Why integrity in customs is crucial for international trade
Custom administrations have a greater responsibility in expediting word trade while implementing integrity in border to border goods and services exchanges and the public revenue collection. Empirical evidences indicates that dealing with integrity issues in customs can develop benefits to both the private and public sector as well as the entire community. This can also help to handle the revenue loss that comes as a result of corruption which is custom related. Additionally reinforcing transparency, impartiality, and good governance elements in customs lead to impeccable reduction in trade cost for many nations. Finally, reduction of asymmetries in information, improving regulations accountability and enforceability plus reducing chances for utilizing discretionary powers for personal gain, enhanced integrity offers organization a better conviction that they will get good and continued treatment from official of the public hence the ability to compete equally in foreign markets.
The effects of failure to address issues on integrity as regards customs and several border agencies is weighty. It exposes the community at large to global threats related to the globalization’s dark side (Border, 2016). For example, when there is insufficient border control systems there can be increase in organized crime by enabling smuggling and illicit trade. These ranges from highly prohibited goods like hard drugs to pirated and fake consumer goods.
WCO and OECD are aware of the reality that many aspects of customs work might be exposed to corrupt deals. For instance, border corruption is seen as one of the major three hindrances for good and services importation in the private sector. In real sense, customs can contribute to better opportunities to seek illicit rents because of the officials’ regulation into the global flow of goods together with open powers in rules and procedures application. The innate international supply chains complexity also develops exposures which may encourage a number of individuals and businesses to get involved into corrupt practices. Therefore it is significant that risks from these complications are outlined and effectively organized to outdo any incentive that might contribute to corrupt behavior. Effective integrity risks address in customs needs a common responsibility among governments, the community and private sector as well.
WCO, in a strategic document referred to as “customs in the 21st century” pointed at ten integrated building blocks which were seen to be interlinked to updated efficient and effective custom administration. Among the building blocks is integrity that proves fighting a vice like corruption, enhancing quality governance and protecting integrity are essential to today’s effective custom administration. In the year 2003, members of WCO applied the Revised Arusha Declaration that points at the ten main factors which might be considered by a quality national customs integrity. This kind of programs for customs integrity can depend on a robust training and improvement measures. It can also result in an organizational culture that supports high integrity levels showing, transparency, consistency, fairness and honesty.
Effects of lack of integrity in customs and border agencies
Additionally, various measures targeting to prevent customs integrity might be derived from the 1998 OECD council recommendation on enhancing ethics in public service conduct (Tomba, & Wallinga, 2018). Secondly, it can be drawn from the 1998 OECD council recommendation concerning integrity of the public. Thirdly is from chapter two of the UN convention against corrupt activities (uncac). OECD recommendations for the years 1998 and 2017 offer a comprehensive framework of policies for strengthening integrity and ethic management in the public sector. This would happen through involvement of the government and society at large. Given that UNCAC is a general strategy to counter corruption, in chapter to it provides numerous precise regulations which must be executed by the nations to the UN convention against corruption.
Among various regulations and declarations, the WCO created the Arusha Declaration in the year 1993 (Jap, & Ganesan, 2010). The declarations concerns integrity customs targeting at improving the effective of its members administrations in the risks and opportunities that might lead to corruption elimination. In the year 2003, the WCO Council employed a revision of the Arusha declaration with an inclusion of integrity development guide which acts as a wide-ranging integrity instrument to eliminate the severe impacts of corruption.
The revised declaration is the central instrument and major feature of an international and appropriate framework to counter corruption and the growing integrity level for the members of WCO. It offers the biggest actual basis for the growth and execution of integrity and anticorruption approaches relevant to the operating environment of the customs.
The development guide is articulated within 10 principles of the Revised Arusha Declaration and provides support to the standardization and harmonization of the avoidance, control and reporting of corruption and reinforcement of integrity in administrations. The ten pillars include
- Investigation of audit
- Commitment and leadership
- Framework of regulations
- Management in human resource
- Transparency
- Organizational culture and morale
- Automation
- Private sector relationship
- Modernization and reform
Methodology applied in compiling ethical practices within borders
OECD (organization of economic cooperation and development) was given a responsibility by G20 ACWG to compile a document to be discussed indicating the appropriate practices drawn from the questionnaire. The questionnaire was given to each G20 nation in the year 2015 December. The general aim of the document was to diffuse and account for better practices from the countries on enhancing integrity in customs.
