1 the level of perception of corruption by business: 2 nd wave survey results of august-october 2015
TRANSCRIPT
1
THE LEVEL OF PERCEPTION OF CORRUPTION BY BUSINESS: 2nd WAVESurvey results of August-October 2015
2
Survey methodologyThis presentation is based on the results of the 2nd wave of the research «The level of perception of corruption by business».
The period of conducting the survey – August-October 2015.
The mode of the survey – phone interviews with representatives of enterprises.
A respondent – the management of enterprises.
Total number of the surveyed enterprises – 2 271.
Survey sampling is proportional to the number of the registered in Ukraine and economically active enterprises according to the following features:
•Oblast of enterprise registration (all the oblasts of Ukraine, excluding Crimea and ATO zone in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts);
•The branch of an enterprise according to SIC (agriculture, industry, trade, transport and communications, other services).
The enterprises for conducting a survey were sampled in a random way.
For conducting the data analysis, the sampling was gone behind so that the distribution of enterprises according to the branches and oblast of registration correspond to the data of the State Statistics Committee of Ukraine. It was done to remove the sampling shifts, connected with different level of consent to give interview among the various groups of respondents.
The data shown in the presentation:
•On the whole as to the surveyed sampling for the 2nd wave, and also in view of the branch of enterprises and the oblast of their registration;
•In dynamics comparing with the previous wave of research, conducted in February-March 2015.
Green and red frames/arrows at the graphics indicate:
•Statistically considerable differences in the analyzed group comparing with the total survey sampling in the data for the 2nd wave. Marked green – if the indicator in the analyzed group is higher than the average one in the sampling on the whole, marked red – lower (level of significance 90%).
•Statistically considerable changes in the indicators comparing with the previous wave of the research. Marked green – if the indicator has considerably increased, marked red – has decreased (level of significance 90%).
A margin of error of the research is not the same for all the data, depends on the amount of the respondents who answered the questions, and the part of each separate characteristics. The maximum margin of error for the total surveyed sampling of the 2nd wave (with a probability of 90%) – 2,1%.
3
Characteristics of the surveyed enterprises – the 2nd wave
BRANCH OF AN ENTERPRISE / OBLAST OF REGISTRATION OF AN ENTERPRISE
% to all the respondents, N = 2271
16,0
13,0
26,34,5
40,3
AGRICULTURE
INDUSTRY
TRADE
TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
OTHER
Branch
23,9
8,6
6,9
6,8
5,8
5,0
4,6
3,3
3,3
2,9
2,6
2,5
2,5
2,4
2,2
2,1
2,1
1,9
1,9
1,9
1,7
1,7
1,5
1,3
0,8
THE CITY OF KYIV
DNIPROPETROVSK
KHARKIV
ODESSA
LVIV
KYIV
ZAPORIZHIA
MYKOLAYIV
POLTAVA
VINNYTSIA
CHERKASY
KIROVOHRAD
KHERSON
KHMELNYTSKYI
IVANO-FRANKIVSK
ZHYTOMYR
DONETSK
ZAKARPATTIA
CHERNIHIV
SUMY
VOLYN
RIVNE
TERNOPIL
CHERNIVTSI
LUHANSK
Oblast
4
Perception of changes as to corruption – 2nd wave
HOW WOULD YOU SIZE UP THE CORRUPTION SITUATION IN OUR PUBLIC AUTHORITIES IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS: ON A SCALE FROM «-5» TO «+5», WHERE «-5» – THE SITUATION HAS CONSIDERABLY CHANGED TO THE WORSE, «0» – HASN’T CHANGED, «+5» – HAS CONSIDERABLY IMPROVED.
DISTRIBUTION OF ANSWERS ACCORDING TO ESTIMATES
% to all the respondents, N = 2271
-0,80Average progress estimate in fighting
corruption in Ukraine
30,6% consider that the corruption situation has
changed for the worse in the past 6 months
17,4% consider that the corruption situation has improved in the past 6
months
5
Perception of changes as to corruption – dynamics
HOW WOULD YOU SIZE UP THE CORRUPTION SITUATION IN OUR PUBLIC AUTHORITIES IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS: ON A SCALE FROM «-5» TO «+5», WHERE «-5» – THE SITUATION HAS CONSIDERABLY CHANGED TO THE WORSE, «0» – HASN’T CHANGED, «+5» – HAS CONSIDERABLY IMPROVED..
