CORRUPTION ASSESSMENT REPORT 2016

Transcription

1 CORRUPTION ASSESSMENT REPORT 2016

2 CORRUPTION ASSESSMENT REPORT 2016 This publication was published within the framework of the project Civil Society for Good Governance and Anti-Corruption in Southeast Europe: Capacity Building for Monitoring, Advocacy and Awareness Raising coordinated by the organisation Center for the Study of Democracy (Bulgaria) and financed by the programme European IPA Civil Society Facility. The association Partnership for Social Development (the national coordinator for Croatia) conducted the research about the state of corruption in Croatia. METHODOLOGY: Center for the Study of Democracy (Bulgaria) SUPERVISION: Munir Podumljak EDITED BY: Ana Hećimović PUBLISHER: Partnerstvo za društveni razvoj, DESIGN: ACT Printlab d.o.o. Čakovec This publication has been produced with the assistance of the European Union and the Government Office for Cooperation with NGOs. The content of this publication is the sole responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Union nor the Government Office for Cooperation with NGOs.

3 CONTENTS Introduction Corruption Indexes Spread and dynamics of corruption in Southeast European countries in the period from the year 2001 to 2016 Spread and dynamics of corruption in Croatia in 2016 Conclusion

4 4 INTRODUCTION The corruption assessment report was published within the framework of the project Civil Society for Good Governance and Anti-Corruption in Southeast Europe: Capacity Building for Monitoring, Advocacy and Awareness Raising (further in the text: SELDI). The project is coordinated by the organisation Center for the Study of Democracy from Bulgaria and financed by the programme European IPA Civil Society Facility. The association Partnership for Social Development is the national coordinator for Croatia. The Report represents an important contribution to the regional approach for the fight against corruption and gives an overview of the state, i.e. the corruption assessment in the countries of Southeast Europe in the year In particular, the report includes the following countries: Croatia, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Albania, Kosovo and Turkey. The report is divided into three fundamental sections. The first one presents the methodology of assessment research, i.e. monitoring corruption, with special emphasis on the corruption indexes measured within the SELDI Corruption Monitoring System and their interpretation. The second part begins with a regional overview of the measured results in the year 2016, the state of corruption and trends in relation to the previous measured years. At the end of the second part, detailed results of the measurement and trends that are related solely to Croatia are presented. Finally, in the third part of the report, research conclusions are stated.

5 5 CORRUPTION INDEXES Corruption Indexes, measured by the SELDI Corruption Monitoring System, represent the answer to the spotted limitations in the corruption measurements based on public perception. The SELDI Corruption Monitoring System describes corruption as a social phenomenon using three groups of sub-concepts: experience, attitudes and perceptions. All of the indexes are based on a survey conducted in nine countries on representative samples of citizens (1000 respondents older than 18 years). The survey methodology is identical in all of the countries, therefore it is possible to do a cross-country comparison. Experience based corruption indicators Attitude based corruption indicators Perceptions of corruption Corruption Pressure Awareness (identification of corruption) Likelihood of corruption pressure Involvement in corruption Acceptance (tolerance to corruption) Corruptness of officials Susceptibility to corruption Vulnerable sectors Corruption indexes based on experience are measured via the questions that refer to victimisation, which reflect the concrete experiences of the respondents of situations if, i.e. when they are asked for a bribe (corruption pressure) and if they have given a bribe (involvement in corruption). Corruption pressure is the main indicator, not only of the level of the administrative corruption in the country, but also generally, the corrupt environment in the country. It is in high correlation with real transactions, i.e. involvement in corruption. Direct involvement in corruption transactions is closely related to attitudes towards corruption and corruption behaviour, but also to perception of the spread of corruption in society. Ideally, low levels of involvement in corruption would be paired with negative attitudes towards corrupt behaviour and perceptions that corruption is an exception, not the rule. This does not mean that perceptions and attitudes directly determine corruption behaviour of citizens, rather they could influence behaviour to a certain degree. Also, the general social and political atmosphere in society related to this issue in a certain country is expressed by the attitudes and perception of citizens towards corruption and corrupt behaviour.

