Tools for Measuring Corruption
1 like1,417 views
This document discusses various tools for measuring corruption from theoretical and practical perspectives. It describes experts' assessments, composite indices, sample surveys on experiences of corruption, and service delivery surveys as common approaches. Experts' assessments are relatively inexpensive but rely on individual perceptions, while composite indices synthesize different data but may lack policy-making usefulness. Sample surveys can investigate how corruption occurs and its impacts, targeting individuals, businesses, or civil servants. Service delivery surveys give consumers a voice and provide unambiguous data for monitoring reforms over time. Other examples discussed are the Council of Europe's comprehensive monitoring approach.
Tools for Measuring Corruption
- 1. This project is funded by the European Union Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA) Civil Society Facility (CSF) The views expressed in this presentation do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission A project implemented by a consortium lead by the Center for the Study of Democracy Tools for Measuring Corruption: Theoretical Perspective 15 October 2014, Mavrovo
- 2. Content •Introduction: Difficulties in defining acts of corruption •Experts’ Assessments •Composite Indices •Sample surveys on Experience of Corruption •Service Delivery surveys •Other examples •Conclusion
- 3. Introduction Difficulties in defining acts of corruption
- 4. Experts` Assessment •Selected group of experts providing an assessment of corruption trends and patterns in a given country (or group of countries). •Often used within the framework of governance assessments with a view to assessing risks and rating countries. •advantage - relatively easy and inexpensive to obtain needed information; •disadvantage – individual knowledge about the topic and understanding of corruption are all factors impacting on final results; predominantly on perceptions).
- 5. •Reports by the Economist Intelligence Unit. •Qualitative Risk Measure in Foreign Lending-Financial Ethics Index (QLM-FE) of Business Environment Risk Intelligence (BERI). •Global Insight that include the risk of “losses and costs of corruption”. •International Country Risk Guide (ICRG). •International organisations: The World Bank (Country Policy and Institutional Assessment). •Government agencies: e.g. Human Rights Report of the United States State Department; GRECO •Non-governmental organizations and academic institutions: e.g. The Freedom House Nations in Transit series, examines democratization and reform in several states of Central Europe and Eurasia.
- 6. Composite indices •Method of combining a variety of statistical data into a single indicator. •Often used to quantify in a synthetic manner multi- dimensional concepts. •Advantages: Powerful way to draw attention on the issue of corruption worldwide and to convey the message that its measurement is possible, representing a valid incentive for action. •Disadvantages: It is frequently unclear what is being exactly measured by the index; the construction of the composite indicators requires a number of choices by the data producer; the final result of composite indices does not provide direct information to be used for policy making purposes.
- 7. •Transparency International: Corruption Perception Index (CPI) •The World Bank: Worldwide Governance Indicators •The Heritage Foundation Index of Economic Freedom: Freedom from Corruption •The Global Integrity Index (GII)
- 8. Sample surveys on experience of corruption •Can give an answer to a range of questions (e.g. What portion of individuals (or enterprises) had to pay a bribe in a given year? What are the characteristics of victims and perpetrators? Has the level of corruption changed over time? etc.) •Various typologies of surveys exist, which target different groups with different roles and experience of corruption: Surveys of individuals/households Surveys of business sector Surveys of civil servants or specific sectors (police, judiciary, etc.) The Corruption Monitoring System, developed by the Center of the Study of Democracy falls into this category of surveys.
- 9. Household surveys •Respondents are asked about their experience of corruption as victims. •Several aspects of corruption episodes can be fully investigated: how corruption takes place, for what purposes, in what sectors and for which operations. •Questionnaires are tailored to local context and culture, while retaining a significant component of internationally comparable information.
- 10. Business surveys •A range of topics can be investigated, from experiences to opinions and perceptions. •Main purpose: to measure the frequency and impact of corrupt practices among the business community. •Examples of international business surveys include: the International Crime against Businesses Survey (ICBS) and Crime and Corruption Business Surveys (CCBS), the Global Competitiveness Survey, the World Business Environment Survey, and the World Competitiveness Yearbook.
- 11. Surveys of civil servants •Often focussed on specific sectors or have a broad focus and aim at collecting information on the working conditions of civil servants, with the view to identify possible hotspots for corrupt practices. •Provide crucial information to elaborate policy measures.
- 12. Service Delivery Surveys (SDS) The SDS: •give consumers a “voice”; •provide concrete data about perceptions in a relatively unambiguous way; •are an useful management tool; •indicators could be measured periodically to ascertain the reform’s progress. SDS are used as monitoring tool as part of the United Nations Corruption Toolkit.
- 13. Other Examples: GRECO`s comprehensive approach to monitoring •The Fight against Corruption: a Priority for the Council of Europe and the role of the Group of States against corruption (GRECO) •GRECO evaluation procedures involve: •collection of information through questionnaire(s); •on-site country visits drafting of evaluation reports. •the reports, which are examined and adopted by GRECO, contain recommendations to the evaluated countries in order to improve their level of compliance with the provisions under consideration; •measures taken to implement recommendations are subsequently assessed under a separate compliance procedure.
- 14. This project is funded by the European Union Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA) Civil Society Facility (CSF) The views expressed in this presentation do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission A project implemented by a consortium lead by the Center for the Study of Democracy Thank you !