1. Can global integrity indicators identify operational entry points for anticorruption reforms? 1 Course on Actionable Governance Indicators: Making AGIs Relevant for Operations Thursday, April 29, 2010, MC4-800 Steve Knack, Lead Economist, DECHD and Maks Kobonbaev, PRMPS

2. www.globalintegrity.org/ report.globalintegrity.org Global integrity indicators www.agidata.orgwww.agidata.org >data>sources agidata.infoagidata.info>data>sources

3. 3 Outline: questions: What are the global integrity indicators? Are they actionable? How many countries does global integrity cover and how do countries perform on integrity and anticorruption? Why does it matter to look at in law (de jure) and in practice (de facto) aspects of integrity? How can these indicators inform “policy choices” with respect to anticorruption reforms? Can we use these indicators in our work and how can we do so effectively? 3

4. 4 What are the global integrity indicators?  GI questions are narrowly defined and specific and, hence, provide an actionable roadmap for understanding particular dimensions of governance and for the design of anticorruption reforms  320 discrete questions per country (differs for local and sector tools)  Local experts, not international analysts, construct the country assessments  Double-blind and transparent peer review comments  100% transparency: all disaggregated scores, comments, references, and peer review comments published.  “In law” vs. “In practice” – capturing the implementation gap  Each indicator has a score, an explanatory comment and a supporting reference  Ordinal scoring (0, 25, 50, 75, 100) anchored by unique scoring criteria 4

5. 5 Global integrity categories and themes 5

6. Are global integrity indicators actionable? Actionable Governance Indicators Focus on specific aspects of governance Disaggregated and narrowly defined Allow identification of specific problems within governance system Provide entry points for: – Policy reform – Monitoring of Impacts Track how well institutional objectives are being met Broad Governance Indicators Assess general dimensions of governance – Accountability – Capacity – Transparency – Corruption Limited explanatory power – Do not explain how policy is affected by E.g. lack of accountability – Citizen perception of corruption might be high but we don’t know which factors contribute to such perceptions Are of little use for anticorruption reforms 6

7. Government accountability Executive accountability Legislative accountability Judicial accountability Budget oversight Judicial accountability Merit-based appointment Accountability of the judiciary Conflict of interest requirements Public access to asset disclosures 7 More action-worthy aspects of judicial accountability – more specific Dimensions of government accountability – still broad Merit based appointment Transparent procedure for selecting national-level judges Professional criteria are followed in selecting judges Confirmation process for national-level judges exists (by legislature or independent body) Accountability of the judges Members of judiciary give reasons for their decisions Disciplinary agency exists for judicial system Disciplinary agency is protected from political interference Disciplinary agency initiates investigations and imposes penalties on offenders Conflicts of interest requirements Judges are required to file asset disclosures Regulations on gifts to members of the judiciary exits Independent auditing of asset disclosure forms exits Restrictions for judges to enter private sector exists Public access to asset disclosure records of judges Citizens can access asset disclosure records within a reasonable time period and at a reasonable cost Asset disclosure records are of high quality More actionable indicators of judicial accountability – even more specific Illustration of actionability

8. 8 GI sample: country coverage by years

9. Countries’ performance on GI index: 2009 country rankings 9 RefineryPlatform Astana

10. 10 Countries’ performance on GI index: Sample of 85 countries, 2009-2006 Source: GI 2006-2009 (N=85)

11. 11 Outline: questions: What are the global integrity indicators? Are they actionable? How many countries does global integrity cover and how do countries perform on integrity and anticorruption? Why does it matter to look at in law (de jure) and in practice (de facto) aspects of integrity? How can these indicators inform “policy choices” with respect to anticorruption reforms? Can we use these indicators in our work and how can we do so effectively? 11

12. 12 Distribution on de jure integrity Source: GI 2006-2009 (N=85 )

13. 13 Distribution on de facto integrity Source: GI 2006-2009 (N=85 )

14. 14 Laws vs. implementation Weak laws; weak implementationWeak laws; strong implementation Strong laws; weak implementationStrong laws; strong implementation

15. 15 To what extent do laws matter for actual practices? Legal aspects of public access to information seem to correlate with actual public access to information (r=0.66) De jure and de facto civil society organizations are weakly related (r=0.07) Civil society organizations and media are strongly associated (r=0.71) Legal framework for campaign financing seems to be associated with how politicians and political parties are financed in practice (r=0.63) Executive accountability seems to shape the degree of legislative accountability (r=0.71), judicial accountability (r=0.66) and budget oversight (r=0.66) Presence of tax and customs agency in a national legislation does not correlate at all with actual capacity and effectiveness of these revenue collection agencies (r=- 0.07) 15

16. 16 Mean scores for de jure and de facto integrity themes and implementation gap

17. 17 Regressions: De jure and de facto integrity and corruption outcomes Note: t statistics in parentheses,*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1.

18. 18 Potential “pay-off” areas in improving corruption outcomes Public access to information and media seem to matter the most - fair access to form media entities, to state-owned outlets and coverage of elections and independent candidates Electoral rules and practices seem to matter in general - campaign financing and donations, voter registration system, independent appointments to election agency and representation Executive accountability matter more than legislative/judicial Civil service practices seem to be linked more closely with corruption - political independence, meritocracy, performance, and transparency Law enforcement correlates more strongly with corruption than ACL/ACA No relationship between procurement rules and corruption in contracting + conflicts of interest regulations and access to procurement bids; - sole sourcing, blacklisting firms and lifestyle checks In law tax/customs agencies are associated with more bribes in dealing with tax officials and customs 18

19. 19 Outline: questions: What are the global integrity indicators? Are they actionable? How many countries does global integrity cover and how do countries perform on integrity and anticorruption? Why does it matter to look at in law (de jure) and in practice (de facto) aspects of integrity? How can these indicators inform “policy choices” with respect to anticorruption reforms? Can we use these indicators in our work and how can we do so effectively? 19

20. EXTRA SLIDES 20

21. 21 Illustration: Hierarchy of budget process/oversight

22. 22 Determinants of inclusion in GI assessments

23. 23 De jure integrity and perceived corruption Source: GI 2006-2009 (N=85 )

24. 24 De facto integrity and perceived corruption Source: GI 2006-2009 (N=85 )

25. 25