Tag: subjectivity and objectivity (philosophy)

World-Watching: Old Problem, Modern Solution: Emerging Technologies for Anti-Corruption

[from Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, 29 July, 2025]

by Emmanuel A. San Andres and Glacer Nino A. Vasquez

Harnessing new tools to strengthen transparency and accountability can help APEC economies combat corruption and build public trust.

The Code of Hammurabi is one of humanity’s oldest surviving legal texts. Etched in basalt nearly four millennia ago, one of the many crimes it proscribes is corruption by a judge, for which the punishment is a hefty fine—“twelve times the fine set by him in the case”—plus removal and perpetual disqualification from office. Today, laws are published online rather than on stone tablets, but corruption remains a scourge across societies.

Thousands of years later, the fight against corruption continues. Corruption scandals continue to make headlines across the region, affecting both public and private institutions. Whether involving procurement fraud or illicit finance flows, these cases underscore how quickly trust can erode when institutions fail to adapt. The need for preventive systems, powered by data, backed by law and enabled by technology, has never been more urgent. Across APEC, the principles of transparency, accountability and integrity remain central to strong public institutions. As economies become more interconnected and more data-driven, emerging technologies are offering new ways to advance these goals.

APEC economies have long relied on oversight mechanisms such as audits, procurement rules, and internal checks to prevent, detect and prosecute corruption. These tools have been effective in fighting corruption, and they remain essential. But at the same time, new technology has also opened new pathways for corruption: The discreet meeting at a coffeeshop may now occur over an encrypted messaging app, and the cash-filled envelope replaced by a cryptocurrency transfer.

As corrupt actors grow more technologically sophisticated, so too must anti-corruption efforts. APEC economies are not new to digital solutions—e-government and e-procurement portals have reduced opportunities for hidden transactions. Beneficial ownership registries and asset tracking systems make it easier to prosecute and penalise incidents of corruption when they do occur. But emerging technologies offer even more powerful tools to prevent, detect and deter corruption.

For example, artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) enable real-time monitoring, risk scoring, pattern detection, and predictive analytics. These tools can support monitoring and investigation by automating document review and evidence gathering. AI/ML can also enhance institutional capacity through adaptive, personalized training systems.  Meanwhile, advanced data analytics can support the review of large volumes of data, revealing patterns of corrupt activity and informing decision-making. When data from different sources are connected, it becomes easier to understand corruption risks early and act with greater precision.

Blockchain—the technology that enables cryptocurrencies—can be used to create immutable, transparent ledgers for government transactions, supply chain monitoring and secure identity management, making it harder to conceal corrupt activity. Remote sensing and facial recognition technologies also offer potential in compliance monitoring and anomaly detection.

However, implementing these emerging technologies have their share of challenges and risks. The effectiveness of AI/ML systems is only as good as the quality, integrity and objectivity of the data they are fed; biased inputs can produce biased outcomes. Blockchain technology is very energy-intensive, which may hinder its scalability and availability. Facial recognition raises serious concerns over privacy and due process, enabling widespread surveillance without individual consent.

These trends mirror growing international momentum around the digitalization of integrity systems. International organizations are helping lead the way: the OECD is leveraging AI and big data to detect corruption risks and improve compliance, while the World Bank’s Governance Risk Assessment System [archived PDF] uses analytics to uncover fraud in public procurement, with pilots already underway in Brazil. As stewards of major anti-corruption conventions, these institutions are turning innovation into accountability. For APEC economies, this alignment offers a timely opportunity to shape global standards while advancing domestic reform.

It is also important to recognize the central role of human and institutional elements in anti-corruption efforts. Emerging technologies are not a silver bullet; they will only be effective if they are well integrated into government processes and are aligned with the skills of the people who need to use them. Training and capacity building will be essential to bridge capability gaps, while a committed leadership will be needed to implement the legal reforms and oversight structures needed to ensure effective adoption.

Buy-in from anti-corruption stakeholders across government, the private sector and civil society is also crucial to this pursuit. Technologies like AI/ML and advanced analytics require large volumes of reliable data, requiring cooperation and information sharing. Public understanding and trust, ethical use of data and equitable access to technology are all essential to ensuring long-term success.

APEC economies are at different stages of readiness to adopt these emerging technologies. While some economies have yet to develop adequate digital infrastructure, human capital and institutional structures, others are already in a position to expand or integrate more advanced anti-corruption tools into their day-to-day processes. Capacity building, information sharing and dialogue can help narrow this gap while learning from the experiences of those ahead.