DISTRIBUTION OF ANSWERS ACCORDING TO ESTIMATES
% to all the respondents, 1st wave, N = 2741; 2nd wave, N = 2271
-0,77-0,80
Average progress estimate in fighting corruption in Ukraine
1ST WAVE
2ND WAVE
The frames indicate the statistically considerable differences between the data of the 1st and 2nd waves (level of significance 90%). Marked green – value in the 2nd wave has increased, marked red- decreased
1ST wave
2nd wave
6
Perception of changes as to corruption: in view of various groups of surveyed enterprises – the 2nd wave (1)
HOW WOULD YOU SIZE UP THE CORRUPTION SITUATION IN OUR PUBLIC AUTHORITIES IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS: ON A SCALE FROM «-5» TO «+5», WHERE «-5» – THE SITUATION HAS CONSIDERABLY CHANGED TO THE WORSE, «0» – HASN’T CHANGED, «+5» – HAS CONSIDERABLY IMPROVED..
CORRUPTION SITUATION HAS CHANGED FOR THE WORSE
% of those who chose an estimate «-5» - «-1» to the corresponding group of enterprises
30,6
29,6
29,4
28,5
33,5
32,4
28,5
45,2
TOTAL, N=2271
AGRICULTURE,N=330
INDUSTRY, N=281
TRADE, N=541
TRANSPORT ANDCOMMUNICATIONS,
N=100
OTHER, N=1019
YES, N=287
NO, N=1984
The frames indicate the statistically considerable differences in the performance evaluation among the corresponding group of the surveyed comparing with the analogous sampling evaluation on the whole (level of significance 90%). Marked green – the significance in the corresponding group is higher by sampling on the whole, marked red - lower
CORRUPTION SITUATION HASN’T CHANGED
% of those who chose an estimate «0» to the corresponding group of enterprises
CORRUPTION SITUATION
HAS IMPROVED
% of those who chose «+1» - «+5» to the corresponding group of enterprises
Branch
Encountered or not with corruption
7
Perception of changes as to corruption: in view of various groups of surveyed enterprises – the 2nd wave
HOW WOULD YOU SIZE UP THE CORRUPTION SITUATION IN OUR PUBLIC AUTHORITIES IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS: ON A SCALE FROM «-5» TO «+5», WHERE «-5» – THE SITUATION HAS CONSIDERABLY CHANGED TO THE WORSE, «0» – HASN’T CHANGED, «+5» – HAS CONSIDERABLY IMPROVED.
CORRUPTION SITUATION HAS CHANGED FOR THE WORSE
% of those who chose an estimate «-5» - «-1» to the corresponding group of enterprises
30,6
29,226,9
32,331,8
28,5
34,8
33,931,0
25,9
28,734,3
36,434,733,1
20,826,8
32,820,9
29,429,527,3
23,6
17,9
42,6
18,6
TOTAL, N=2271
VINNYTSIA, N=58 VOLYN, N=53
NIPROPETROVSK, N=172DONETSK, N=50
ZHYTOMYR, N=50ZAKARPATTIA, N=54
ZaAPORIZHIAt, N=97 IVANO-FRANKIVSK,
THE CITY OF KYIV, N=508KYIV, N=101
KIROVOHRAD, N=52 LUHANSK, N=52
LVIV, N=118MYKOLAIV, N=66
ODESSA, N=148POLTAVA, N=73
RIVNE, N=57SUMY, N=50
TERNOPIL, N=50KHARKIV, N=148KHERSON, N=51
KHMELNYTSKYI, N=53CHERKASY, N=57
CHERNIHIV, N=50CHERNIVTSI, N=53
The frames indicate the statistically considerable differences in the performance evaluation among the corresponding group of the surveyed comparing with the analogous sampling evaluation on the whole (level of significance 90%). Marked green – the significance in the corresponding group is higher by sampling on the whole, marked red – lower.
