Volume 38, Issue 4 (winter 2026)
JMDP 2026, 38(4): 145-181 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
shahbazi Z, Mennati H, Heidari H. (2026). A Comparative Study of Global Models for Measuring Administrative Integrity: Insights and Lessons for Iran. JMDP. 38(4), 145-181.
URL: http://jmdp.ir/article-1-4887-en.html
URL: http://jmdp.ir/article-1-4887-en.html
1- Department of Social Psychology, Institute of Humanities and Social Studies, The Academic Center for Education, Culture and Research, Tehran, Iran. , Shahbazi@acecr.ac.ir
2- Department of Management, Institute of Humanities and Social Studies, The Academic Center for Education, Culture and Research, Tehran, Iran.
3- Department of Sociology, Institute of Humanities and Social Studies, The Academic Center for Education, Culture and Research, Tehran, Iran.
2- Department of Management, Institute of Humanities and Social Studies, The Academic Center for Education, Culture and Research, Tehran, Iran.
3- Department of Sociology, Institute of Humanities and Social Studies, The Academic Center for Education, Culture and Research, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract: (372 Views)
Purpose: This study aimed to identify and comparatively analyze the approaches and tools used to assess administrative integrity in leading global models, and to extract international lessons learned and propose a framework for enhancing administrative integrity in countries with institutional structures like Iran.
Methodology: This qualitative study was based on a systematic review of the literature. We collected and analyzed data using Sandelowski and Barroso’s seven-step framework. Statistical population consisted of international documents and operational models developed by Transparency International, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Data analysis was conducted through qualitative content analysis, and finally, interpretive validity was ensured through three-stage coding and researcher consensus.
Findings: The findings indicate that global models for assessing administrative integrity are presented in two formats: national integrity systems and perception-based surveys. Transparency International’s perception-based indicators are suitable for international comparison but require supplementation with objective national data. UNDP’s approach emphasizes staff participation and incremental reform, while the OECD’s maturity models provide the most comprehensive institutional framework. Critical analysis shows that applying global models without contextual adaptation faces challenges such as weak institutional coordination and limited data transparency. Accordingly, the proposed hybrid model integrates perception–objective monitoring, organizational culture strengthening, and evidence-based structural improvement.
Originality: This research represents the first systematic comparative review in Iran that synthesizes three major global frameworks, evaluates their strengths and weaknesses, and offers a context-sensitive adaptation proposal. Its findings provide an evidence-based foundation for administrative reform initiatives and trust-building efforts in the public sector.
Recommendations: The study recommends designing a localized administrative integrity framework inspired by the National Integrity System, emphasizing training, civic participation, and institutional transparency.
Methodology: This qualitative study was based on a systematic review of the literature. We collected and analyzed data using Sandelowski and Barroso’s seven-step framework. Statistical population consisted of international documents and operational models developed by Transparency International, the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Data analysis was conducted through qualitative content analysis, and finally, interpretive validity was ensured through three-stage coding and researcher consensus.
Findings: The findings indicate that global models for assessing administrative integrity are presented in two formats: national integrity systems and perception-based surveys. Transparency International’s perception-based indicators are suitable for international comparison but require supplementation with objective national data. UNDP’s approach emphasizes staff participation and incremental reform, while the OECD’s maturity models provide the most comprehensive institutional framework. Critical analysis shows that applying global models without contextual adaptation faces challenges such as weak institutional coordination and limited data transparency. Accordingly, the proposed hybrid model integrates perception–objective monitoring, organizational culture strengthening, and evidence-based structural improvement.
Originality: This research represents the first systematic comparative review in Iran that synthesizes three major global frameworks, evaluates their strengths and weaknesses, and offers a context-sensitive adaptation proposal. Its findings provide an evidence-based foundation for administrative reform initiatives and trust-building efforts in the public sector.
Recommendations: The study recommends designing a localized administrative integrity framework inspired by the National Integrity System, emphasizing training, civic participation, and institutional transparency.
Keywords: Administrative Integrity, National Integrity System, Transparency International, Corruption Perceptions Policy, Anti-Corruption Policy.
