GRF · Governance Nexus
Anti-capture safeguards and integrity
Capture happens when a public body, regulator, standard setter or council comes to serve the interests it should oversee or the sponsors that fund it. Integrity is the set of safeguards that keeps decisions oriented to their public or institutional purpose. This page sets out how conflicts of interest, sponsor dependence, lobbying and revolving doors erode independence, how integrity can be read from records rather than reputation, and which bodies hold the decisions that protect it.
Anti-capture safeguards and integrity in seven parts.
- 01The questionAnti-capture safeguards and integrity: how the risk develops
- 02IndicatorsWhat is measured, and how well
- 03SourcesWhere the evidence comes from
- 04DecisionsWho decides, and what the evidence serves
- 05Core questionsThe questions experts ask
- 06MechanismsHow capture works
- 07Methods and dataSafeguards and evidence
Anti-capture safeguards and integrity: how the risk develops.
Conflicts, sponsor independence and influence. The dossier below sets out how the risk develops, what is measured, where the data come from, how it is modelled and who decides.
Dependence shapes judgement
Funding, staff, data or legitimacy supplied by a regulated party or a dominant sponsor create quiet pressure. No instruction is needed: agendas, framings and the questions not asked shift toward the provider.
Access is unequal
Well-resourced interests attend more consultations, meet public servants more often and supply more of the evidence. Without disclosure and balanced participation, the record of a decision reflects who had access rather than the range of interests affected.
The revolving door turns
Movement between regulators and regulated firms brings expertise but also shared outlooks and expectations of future employment. Cooling-off rules and recusal records decide whether the benefit outweighs the risk.
Small breaches normalise
Undeclared interests, informal gifts and unminuted meetings that pass without consequence set the norm for larger ones. Integrity failures compound until an investigation exposes a pattern that was visible in the records all along.
People and hazards in Asia.
Population density, night lights and flood water over Asia, from NASA GIBS. Each layer carries its own date.
The interactive map needs JavaScript; the layer list and sources are below.
Layers 3
People and hazards, for this page
Keyboard, with the map focused
Hold Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll to zoom
Latest available
NASA GIBS / EOSDIS · ASTER GDEM (METI, NASA) · Blue Marble (NASA) · © OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL) · Natural Earth
Loading the latest NASA imagery.
Drag to move. Ctrl or ⌘ and scroll, pinch or the buttons to zoom; hover for the values under the pointer; reset returns to the region.
People and hazards, framed on Asia.Satellite and model products as NASA publishes them, each with its own date. They are indicators, not assessments of any place.
Data: NASA GIBS · ASTER GDEM · Blue Marble · © OpenStreetMap contributors · Natural Earth · NASA EONET · U.S. Geological Survey · NOAA GOES-East ABI GeoColorSources and licences
- We acknowledge the use of imagery provided by services from NASA's Global Imagery Browse Services (GIBS), part of NASA's Earth Science Data and Information System (ESDIS). Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). NASA open data
- We acknowledge the use of imagery provided by services from NASA's Global Imagery Browse Services (GIBS), part of NASA's Earth Science Data and Information System (ESDIS). Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). NASA open data
- Center for International Earth Science Information Network (CIESIN), Columbia University. 2018. Gridded Population of the World, Version 4 (GPWv4): Population Density, Revision 11. NASA Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC). Licensed under CC BY 4.0. Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). doi:10.7927/H49C6VHW. CC BY 4.0
- VIIRS Black Marble night-time lights, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center; distributed by the NASA Level-1 and Atmosphere Archive and Distribution System (LAADS DAAC); imagery via NASA GIBS. Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). NASA open data
- VIIRS near-real-time products (flood, land surface temperature, snow cover, corrected reflectance), NASA LANCE; imagery via NASA GIBS. Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). NASA open data
- NASA Fire Information for Resource Management System (FIRMS), VIIRS 375 m active fire product, NASA LANCE; vector tiles via NASA GIBS. Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). NASA open data
- ASTER GDEM is a product of METI and NASA (ASTER Global Digital Elevation Model V003, NASA LP DAAC); imagery via NASA GIBS. Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). Cite as: NASA/METI/AIST/Japan Spacesystems and U.S./Japan ASTER Science Team (2019). ASTER Global Digital Elevation Model V003. doi:10.5067/ASTER/ASTGTM.003. NASA open data
- Made with Natural Earth. Free vector and raster map data @ naturalearthdata.com. Public domain
- © OpenStreetMap contributors (ODbL), via NASA GIBS (coastlines, boundaries, roads and place names). Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). ODbL
- Blue Marble, NASA Earth Observatory; imagery via NASA GIBS. Colours redrawn from the published colour map; values averaged into hexagonal cells where shown (modified). NASA open data
- Context on the globe and flat map: coastlines, boundaries, roads and place names from NASA GIBS reference layers (OpenStreetMap data, ODbL, © OpenStreetMap contributors); Blue Marble imagery as an optional base; 3D terrain and the elevation read-out from the ASTER GDEM elevation colour index (5 m to 200 m classes, exaggerated for legibility). Boundaries are drawn as published and imply no position on any territory.
