A Study on the Working of Administrative Law Principles to Curb Corruption

This study investigates the efficacy of administrative law principles in curbing corruption within public administration, aiming to evaluate their practical application and impact on reducing corrupt practices. The primary objective is to assess how principles such as the rule of law, transparency, accountability, and judicial review deter corruption, while also exploring the extent of their implementation across public institutions and their influence on corruption levels. Employing an empirical mixed-method approach, the research collected data through surveys and interviews from a convenient sample of 139 respondents, including public officials, legal experts, and anti corruption agency representatives, selected based on accessibility and willingness to participate, ensuring diverse perspectives from various government institutions. Quantitative data was analyzed using SPSS software, with ANOVA applied to compare the effectiveness of administrative law principles across different institutional contexts, while qualitative data from interviews was thematically analyzed to identify recurring patterns, challenges, and perceptions regarding implementation. The findings reveal that transparency and accountability significantly reduce corruption incidents, with ANOVA results indicating statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) in corruption levels between institutions with robust versus weak enforcement of administrative law principles. Qualitative insights underscore judicial review as a critical deterrent but highlight challenges such as inadequate training and political interference. In conclusion , administrative law principles are vital in combating corruption, but their effectiveness hinges on consistent enforcement, and enhanced capacity-building efforts. Strengthening oversight in mechanisms fostering a culture of accountability are recommended to maximize curbing corruption within public administration.