Type of Study: Review Article |
Subject:
Ethics & Administrative Integrity
Received: Jul 14 2025 | Accepted: Sep 28 2025 | ePublished: Feb 02 2026
Received: Jul 14 2025 | Accepted: Sep 28 2025 | ePublished: Feb 02 2026
References
1. Abbasi, M. (2008). Oil Bureaucracy and Economic Transformation. Energy Updates, 2(1), 16-18. (in Persian)
2. Abedi Jafari, H., Fazeli, M., Hosseini Hashemzadeh, D., & Moaddesi, H. (2016). Theories of Corruption and Administrative Integrity. Tehran Urban Planning and Studies Center. (In Persian)
3. Ahmed, J. (2010). Documentary reserch method: new dimensions. Ndus Journal of Management & Social Sciences, 1-14. (In Persian)
4. Aghazadeh, F., Abedi Jafari, H., Taherpour-Kalantari, H., & Zarandi, S. (2018). Developing a causal model of administrative corruption in Tehran municipality regions. Management and Development Process, 31(3), 3-48. (In Persian)
5. Bain & Company. (2004). Global Health Check Survey: Organizational Health as a Driver of Performance. MA: Bain & Company.
6. Boland, A., Dickson, R., & Cherry, G. (2017). Doing a systematic review: A student's guide. Sage.
7. Brennan, N. M., & Kelly, J. (2007). A Study of Whistleblowing Among Trainee Auditors. British Accounting Review, 39, 61-87. [DOI:10.1016/j.bar.2006.12.002]
8. Brubaker, R. (1984). The Limits of Rotionality: An Essay on the Social and Moral Thought of Max Weber (London). George Allen and Unwin.
9. Dash, S. S., & Padhi, M. (2020). Relevance of Max Weber's Rational Bureaucratic Organizations in Modern Society. Management Review, 31(1), 81-92. [DOI:10.5771/0935-9915-2020-1-81]
10. Diyanat, M. (2016). The Impact of Functionalist Theory on the Formation of Bureaucracy and Cultural Structure in Iran. Journal of Political Studies of the Islamic World, 6(2), 105-125. (in Persian)
11. Dye, K. M., & Stapenhurst, R. (1998). Pillars of integrity: The importance of supreme audit institutions in curbing corruption. World Bank Institute.
12. Fathabadi, M., Attaei, M., & Alinejad, A. (2022). A model for measuring the strategic dimensions of administrative integrity in Iran's public organizations. Monitoring and Inspection, 16(59), 13-38. (in Persian)
13. Fuerst, M. J., Luetge, C., Max, R., & Kriebitz, A. (2023). Toward organizational integrity measurement: Developing a theoretical model of organizational integrity. Business and Society Review, 128(3), 567-589. [DOI:10.1111/basr.12329]
14. Harris, A. S., Sigman, R., & Meyer-Sahling, J. (2019). Oiling the bureaucracy? Political spending, bureaucrats and oil revenue. GIACE. [DOI:10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104745]
15. Hamidi, M., Amiri, A., & Yazdani, H. (2023). Designing a model for promoting administrative integrity in free trade zone organizations of the country. Cultural Management, 17(2). (in Persian)
16. Hedayati, M. (2018). Theoretical Approaches to the Study of State Bureaucracy and a Model for Its Analysis. Iranian Journal of Sociology, 12(2), 3-35. (in Persian)
17. Hosseini, Z. S. (2023). Identification of administrative integrity indicators in public sector organizations. Second Conference on Ethical Business Management Research, Yazd, Iran. (in Persian)
18. Jalili, M. (2018). Indicators for Measuring Corruption. Presidential Strategic Studies Center. (In Persian)
19. Johnston, M. (2014). Corruption, contention and reform: The power of deep democratization. Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9781139540957]
20. Inspection Organization of Iran. (2020). National report on administrative integrity. (in Persian)
21. Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A., & Mastruzzi, M. (2011). The worldwide governance indicators: Methodology and analytical issues. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 3(2), 220-246. [DOI:10.1017/S1876404511200046]
22. Khaki, G. (2016). Case Study: A Method for Documenting Organizational Experiences and Thesis Writing in Executive Programs. Foujan Publishing. (in Persian)
23. Khandoozi, K. (2016). Channels of Bureaucracy's Impact on Iran's Economic Performance. Majlis and Strategy, 87(23), 5-42. (in Persian)
24. Khajavi, S., Ghaderi Azad, A., & Bazrafshan, S. (2022). A model for measuring administrative integrity and corruption in executive bodies of the Islamic Republic. Danesh-e Hesabresi (Auditing Knowledge), 22(86), 5-35. (in Persian)
25. Moarefi Mohammadi, A. (2017). Conflict between Growth and Redistribution Policies in the Political Economy of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Political Science Research Letter, 12(4), 165-202. (in Persian)
26. Mobaraki, M., Alizadeh, M., & Moradi Kamali, Z. (2019). A Comparative-Quantitative Study of the Relationship between Bureaucracy and Industrial Development (An Institutional Approach). Journal of Social Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, 11, 259-287. (in Persian)
27. Mozaffari, N., & Bahri, A. (2024). National indices for measuring corruption and administrative integrity (A comparative study) (Research Report No. 20956). Majlis Research Center of the Islamic Consultative Assembly. (in Persian)