52,0
57,353,6
51,156,3
47,7
53,347,3
50,9
62,656,2
54,149,754,1
49,6
42,060,8
53,660,9
54,6
69,4
44,6
64,2
41,6
68,560,9
17,4
13,519,5
16,711,8
23,812,111,910,1
18,19,9
19,515,0
24,122,3
13,911,2
17,210,712,4
25,218,317,0
9,718,1
21,4
CORRUPTION SITUATION HASN’T CHANGED
% of those who chose an estimate «0» to the corresponding group of enterprises
CORRUPTION SITUATION
HAS IMPROVED
% of those who chose «+1» - «+5» to the corresponding group of enterprises
Oblast
8
Perception of changes as to corruption: in view of various groups of surveyed enterprises – dynamics (1)
HOW WOULD YOU SIZE UP THE CORRUPTION SITUATION IN OUR PUBLIC AUTHORITIES IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS: ON A SCALE FROM «-5» TO «+5», WHERE «-5» – THE SITUATION HAS CONSIDERABLY CHANGED TO THE WORSE, «0» – HASN’T CHANGED, «+5» – HAS CONSIDERABLY IMPROVED.
CORRUPTION SITUATION HAS CHANGED FOR THE WORSE % of those who chose an estimate «-5» - «-1» to the corresponding group
of enterprises27,7
30,9
26,6
27,4
22,6
27,5
47,4
24,4
30,6
29,6
29,4
28,5
33,5
32,4
45,2
28,5
TOTAL
AGRICULTURE
INDUSTRY
TRADE
TRANSPORT ANDCOMMUNICATIONS
OTHER
YES
NO
CORRUPTION SITUATION HASN’T CHANGED
% of those who chose an estimate «0» to the corresponding group of
enterprises
CORRUPTION SITUATION
HAS IMPROVED
% of those who chose «+1» - «+5» to the corresponding group of enterprises
Branch
Encountered or not
with corruption1st wave
2nd wave
The arrows indicate statistically considerable differences between the data of the 1st and 2nd waves (level of significance 90%). Marked green – the value in the 2nd wave has increased, marked red – has decreased.
9
Perception of changes as to corruption: in view of various groups of surveyed enterprises – dynamics (2)
HOW WOULD YOU SIZE UP THE CORRUPTION SITUATION IN OUR PUBLIC AUTHORITIES IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS: ON A SCALE FROM «-5» TO «+5», WHERE «-5» – THE SITUATION HAS CONSIDERABLY CHANGED TO THE WORSE, «0» – HASN’T CHANGED, «+5» – HAS CONSIDERABLY IMPROVED.
CORRUPTION SITUATION HAS CHANGED FOR THE WORSE
% of those who chose an estimate «-5» - «-1» to the corresponding group of enterprises
27,7
27,2
17,2
26,5
26,9
28,7
13,2
35,1
29,0
25,8
31,9
27,1
37,9
23,5
30,6
34,6
19,5
20,3
25,9
28,9
33,0
23,0
36,4
33,1
20,4
23,9
30,6
29,2
26,9
32,3
31,8
28,5
18,6
34,8
42,6
33,9
31,0
25,9
17,9
28,7
34,3
23,6
36,4
34,7
33,1
20,8
26,8
32,8
20,9
29,4
29,5
27,3
TOTAL
VINNYTSIA
VOLYN
DNIPROPETROVSK
DONETSK
ZHYTOMYR
ZAKARPATTIA
ZAPORIZHIA
IVANO-FRANKIVSK
THE CITY OF KYIV
KYIV
KIROVOHRAD
LUHANSK
LVIV
MYKOLAIV
ODESSA
POLTAVA
RIVNE
SUMY
TERNOPIL
KHARKIV
KHERSON
KHMELNYTSKYI
CHERKASY
CHERNIHIV
CHERNIVTSI
CORRUPTION SITUATION
HASN’T CHANGED
% of those who chose an estimate «0» to the corresponding group of enterprises
CORRUPTION SITUATION
HAS IMPROVED
% of those who chose «+1» - «+5» to the corresponding group of enterprises
Oblast
1ST wave
2nd wave
The arrows indicate statistically considerable differences between the data of the 1st and 2nd waves (level of significance 90%). Marked green – the value in the 2nd wave has increased, marked red – has decreased.
