Corruption Formula: 3 Keys to Corruption Occurring

Monopoly (M): Unrivaled Power as a Trigger for Corruption

The Monopoly (M) variable in Klitgaard's formula refers to the exclusive control or "sole mastery" that an organization or individual has over goods, services, or decision-making processes.1 This lack of competition creates a situation where citizens or businesses have no other alternative. This gives the monopolist enormous bargaining power to extract illicit rents (illicit rents), such as bribes or illegal commissions (kickbacks).20

In the public sector, monopolies can manifest in various forms. In the procurement of goods and services, for example, if only one agency or official has full authority to award contracts, the risk of corruption increases dramatically. This is evident in the case analysis of e-KTP, where the project was "controlled by certain parties without healthy competition".20 Similarly, an official who holds a monopoly on the issuance of important documents such as business licenses can easily abuse his position to solicit bribes.8 In the law enforcement sector, the "unchecked power" (unchecked power) held by officers, who monopolize the use of force and legal coercion, can be abused for purposes other than crime prevention.9

As a strategic response, the formula explicitly suggests that one of the main pillars of combating corruption is to reduce or strictly regulate monopolies.1 This can be done by introducing competition, for example through decentralization or privatization, or by implementing checks and balances (checks and balances) strong in areas where monopolies are unavoidable.20

Conceptually, monopoly is not just one of the three factors, but is a structural prerequisite that creates economic opportunities for corruption. Without a monopoly, corrupt service "sellers" (officials) would face market pressure, and "buyers" (bribers) could seek non-corrupt alternatives. Monopoly power transforms public services that should be citizens' rights into private commodities from which profits can be extracted, thus becoming the main stage for abuse of discretion.

Discretion (D): Authority of Officials that Becomes a Loophole for Corruption

The Discretion (D) variable is the authority or "power" that an official has to make decisions based on their own judgment.4 Discretion is an inevitable component of public administration, because laws and regulations will never be able to anticipate every specific situation that may occur. In administrative law, this concept is known as freies ermessen, which serves as a complement to the principle of legality.4

However, danger arises when discretion becomes too broad, unclear, or unsupervised. This condition creates great opportunities for abuse of authority (abuse of authority). For example, an official can use his authority to appoint a tender winner who has given him a bribe, or manipulate budget allocations for personal gain.8 In the context of Indonesian law, this abuse of authority is recognized as having implications for criminal acts of corruption.4 A distinction needs to be made between "free discretion" (free discretion), where officials can make any decision within very broad limits, and "bound discretion" (bound discretion), where officials choose from several predetermined alternatives.4 Corruption tends to thrive in an environment of free discretion.

Therefore, the solution offered is not to eliminate discretion altogether—which would paralyze the wheels of government—but rather to "clarify" and "limit" its scope.1 This can be achieved by creating clear regulations, transparent Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), and ensuring that every decision is based on objective criteria and for the public interest.4

Discretion and legal certainty have an inverse relationship. High discretion thrives in an environment with low legal certainty, such as ambiguous or complex regulations. Thus, the anti-corruption strategy derived from this formula is increasing legal certainty. This does not only mean making more regulations, but creating clearer, more transparent and predictable rules of the game. That way, the "room for maneuver" for arbitrary discretion and serving personal interests can be significantly narrowed.

Accountability (A): The Key to Fighting Corruption through Transparency and Sanctions

The Accountability (A) variable, or "being held accountable," is the obligation to be able to account for every action taken.8 In Klitgaard's formula, accountability serves as the main balancing force. It is a mechanism that ensures that those with monopolies and discretion are held responsible for the use of that power. Weak accountability makes perpetrators feel "safe" to commit corruption.8

Accountability mechanisms include several key elements. The first is transparency, which is making information about government decisions, processes, and expenditures available and easily accessible to the public.1 Transparency is an absolute prerequisite for accountability. The second is oversight, both through strong internal controls and external audits by independent institutions.20 The third is public participation, which involves citizens in diagnosing and monitoring corrupt systems.1 Finally, and most importantly, is the existence of sanctions, which is a high probability of getting caught and severe penalties for both bribe-givers and bribe-takers.1 The strategy of "frying a few big fish" (frying a few big fish"), especially those from the ruling party, is a powerful way to send a signal that the era of impunity is over.1

The policy recipe offered by this formula is very clear: increase transparency, strengthen oversight, and increase the probability and severity of punishment.1 This requires a combination of systemic reforms and active engagement from the public.

