Assessing Governance: The Public Integrity Index and Transparency International Corruption Perception Index Compared OXFORD 17 January

From Awareness to Action 1. Introducing the Global Integrity Report as a new way of looking at corruption issues 2. “Comparing” the Corruption Perceptions Index and Public Integrity Index 3. Reactions and Reflections

Global Integrity Report An investigative report tracking corruption, openness and accountability in 25 countries Released 29 April 2004, National Press Club, Washington DC

Global Integrity Countries COUNTRIES: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Germany, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, Namibia, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Panama, the Philippines, Portugal, Russia, South Africa, Turkey, United States, Ukraine, Venezuela, Zimbabwe

Global Integrity Approach A new way looking at the corruption issue A new way looking at the corruption issue Blends social science research (de jure) and investigative journalism (de facto) Blends social science research (de jure) and investigative journalism (de facto) Integrates qualitative and quantitative research Integrates qualitative and quantitative research Independent, transparent and accessible Independent, transparent and accessible Learning and responsive Learning and responsive Web-based Web-based

Limits of the Methodology National governance framework National governance framework Public sector focus Public sector focus Institutional focus Institutional focus Score formats Score formats

The Global Integrity Report Components 25 Country Reports: 25 Country Reports:  Country Facts  Corruption Timeline  Corruption Notebook  Integrity Assessment  Integrity Scorecard Public Integrity Index Public Integrity Index –Generated by data collected in- country on the Integrity Indicators

The Global Access Team Washington Washington  Management  Methodology Advisory Committee (MAC)  Research  Contracting  Editing and Translation  Data generation and analysis  Web-design  Fact-checking  Libel review In the Field In the Field –Lead social scientist (25)  Investigative journalist (25)  Peer review panels (100)

What the Public Integrity Index Measures Existence of institutional mechanisms that prevent abuses of power (i.e. corruption) Existence of institutional mechanisms that prevent abuses of power (i.e. corruption) Effectiveness of these anti-corruption mechanisms that promote public integrity Effectiveness of these anti-corruption mechanisms that promote public integrity Citizen access to public information to hold public officials accountable Citizen access to public information to hold public officials accountable

Constructing the Public Integrity Index: 6 Governance Categories I. Civil Society, Public Information and Media Civil Society Organizations; Access to Information; Freedom of the Media II. Electoral and Political Processes National Elections; Election Monitoring Agency; Political Party Finances III. Branches of Government Executive; Legislature; Judiciary IV. Administration and Civil Service Civil Service Regulations; Whistle- Blowing Measures; Procurement; Privatization V. Oversight and Regulatory Mechanisms National Ombudsman; Supreme Audit Institution; Taxes and Customs; Financial Sector Regulation VI. Anti-Corruption Mechanisms and Rule of Law Anti-Corruption Law; Anti-Corruption Agency; Anti-Corruption Agency; Rule of Law and Access to Justice; Law Enforcement

80 Integrity Indicators – –212 sub-indicators – –“In law” vs. “In practice” Constructing the Public Integrity Index: Indicators and Scoring Formats Yes/No Format Yes100 No0 Scoring Formats Time Format <1 month 100 <3 months 75 <6 months 50 <12 months 25 >12 months/ Not applicable 0 Always/Never Format Almost always 100 Often75 Sometimes50 Rarely25 Almost never/ Not applicable 0

Scoring Tiers Very Strong (90-100) Strong (80-90) Moderate (70-80) Weak (60-70) Very Weak (below 60) Constructing the Public Integrity Index: Scoring Tiers

Category 2: Electoral & Political Processes Scoring tiers Very Strong (90-100) Strong (80-90) Moderate (70-80) Weak (60-70) Very Weak (below 60)

Integrity Scorecard South Africa Very strong tier: Category 5 Strong tier: Categories 1, 3, and 6 Weak tier: Categories 2 and 4 Overall, South Africa ranks 6th out of 25 countries on the Public Integrity Index.

PROS OF PII* Generality Generality De Jure / De Facto coverage De Jure / De Facto coverage Public Access to scores Public Access to scores Quantitative/Qualitative blend Quantitative/Qualitative blend Multiple checks on subjective scoring Multiple checks on subjective scoring Variation among democracies Variation among democracies * independent academic

Cons to PII* Few countries Few countries One time point One time point Generality Generality Redundancy with other sources Redundancy with other sources –E.g., suffrage, women’s participation * independent academic

SUBJECTIVE MEASUREMENT* Potential for Bias Potential for Bias Rating process occurs in three steps Rating process occurs in three steps –Obtaining information –Processing information –Translation into rating Problems can occur at each step Problems can occur at each step PII has mitigated many problems PII has mitigated many problems * independent academic

Scatter Plot of the PII (x) and the CPI 2003 (y). N=25, r=.686. *

Seven Failings of the Corruption Perceptions Index (Galtung) 1. Only punishing the takers, not the givers 2. Irregular and uncontrolled country coverage 3. Biased sample: more than 90% of the world is missing 4. Imprecise and sometimes ignorant sources 5. Far too narrow and imprecise definition of corruption 6. Does not measure trends: Cannot reward genuine reformers 7. Guilty by association – aid conditionality “The CPI, in other words, has become a stick without a carrot. It is all but impossible to improve their scores in the CPI through government reforms and sustained anti-corruption efforts. “ “The challenge ahead is evident: after ten years it is time to find new measurements”.

Main Findings of the Public Integrity Index In 18 of the countries, there are no laws to protect civil servants who report corruption—whistle-blowers—from recrimination or other negative consequences. In 18 of the countries, there are no laws to protect civil servants who report corruption—whistle-blowers—from recrimination or other negative consequences. In 15 of the countries, journalists investigating corruption had been imprisoned, physically harmed or killed. In 15 of the countries, journalists investigating corruption had been imprisoned, physically harmed or killed. In three countries, Guatemala, Mexico and Zimbabwe, both journalists and judges have been physically harmed in the past year. In three countries, Guatemala, Mexico and Zimbabwe, both journalists and judges have been physically harmed in the past year.

Main Findings of the Public Integrity Index In 14 of the countries, the head of state cannot be prosecuted for corruption. In 14 of the countries, the head of state cannot be prosecuted for corruption. In 7 of the countries, the top executive branch official is not required to file a personal financial disclosure form, preventing the public from seeing what private interests its leader has. In 7 of the countries, the top executive branch official is not required to file a personal financial disclosure form, preventing the public from seeing what private interests its leader has. In 6 countries, the ruling party controls two-thirds or more of the seats in the national legislature, reducing the opposition parties' ability to enhance government accountability. In 6 countries, the ruling party controls two-thirds or more of the seats in the national legislature, reducing the opposition parties' ability to enhance government accountability.

Main Findings of the Public Integrity Index Political party finances are secret in 10 of 25 countries, the Global Integrity Report found. Political party finances are secret in 10 of 25 countries, the Global Integrity Report found.  14 countries allow unlimited contributions to parties by corporations  17 countries have no laws restricting how much parties can spend to influence elections In 15 countries that did have legal oversight of party finances, the responsible agency rarely or almost never launched independent investigations. In 13 countries, the agency rarely or almost never imposed a penalty on those who broke campaign finance laws. In 15 countries that did have legal oversight of party finances, the responsible agency rarely or almost never launched independent investigations. In 13 countries, the agency rarely or almost never imposed a penalty on those who broke campaign finance laws.