This is where regional cooperation can make a difference APEC provides a platform for knowledge sharing, capacity building and policy cooperation. The Anti-Corruption and Transparency Experts Working Group could provide a venue for a collaborative strategy to mainstream emerging technology in anti-corruption work, while building technical capacity for economies that need it. Likewise, the upcoming APEC High-Level Dialogue on Anti-Corruption Cooperation provides an opportunity to reaffirm values and shared commitments in the fight against corruption.

Corruption has existed since the dawn of civilization. As methods to commit corruption have evolved, so must the tools to combat it. People and institutions will always remain at the heart of anti-corruption efforts, but with the right governance and safeguards, emerging technologies can be game-changers in fighting corruption and recovering its proceeds, whether it’s in Babylonian sheqels or in bitcoins.

Emmanuel A. San Andres is a senior analyst, Glacer Niño A. Vasquez is a researcher at the APEC Policy Support Unit. For more on this topic, read the latest issue paper “Technologies for Preventing, Detecting, and Combatting Corruption” [archived PDF].

Problems of Perspective, Michel Foucault

Michel Foucault was one of the leading French philosophers of the 20th century. Often considered a postmodernist, he did not believe there was a final perspective that human knowledge could achieve. This immediately contrasts with the outlook of leading physicists like Stephen Hawking. In his 1988 classic, A Brief History of Time, Hawking concludes the book by saying, once science has achieved a theory of everything, which is not far off, we will “know the mind of god.”

In his 1966 key work, The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences (French: Les Mots et les Choses: Une archéologie des sciences humaines), Foucault argued that the so-called order of things is invented, not discovered, by us. This is contrary to scientific thought.

Foucault sets up this limit in his surprising interpretation of the Diego Velázquez masterpiece painting, Las Meninas (Spanish: The Ladies-in-waiting). The painting is deliberately elusive in its use of perspective.

The great German thinker, Jürgen Habermas, explained this Foucault/Velázquez perspective difficulty:

This picture portrays the painter in front of a canvas not visible to the spectator; the painter is evidently looking, as are the two ladies-in-waiting next to him, in the direction of his two models, King Philip IV and his spouse. These two personages standing as models are found outside the frame of the picture; they can be identified by the spectator only with the help of a mirror pictured in the background. The point that Velázquez apparently had in mind is a confusing circumstance of which the spectator becomes aware by inference: The spectator cannot avoid assuming the place and the direction of the gaze of the counterfeit but absent royal pair — toward which the painter captured in the picture gazes — as well as the place and the perspective of Velázquez himself, which is to say, of the .painter who actually produced this picture. For Foucault, in turn, the real point lies in the fact that the classical picture frame is too limited to permit the representation of the act of representing as such — it is this that Velázquez makes clear by showing the gaps within the classical picture frame. left by the lack of reflection on the process of representing itself.29

29. Foucault constructs two different series of absences. On the one hand, the painter in the picture lacks his model, the royal couple standing outside the frame of the picture; the latter are in turn unable to see the picture of themselves that is being painted — they only see the canvas from behind; finally, the spec­tator is missing the center of the scene, that is, the couple standing as models, to which the gaze of the painter and of the courtesans merely directs us. Still more revealing than the absence of the objects being represented is, on the other hand, that of the subjects doing the representing, which is to say, the triple absence of the painter, the model, and the spectator who, located in front of the picture, takes in perspectives of the two others. The painter, Velázquez, actually enters into the picture, but he is not presented exactly in the act of painting — one sees him during a pause and realizes that he will disappear behind the canvas as soon as he takes up his labors again. The faces of the two models can actually be recognized unclearly in a mirror reflection, but they are not to be observed directly during the act of their portrayal. Finally, the act of the spectator is equally unrepresented — the spectator depicted entering into the picture from the right cannot take over this function. (See Foucault, The Order of Things, pp. 3-16, 307-311.)

Critique and Power: Recasting the Foucault/Habermas Debate, Michael Kelly, editor, MIT Press, 1994, pages 67, 77 [archived PDF].

Let us conclude by saying one way of specifying the disagreement between scientists and these thinkers is that sciences see themselves as “objective” while the thinkers feel science lacks objectivity because of the human observer. Kant, centuries ago, argued that concepts like causality, space and time are imposed by the human mind on the world. Similarly, Heisenberg, in Physics and Philosophy: The Revolution in Modern Science, similarly said that science does not finally answer questions about an objective reality, but can only answer questions posed by us.