Arranged alphabetically by author

•  Amundsen, I. (2000). Corruption: Definitions and concepts. Utstein Anti-Corruption Resource Center.
http://www.eldis.org/static/DOC10575.htm

The intention of this paper is to classify the various forms of corruption in order to operationalise the concept for analytical and practical purposes. The paper outlines different forms of corruption, and defines it as a particular state- society relationship, making a distinction between political corruption and bureaucratic corruption. Two other distinctions are also added, namely between "individual" and "collective" forms of corruption, and corruption as a mechanism of either "upward extraction" or "downward redistribution". The author sums up to the basic argument that the fight against corruption will have to be placed within a broader agenda of democratisation.

•  Carroll, J. (2004). Deterring, detecting and dealing with student plagiarism. The Joint Information Systems Committee. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=pub_plagiarism
This report discusses the reasons for the rise in deliberate cheating, and gives recommendations on effective institutional approaches to deterring student plagiarism. The argument is made that a holistic, coordinated, institution-wide approach is a more effective way to proceed, as any single focus interventions will not have a significant effect on the complex issue of student plagiarism. However, because efforts must start somewhere, this paper specifically addresses issues of deterrence, suggests ways to improve detection and describes realistic procedures for dealing with plagiarism once it has occurred.

•  CDS Brief No. 1. Corruption in the Higher Education. (2000). The Coalition 2000. Center for the Study of Democracy. http://www.csd.bg/artShow.php?id=1727
This first issue of the CSD Brief focuses on the need of reforms aimed at making Bulgarian universities more open and accountable institutions of public learning. A heated public debate on these issues opened up in September 2003 when the Corruption Monitoring System of Coalition 2000 registered a substantial increase in the bribery demands on citizens by university professors. As a follow-up Coalition 2000 conducted a number of round tables and public discussions with wide array of stakeholders who identified a couple of areas of reform necessary in the higher education: exam mechanisms, textbooks and reference materials publishing, payment of university professors and staff, improving the mechanism for university registration, etc.

•  Cramer, R. (2004). Diploma mills: Diploma mills are easily created and some have issued bogus degrees to federal employees at government expense. U.S. Government Accountability Office.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d041096t.pdf

GAO investigations revealed the relative ease with which a diploma mill can be created and bogus degrees obtained. Records obtained obtained from schools and agencies likely understate the extent to which the federal government has paid for degrees from diploma mills and other unaccredited schools. Many agencies have difficulty in providing reliable data because they do not have systems in place to properly verify academic degrees or to detect fees for degrees that are masked as fees for training courses. Agency data obtained likely do not reflect the true extent to which senior-level federal employees have diploma mill degrees. This is because the agencies do not sufficiently verify the degrees that employees claim to have or the schools that issued the degrees, which is necessary to avoid confusion caused by the similarity between the names of accredited schools and the names assumed by diploma mills. It was found that there are no uniform verification practices throughout the government whereby agencies can obtain information and conduct effective queries on schools and their accreditation status.

•  Fighting fraud in higher education. (1999). Higher Education Funding Council for England. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/Pubs/hefce/1999/99_65.htm
This report presents the strategies for fighting fraud in higher education, including specific actions for the prevention, detection, and investigation of fraudulent practices. It also identifies the three areas that are most vulnerable to fraud in higher education institutions: cash handling, cheque handling, and the purchase ledger.

•  Hallak, J., & Poisson, M. (2002). Ethics and corruption in education: Results from the Expert Workshop held at IIEP, Paris 28-29 November 2001. Paris: UNESCO International Institute for Educational Planning. http://www.unesco.org/iiep/PDF/Forum15.pdf?class=IIEP_PDF_recent&page=F157&estat_url=http://www.unesco.org/iiep/PDF/Forum15.pdf
This report presents the results from the Expert Workshop held at International Institute for Educational Planning in Paris in November 2001. The objective of the workshop was to be advised on the design, methodologies and implementation of a new IIEP research program dealing with "Ethics and corruption in education". The report consists of three chapters, an annotated bibliography of 80 documents, plus two appendices. The first chapter is a background document prepared by the IIEP for the workshop. Issues such as definitions, conceptual framework, methodologies, and approaches are discussed in this chapter. Chapter two summarizes the discussions as they took place during the workshop. Chapter three presents the outcomes of an IIEP-led survey.

•  Meier, B. (2004). Corruption in education: An introduction. Transparency International.
http://www.transparency.org/global_priorities/education/corruption_education/key_readings

This paper provides a good overview on the various types of corruption in the education sector and their causes, with an emphasis on the role of institutions in higher education. It also discusses reforms designed to minimise the risk of educational corruption.

•  The media on corruption in higher education. (2003). Anticorruption.bg. http://www.anticorruption.bg/eng/mmonitoring/case/education.htm
This report presents the analysis of the media coverage of corruption in higher education in Bulgaria between June 5, 1999 and September 5, 2003. The aspects covered include particular cases of corruption, larger corruption patterns, allegations for malpractice against staff at institutes of higher education, anti-corruption measures in higher educations, and corruption in higher education in the context of ICT.

•  Preventing corruption in the education system: A practical guide. (2004). Eschborn: The Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH.
This report aims to provide ideas and practical support, and to indicate ways of integrating corruption-prevention components appropriately in projects aiming to promote reform in the education sector. Based on the priorities of German development cooperation in the Education system, the guide is built around the identification of manifestations and possible weak points in terms of corruption related to 1) personnel, 2) the finance and procurement system in educational institutions, 3) access to educational institutions, and 4) quality and quantity of education. The guide proceeds to point out measures to prevent corruption for each of these areas.

•  Reinikka, R., & Svensson, J. (2003). Survey techniques to measure and explain corruption. Washington, DC: World Bank.
This study argues that with appropriate survey methods and interview techniques, it is possible to collect quantitative micro-level data on corruption. Public expenditure tracking surveys, service provider surveys, and enterprise surveys are highlighted with several applications. These surveys permit measurement of corruption at the level of individual agents, such as schools, health clinics, or firms. They also permit the study of mechanisms responsible for corruption, including leakage of funds and bribery.

•  Rostiashvili, K. (2004). Corruption in the higher education system of Georgia. Tbilisi, Georgia: Starr Foundation and IREX; Transnational Crime and Corruption Center. http://www.traccc.cdn.ge/publications/
This report presents the analysis of the sixty in-depth interviews conducted with Georgian students and their parents, and higher education experts. It discusses the prevalence and magnitude of corruption in higher education system in Georgia. It looks at the main causes of corruption and provides specific recommendations on how to address this problem.

•  Stealing the future ? Corruption in the classroom (2005). Transparency International.
http://www.transparency.org/global_priorities/education/corruption_education/key_readings

Presents 10 studies carried out by TI Chapters in 2004 and 2005 in Argentina, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Georgia, Mexico, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Sierra Leone and Zambia. The studies assess the forms and extent of corruption at schools, universities and in education administration, providing hands-on examples of how civil society can help curb corrupt practice to ensure that our children get quality education.

•  Transparency International (2005). Global corruption report 2005. London: Pluto Press.

Special focus: Corruption in construction and post-conflict reconstruction.