- Live events: NASA Earth Observatory Natural Event Tracker (EONET); events are indicative and keep their original source links.
- Live: NASA EONET Events are indicative, not authority warnings.
- Live: U.S. Geological Survey Events are indicative, not authority warnings.
- Live: NOAA GOES-East ABI GeoColor (CIRA). We acknowledge the use of imagery provided by services from NASA's Global Imagery Browse Services (GIBS), part of NASA's Earth Science Data and Information System (ESDIS).
- NASA GIBS: We acknowledge the use of imagery provided by services from NASA's Global Imagery Browse Services (GIBS), part of NASA's Earth Science Data and Information System (ESDIS).
- Optional layers (5 sources in the layer list: live, forecast, observed and context) print their provider credit on the map and here when switched on; forecasts are model output and derived indices are estimates.
Layers and dates
- Population density, 2020: Population: CIESIN, Columbia University, Gridded Population of the World v4.11 (2018), NASA SEDAC, CC BY 4.0 · static
- Night-time lights, daily: VIIRS Black Marble (VNP46A2), NASA LAADS DAAC · 12 Oct 2026
- Flood water, 3-day composite: VIIRS Global Flood Product, NASA LANCE · 14 Oct 2026
- Active fires and thermal anomalies: VIIRS NOAA-20 375 m (FIRMS), NASA LANCE FIRMS · 13 Oct 2026
- True colour: VIIRS NOAA-20 corrected reflectance, NASA LANCE · 13 Oct 2026
- Land surface temperature, day, 8-day composite: VIIRS NOAA-20 Level 3, 8-day, NASA LANCE · 14 Sep 2026
What is measured, and how well.
Each indicator carries its unit, its cadence, the kind of source behind it and the evidence label a value would carry. No values are shown: a programme supplies them under its own authority.
| Indicator | Unit | Cadence | Source type | Label |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Corruption Perceptions Index score | perception score on a zero to one hundred scale, with standard error | annual | Composite of expert and business perception surveys | ESTIMATED |
| Control of corruption estimate | standardised score with standard error | annual | Worldwide Governance Indicators composite | ESTIMATED |
| Asset and interest declaration coverage | share of covered public servants with filed and published declarations | annual | Integrity agency registers | Published statistics |
| Lobbying register in force | yes or no; categories of lobbyist covered | per change | Legislation and OECD public integrity data | Published statistics |
| Post-employment cooling-off rules for regulators | length and scope of restriction | per change | Legislation and codes of conduct | Published statistics |
| Recusals recorded in decision minutes | count per body per year | annual | Board and committee minutes | REPORTED |
| Funding from regulated or interested parties | share of income by source category | annual | Financial statements of the body | DECLARED |
| UNCAC implementation review status | review cycle and stage completed | per review cycle | UNODC country review reports | Published statistics |
Deliberation and decision desk.
The screen a team would use to follow this subject: its measures, states and decisions. Names are examples and values are illustrative.
Deliberation and decision desk
Anti-capture safeguards and integrity · Council A · Meeting 18
Agenda
| Risk appetite statement | P-596 | Approve | None | Discussing |
| New member admission | P-550 | Approve | Declared | Next |
| Safeguards annual review | P-265 | Note | None | Next |
| Data charter | P-255 | Consult | None | Done |
Anti-capture safeguards
in place, of 12
Decision record
- M-19DECAppetite statement approved with two dissents recorded
- M-12ACTSecretariat to publish reasons within 30 days
- M-12REVReview date set
Where the evidence comes from.
