Transcript Juanita Riaño Transparency International www.transparency.org The Empirics of Governance May 1-2, 2008 Washington D.C. Measuring governance and corruption internationally: progress thus far • Corruption high on the.

Juanita Riaño
Transparency International
www.transparency.org
The Empirics of Governance
May 1-2, 2008
Washington D.C.
Measuring governance and corruption
internationally: progress thus far
• 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
Measurement Tools:
Production Process
Legitimacy,
credibility, reliability
What for?
(Purpose)
Type
Method
What
(Target)
Sample
Data
Measurement
process
What’s possible?
(Resources, information,
capacity)
Validity
Use
(communication,
advocacy,
interpretation etc.)
Measurement Tools:
Production Process
What for?
(Purpose)
What do we
want to
measure?
(Target)
What’s
possible?
•
•
•
•
•
Awareness
Academic research
Advocacy, Policy reform
Diagnostics (targeting action)
Monitoring (policy evaluation)
• Costs of Corruption
• Trends of corruption
• Extent of corruption
• Information available
• Capacity
• Funding
• What you want and what you need
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.
Perceptions-based data
• 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
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
2.5
3
3.5
4
What about people perceptions
regarding corruption vs. experts
perceptions?
2
r=0.64
2
4
6
8
Corruption Perceptions Index 2007
10
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
Diagnosis
Barometer, NIS Country Studies and
Scoring Systems, Promoting Revenue
Transparency, PCMS, CRINIS,
CACTI, Global Corruption Report
OECD report cards, A-C Conventions
Gap Analysis, ALACs
Monitor
Prevent
Business 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
www.transparency.org