10
Perception of changes as to corruption: by branches – 2nd wave
HOW WOULD YOU SIZE UP THE CORRUPTION SITUATION IN OUR PUBLIC AUTHORITIES IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS: ON A SCALE FROM «-5» TO «+5», WHERE «-5» – THE SITUATION HAS CONSIDERABLY CHANGED TO THE WORSE, «0» – HASN’T CHANGED, «+5» – HAS CONSIDERABLY IMPROVED.
Average estimate from «-5» to «+5»
Statistically considerable differences in the performance evaluation among the corresponding group of the surveyed comparing with the analogous sampling evaluation on the whole have not been found (level of significance 90%).
AGRICULTURE, N=330
TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS,
N=100TRADE, N=541 INDUSTRY, N=281
OTHER BRANCHES,
N=1019TOTAL, N=2271
11
Perception of changes as to corruption: by branches – dynamics
HOW WOULD YOU SIZE UP THE CORRUPTION SITUATION IN OUR PUBLIC AUTHORITIES IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS: ON A SCALE FROM «-5» TO «+5», WHERE «-5» – THE SITUATION HAS CONSIDERABLY CHANGED TO THE WORSE, «0» – HASN’T CHANGED, «+5» – HAS CONSIDERABLY IMPROVED..
Average estimate from«-5» to «+5»
AGRICULTURETRANSPORT AND
COMMUNICATIONSTRADE INDUSTRY
OTHER BRANCHES
TOTAL
The frames indicate statistically considerable differences between the data of the 1st and the 2nd waves (level of significance 90%). Marked green – the value in the 2nd wave has increased, marked red – has decreased.
1st wave
2nd wave
12
Perception of changes as to corruption: by oblasts – 2nd wave
HOW WOULD YOU SIZE UP THE CORRUPTION SITUATION IN OUR PUBLIC AUTHORITIES IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS: ON A SCALE FROM «-5» TO «+5», WHERE «-5» – THE SITUATION HAS CONSIDERABLY CHANGED TO THE WORSE, «0» – HASN’T CHANGED, «+5» – HAS CONSIDERABLY IMPROVED.
Average estimate from «-5» to «+5»
ЛУГАНСЬКА, N=52
ХМЕЛЬНИЦЬКА, N=53
ЧЕРНІВЕЦЬКА, N=53
ТЕРНОПІЛЬСЬКА, N=50
ОДЕСЬКА, N=148
ХЕРСОНСЬКА, N=51
ЖИТОМИРСЬКА, N=50
ЗАКАРПАТСЬКА, N=54
ЧЕРКАСЬКА, N=57
МИКОЛАЇВСЬКА, N=66
ХАРКІВСЬКА, N=148
ЛЬВІВСЬКА, N=118
ВОЛИНСЬКА, N=53
М.КИЇВ, N=508
КИЇВСЬКА, N=101
ЧЕРНІГІВСЬКА, N=50
КІРОВОГРАДСЬКА, N=52
СУМСЬКА, N=50
ПОЛТАВСЬКА, N=73
ДНІПРОПЕТРОВСЬКА, N=172
ВІННИЦЬКА, N=58
РІВНЕНСЬКА, N=57
ДОНЕЦЬКА, N=50
ЗАПОРІЗЬКА, N=97
ІВАНО-ФРАНКІВСЬКА, N=50
ЗАГАЛОМ, N=2271
The frames indicate statistically considerable differences in the performance evaluation among the corresponding group of the surveyed comparing with the analogous sampling evaluation on the whole (level of significance 90%). Marked green – value in the corresponding group is higher than in the sampling on the whole, marked red – lower.