6 6 The indexes by which the SELDI Corruption Monitoring System is trying to measure the different aspects of attitudes towards corruption and perception of corruption include primarily awareness of corruption, related to the level of understanding of citizens as to what constitutes corruption behaviour. Furthermore, the index of acceptability of corruption measures the tolerance (or lack of tolerance) towards corruption. Finally, the index of susceptibility to corruption reflects the tendency of the respondents to react in two hypothetical situations: one involves being in the role of an underpaid public official and accepting or denying a bribe that was offered; the other situation asks about giving a bribe to a corrupt public official, if one had a major problem to solve. The experience of citizens with corruption and their attitudes towards corruption, as well as the general current sentiment in the country and the level of trust towards public institutions largely determine the public s assessment of the corruptness of the environment they live in. These perceptions are summarised by the SELDI Corruption Monitoring System in the following indexes. Likelihood of corruption pressure measures the expectations of citizens of the likelihood of facing corruption pressure in their interaction with public officials. Corruptness of officials, on the other hand, reflects the public perception of the level of their integrity. It helps identify, indirectly, sectors susceptible to corruption, i.e. sectors most affected by corruption and which are least trusted by the public.

7 7 RSPREAD AND DYNAMICS OF CORRUPTION IN SOUTHEAST EUROPEAN COUNTRIES IN THE PERIOD FROM THE YEAR 2001 TO 2016 About 50 percent of the respondents in the countries included in the research have perceived corruption as the second biggest issue in the society they live in. The main issue, as perceived by about 60 percent of the respondents, is unemployment. These two are followed by potentially related issues of poverty and low salaries. Such perception is pointing that problems related to corruption, despite the efforts made in the last decade, are far from solved and that there is still need for focused activities in this field. Figure 1. Main issues in SE Europe, 2016 Unemployment Corruption Low incomes Poverty Political instability High prices Crime Healt Care Education Ethnic problems Environment pollution 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% In none of the countries in the region has there been a clear sustained policy breakthrough in anticorruption though efforts to deliver technical solutions and to improve the functioning of the law enforcement institutions, mostly with support from the EU, have continued and even intensified in some cases. This has led to the further slow decline in administrative corruption levels but at the expense of waning public support for reforms and of declining trust in national and European institutions.

8 8 Figure 2. Changes in corruption pressure by country, Difference Albania Bulgaria Montenegro Serbia Macedonia Kosovo BiH Turkey Croatia -20 If we look at the bigger picture and the state in relation to the measurings of the previous years, we ll see that what typically follows after the reduction of corruption pressure in one year is an increase of corruption pressure in the next measuring, while the average level of corruption pressure remain continuously high. Figure 3. Corruption pressure, 2001, 2002, 2014 and % 60% 50% 44% 44% 40% 30% 30% 28% 20% 10% 0% Albania Serbia Macedonia Montenegro Croatia Regional (7 countries) 1 Share of citizens 18+ od who were asked for a bribe and who gave a bribe (money, service, present) in the previous year

9 9 The SELDI Corruption Monitoring System has identified three trends in the dynamics of corruption and spread of corruption in the countries of Southeast Europe: 1) Since the beginning of the 2000s, when SELDI started its monitoring, the overall levels of corruption in the SEE countries have gone down, and the public has become more demanding of good governance 2) Yet, progress has been slow and erratic, and corruption continues to be both a major preoccupation for the general public and a common occurrence in the civil service and senior government. Specifically, in the period corruption pressure the primary quantitative indicator for the levels of corruption in a country has relapsed in some countries, but the overall improvement in the region was negligible. 3) The combination of stubbornly high rates of rent-seeking from corrupt officials and rising expectations for good governance related mostly to EU accession aspirations in SEE countries have shaped negatively public expectations about potential corruption pressure. More than half of the population of the SELDI countries believe it is likely to have to give a bribe to an official to get things done. This indicates that the restoration of trust in institutions would be much more difficult than the mere reduction in the levels of administrative corruption. As a result, public trust in the feasibility of policy responses to corruption, a critical ally to successful anticorruption reforms, which reflects the share of the population who believe in the anticorruption efforts of their governments has stayed below the 50% threshold in 2016 for all SEE countries but Montenegro and Turkey. This further exacerbates the unwillingness of politicians to engage in anticorruption policies, and shows the need for a broad-based social movement to sustain an anticorruption focus. Figure 4. Estimates of feasibility of anticorruption policies, 2016 Turkey Montenegro BiH Croatia Serbia Kosovo Macedonia Corruption can not be substentially reduced Corruption can be substentially reduced or eradicated Don't know / No asnwer Bulgaria Albania 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

