The first paper focuses on the development ofwhistleblower protection standards, analyzing the relevant legislation of OECD member countries and the Working Group on Bribery in International Business Transactions, highlighting the main existing problems and providing recommendations on how to further develop effective and systematic state efforts to protectwhistleblowers in both the public and private sectors. The review also provides practical cases for the establishment of a system of protection measures

According to the survey data, more countries have adopted measures to ensure whistleblower protection at the legislative level in the last 5 years than in the previous quarter of a century. According to the OECD survey, in 2014, 84% of respondent countries had some kind of legislative mechanisms regulating whistleblower protection (including on corruption), of which 13 had adopted highly specialized laws (Australia, Belgium, Canada, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Korea, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the UK, the USA).

However, according to OECD experts, a systematic approach to the formation of such legislation is quite rare. Many countries still refrain from adopting a comprehensive specialized law on whistleblower protection, limiting themselves to making individual, often declarative, additions to existing legislation. Such measures are often unable to provide whistleblowers with real protection.

Another challenge is the low level of whistleblower protection in the private sector, including in terms of the measures taken by organizations. According to the 2015 survey, 86 per cent of respondents had guidelines on whistleblower protection in their organizations, but more than a third of them did not have or were unaware of the existence of mechanisms to protect them from potential retaliation.

Some countries have established mechanisms for rewarding whistleblowers and sanctioning punitive actions against whistleblowers. However, public engagement, education and informing citizens about the country's whistleblower protection system are still insufficiently high and were noted by the rapporteurs in just over half of the respondent countries.

Based on the results of the analysis, the authors of the review make the following recommendations to the countries in terms of building an effective whistleblower protection system:

• Ensure the implementation of theOECD Principles for Managing Ethicsin the Public Service, develop and update principles, methods, practices and institutions that influence the formation of ethical norms and rules of conduct in the public sector;
• promote further implementation of theOECD Recommendation for Further Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions with regard to the protection of whistleblowers (both in the public and private sectors);
• develop mechanisms to protect whistleblowers and prevent potential retaliation at the organizational level, taking into account the standards set out in theGood Practice Guidance on Internal Controls, Ethics, and Compliance, theOECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, and theG20/OECD Principles of Corporate Governance;
• implement whistleblower protection mechanisms in all areas where organizational power is involved;
• provide education and information to citizens on whistleblower protection, reporting channels and whistleblowing facilitation procedures through training, open discussions and media publicity;
• Establish review mechanisms and periodically monitor the implementation of whistleblower protection measures.

The second OECD review is devoted to the issues of countering "policy capture", i.e. the use of the existing process of elaboration and adoption of publicly important decisions in the state by individuals and interest groups for personal purposes. According to OECD experts, "policy capture" is most often observed in the following areas:

• Conducting public procurement;
• granting tax exemptions and state subsidies;
• granting access to government loans;
• formation and distribution of monopolies in competitive markets;
• sale of state property.

"Hijacking the decision-making process" can be carried out not only through the use of improper methods (e.g., bribery), but also in the framework of legal activities (e.g., lobbying, financing of political parties and candidates). According to the OECD study, in 2013, the number of respondents who consider the use of influence for personal purposes in lobbying activities as a fairly common problem more than doubled.

The authors of the study note that in today's environment of growing inequality and political dissatisfaction, power grabs in public decision-making undermine basic democratic values such as openness, dialog, consensus-seeking and public interest orientation, and can lead to:

• mismanagement of resources and slower economic growth;
• maintaining or increasing social and economic inequalities;
• blocking necessary reforms or sending them on the wrong course, and a range of other negative consequences.

The review considers the main participants in the process (officials, business representatives, etc.), ways of capturing power (improper payments, kinship ties, "revolving doors", joint events and meetings, publications and media appearances, etc.), analyzes the most likely risk areas (uncontrolled discretionary powers, cyclical advantages, etc.), and presents two practical cases of capturing the process of public decision-making - in the tax sphere and in the energy sector.

In order to reduce the probability of using public decision-making powers for personal purposes and minimize the risks generated by this, the authors of the study propose the following mechanisms:

• creating a "single playing field" - involving representatives from groups with different interests in the discussions, which is intended to ensure the comprehensive nature of the decisions made and reduce the risk of privileging the narrowly focused interest of only one of the groups, as well as compliance with the principles of honesty and openness in the implementation of lobbying activities and political financing;
• Respect for the right to information - ensuring openness, reliability and timeliness of information on decisions for all parties involved and civil society;
• ensuring accountability through the system of antitrust and regulatory authorities and supreme audit institutions;
• detecting and reducing the risk factors of power grabbing through the implementation of integrity policy - establishing clear standards of conduct, creating a culture of integrity in organizations whose activities are related to public decision-making, ensuring control over their compliance and the functioning of risk management mechanisms.