13
ЛУГАНСЬКА
ХМЕЛЬНИЦЬКА
ЧЕРНІВЕЦЬКА
ТЕРНОПІЛЬСЬКА
ОДЕСЬКА
ХЕРСОНСЬКА
ЖИТОМИРСЬКА
ЗАКАРПАТСЬКА
ЧЕРКАСЬКА
МИКОЛАЇВСЬКА
ХАРКІВСЬКА
ЛЬВІВСЬКА
ВОЛИНСЬКА
М.КИЇВКИЇВСЬКА
ЧЕРНІГІВСЬКА
КІРОВОГРАДСЬКА
СУМСЬКА
ПОЛТАВСЬКА
ДНІПРОПЕТРОВСЬКА
ВІННИЦЬКА
РІВНЕНСЬКА
ДОНЕЦЬКА
ЗАПОРІЗЬКА
ІВАНО-ФРАНКІВСЬКА
ЗАГАЛОМ
Perception of changes as to corruption: by oblasts – dynamics-,9
2
-1,2
3
-,50
-,72
-1,3
4
-,64
-,88
-,02
-,91
-1,1
3
-1,1
4
-,40
,07
-,62
-1,0
5
-,52
-,87 -,6
0
-,21
-,70
-,62
-,59
-,56
-1,3
1
-,95 -,7
7
-,09
-,25
-,38
-,55
-,56
-,75
-,76
-,76
-,76
-,82
-,84
-,84
-,84
-,85
-,96
-1,0
0
-1,0
8
-1,2
0
-,80
-,09
-,45
-,62
-,76
-,96
-1,1
4
-1,5
5-1,70
-1,20
-,70
-,20
Ряд 1 -,92 -1,23 -,50 -,72 -1,34 -,64 -,88 -,02 -,91 -1,13 -1,14 -,40 ,07 -,62 -1,05 -,52 -,87 -,60 -,21 -,70 -,62 -,59 -,56 -1,31 -,95 -,77
Ряд 2 -,09 -,09 -,25 -,38 -,45 -,55 -,56 -,62 -,75 -,76 -,76 -,76 -,76 -,82 -,84 -,84 -,84 -,85 -,96 -,96 -1,00 -1,08 -1,14 -1,20 -1,55 -,80
LUHANS
KHMELNY
CHERNIV
TERNOPIL
ODESSA
KHERSO
ZHYTOMY
ZAKARPAT
CHERKAS
MYKOLAI
KHARKIV
LVIVVOLY
NTHE CITY
KYIVCHE
RNIHKIROVOH
SUMY
POLTAVA
DNIPROP
VINNYTSI
RIVNE
DONETSK
ZAPORIZ
IVANO-
TOTAL
HOW WOULD YOU SIZE UP THE CORRUPTION SITUATION IN OUR PUBLIC AUTHORITIES IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS: ON A SCALE FROM «-5» TO «+5», WHERE «-5» – THE SITUATION HAS CONSIDERABLY CHANGED TO THE WORSE, «0» – HASN’T CHANGED, «+5» – HAS CONSIDERABLY IMPROVED..
Average estimate from «-5» to «+5»
The frames indicate statistically considerable differences between the data of the 1st and the 2nd waves (level of significance 90%). Marked green – the value in the 2nd wave has increased, marked red – has decreased.
1st wave
2nd wave
14
14,6
85,4
12,7
87,3
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
80,0
90,0
100,0
YES NO
Encountered or not with corruption in the past 6 months – dynamics
PLEASE TELL US IF A PUBLIC AUTHORITY INDUCED YOUR COMPANY TO BRIBE IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS? WHAT PUBLIC AUTHORITY WAS IT?
% to all the respondents, 1st wave, N = 2741; 2nd wave, N = 2271
1st wave
2nd wave
The frames indicate statistically considerable differences between the data of the 1st and the 2nd waves (level of significance 90%). Marked green – the value in the 2nd wave has increased, marked red – has decreased.
15
Encountered or not with corruption in the past 6 months: in view of various groups of surveyed enterprises – 2nd wave (1)
PLEASE TELL US IF A PUBLIC AUTHORITY INDUCED YOUR COMPANY TO BRIBE IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS? WHAT PUBLIC AUTHORITY WAS IT?
12,7
13,8
13,5
13,4
12,9
11,8
TOTAL, N=2271
INDUSTRY, N=281
TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS, N=100
TRADE, N=541
AGRICULTURE, N=330
OTHER, N=1019
Branch
Statistically considerable differences in the performance evaluation among the corresponding group of the surveyed comparing with the analogous sampling evaluation on the whole have not been found (level of significance 90%).
