Measuring and Monitoring Levels of Corruption in Bulgaria and South East Europe Methodology, Results and Public Impact

Monitoring and Anticorruption  Political debate and factual measurement - Is corruption possible? - How serious is corruption? - Who is corrupt?  The role of corruption measurement in anticorruption programs - Defining the problem and identifying problem areas - Describing corruption mechanisms - Serving as pressure tool  Tracking progress - Corruption monitoring - Issues of consistency and regularity of measures

The Corruption Monitoring System of Coalition 2000: Methodology Design of the monitoring instruments (methodology)  Quantitative research : representative surveys of general public, business sector and public officials. Information about levels of corruption victimization and public perceptions.  Qualitative research : focus groups with different target groups Information about mechanisms of corruption practices and specific forms of corruption.  Qualitative research : in-depth interviews with key informants, desk research, mirror statistics, case studies Information about corruption processes related to specific institutions (e.g. customs, police, judiciary, education, etc.)

The Corruption Monitoring Surveys of Coalition 2000: Indicators Experience based indicators (level of corruption victimization)  Involvement (personal) in corruption transactions Includes a set of questions measuring the incidence of transfers to public officials in order to receive: (a) better service or (b) violate law  Corruption pressure (personal) Includes a set of questions measuring the incidence of officials directly asking or “hinting” that a transfer is expected. Transfer = gift, favor, money

The Corruption Monitoring Surveys of Coalition 2000: Indicators Perception based indicators (perceptions about the spread of corruption in different segments of society)  Tolerance/acceptability of corruption practices. Set of questions asking respondent to identify whether specific practices (bribe, conflict of interest, trading in influence, etc.) are acceptable for certain officials  Perceived spread and practical effectiveness of corruption practices. Set of questions directly asking about the perceived level of corruption in society, institutions, socio-professional groups and about the perceived “effectiveness” of corruption as problem solving tool.  Expectations of possibilities of the government to cope with the problem of corruption. Set of questions directly measuring the perceptions about the ability of the government to cope with corruption among lower and higher level officials.

What Indicators Measure  Administrative corruption Incidence of corrupt practices in the interaction between citizens and businesses with the administration and in public services  Type of corruption measured - Corruption among lower and middle level officials; - The most widespread forms of “petit” corruption associated with gifts, favors and money  Excluded: grand (political) corruption, state capture

Monitoring Results Experience based indicators  Corruption practices (personal involvement in corruption transactions)  Corruption pressure (attempts by pubic officials to start a corruption transaction)

Levels of Corruption Victimization (% of the population and number of cases)

Indexes of Experience Based Indicators: Bulgaria (min = 0, max = 10)

Perception Based Indicators  Perceived spread of corruption  Perceived practical efficiency of corruption  Expectations  Tolerance/acceptability of corruption practices

Perceived Spread and Practical Efficiency of Corruption: Bulgaria

Media Coverage of Corruption and Perceived Relative Importance of Corruption: Bulgaria

Perception Based v/s Experience Based Indicators: Bulgaria (general population surveys) Source: Vitosha Research national surveys

Perception Based v/s Experience Based Indicators: Bulgaria (business sector surveys)

Discussion and Conclusions  Reduction of the levels of corruption victimization levels shown by experience based indicators  No change (stability) of the levels of perceived corruption by the in-country population  Gradual reduction of tolerance/acceptability indicators in the course of intensive anticorruption efforts