28. OECD. (2017). Recommendation of the Council on OECD Legal Instruments Public Integrity (OECD Legal Instruments).
29. OECD. (2020). OECD public integrity handbook. OECD Publishing. [DOI:10.1787/ac8ed8e8-en]
30. OECD. (2022). Public integrity: A strategy against corruption. OECD Publishing.
31. OECD. (2023). Government at a Glance 2023. OECD Publishing. [DOI:10.1787/22214399] [https://doi.org/10.1787/3d5c5d31-en]
32. Palumbo, A. (2004). Administration, civil services, and bureaucracy, in Blackwell companion to political sociology. Blackwell
33. Razavi Fard, B., & Hassanpour, H. (2019). International Mechanisms for Combating Corruption. Iranian Journal of Social Development Studies, 11(4), 61-72. (in Persian)
34. Razavi Fard, B., & Hassanpour, H. (2016). Reviewing the Strategies of Dealing with Corruption in the European :union: Countries with Regulatory System of the Group of States Against Corruption (GRECO. Journal of Politics and Law, 9(5), 1-47. [DOI:10.5539/jpl.v9n5p47]
35. Roche, G. (2012). Sociology of Talcott Parsons. Ney Publishing. (In Persian)
36. Rose-Ackerman, S. (2017). Corruption and government: Causes, consequences, and reform. Cambridge University Press. [DOI:10.1017/CBO9781139962933]
37. Sadeghi, A., Manoochehri, A., Nargesiyan, A., & Eshaghi, H. (2020). Explaining the Bureaucracy Model of Iranian Governmental Organizations with Emphasis on Administrative Corruption Control. Strategic Management Studies, 44, 1-20. (in Persian)
38. Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2007). Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. Springer Publishing Company.
39. Smidova, Z., Cavaciuti, A., & Johnsøn, J. (2022). Anti-corruption and public integrity strategies: Insights from new OECD indicators (No. JT03500774).
40. Spigelman, J. J. (2004). National integrity systems. In R. Larmour & N. Wolanin (Eds.), Corruption and anti-corruption (pp. 85-96). Asia Pacific Press.
41. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence‑Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207-222. [DOI:10.1111/1467-8551.00375]
42. Taherpour Kalantari, H., Alipour, H., & Shabanzadeh Ahendani, S. (2022). Identifying individual factors affecting the tendency to forbid wrongdoing and measuring it in administrative corruption. Management and Development Process, 35(1), 63-83. (in Persian) [DOI:10.52547/jmdp.35.1.61]
43. Transparency International. (2019). Checklist for Administrative Integrity in Public Institutions (Anti-corruption Assessment Tool Based on the Ten Principles of Transparency International) (Research Report No. 121). Judiciary's General Inspection Organization. (in Persian)
44. Transparency International. (2023). Corrption perception index.
45. UNDP. (2023). Integrity and Ethics Agency Improvement Framework (United Nations Development Program).
46. United Nations. (2022). United Nations Handbook on Anti-Corruption and Integrity in the Public Sector. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC).
47. Varess, S. H. (2006). Rereading Bureaucratic Theory: A Hermeneutic Study of Bureaucracy. Iranian Journal of Management Sciences, 1(4), 113-145. (in Persian)
48. World Bank. (2024). The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology and 2024 Update [World Bank Group].
49. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. Sage Publications.
50. Yazdanmehr, K., Barati, H., & Hossein, H. N. (2023). A conceptual model of administrative governance dimensions and their relationship with improving organizational integrity. Proceedings of the Tenth National and Third International Conference on Urban Planning and Urban Management, Mashhad, Iran. (in Persian)
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. |