In Klitgaard's "crime of calculation" model, accountability functions as a risk trigger mechanism". The corruptor's calculation is: Profit > (Probability of Getting Caught x Punishment).5 The Monopoly and Discretion variables determine the magnitude of potential

Profit". Meanwhile, the Accountability variable directly affects the Probability of Getting Caught and Punishment to be received. Without accountability, the probability of getting caught approaches zero. As a result, the risk side of the equation becomes meaningless, no matter how severe the threat of punishment is written on paper. Therefore, increasing accountability is the most direct way to manipulate a prospective corruptor's profit-loss analysis, making the perceived risk far greater than the potential reward.

Critique of Klitgaard's Formula: Is C=M+D-A Too Simple?

Despite being highly influential, Klitgaard's formula has not escaped criticism. A major criticism, sharply articulated by Matthew Stephenson of Harvard Law School, is that framing this relationship as a "formula" can be considered "inaccurate and misleading".22 The reason is that the formula format implies an eternal and linear law, whereas the reality is far more complex and context-dependent.22

This criticism can be further broken down for each variable:

• Criticism of Monopoly (M): The assumption that competition always reduces corruption is not always true.22 Decentralization or privatization can sometimes create a "market for corruption". For example, when authority is divided, companies wishing to bribe can "bribe shopping" to find the most cooperative officials or jurisdictions.22 In addition, competition between jurisdictions can trigger a "race to the bottom", where each region competes to offer the most attractive corruption opportunities.22 The success record of privatization in reducing corruption has also proven to be "spotty".22
  Criticism of Discretion (D):The idea that the less discretion the better is also an oversimplification.22 Officials whose authority is too restricted by rigid rules are more likely to violate or ignore rules they deem inefficient or unreasonable.22 Excessive restrictions can cripple officials' ability to tailor decisions to specific situations, ultimately resulting in worse policies.22 Furthermore, jobs with very strict constraints may not attract talented and innovative individuals, which can exacerbate corruption problems in the long run through adverse selection
  Criticism of Accountability (A):The claim that more accountability means less corruption can be a "banal tautology"
  spotty).22
• Kritik terhadap Diskresi (D): Gagasan bahwa semakin sedikit diskresi semakin baik juga merupakan penyederhanaan yang berlebihan.22 Pejabat yang kewenangannya terlalu dibatasi oleh aturan yang kaku justru lebih cenderung untuk melanggar atau mengabaikan aturan yang mereka anggap tidak efisien atau tidak masuk akal.22 Pembatasan yang berlebihan dapat melumpuhkan kemampuan pejabat untuk menyesuaikan keputusan dengan situasi spesifik, yang pada akhirnya menghasilkan kebijakan yang lebih buruk.22 Lebih jauh lagi, pekerjaan dengan batasan yang sangat ketat mungkin tidak menarik bagi individu-individu berbakat dan inovatif, yang dapat memperburuk masalah korupsi dalam jangka panjang melalui seleksi sumber daya manusia yang merugikan (
  adverse selection).22
• Kritik terhadap Akuntabilitas (A): Klaim bahwa lebih banyak akuntabilitas berarti lebih sedikit korupsi bisa menjadi sebuah "tautologi dangkal" (banal tautology) if not well defined. Stricter supervision can sometimes lead to unintended side effects.22 Intense pressure to show visible short-term results can encourage officials to engage in forms of corruption at long-term cost, such as accepting illegal campaign funds.22 In addition, officials who feel their positions are highly vulnerable due to excessive oversight may be tempted to "take while they can," hoarding the proceeds of corruption before they are dismissed.23 Accountability to hierarchical superiors also risks simply shifting the locus of corruption to higher levels, especially if those superiors are politicians who may be more corrupt.23