10 10 The overall conclusion from the 2016 round of the SELDI CMS is that the policies which target corrupt behaviour at administrative level and those seeking to change trust in government need to be pursued in concert. If not complemented by strengthened public demand for integrity in government and sustained improvement in economic well-being, stricter enforcement of penal measures cannot have a sustainable and expected effect. Law enforcement would likely be seen either as useless repression when targeting lower government levels alone or as political witch-hunt when intermittently directed at higher levels. Conversely, intensifying awareness-building measures would only fuel cynicism and resignation in the public if it is not accompanied by visible efforts for cracking down on (high-level) rent-seeking officials who are involved (or were involved) in corrupt practices.

11 11 SPREAD AND DYNAMICS OF CORRUPTION IN CROATIA IN 2016 According to the results of the measuring, in the year 2016 in Croatia there has been a reduction in the share of respondents who were involved in corrupt practices in the previous year, i.e. those who gave bribes in the form of money, services and/or presents. However, at the same time, the experience of the respondents regarding corruption pressure in Croatia has increased in relation to the year 2014: 12 percent of respondents confessed that they have found themselves in situations where they were asked for a bribe. Figure 5. Corruption pressure and involvement in corrupt practices, Croatia (% of the population 18+ who have been asked to give and have given a brive (money, favour, gift) in the last year) Involvement (have given a bribe) Pressure (have been asked for a bribe) This data is interesting because it shows that citizens of the Republic of Croatia do not always agree to give a bribe when they are asked for it. This is supported by the results of the measuring in relation to the acceptability of corrupt, according to which in Croatia 75 percent of respondents do not accept any form of corrupt behaviour.

12 12 Figure 6. Principle acceptability of corruption, Croatia (% of the population 18+, who accept or do not accept different forms of corrupt behaviour) 77% 75% 54% 46% 58% 42% 23% 25% Do not accept Accept In 2016, 55 percent of the respondents in Croatia deemed that corruption can be decreased significantly, i.e. it can be eradicated. This presents a significant improvement compared to 2014, when that percentage was 45 percent. Figure 7. Estimates of feasibility of anticorruption policies in Croatia (%) Corruption can be substentially reduced or eradicated Corruption can not be substentially reduced Don t know / No answer However, in Croatia, as well as the whole region, a high percentage of the respondents, 62 percent, expect to find themselves in a situation of corruption pressure, i.e. that they will be asked for a bribe in exchange for a more efficient and faster solving of their problems or doing their job. Tis, of course, points to a very low level of trust that the citizens of Croatia have towards public institutions and towards the readiness of the country to decisevly tackle the corrupt practices in its ranks.

13 13 Figure 8. Estimates of the likelihood of corruption pressure (%) in Croatia, 2016 (% of the population 18+ considering corruption pressure "very likely" and "likely" v/s "not very likely" and "not likely at all") Pressure likely Pressure not likely The following table presents the share of respondents in Croatia who deem that most or all of the representatives in question are involved in corrupt practices. Local political leaders or as they are colloquially called local sheriffs, are the most corrupt according to the opinion of the respondents. Following imediately after them are the members of the Croatian Parliament and the political parties. It s interesting that more than a third of the respondents in Croatia, but also in the region, feel that the majority of the representatives of non-governmental organisations and journalists are corrupt. The exposure of these two sectors to sorrupt practices is especially worrying and points to the danger of the capture of all segments of society that could or should produce reform initiatives of social change. Table 1. Degree of the spread of corruption by sectors, Croatia and average in the region, 2016 Category/year Croatia Average of SEE Local political leaders 72% 66% Members of Parliament 70% 67% Political parties 69% 68% Ministers 66% 67% Judges 63% 61% Lawyers 63% 56% Members of Municipal council 59% 57% State attorney and deputies 58% 58% Tax officials 56% 57%

