Plans without action? Politics and institutional challenges of anti-corruption reforms in the BRICS countries

This paper investigates the implementation challenges of anti-corruption policies in Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS) countries since 2016. It aims to understand why significant gaps persist between the formal adoption of anti-corruption frameworks and their practical enforcement across these emerging economies. The study employs a comparative case study design grounded in institutional theory and policy implementation frameworks. It uses a qualitative, cross-sectional approach to analyse secondary data drawn from official reports, scholarly literature, and international governance indices. The analysis focuses on three core dimensions of implementation: institutional capacity, political will, and legal enforcement. The findings reveal that although all five countries have enacted substantial anti-corruption legislation, implementation is undermined by weak institutional capacity, inconsistent political commitment, and compromised legal enforcement. Brazil’s Operation Car Wash, once celebrated, was later eroded by political interference. Russia’s enforcement remains selective and elite protective. India’s institutional efforts are weakened by politicised enforcement. China’s high-profile anti-corruption campaign is limited by centralisation and procedural ambiguity. In South Africa, state capture has left a legacy of institutional fragility despite recent reformist efforts. The study relies on secondary data and does not include primary fieldwork or interviews, which may limit context-specific insights. However, the comparative design offers valuable lessons for institutional reform and policy alignment in other transitional governance contexts. By focusing on the interplay between capacity, will, and enforcement in five major global South powers, this study provides a nuanced understanding of anti-corruption implementation. It highlights the importance of aligning political incentives with institutional reforms to bridge the gap between policy and practice.