A more sophisticated understanding of Klitgaard's formula is to see it not as a mathematical algorithm, but as a heuristic that is powerful. This formula accurately identifies the most critical variables in a corruption system. Existing criticisms do not deny the importance of Monopoly, Discretion, and Accountability. Instead, they add crucial layers of complexity, showing that the relationship between these variables and corruption is non-linear and highly context-dependent. Klitgaard's formula tells us where to look, but effective policy requires a nuanced understanding of how these variables interact in a specific institutional environment.

Comparison of Corruption Theories: Klitgaard (C=M+D-A) vs. Jack Bologna (GONE)

To enrich the analysis, it is important to compare Klitgaard's framework with another influential theory, namely the GONE Theory developed by Jack Bologna. This theory states that corruption occurs as a function of Greed (Greed), Opportunity (Opportunity), Needs (Needs), and Exposure (Exposure).24

The components of the GONE Theory can be broken down as follows:

• Greed: Represents the internal nature of individuals who are greedy, materialistic, and never satisfied with what they have.25 This is the driver from within the perpetrator.
• Opportunity: External and situational factors that allow irregularities to occur. These opportunities often arise from weak internal control systems, poor oversight, or complicated procedures.25
• Needs: Pressures felt by individuals, such as financial difficulties or a consumptive lifestyle, that motivate them to seek illegal funds.25
• Exposure: Represents the risk of being caught and the consequences to be faced. This is a balancing factor in the GONE model.24

A comparison between these two frameworks highlights differences in focus and points of intervention. Klitgaard's Theory (C=M+D−A) focuses on the level systemic and structural, analyzing the characteristics of the governance environment. In contrast, the GONE Theory focuses on the level individual and psychological, analyzing the motivations and situations faced by perpetrators. As a result, the Klitgaard model leads to solutions in the form of institutional reform (changing rules and systems), while the GONE Theory points to interventions at the individual level (ethics training) and organizational level (strengthening controls to reduce opportunities and increasing sanctions to increase disclosure).

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Corruption Theories (Klitgaard vs. Bologna)

These two theories are not only complementary but also deeply interconnected. Klitgaard's theory provides structural explanation for the variables in the GONE Theory. The systemic conditions of high Monopoly (M) and Discretion (D) directly create Opportunities (Opportunity, O) for individuals. At the same time, the absence of Accountability (A) effectively eliminates the risk of Exposure (Exposure, E). Thus, to eradicate the driving factors at the individual level identified by Bologna, the fundamental step to take is to correct the systemic weaknesses identified by Klitgaard.

Case Study 1: Analysis of E-KTP Corruption with the Klitgaard Formula

The electronic Identity Card (e-KTP) project, which started in 2011 with a budget of Rp 5.9 trillion, turned into one of the biggest corruption scandals in Indonesian history. State losses are estimated at Rp 2.3 trillion, and the case has implicated many high-ranking officials, legislators, and businessmen.27 This case is a perfect example to analyze using the Klitgaard framework.

Application of the formula C=M+D−A to the e-KTP case shows:

• Monopoly (M): The tender process for this project was not competitive at all. From the beginning, this project had been "controlled" and arranged to be won by a consortium of certain companies, thus eliminating healthy competition.20 This de facto monopoly allowed for massive budget bloating (
  mark-up) and close collusion between officials and tender winners.
• Discretion (D): Key officials in the Ministry of Home Affairs and influential members of the legislature had enormous and unsupervised discretion. They had the power to shape the budget, determine the technical specifications of the project, and ultimately choose the winning bidder, all without adequate procedures.20 This discretion was abused to channel project funds to themselves and their cronies.
• Lack of Accountability (-A): Accountability in this project was systemically non-existent. Internal controls in the ministry were very weak, while external oversight from parliament had been compromised because many of its members were themselves involved in the corruption scheme.29 The lack of transparency in budgeting and reporting project progress made various "deviations" go undetected early on.20 This created a low-risk environment that made perpetrators feel safe to commit corruption.