Of the twenty, nineteen nations responded to the questionnaire. The countries include china, Australia, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, Germany, Italy, India, France, Mexico, Korea, turkey, United States, japan, Russian federation, Indonesia, Spain, Mexico, and the United Kingdom. Analysis of the answers provide by these nations was done on desk research and follow up queries through conference calls and emails. Input provided was clarified by customs administrations who were the participants of the survey (Jap, 2010). The document summarized answers to the questionnaire while highlighting what was deemed good practices pointed out by different administrations and also outlining the reasons as to why such practices are seen as good practices.
Approaches to enhancing integrity in customs
Public institutions tasked with implementation of customs and border administrations
Practices
- Independent organization or agency – United States, Italy, South Africa, Korea, Argentina, Canada, China
- Department in Tax Administration – Spain, Brazil, Mexico, United Kingdom, France.
- Others
- Ministry of Finance – India, Japan, Russian Federation, Indonesia, Germany.
- Specific ministry – Australia, Turkey
Leadership from the administrations and the team of executive management is key to promoting integrity in boarder operations (Border, 2016). By nature leadership of integrity from the top is founded on the commitment to lead through example and to implement and design efficient strategies for anticorruption. Border administration integrity approaches should be properly integrated with wider national anticorruption frameworks and get support from the top most political level to attain the intended outcomes.
Administration are responsible for various critical roles are to development of a country. They include protecting citizens, facilitating trade, collecting revenues, competitiveness, and increasing security of the nation. Borders administrators are accountable in ensuring there is transparency and accountability mechanisms. An often utilized good practice is to make administrators oversight independently. Thus is ensured that there is effective management of their operations, implementation and are of common interest with the public interest.
It is much obvious that efficient integrity risk control approaches will not only infer developing integrity risk regulations (Lynch, & Allen, 2006). They also use the produced data through such controls to assume corrective practices when necessary. Thirdly, they measure the strategy’s effectiveness and adapt it to the continuously growing risks of integrity emanating from varying business atmosphere and practices.
Continuous and quality integrity risk mitigation frameworks involve a balance integration of reactive and proactive measures. Reactive measure aim at reacting to breaches of integrity that have already taken place. Such include external and internal audits, approaches to report inappropriate actions, protocols of incident tracking and investigations. On the other hand, proactive measures target at avoiding breaches of integrity prior to their occurrence. Example of those measures are developing correct value statements and strategies which advocate for integrity and excellence, proper monitoring of the application of necessary regulations and procedures. Secondly, they design appropriate assessment of the execution of relevant regulations and procedures. Thirdly, they conduct relevant clearance on security when employing new staff and continuing integrity evaluation all through the careers.
Several boarder administrations have established continued risk control frameworks which include reactive and proactive measures. In Canada, every kind of control is delegated to its own division (Bosworth, 2018). That kind of duties segregation works in favor of the development of certain expertise, promotes peer evaluation of customs procedures and provision of various perspectives on the development and application of the risk control measures.
Ten pillars of the Revised Arusha Declaration
Canada’s CBSA delegation of responsibilities with respect to integrity risk management
The obligations related to risk management approach are segregated among different groups which are accountable to creating plans for audit and associated measures (Lynch, & Allen, 2006). They also execute the plan of the audit and making sure there is security in the overall agency.
This division is tasked with making audit reactions and formulating action plans, security policy, corporate reporting, business continuity management, security awareness and training, management of emergency, and other related initiatives. The following are summarized functions of the unit
- Creating and sustaining a combined security program management approach and a departmental security plan
- Organize performance evaluation standards for professional standards and security directorate programs.
- Making sure there is always plans for business continuity for critical services.
- Establishment and maintenance of the agency’s strategic emergency control framework.
- Development and maintenance of the agency’s framework of integrity to make sure there is better integrity and professionalism standards in the workforce and delivery of program.
