Mongolia, Rwanda, Slovenia, and the United States. Case studies were conducted through review of the legal framework, desk research and interviews with practitioners, academics, and representatives of civil society. Each case study outlines the legal framework for the IAD regime, the mandate and structure of the IAD agency, and the resources and procedures of the IAD system. The characteristics of each system are highlighted along with other findings that illuminate the challenges faced in implementing the system, the steps taken, and the progress achieved by the IAD agency in fulfilling its mandate. There are a wide variety of approaches in IAD system design and implementation and a wide variety of challenges faced by different systems. New and emerging IAD systems may face challenges associated with resource and capacity constraints, political resistance to implementation, a lack of public awareness, or limited civil society capacity to support anticorruption efforts. Many established systems may also face the need to revise the legal framework, institutional arrangements, or enforcement mechanisms once it becomes apparent that original assumptions do not deliver expected results or unanticipated challenges emerge. There is no single optimal approach to IAD system design and implementation. Context is essential. These volumes do not, therefore, attempt to lay out a standard approach for IAD administration. Rather, they identify the objectives, features, and mechanisms that can contribute to the effectiveness of an IAD system and enhance its impact as a prevention and enforcement tool.