Table 2: Application of the Klitgaard Formula to the E-KTP Corruption Case

Case Study 2: COVID-19 Social Assistance Corruption within the C=M+D-A Framework

During the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic, the then Minister of Social Affairs, Juliari Batubara, was found guilty of accepting bribes in exchange for appointing certain companies as providers of social assistance packages (bansos). He was found to have received fee of Rp 32.48 billion from the vendors.34 This case highlights extreme moral failure in the midst of a national crisis and deeply undermines public trust.36

Analysis with the Klitgaard framework shows:

• Monopoly (M) & Discretion (D): The state of national emergency was used as justification to disregard normal and competitive procurement procedures. This gave the Minister and his subordinates monopoly power to directly appoint vendors.34 This situation created extreme discretion, where the selection of service providers was not based on quality or price, but on their willingness to pay
  kickback (known as a "fee" of Rp 10,000 per package).34
• Lack of Accountability (-A): There was a severe "transparency crisis".37 The vendor selection process was completely closed, there were no effective mechanisms for the public to monitor the distribution of aid, and internal oversight failed completely.34 This lack of accountability created a perfect environment for officials to demand and receive bribes with a very low perceived risk of being caught.

A comparison between the e-KTP and social assistance cases reveals an important pattern. If the e-KTP case shows how the Klitgaard formula works in conditions of "normal" bureaucracy, the social assistance case shows how a national crisis can become amplifier which is terrible for corruption variables. The urgency of the pandemic provides political justification for centralizing power (increasing M), expanding executive authority (increasing D), and suspending normal oversight procedures (reducing A). This shows that Klitgaard's formula is not static; the values of its variables can change drastically and rapidly due to external shocks, making periods of crisis moments that are highly vulnerable to systemic corruption.

Anti-Corruption Solutions: Effective Strategies to Reduce Monopoly (M) and Discretion (D)

Based on the diagnosis offered by Klitgaard's formula, policy measures to eradicate corruption should target reducing Monopoly and limiting Discretion.

For Combating Monopoly (M), several strategies can be implemented:

• Strengthening Competition Law: Actively implement Law No. 5 of 1999 concerning the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business Competition. The Business Competition Supervisory Commission (KPPU) must be empowered to investigate and impose strict sanctions against tender collusion and other anti-competitive practices in public procurement.39
• Encouraging Transparent Procurement: Mandate the use of electronic procurement systems (e-procurement) and electronic auctions (e-tendering) to increase competition and reduce collusion. All tender documents and results must be accessible to the public in real-time.20
• Deregulation and Unbundling: To the extent possible, breaking up large government services into smaller, competitive components (unbundling), and removing unnecessary regulations that create artificial monopolies.39

For Clarifying and Limiting Discretion (D), the following interventions are crucial:

• Codifying the General Principles of Good Governance (GPGG): Incorporating GPGG into administrative law and practice to ensure that every official decision is objective, non-discriminatory, and serves the public interest.4
• Developing Clear SOPs: Drafting and enforcing clear, detailed, and publicly accessible Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for all government services, especially those prone to corruption such as licensing.42
• Strengthening Judicial and Ombudsman Oversight: Ensuring citizens and businesses have effective avenues through state administrative courts (PTUN) and the Ombudsman to challenge arbitrary or unlawful discretionary decisions. Limits on discretion must be legally defined and rigorously enforced.43

Enhancing Accountability (A): Policy Prescriptions for Transparent Governance

Enhancing Accountability (A) is the third pillar of a comprehensive anti-corruption strategy. This can be achieved through strengthening institutional and social accountability.