14 14 Business persons 56% 51% Customs officers 55% 64% Officials in ministries 55% 59% Officials in municipalities 52% 56% Bankers 50% 36% Police officers 49% 56% Doctors 49% 52% Administration officials in the judicial system 42% 53% Investigators 41% 53% University professors 39% 42% Representatives of Non-governmental organisations 35% 34% Journalists 32% 34% This is even more worrisome if we look at the trends of previous years, specifically in the case of estimates of the corruptness of representatives of non-governmental organizations. Nearly a quarter of respondents in Croatia believes that most of them is corrupt, and this trend has been going on for years, at least from For comparison, the share of Croatian citizens who felt the same in 2001 was only half the size. Figure 9. Estimates of the corruptness of representatives of nongovernmental organizations in Croatia, % 35% 30% 25% 37% 35% 20% 15% 14,2% 10% 0%

15 15 In the continuation, the share of respondents in Croatia who gave above average assesments on what is degree of the spread of corruption in the following public institutions, is presented. The respondents estimated the spread of corruption on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 meaning it s not spread at all, and 5 meaning it is spread to the highest degree. The following table shows the share of respondents in Croatia who answered with 4 or 5 regarding the stated organisations. In Croatia, the ones perceived as most corrupt are the Government (local and national), the Parliament and the courts. Following immediately after them is the prosecution (State s Attorney Office) and the tax authorities. On the other hand, the military and the president of the country are perceived as being the least corrupt. This finding suggest that the Croatian citizens perceive corruption as a top-to-bottom and closely associated to the government and discretion in decision-making. Table 2. Degree of the spread of corruption in public institutions Category/year Croatia Average of SEE Government 57% 61% Local governments 54% 56% Parliament 52% 57% Courts 52% 56% State s Attorney Office 43% 52% Tax authorities 42% 51% Customs offices 40% 59% Police 40% 51% Department of state audit 39% 40% Investigative authorities 35% 41% President of the country 27% 37% Military 17% 19%

16 16 CONCLUSION Corruption indexes, measued by the SELDI Corruption Monitoring System, are based on a survey, coducted in nine countries on representative samples of citizens. The countries included in the measuring are Croatia, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia, Albania, Kosovo and Turkey. The survey methodology is identical in all of the countries. The key contribution of the SELDI Corruption Monitoring System lays in the fact that it provides a step forward from the classic measuring of citizens perception of the state of corruption in the country they live in. It is based on the experience of the citizens in relation to corrupt practices. The survey questions are largely related to victimisation and they actually reflect the concrete experiences of the repondents of situations where they were asked for a bribe (corruption pressure) or when they gave a bribe (involvement in corruption). Corruption is still the second largest problem in all of the countries included in this measurement; 50 percent of the respondents deem so. The aforementioned certainly stems from the fact that none of the countries have had a clear and long-term progress of anticorruption policies. Additionally, the trust of the public in the anticorruption efforts of their governments has stayed below the threshold of 50 percent in 2016 in all of the countries of Southeast Europe, except for Montenegro and Turkey. In Croatia, the share of citizens who were involved in corrupt practices is somewhat lower than in 2014, while corruption pressure has increased. This means that Croatian citizens, although under corruption pressure, are not always ready to respond to this demand and give a bribe. The aforementioned is directly connected to the high share of respondents in Croatia who do not accept any form of corrupt behaviour, but also to the high estimation that they will most likely find themselves under corruption pressure in the near future. In Croatia, the local and national government, the Parliament and the courts are still perceived as most corrupt, however, what s worrying is the trend of the relatively high perception of corruption of the representatives of the non-governmental sector and journalists. More than a third of the respondents in Croatia, but also in the region, feel that the majority of the representatives of non-governmental organisations and journalists are corrupt.