16
Encountered or not with corruption in the past 6 months: in view of various groups of surveyed enterprises – 2nd wave (2)
PLEASE TELL US IF A PUBLIC AUTHORITY INDUCED YOUR COMPANY TO BRIBE IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS? WHAT PUBLIC AUTHORITY WAS IT?
The frames indicate statistically considerable differences in the performance evaluation among the corresponding group of the surveyed comparing with the analogous sampling evaluation on the whole (level of significance 90%). Marked green – value in the corresponding group is higher than in the sampling on the whole, marked red – lower.
12,7
16,915,0
14,214,014,013,613,413,313,1
12,411,911,411,211,1
10,48,98,7
7,67,4
6,45,7
35,718,0
4,73,9
TOTAL, N=2271
LUHANSK, N=52KHARKIV, N=148
KYIV, N=101VINNYTSIA, N=58
THE CITY OF KYIV, N=508KIROVOHRAD, N=52
IVANO-FRANKIVSK, N=50ODESSA, N=148
CHERNIHIV, N=50KHMELNYTSKYI, N=53
ZAPORIZHIA, N=97RIVNE, N=57
POLTAVA, N=73VOLYN, N=53
DNIPROPETROVSK, N=172LVIV, N=118
KHERSON, N=51TERNOPIL, N=50
SUMY, N=50MYKOLAIV, N=66
ZAKARPATTIA, N=54CHERKASY, N=57
CHERNIVTSI, N=53ZHYTOMYR, N=50
DONETSK, N=50
Oblast
17
Encountered or not with corruption in the past 6 months: in view of various groups of surveyed enterprises – dynamics (1)
PLEASE TELL US IF A PUBLIC AUTHORITY INDUCED YOUR COMPANY TO BRIBE IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS? WHAT PUBLIC AUTHORITY WAS IT?
14,6
13,3
18,5
14,3
14,4
14,9
12,7
13,8
13,5
13,4
12,9
11,8
TOTAL
INDUSTRY
COMMUNICATIONS AND TRANSPORT
TRADE
AGRICULTURE
OTHER
Branch
The arrows indicate statistically considerable differences between the data of the 1st and 2nd waves (level of significance 90%). Marked green – the value in the 2nd wave has increased, marked red – has decreased.
1ST wave
2nd wave
18
Encountered or not with corruption in the past 6 months: in view of various groups of surveyed enterprises – dynamics (2)
PLEASE TELL US IF A PUBLIC AUTHORITY INDUCED YOUR COMPANY TO BRIBE IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS? WHAT PUBLIC AUTHORITY WAS IT?
14,6
19,8
18,8
24,1
20,6
14,0
15,5
11,9
19,4
11,6
14,1
15,7
13,1
7,6
8,5
12,3
12,6
9,8
12,4
15,1
19,3
15,8
6,3
8,8
7,6
11,8
12,7
35,7
18,0
16,9
15,0
14,2
14,0
14,0
13,6
13,4
13,3
13,1
12,4
11,9
11,4
11,2
11,1
10,4
8,9
8,7
7,6
7,4
6,4
5,7
4,7
3,9
TOTAL
LUHANSK
KHARKIV
KYIV
VINNYTSIA
THE CITY OF KYIV
KIROVOHRAD
IVANO-FRANKIVSK
ODESSA
CHERNIHIV
KHMELNYTSKYI
ZAPORIZZIA
RIVNEPOLTAVA
VOLYN
DNIPROPETROVSK
LVIV
KHERSON
TERNOPIL
SUMY
MYKOLAIV
ZAKARPATTIA
CHERKASY
CHERNIVTSI
ZHYTOMYR
DONETSK
Oblast
The arrows indicate statistically considerable differences between the data of the 1st and 2nd waves (level of significance 90%). Marked green – the value in the 2nd wave has increased, marked red – has decreased.