For Institutional Accountability, necessary measures include:

• Empowering Audit Institutions: Ensuring the independence and enhancing the capacity of external auditors such as the Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) and government internal auditors (APIP). Their findings should be published and acted upon by law enforcement.46
• Implementing E-Government: Leveraging technology to create integrated financial management systems that enable tracking of budgets and spending. real-time. This will increase transparency and make it easier to detect irregularities.20
• Human Resources Capacity Building: Invest in training for civil servants on financial management, ethics, and anti-corruption principles to improve competence and integrity.42

For Public and Social Accountability, the focus is:

• Encouraging Public Participation: Create formal mechanisms for civil society and the public to participate in budget planning and oversight of public projects.1
• Supporting Civil Society: Recognize and support the role of oversight organizations such as Indonesia Corruption Watch (ICW) in conducting independent monitoring, policy advocacy, and public education.51
• Protecting Whistleblowers and Freedom of the Press: Enact and enforce strong legal protections for whistleblowers and guarantee freedom of the press to investigate and report on corruption cases without fear of retaliation. This step directly increases the "probability of getting caught".1

Table 3: Policy Matrix for Combating Corruption Based on Klitgaard's Formula

Conclusion: Towards an Integrated Anti-Corruption Strategy in Indonesia

This analysis confirms that Robert Klitgaard's corruption formula, C=M+D−A, is an indispensable tool for diagnosing the systemic roots of corruption. Its application to major cases in Indonesia, such as the e-KTP scandal and social assistance corruption, vividly demonstrates how the combination of unchecked monopoly and broad discretion, enabled by catastrophic accountability failures, creates fertile ground for large-scale corruption.

However, it is important to recognize that this formula is not a silver bullet. Criticisms raised by experts such as Matthew Stephenson, as well as complementary perspectives from Jack Bologna's GONE Theory, suggest that a truly holistic strategy must go beyond mere structural reforms. It must also touch on factors at the individual and organizational levels.

Therefore, the final message of this report is a call for an integrated anti-corruption strategy. This strategy must combine systemic reforms à la Klitgaard—that is, redesigning institutions to change the cost-benefit calculus of actors—with a focus on individual and organizational culture à la Bologna, which is to strengthen ethics, promote integrity, and reduce the pressures and rationalizations that drive individuals to be corrupt.53 Ultimately, combating corruption is a long-term "institutional adjustment" project that requires both better systems and better people to run them.1