- Creating and sustaining CBSA policies of security to align with the government security policy.
- Advising and guiding management of the headquarters management and staff on all matters of security
A greater number of border administrations have a department specially made accountable for monitoring strategy implementation, or otherwise the responsibilities may be given to another independent party. Audits are conducted to evaluate if anti-corruption procedures and regulations are consistently and entirely implemented.
Allowing legislative oversight is proper practice which might enhance accountability and transparency (Jap, 2010). As several investigations and studies done before by parliament will be publicized, this practice encourages good governance, accountability, transparency, and quality governance within border and customs.
Additionally leadership and commitment related practices below are identified as perfect integrity actions since they promote proper governance and accountability through improving peer reviews, transparency and engaging external parties in thee administrations oversight. These practices also enhance integrity in administrations through diffusing the central values standards of an institution against which every official is anticipated to adhere to.
The effects of failure to address issues on integrity as regards customs and several border agencies is weighty. It exposes the community at large to global threats related to the globalization’s dark side (Border, 2016). For example, when there is insufficient border control systems there can be increase in organized crime by enabling smuggling and illicit trade. These ranges from highly prohibited goods like hard drugs to pirated and fake consumer goods.
WCO and OECD are aware of the reality that many aspects of customs work might be exposed to corrupt deals. For instance, border corruption is seen as one of the major three hindrances for good and services importation in the private sector. In real sense, customs can contribute to better opportunities to seek illicit rents because of the officials’ regulation into the global flow of goods together with open powers in rules and procedures application. The innate international supply chains complexity also develops exposures which may encourage a number of individuals and businesses to get involved into corrupt practices. Therefore it is significant that risks from these complications are outlined and effectively organized to outdo any incentive that might contribute to corrupt behavior (Huang, et. al., 2016). Effective integrity risks address in customs needs a common responsibility among governments, the community and private sector as well.
Compilation of ethical practices in customs by OECD
WCO, in a strategic document referred to as “customs in the 21st century” pointed at ten integrated building blocks which were seen to be interlinked to updated efficient and effective custom administration. Among the building blocks is integrity that proves fighting a vice like corruption, enhancing quality governance and protecting integrity are essential to today’s effective custom administration. In the year 2003, members of WCO applied the Revised Arusha Declaration that points at the ten main factors which might be considered by a quality national customs integrity (Walters, 2016). This kind of programs for customs integrity can depend on a robust training and improvement measures. It can also result in an organizational culture that supports high integrity levels showing, transparency, consistency, fairness and honesty.
Additionally, various measures targeting to prevent customs integrity might be derived from the 1998 OECD council recommendation on enhancing ethics in public service conduct (Tomba, & Wallinga, 2018). Secondly, it can be drawn from the 1998 OECD council recommendation concerning integrity of the public. Thirdly is from chapter two of the UN convention against corrupt activities (uncac). OECD recommendations for the years 1998 and 2017 offer a comprehensive framework of policies for strengthening integrity and ethic management in the public sector. This would happen through involvement of the government and society at large. Given that UNCAC is a general strategy to counter corruption, in chapter to it provides numerous precise regulations which must be executed by the nations to the UN convention against corruption.
Among various regulations and declarations, the WCO created the Arusha Declaration in the year 1993. The declarations concerns integrity customs targeting at improving the effective of its members administrations in the risks and opportunities that might lead to corruption elimination. In the year 2003, the WCO Council employed a revision of the Arusha declaration with an inclusion of integrity development guide which acts as a wide-ranging integrity instrument to eliminate the severe impacts of corruption (Tomba, & Wallinga, 2008).
The revised declaration is the central instrument and major feature of an international and appropriate framework to counter corruption and the growing integrity level for the members of WCO. It offers the biggest actual basis for the growth and execution of integrity and anticorruption approaches relevant to the operating environment of the customs.
