Juanita Riaño Transparency International The Empirics of Governance May 1-2, 2008 Washington D.C.

Corruption high on the international agenda Increased understanding of its nature : supported by broader research base Growth in development of new measurement tools: especially surveys at global, regional and national levels complemented by other initiatives and tools Measuring governance and corruption internationally: progress thus far

Measurement Tools: Production Process What (Target) What for? (Purpose) What’s possible? (Resources, information, capacity) Type Method Sample Data Measurement process Use (communication, advocacy, interpretation etc.) Validity Legitimacy, credibility, reliability

What do we want to measure? (Target) What for? (Purpose) What’s possible? Awareness Academic research Advocacy, Policy reform Diagnostics (targeting action) Monitoring (policy evaluation) Information available Capacity Funding What you want and what you need Measurement Tools: Production Process Costs of Corruption Trends of corruption Extent of corruption

Aggregate Indicators: What for? To create public awareness of corruption and put corruption on the public debate contributing to create a climate for change. To offer a snapshot of the extent of the corruption problem. To enhance comparative understanding of levels of corruption and trends over time. To motivate new research and complementary diagnostic analysis on causes and consequences of corruption.

Aggregate Indicators: What NOT? and What NOT for? WHAT NOT : Not an in-country diagnostic tool: doesn’t offer analysis on causes, dynamics or consequences of corruption WHAT NOT FOR: Not to make inferences about petty/grand corruption, public-private sector interface, etc. Not to design policy actions or country reforms.

Unbiased, hard data difficult to obtain or validity questionable e.g. comparing number of prosecutions, court cases or media coverage as a way to measure effectiveness and capacity of a country's judiciary in prosecuting corruption. Legal definition of bribery and corruption may differ (e.g. facilitation payments) Perception questions have become more rigorous, experiential and quantitative. Cultural biases seem not to be as strong as they were originally thought (tested e.g. by vignettes) Even the fact-based data have elements of subjectivity involved Perceptions-based data

Interpreting perceptions Potential bias resulting from cultural background. Residents – Comparing to other problems, not countries – Standard of ethics Expatriates – Dominance of a cultural heritage in the sample – Lacking cultural understanding

What about people perceptions regarding corruption vs. experts perceptions? Source: Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer 2007 and CPI 2007 r=0.64

Experience v. perceptions of corruption – do they align? Source: Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer 2007 and CPI 2007

Aggregate indicators are just one variable in the equation…

TI’s global assessment tools Aggregate indicators CPI, BPI DiagnosisBarometer, NIS Country Studies and Scoring Systems, Promoting Revenue Transparency, PCMS, CRINIS, CACTI, Global Corruption Report MonitorOECD report cards, A-C Conventions Gap Analysis, ALACs PreventBusiness Principles, Integrity Pacts

At the National Level… TI national chapters have developed a wide range of tools that provide indicators for the fight against corruption: –National household surveys: TI Bangladesh, TI Lithuania, TI Madagascar, TI Mexico, TI Morocco, TI Peru, TI Russia –Index of public institutions: TI Kenya, TI Colombia –Public sector diagnostics: TI Bangladesh, TI Nicaragua –Monitoring political party financing: TI Bulgaria, TI Latvia –Private sector assessment: TI Mexico, TI Madagascar

The Kenya Bribery Index, an example. Captures bribery experiences among general public on an annual basis Who is bribed, how much and for what? Results have been used to –Provide information on the nature and extent of bribery in Kenya –Generate public awareness –Advocate for and support reforms –Set performance targets and monitor reforms

Lessons learned Methodolgies -Use of expertise -Right for the purpose of the tool Process: validation (external, internal) – who else has seen it? Communication: as important as production If the tool is solid, criticism is a sign of success Don‘t ask more from a tool than it can bear

Measuring corruption: challenges ahead Improving use of results by various stakeholders (civil society, private sector and governments) and to convert research into policy. Taking stock of what we have learnt, without reinventing the wheel. Strengthening research in diagnostic indicators. Supporting repetition of tools over time, in order to set performance targets and measure anti-corruption efforts. Extending coverage of measuring corruption tools to countries/sectors where no data-research has been conducted so far.

the coalition against corruption