Works cited

1. International Cooperation Against Corruption - Finance & Development - March 1998 - Robert Klitgaard, accessed June 13, 2025, https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/1998/03/pdf/klitgaar.pdf
2. corruption behavior patterns of corruptors in Indonesia and patterns of handling corruption cases by the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) - Universitas Padjadjaran Scientific Library, accessed June 13, 2025, https://pustaka.unpad.ac.id/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Laporan-Akhir-Pola-Perilaku-Korupsi-Para-Koruptor.pdf
3. The Anti-corruption Formula | United Nations Development Programme, accessed June 13, 2025, https://www.undp.org/latin-america/blog/anti-corruption-formula
4. the use of discretion by government officials in relation to state financial losses - e-journal ipdn, accessed June 13, 2025, https://ejournal.ipdn.ac.id/JMP/article/view/435/261
5. A Holistic Approach to the Fight against Corruption. - CGU Scholar, accessed June 13, 2025, https://scholar.cgu.edu/robert-klitgaard/wp-content/uploads/sites/22/2017/02/Holistic_Approach_1-08.pdf
6. Corruption Crimes During the Covid-19 Pandemic and Their Impact on the Fulfillment of Human Rights, accessed June 13, 2025, https://proceeding.unnes.ac.id/snh/article/download/717/631/1834
7. Address by Robert Klitgaard: Carter Center Conference on Transparency for Growth in the Americas, accessed June 13, 2025, https://www.cartercenter.org/news/documents/doc1193.html
8. The Corruption Formula: 3 Keys to Corruption - Indonesian Legal Literacy, accessed June 13, 2025, https://literasihukum.com/rumus-korupsi-robert-klitgaard/
9. Combating Corruption Through Criminal Procedure Code Reform - Kompas.id, accessed June 13, 2025, https://www.kompas.id/artikel/memberantas-korupsi-melalui-reformasi-kuhap/amp
10. www.cgu.edu, accessed June 13, 2025, https://www.cgu.edu/people/robert-klitgaard/#:~:text=Robert%20Klitgaard%20is%20a%20University,PhD%20program%20in%20policy%20analysis.
11. Robert Klitgaard - CGU Scholar - Claremont Graduate University, accessed June 13, 2025, https://scholar.cgu.edu/robert-klitgaard/
12. Best of Robert Klitgaard_NEW.indd - International Ombudsman Institute, accessed June 13, 2025, https://www.theioi.org/downloads/58l04/Best_of_Robert_Klitgaard%5B1%5D.pdf
13. Robert E. Klitgaard: books, biography, latest update - Amazon.com, accessed June 13, 2025, https://www.amazon.com/Robert-E.-Klitgaard/e/B001K8E3OU%3Fref=dbs_a_mng_rwt_scns_share
14. Robert Klitgaard - Wikipedia, accessed June 13, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Klitgaard
15. Controlling Corruption by Robert Klitgaard - Paper - University of California Press, accessed June 13, 2025, https://www.ucpress.edu/flyer/books/controlling-corruption/paper
16. Controlling Corruption: Klitgaard, Robert: 9780520074088 - Amazon.com, accessed June 13, 2025, https://www.amazon.com/Controlling-Corruption-Robert-Klitgaard/dp/0520074084
17. Controlling Corruption by Robert Klitgaard - Paper - University of ..., accessed June 13, 2025, https://www.ucpress.edu/books/controlling-corruption
18. Controlling Corruption / Edition 1 by Robert Klitgaard | 9780520074088 | Paperback | Barnes & Noble®, accessed June 13, 2025, https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/controlling-corruption-robert-klitgaard/1101610038
19. Robert Klitgaard Books & Audiobooks: Read Free for 30 Days - Everand, accessed June 13, 2025, https://www.everand.com/author/589147667/Robert-Klitgaard
20. Application of the Causes of Corruption Cases in Indonesia using the Robert Klitgaard and Jack Bologna approach - Kompasiana.com, accessed June 13, 2025, https://www.kompasiana.com/albert911/6661c262ed641574741ce743/penerapan-penyebab-kasus-korupsi-di-indonesia-pendekatan-robert-klitgaard-dan-jack-bologna?page=all&page_images=1