The development guide is articulated within 10 principles of the Revised Arusha Declaration and provides support to the standardization and harmonization of the avoidance, control and reporting of corruption and reinforcement of integrity in administrations. The ten pillars include
- Investigation of audit
- Commitment and leadership
- Framework of regulations
- Management in human resource
- Transparency
- Organizational culture and morale
- Automation
- Private sector relationship
- Modernization and reform
Role of leadership in promoting integrity in border operations
Methodology applied in compiling ethical practices within borders
OECD (organization of economic cooperation and development) was given a responsibility by G20 ACWG to compile a document to be discussed indicating the appropriate practices drawn from the questionnaire (Bingi, et. al., 2009). The questionnaire was given to each G20 nation in the year 2015 December. The general aim of the document was to diffuse and account for better practices from the countries on enhancing integrity in customs.
Of the twenty, nineteen nations responded to the questionnaire. The countries include china, Australia, Canada, Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, Germany, Italy, India, France, Mexico, Korea, turkey, United States, japan, Russian federation, Indonesia, Spain, Mexico, and the United Kingdom. Analysis of the answers provide by these nations was done on desk research and follow up queries through conference calls and emails. Input provided was clarified by customs administrations who were the participants of the survey (Jap, 2010). The document summarized answers to the questionnaire while highlighting what was deemed good practices pointed out by different administrations and also outlining the reasons as to why such practices are seen as good practices.
References
Bartlett, C. A., & Ghoshal, S. (2017). Managing across borders: New organizational responses. Sloan management review, 29(1), 43-53.
Balzacq, T. (2006). Security and the two-level game: The Treaty of Prüm, the EU and the management of threats (No. 234). CEPS.
Berkinblit, M. B., Feldman, A. G., & Fukson, O. I. (2016). Adaptability of innate motor patterns and motor control mechanisms. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 9(4), 585-599.
Bingi, P., Sharma, M. K., & Godla, J. K. (2009). Critical issues affecting an ERP implementation. IS Management, 16(3), 7-14.
Bosworth, M. (2018). Border control and the limits of the sovereign state. Social & Legal Studies, 17(2), 199-215
Calori, R., Lubatkin, M., & Very, P. (2014). Control mechanisms in cross-border acquisitions: An international comparison. Organization studies, 15(3), 361-379.
Catthoor, F., Wuytack, S., de Greef, G. E., Banica, F., Nachtergaele, L., &Vandecappelle, A. (2013). Custom memory management methodology: Exploration of memory organisation for embedded multimedia system design. Springer Science & Business Media
Côté-Boucher, K. (2002). The diffuse border: intelligence-sharing, control and confinement along Canada’s smart border. Surveillance & society, 5(2).
Deresky, H. (2017). International management: Managing across borders and cultures. Pearson Education India.
Geiger, M., & Pécoud, A. (2010). The politics of international migration management. In The politics of international migration management (pp. 1-20). Palgrave Macmillan, London.
Huang, Y., Wongamorntham, S., Kasting, J., McQuillan, D., Owens, R. T., Yu, L., … & Border, W. (2016). Renin increases mesangial cell transforming growth factor-β1 and matrix proteins through receptor-mediated, angiotensin II-independent mechanisms. Kidney international, 69(1), 105-113.
Jap, S. D., & Ganesan, S. (2010). Control mechanisms and the relationship life cycle: Implications for safeguarding specific investments and developing commitment. Journal of marketing research, 37(2), 227-245.
Kennelly, R. J., Donahue, P. E., Farrell, B., & Cole, R. E. (2004). U.S. Patent No. 6,754,702. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
Lynch, C. D., & Allen, P. F. (2006).
Management of the flabby ridge: using contemporary materials to solve an old problem. British Dental Journal, 200(5), 258.
Tomba, G. S., & Wallinga, J. (2018). A simple explanation for the low impact of border control as a countermeasure to the spread of an infectious disease. Mathematical biosciences, 214(1-2), 70-72.
Tomba, G. S., & Wallinga, J. (2008). A simple explanation for the low impact of border control as a countermeasure to the spread of an infectious disease. Mathematical biosciences, 214(1-2), 70-72.
Walters, W. (2016). Border/control. European journal of social theory, 9(2), 187-203.
Walter, D. (2006). U.S. Patent Application No. 11/139,132.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