Named public datasets and institutional records, each with its licence class. Sources by agreement are used only under their terms and never republished.
| Source | What it gives | Licence class |
|---|---|---|
| Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index | Annual perception-based scores of public sector corruption, with methodology and source surveys | Free, attribution, no derivatives (CC BY-ND 4.0) |
| World Bank Worldwide Governance Indicators | Control of corruption and voice and accountability estimates with standard errors | Free and open, CC BY 4.0 |
| OECD Public Integrity Indicators | Comparative data on integrity frameworks, lobbying, conflict-of-interest and political finance rules | Free and open, attribution (OECD terms) |
| UNCAC Implementation Review Mechanism country reports | Peer reviews of states' implementation of the Convention against Corruption | Public records, UN terms |
| Council of Europe GRECO evaluation reports | Evaluations of anti-corruption measures, including for parliamentarians, judges and prosecutors | Public records, Council of Europe terms |
| EU Transparency Register | Declared interest representatives, their clients and their spending on EU lobbying | Free reuse, attribution (EU open data terms) |
| V-Dem dataset | Expert-coded indicators on executive, legislative and judicial corruption, with measurement models | Free and open, CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Exercise a cascade in anti-capture safeguards and integrity with the people who decide.
Assembled from the Nexus Standards area profile Political and governance risk standards: the hazards it names, the systems and communities that carry the loss, the controls and institutions that dampen it and the data that observe it. Pick an initiating event and step through the cascade to see where mandates meet and which decisions fall to whom. The Map view places the run on an example geography with open data. Every weight is a stated assumption. An exercise for dialogue, not a forecast, an assessment or a position. To model a place of your own choosing, open the full System Builder.
Systems and couplings
Controls
NS-0Constitution and principlesNS-9Contextual UNIs (deployments, instances, programme instances)NS-10Policies and clauses (machine-readable obligations: definition, binding, evaluation and enforcement)NS-11Verification and monitoring (evidence, attestations, zero-trust conformance observation)NRS-H112Hazard family: Governance and institutional failure (NHS-1 soc.governance)NRS-U9Universe platform profile: Financial Regulation NexusNRS-H59Hazard family: Economic shocks and governance failure (NHS-1 soc.economic)NRS-H118Hazard family: Organised crime and illicit economies (NHS-1 soc.crime)NRS-A5Built-in licensing and rightsNRS-U24Universe platform profile: Policy Nexus
Observation
- Worldwide Governance Indicators (listed for reference)
- V-Dem dataset (listed for reference)
- Global SDG Indicators Database (listed for reference)
- Proportion of population satisfied with their last experience of public services
- Proportion of population who believe decision-making is inclusive and responsive
- Number of countries that adopt and implement national DRR strategies in line with the Sendai Framework
Who decides, and what the evidence serves.
Governance Nexus prepares evidence. The decisions below are taken by the authorities named, under their own rules, and never by the platform.
| Who decides | The question | Evidence this page serves |
|---|---|---|
| Legislatures | Whether lobbying, declaration and cooling-off rules are adequate and enforced | Comparative integrity frameworks, GRECO and UNCAC review findings, case evidence |
| Anti-corruption and integrity agencies | Which sectors and offices to prioritise for prevention and investigation | Declaration coverage, recusal records, influence maps from public registers |
| Boards of regulators and standard setters | Whether funding, staffing and consultation arrangements protect independence | Funding-source breakdowns, sponsor-independence checklists, comparable cases |
| Sponsors and funders of councils and research bodies | What conditions on funding preserve the recipient's independence | Ethics guidance, firewall arrangements in comparable bodies |
Outputs this topic produces
- Conflict-of-interest and sponsor-independence checklists for councils, regulators and standard setters
- Case studies of capture, how it was detected and what reversed it
- Ethics guidance on funding, recusal, disclosure and post-employment
- Maps of influence channels around a decision, built from public registers
How anti-capture safeguards and integrity is governed: instruments, mandates and commitments.
The instruments, mandates, actors and accountability arrangements a policymaker, diplomat or development agency works with, citing the agreements that set them. Structures follow the frameworks named. Any state or progress drawn is illustrative, not a record.