21. Application of the Causes of Corruption in Indonesia Robert Kiltgard Approach - Kompasiana.com, accessed June 13, 2025, https://www.kompasiana.com/nurpatimah4345/673787e634777c131629b723/penerapan-penyebab-korupsi-di-indonesia-pendekatan-robert-kiltgard?page=all&page_images=1
22. Klitgaard's Misleading “Corruption Formula” | GAB | The Global Anticorruption Blog, accessed June 13, 2025, https://globalanticorruptionblog.com/2014/05/27/klitgaards-misleading-corruption-formula/
23. Klitgaard's Misleading Metaphor? | Indonesia Reform, accessed June 13, 2025, https://www.indonesiareform.com/teori-korupsi-klitgaard-misleading/
24. Theories of the Causes of Corruption - Best Master of Law Study Program in North Sumatra, accessed June 13, 2025, https://mh.uma.ac.id/teori-teori-penyebab-korupsi/
25. HAKORDIA 2024 : Understanding the GONE (Greed, Opportunity, Needs and Exposure) Perspective in Fraud/Corruption Actions, accessed June 13, 2025, https://www.djkn.kemenkeu.go.id/kpknl-tegal/baca-artikel/17410/HAKORDIA-2024-Mengenal-Perspektif-GONE-Greed-Opportunity-Needs-dan-Exposure-Dalam-Tindakan-KecuranganKorupsi.html
26. KMS:: Anti-Corruption Theories, accessed June 13, 2025, https://klc2.kemenkeu.go.id/kms/knowledge/teori-teori-anti-korupsi-0ab04f7a/detail/
27. CORRUPTION CASE ANALYSIS OF E-KTP WITH SUSPECTS IRMAN AND SUGIHARTO (Decision Number 33, accessed June 13, 2025, https://journal.unsika.ac.id/djd/article/download/7917/4774/34257
28. Application of the Causes of Corruption Cases in Indonesia, Robert Klitgaard and Jack Bologna Theory Approach to the E-KTP Corruption Case - Kompasiana.com, accessed June 13, 2025, https://www.kompasiana.com/zaidanakramr/673f2b16c925c46c9902b563/penerapan-penyebab-kasus-korupsi-di-indonesia-pendekatan-teori-robert-klitgaard-dan-jack-bologna-pada-kasus-korupsi-e-ktp?page=all&page_images=2
29. Application of the Causes of Corruption Cases in Indonesia using the Robert Klitgaard and Jack Bologna approach - Kompasiana.com, accessed June 13, 2025, https://www.kompasiana.com/khairunnisanursafitri7777/673b594c34777c40107fad12/penerapan-penyebab-kasus-korupsi-di-indonesia-pendekatan-robert-klitgaard-dan-jack-bologna?page=all&page_images=1
30. Aidil Ferdi | PDF - Scribd, accessed June 13, 2025, https://id.scribd.com/document/540572305/Aidil-Ferdi
31. Group 2 - Anti-Corruption - e-KTP Corruption Case Analysis Paper Test | PDF - Scribd, accessed June 13, 2025, https://id.scribd.com/document/482197541/Kelompok-2-Anti-Korupsi-Makalah-Analisis-Kasus-Korupsi-e-KTP-tes
32. Application of the Causes of Corruption Cases in Indonesia Robert Klitgaard and Jack Bologna Approach All Pages - Kompasiana.com, accessed June 13, 2025, https://www.kompasiana.com/bungadeaa9010/673db473c925c409ae312ef4/penerapan-penyebab-kasus-korupsi-di-indonesia-pendekatan-robert-klitgaard-dan-jack-bologna?page=all&page_images=1
33. Forensic Audit Summary 2nd Period | PDF | Politics | Social Science - Scribd, accessed June 13, 2025, https://id.scribd.com/document/446272469/RINGKASAN-AUDIT-FORENSIK-PERIODE-KE-2-docx
34. International Legal Norms in Overcoming Cases ... - Kolibi, accessed June 13, 2025, https://jurnal.kolibi.org/index.php/kultura/article/download/2036/1976/7958
35. COVID-19 BANSOS CORRUPTION CASE THAT ENSNARED JULIARI - International Journal, accessed June 13, 2025, https://ejournal.penerbitjurnal.com/index.php/multilingual/article/download/609/534/967
36. Analysis of Social Assistance Corruption Cases in the Covid-19 Pandemic from an Ethical and Legal Professionalism Perspective, accessed June 13, 2025, https://ojs.daarulhuda.or.id/index.php/MHI/article/download/1401/1526
