Today we find that in spite of various measures like prescribing codes of conduct, setting up vigilance cells/commissions, RTI, active media and strengthening of legal mechanisms, corrupt practices are not coming under control. (a) Evaluate the effectiveness of these measures with justifications. (b) Suggest more effective strategies to tackle this menace.

(a) Effectiveness of existing measures

The measures have delivered partial success but not decisive control of corruption, for reasons rooted in weak implementation and a permissive ethical climate.

• Codes of conduct: exist widely but are often paper documents, poorly enforced and unaccompanied by values training.
• Vigilance cells/commissions (CVC): largely advisory, dependent on sanctioning authorities, and hampered by delayed prosecutions.
• RTI: a powerful deterrent, yet weakened by delayed replies, vacancies in Information Commissions and threats to activists.
• Active media: exposes scams but can be selective, sensational or itself compromised.
• Legal mechanisms: slow trials, low conviction rates and procedural loopholes blunt deterrence.

The deeper problem is that these tools attack symptoms, not the incentive structures and social tolerance that sustain corruption.

(b) More effective strategies

• Reduce discretion and human interface through end-to-end digitisation, Direct Benefit Transfer and faceless assessment.
• Ensure functional Lokpal/Lokayuktas, time-bound trials in special courts and swift, certain punishment.
• Protect whistle-blowers effectively and reward integrity.
• Reform electoral and political funding (a root source), simplify rules and enforce citizen's charters.
• Above all, build ethical competence through values-based training and leadership by example, shifting from a deterrence model to an internalised integrity culture.

Conclusion

Corruption yields only to a mix of systemic reform, certain punishment and cultivated integrity.