1st wave
2nd wave
19
25,9
4,4
7,1
2,5
3,2
2,8
5,1
3,3
4,0
4,8
2,8
0,6
1,4
0,9
1,2
26,7
6,3
6,0
5,2
4,1
4,0
3,8
3,5
3,4
3,2
3,1
2,6
2,6
2,0
1,9
STATE FISCAL SERVICE
CUSTOMS
AGENCY OF LAND RESOURCES
EMERGENCY SERVICE
POLICE
STATE REGISTRATION SERVICE
STATE AUTOMOBILE INSPECTORATE
PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE
MINISTRY OF INTERNA AFFAIRS
REFIONAL ADMINISTRATION
COURT
SELF-GOVERNING AUTHORITIES
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
OBLENERGO
LAND TENURE AUTHORITIES
1st WAVE, N=377
2nd WAVE, N=287
«Anti-rating» of the authorities – dynamics
PLEASE TELL US IF A PUBLIC AUTHORITY INDUCED YOUR COMPANY TO BRIBE IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS? WHAT PUBLIC AUTHORITY WAS IT?
% to all the respondents, encountered with corruption, TOP-15 of authorities
* The VC principle (mutually exclusive, mutually inclusive) was not used in the classification of the authorities.
The arrows indicate statistically considerable differences between the data of the 1st and 2nd waves (level of significance 90%). Marked green – the value in the 2nd wave has increased, marked red – has decreased.
20
««Anti-rating» of the authorities: by branches – 2nd wave
PLEASE TELL US IF A PUBLIC AUTHORITY INDUCED YOUR COMPANY TO BRIBE IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS? WHAT PUBLIC AUTHORITY WAS IT?
% to all the respondents, encountered with corruption, TOP-15 of authorities
* The VC principle (mutually exclusive, mutually inclusive) was not used in the classification of the authorities / ** small benchmark for analysisThe frames indicate statistically considerable differences in the performance evaluation among the corresponding group of the surveyed comparing with the analogous sampling evaluation on the whole (level of significance 90%). Marked green – value in the corresponding group is higher than in the sampling on the whole, marked red – lower..
3,0
1,6
1,5
1,5
1,8
1,1
2,5
1,5
0,8
0,9
26,7
6,3
6,0
5,2
4,1
4,0
3,8
3,5
3,4
3,2
3,1
2,6
2,6
2,0
1,9
10,3
2,7
23,8
9,0
9,2
2,0
5,0
7,3
2,0
1,5
4,2
5,5
20,7
2,8
2,8
18,8
4,6
2,8
10,0
6,1
6,1
2,3
7,9
2,2
2,1
1,8
32,3
12,0
4,4
3,3
3,4
4,3
5,0
3,5
37,7
15,4
11,5
13,0
5,5
6,0
30,5
3,7
3,5
3,3
3,7
3,1
3,4
2,7
4,1
3,8
2,8
FISCAL SERVICE
CUSTOMS
STATE AGENCY OF LAND RESOURCES
STATE EMERGENCY SERVICE
POLICE
STATE REGISTRATION SERVICE
STATE AUTOMOBILE INSPECTORATE
PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE
MINISTRY OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATION
COURT
SELF-GOVERNING AUTHORITIES
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
OBLENERGO
LAND TENURE AUTHORITIES
TOTAL,
N=287
AGRICULTURE,
N=43
INDUSTRY,
N=40
TRADE,
N=73
TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS,
N=13**
OTHER,
N=118
21
«Anti-rating» of the authorities: by branches – dynamics
PLEASE TELL US IF A PUBLIC AUTHORITY INDUCED YOUR COMPANY TO BRIBE IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS? WHAT PUBLIC AUTHORITY WAS IT?
