Varieties of ethics regulations in Westminster-style systems

Political ethics regulations are a growing phenomenon (see, for instance, Atkinson and Mancuso 1991; Saint-Martin 2008; Bolleyer and Smirnova 2017), despite relevant varieties in frameworks (Bolleyer et al. 2020) and robustness (Coroado and De Sousa 2022). Besides the frequency of scandals related to abuse of power and misdemeanors in office and the decrease in the levels of trust in political institutions and actors, the increase of ethics norms and bureaucracies is also explained by policy diffusion (Gilardi et. al. 2021). International fora, such as the OECD and the Group of States against Corruption have been great promotors of integrity regulatory systems, yet one fits all solutions are not always appropriate and governments tend to benchmark best practices in other countries and systems. (David-Barret, 2015). Hence, this article looks at political ethics regulatory systems in four Westminster countries: Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Frequently compared, these countries share principles and practices of in government style, namely the fusion of the executive and parliament, strong cabinet government, ministerial responsibility and a non-partisan and professional bureaucracy. In the article, we explore and explain differences and similarities of the ethics regulations in these four Westminster countries, offering an in-depth analysis of each case.