37. HIGHLIGHTING THE TRANSPARENCY CRISIS ... - WARUNAYAMA, accessed June 13, 2025, https://ejournal.warunayama.org/index.php/triwikrama/article/download/7237/6672/22088
38. In-Depth Analysis of the Juliari Bansos Corruption Case: Legal Perspective and Community Response Nirma Shalwa1, Shinta Mariam2 Faculty of Law - Portal Jurnal Peneliti. net, accessed June 13, 2025, https://jurnal.peneliti.net/index.php/JIWP/article/download/9543/7691/
39. (PDF) ANTI-MONOPOLY POLICY IN THE ECONOMY ..., accessed June 13, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277743245_KEBIJAKAN_ANTI_MONOPOLI_DALAM_PEREKONOMIAN_INDONESIA
40. Systemic Corruption Prevention Strategy - Cabinet Secretariat of the Republic of Indonesia, accessed June 13, 2025, https://setkab.go.id/strategi-pencegahan-korupsi-sistemik/
41. Conflict Between Policy Discretion and Abuse of Authority in Criminal Acts of Corruption - Journal UII, accessed June 13, 2025, https://journal.uii.ac.id/IUSTUM/article/download/11360/9898/35307
42. Accountability Improvement Strategy in Regional Finance - Diklat LPKN, accessed June 13, 2025, https://diklatlpkn.id/2025/03/31/strategi-peningkatan-akuntabilitas-dalam-keuangan-daerah/
43. PURIFICATION OF THE CONCEPT OF DISCRETION IN THE OMNIBUS LAW - Legal Articles, accessed June 13, 2025, https://rechtsvinding.bphn.go.id/ejournal/index.php/jrv/article/download/1606/350
44. DISCRETION AND RESPONSIBILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS IN CARRYING OUT DUTIES IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS, accessed June 13, 2025, http://download.garuda.kemdikbud.go.id/article.php?article=1402678&val=1277&title=DISKRESI%20DAN%20TANGGUNG%20JAWAB%20PEJABAT%20PUBLIK%20PADA%20PELAKSANAAN%20TUGAS%20DALAM%20SITUASI%20DARURAT
45. Discretion in the Implementation of Public Services - News - Ombudsman RI, accessed June 13, 2025, https://ombudsman.go.id/artikel/r/artikel--diskresi-dalam-penyelenggaraan-pelayanan-publik
46. Strategy Towards Public Accountability - BPK RI, accessed June 13, 2025, https://www.bpk.go.id/assets/files/magazine/_selengkapnya_1406187565.pdf
47. INDONESIAN TREASURY REVIEW, accessed June 13, 2025, https://itrev.kemenkeu.go.id/index.php/ITRev/article/download/410/175/4883
48. Application of Performance Accountability System to Improve the Efficiency of Public Financial Management in Local Government - Seputar Birokrasi, accessed June 13, 2025, https://seputarbirokrasi.com/penerapan-sistem-akuntabilitas-kinerja-untuk-meningkatkan-efisiensi-pengelolaan-keuangan-publik-di-pemerintah-daerah/
49. Accountability - BPSDM Aceh, accessed June 13, 2025, https://bpsdm.acehprov.go.id/media/2020.01/Akuntabilitas-Gol-III5.pdf
50. Efforts to Prevent Corruption Through Community Participation - Jurnal USK, accessed June 13, 2025, https://jurnal.usk.ac.id/kanun/article/download/6037/4975
51. End-of-year report - ICW, accessed June 13, 2025, https://antikorupsi.org/sites/default/files/dokumen/LAT%202021%20Indonesia.pdf
52. Governance and Anti-Corruption - ICW, accessed June 13, 2025, https://www.antikorupsi.org/index.php/id/article/tata-kelola-dan-anti-korupsi
53. Application of the Causes of Corruption Cases in Indonesia Robert Klitgaard and Jack Bologna Approach All Pages - Kompasiana.com, accessed June 13, 2025, https://www.kompasiana.com/indieradwirani2415/673dc9b3c925c4312372fc02/penerapan-penyebab-kasus-korupsi-di-indonesia-pendekatan-robert-klitgaard-dan-jack-bologna?page=all&page_images=1
54. Understanding the Definition of Corruption and Anti-Corruption - ACLC KPK, accessed June 13, 2025, https://aclc.kpk.go.id/aksi-informasi/Eksplorasi/20220411-mengenal-pengertian-korupsi-dan-antikorupsi

understanding the strategy for eradicating corruption in Indonesia, accessed June 13, 2025, https://jia.stialanbandung.ac.id/index.php/jia/article/download/364/337