Towards a framework of analysis for crisis-response and corruption: a study of selected African countries

Purpose Corruption in crisis response is relatively under-explored in academic discourse. This knowledge is useful given the tumultuous experience with COVID-19 and the need to build resilience to future pandemics. This study aims to focus on exploring corruption and crisis response, analysing corruption in crisis response across public disaster types: pandemics, droughts and floods. Design/methodology/approach Using a comparative case study approach, the article analyses crisis response corruption with cases from four African countries and three disaster types: pandemic, hydrological/drought and climatological/flood disasters. The study collated corruption cases and, in comparative and deductive manners, drew out patterns and themes. Findings The study finds that crisis response corruption tends to cluster around three major elements: procurement corruption, humanitarian/relief assistance and abuse/misuse of emergency powers. There is an elevated risk for procurement corruption during disasters, but humanitarian/relief-related corruption is the most prevalent. Relief-related corruption often takes many dimensions beyond the typical stealing and mismanaging of the relief items to include poor transparency in donor funding and abuse of power. This study argues that crisis-response should be considered a valid corruption category, to describe corruption type that happens around crisis or disaster response and a new framework that explains corruption in that domain is presented. Research limitations/implications This study is focused on examining the crisis response corruption conceptually and with limited empirical expression in the form of case comparisons. Future research is needed to further test this framework. Future studies may for instance assess how crisis-response corruption relates to existing national corruption patterns and behaviour. Practical implications These findings have added to disaster management literature more broadly and specifically to understanding crisis-related corruption. It has practical uses; for instance, it helps to refine crisis response corruption categorisations. This may help practitioners understand corruption risk elements worth considering when designing humanitarian interventions and funding during disasters. Originality/value These findings added to corruption and disaster literature broadly and specifically to understanding the dimensions of corruption possibilities during crisis management. It has practical uses, for instance, in humanitarian intervention programming and the prevention of criminal mismanagement.