Anti-Corruption Governance in Southern Europe: A Comparative Analysis of Italy and Spain | Media.com

IntroductionCorruption remains one of the most persistent challenges facing democratic governance in Southern Europe. Despite being long-standing members of the European Union, Italy and Spain continue to struggle with corruption scandals that undermine public trust, weaken institutions, and provoke political instability. This article offers a comparative political analysis of anti-corruption laws and enforcement in Italy and Spain, evaluating how political institutions, political culture, and government structures shape each country’s response to corruptionComparative AnalysisItaly and Spain are EU parliamentary democracies that approach anti-corruption policy through different institutional paths. Italy has a more institutionalized anti-corruption framework, centered on Law No. 190/2012 and the National Anti-Corruption Authority (ANAC), reflecting a political culture shaped by past corruption scandals and strong judicial involvement. However, recent controversies involving prosecutions of anti-corruption officials reveal tensions between political elites and judicial independence, limiting effective enforcement. Spain, by contrast, has pursued a reform-driven approach, proposing a National Anti-Corruption Plan and adopting EU whistleblower protections, but political polarization within its multiparty system has blocked the creation of an independent anti-corruption agency, weakening implementation.Comparatively, these cases show how political institutions and culture condition anti-corruption outcomes. Italy demonstrates that strong legal frameworks alone do not guarantee accountability when institutional autonomy is contested, while Spain illustrates how legislative fragmentation can stall reforms despite public and EU pressure. The political implications include declining public trust and risks to governance stability in both countries, underscoring that effective anti-corruption policy depends on independent institutions, political consensus, and sustained democratic accountability, not merely formal laws.Interpretation and InsightsThe comparison between Italy and Spain reveals that anti-corruption effectiveness depends less on the existence of laws than on the political and institutional environments in which those laws operate. Italy’s experience shows that even a well-developed anti-corruption framework can be weakened when judicial independence becomes politicized, leading to inconsistent enforcement and public skepticism. Spain’s case highlights a different constraint: political polarization and fragmented party competition can obstruct institutional reforms altogether, preventing anti-corruption measures from moving beyond symbolic commitments.The key insight is that anti-corruption policy is ultimately a test of democratic governance capacity. Both cases demonstrate that without sustained political consensus, institutional autonomy, and a supportive political culture, anti-corruption laws risk becoming tools of political contestation rather than accountability. This suggests that strengthening democracy in Southern Europe requires not only legal reform but also deeper commitments to rule-of-law norms, cross-party cooperation, and trust-building between citizens and political institutions.Similarities and DifferencesItaly and Spain share several key similarities in their approach to anti-corruption. Both are parliamentary democracies within the European Union and are subject to EU and Council of Europe (GRECO) anti-corruption standards, which shape their legal reforms. In both countries, corruption has become a highly salient political issue that affects public trust, electoral competition, and perceptions of democratic legitimacy. Additionally, each state has formally adopted anti-corruption laws and transparency measures, including whistleblower protections, yet struggles with implementation gaps caused by political pressures and institutional constraints.The primary difference lies in institutional design and enforcement capacity. Italy possesses a more institutionalized anti-corruption framework, including an independent authority (ANAC), but faces challenges related to judicial politicization and uneven enforcement. Spain, by contrast, lacks a fully independent anti-corruption agency, as political polarization within its multiparty parliamentary system has blocked such reforms, resulting in weaker enforcement despite reform initiatives. While Italy’s challenge is maintaining institutional autonomy, Spain’s is achieving political consensus illustrating two distinct but equally limiting paths to ineffective anti-corruption governance.<img src="https://sources.media.com/images/10478/c736ad64-9e3e-4565-85ed-2816791437c8.jpg" alt="hah" width="589" height="327">Spain's ruling party to probe alleged corruption(2024)ConclusionThe comparative analysis of Italy and Spain demonstrates that anti-corruption effectiveness depends not only on formal laws but also on the political and institutional context in which they operate. Italy’s experience shows that even with strong legal frameworks and independent agencies like ANAC, enforcement can be undermined when political interference threatens judicial independence. Spain illustrates a complementary challenge: political polarization and fragmented party systems can block the creation of independent institutions, preventing reforms from taking effect despite public demand and EU pressure.The broader insight is that sustainable anti-corruption governance requires a combination of robust institutions, political consensus, and a supportive democratic culture. Both cases highlight that without these elements, anti-corruption laws risk remaining symbolic rather than transformative. Strengthening rule-of-law norms, building trust between citizens and government, and fostering cross-party cooperation are therefore essential for improving accountability, protecting democratic institutions, and enhancing public confidence in governance.SourcesCouncil of Europe. (n.d.). GRECO calls for an overall anti-corruption strategy and effective implementation of laws in Spain. Council of Europe. https://www.coe.int/en/web/greco/-/greco-calls-for-an-overall-anticorruption-strategy-and-effective-implementation-of-laws-in-spainEuropean Commission. (n.d.). EU network against corruption. https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/democracy-eu-citizenship-anti-corruption/anti-corruption/eu-network-against-corruption_enFinancial Times. (n.d.). Italy anti-corruption prosecutors controversy. https://www.ft.com/content/9b5c2201-84bf-48f0-b312-158a7d612da8Global Legal Insights. (n.d.). Bribery and corruption laws and regulations: Italy. https://www.globallegalinsights.com/practice-areas/bribery-and-corruption-laws-and-regulations/italy/ANAC – National Anti-Corruption Authority. (2023). ANAC National Anti-Corruption Authority brochure.Wikimedia Commons. (n.d.). European Union flag and gavel [Photograph]. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:European_Union_flag_and_gavel.jpgEcija Law Firm. (2025). A general overview of Spain’s National Anti-Corruption Plan (2025). https://www.ecija.com/en/news-and-insights/una-vision-general-relativa-al-plan-estatal-de-lucha-contra-la-corrupcion-de-julio-de-2025/&nbsp;&nbsp;

Open

teleperformance

Philippines

Reizel Cole Aborita

Call Center Agent

Public

User

Verified

Active

Anti-Corruption Governance in Southern Europe: A Comparative Analysis of Italy and Spain