Accountability cycle
How commitments on anti-capture safeguards and integrity are held to account, from commitment to correction.
- CommitGovernmentA commitment with a mandate and a legal basis.
- PlanLead agencyA national plan with owners and milestones.
- ResourceMinistry of financeA budget line or financing on record.
- ImplementAgencies and local governmentDelivery against the plan.
- ReportStatistics officeIndicators reported in agreed definitions.
- ReviewLegislature, audit, civil societyIndependent review of results and gaps.
- CorrectGovernmentChanges to the plan, published with reasons.
The questions experts ask.
- Who funds the institution, and could funding shape its agenda or findings?
- How are conflicts of interest identified, declared and managed?
- Do regulated or interested parties have privileged access to decision-makers or information?
- How do staff move between the institution and the interests it oversees?
- Are dissenting views and affected groups heard?
How capture works.
Regulatory capture theory describes how agencies can come to favour the industries they regulate, through concentrated industry interest, information asymmetry and career incentives. Cognitive capture is subtler: when regulators and regulated share training, networks and assumptions, they may see problems the same way without any improper act. Similar dynamics affect standard-setters, research funders, multistakeholder initiatives and forums.
For convening institutions, sponsorship and hosting create obvious risks. A sponsor may seek to influence speakers, agendas or conclusions; a host may expect favourable treatment. The integrity of the forum depends on rules that separate support from editorial control and on transparency about who supports what.
Integrity failures are often gradual. Small accommodations, such as a preferred speaker or a softened conclusion, can accumulate into systematic bias. Strong institutions treat integrity as a design problem rather than a matter of individual virtue.
Diversity of participation is itself a safeguard. Forums that include affected communities, independent experts and critics, and that publish who took part, are harder to capture than closed groups of like-minded insiders, though inclusion must be meaningful rather than token to have this effect.
Why now: lobbying, revolving doors and opaque funding remain recurring risks to public decisions, as the OECD's work on policy capture (2017) and public integrity (2017) describes. Governance Nexus compares safeguards and applies them to GRF's own councils.
Safeguards and evidence.
Conflict registers
Declared interests for staff, reviewers and speakers; effectiveness depends on enforcement.
Firewalls
Separating funding, programming and editorial decisions.
Disclosure
Publishing funders, hosts and their roles; disclosure alone does not remove influence.
Limits: capture is difficult to prove, because influence often leaves no trace, and evidence often relies on patterns rather than specific acts.
How it is studied, and what the methods cannot say.
- 01Policy, institutional and decision scienceInstitutional role mapping · Comparative governance case studiesApplied here
- 02Decision analysis under uncertaintyRisk appetite and tolerance setting · Multi-criteria appraisal of institutional optionsApplied here
- 03Systems engineeringDecision-rights and interface mapping · Assurance and control designApplied here
Where this page leads across the Consortium.
Questions and answers.
Is the Corruption Perceptions Index a measure of corruption?
What is regulatory capture?
How can a council funded by sponsors stay independent?
Does Governance Nexus name individuals?
Can sponsors influence GRF findings?
Are funders disclosed?
Who reviews an integrity complaint?
Contribute evidence from this page.
Reports is the Consortium's quarterly publication. What you know about this subject can become evidence, a case or a correction in the next edition, credited to you and published under CC BY 4.0 where it is your own work.
- EmailGateway GW-GRFSend it from this pageEvidence, a correction, a case, a method, a review, a translation or profile input. It arrives tagged with this page, so the editor who owns it receives it.
- ZenodoOpen depositDeposit it and submit to the communityPublish your own record on Zenodo with your ORCID iD, then submit it to the Reports community there. Curators review it; the DOI stays yours.
- ReportsGlobal Risks ForumSee every way to contributeThe contribution types, how each is reviewed, what credit you receive, the licence and what is never accepted.
Never send personal data, sensitive infrastructure detail or anything you have no right to share. A contribution is reviewed before use; sending it confers no authorship or editorial rights, and sponsorship never buys a finding.
Bring a governance question to the Forum.
Information and enquiries are open today. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.
Legal documents.
Show all 18 legal documents
Maps, data and figures on this site are shown for context and general information. They are not advice, forecasts or warnings; the limits of the information are set out in the Disclaimers and Data Notices.