% to all the respondents, encountered with corruption, TOP-15 of authorities
* The VC principle (mutually exclusive, mutually inclusive) was not used in the classification of the authorities / ** small benchmark for analysis
25,9
4,4
7,1
2,5
3,2
2,8
5,1
3,3
4,0
4,8
2,8
0,6
1,4
0,9
1,2
26,7
6,3
6,0
5,2
4,1
4,0
3,8
3,5
3,4
3,2
3,1
2,6
2,6
2,0
1,9
FISCAL SERVICE
CUSTOMS
AGENCY OF LAND RESOURCES
EMERGENCY SERVICE
POLICE
STATE REGISTRATION SERVICE
STATE AUTOMOBILE INSPECTORATE
PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE
MINISTRY OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS
REGIONAL ADMINITRATION
COURT
SELF-GOVERNING AUTHORITIES
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
OBLENERGO
LAND TENURE AUTHORITIES
TOTAL,N=377N=287
AGRICULTURE,N=69N=43
INDUSTRY,N=46N=40
TRADE,N=89N=73
TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS,
N=15**N=13**
OTHER,N=158N=118
20,1
0,4
21,4
5,6
4,2
3,7
1,5
3,7
1,2
1,7
2,5
10,3
2,7
23,8
9,0
9,2
2,0
5,0
7,3
2,0
1,5
4,2
5,5
26,0
7,7
5,0
3,2
4,3
1,8
3,1
3,8
9,8
9,2
1,2
2,0
32,3
12,0
3,0
4,4
3,3
3,4
4,3
1,6
5,0
1,5
1,5
1,8
3,5
1,1
The arrows indicate statistically considerable differences between the data of the 1st and 2nd waves (level of significance 90%). Marked green – the value in the 2nd wave has increased, marked red – has decreased.
1st wave
2nd wave
22
8,0
8,4
10,3
6,4
9,3
4,4
0,9
1,0
0,8
3,3
3,1
1,3
0,5
0,3
0,2
10,6
9,8
8,6
8,5
4,9
4,1
4,1
3,7
2,7
2,7
2,5
2,1
1,1
1,1
1,0
EXECUTION OF THE DOCUMENTS ON LAND / REAL ESTATE / BUILDING / LEASE
APPROVAL DOCUMENTS ISSUING / OBTAINING A PERMIT / LICENSE / TECHNICAL CONDITIONS / CERTIFICATES /ENQUIRIES
ON EXAMINATION
EXECUTION /HARMONIZATION / ISSUING / SUBMISSION OF OTHER DOCUMENTS / EXECUTION OF CONTRACTS
INDUCING TO BRIBE / DELIVERING CHERTABLE PAYMENTS /PAYMENTS WITHOUT RECEPTS / PAYMENTS OF EXTRASERVICES
WHILE BEARING TRANSPORTATION BURDEN / DELIVERY OF GOODS / EXPORT-IMPORT OPERATIONS
WHILE CONDUCTING TRANSACTIONS / ORDINARY OPERATIONS / ALL THE OPERATIONS
REGISTRATION / CLOSURE OF AN ENTERPRISE
REPORT DELIVERY
VAT OPERATIONS /OTHER TAXES / SINGLE TAX PAYMENT
COURT HEARING
MAKING PROCUREMENT / REALIZATION OF GOODS /PARTICIPATION IN TENDER
TEACHING SITUATION
CHARGING PENALTIES (ALSO WITHOUT CAUSE)
PROVISION OF HEALTHCARE
1st wave=377
2nd wave, N=287
Situations, where bribery is a common practice – dynamics
(IF THE ANSWER AS TO THE BRIBERY IS POSITIVE) TELL US PLEASE WHAT AUTHORITY WAS IT? WHAT CITY? WHAT OPERATIONS WERE BEING CONDUCTED ?
% to all the respondents, encountered with corruption, TOP-15 of authorities
The arrows indicate statistically considerable differences between the data of the 1st and 2nd waves (level of significance 90%). Marked green – the value in the 2nd wave has increased, marked red – has decreased.
23
Situations, where bribery is a common practice – dynamics
(IF THE ANSWER AS TO THE BRIBERY IS POSITIVE) TELL US PLEASE WHAT AUTHORITY WAS IT? WHAT CITY? WHAT OPERATIONS WERE BEING CONDUCTED ?
% to all the respondents, encountered with corruption, TOP-15 of authorities
1ST wave 2ND wave
FISCAL SERVICE ON EXAMINATION 5,4% 5,7%
CUSTOMSWHILE BEARING TRANSPORTATION BURDEN / DELIVERY OF GOODS / EXPORT-IMPORT OPERATIONS
- 3,1%
AGENCY OF LAND RESOURCES EXECUTION OF THE DOCUMENTS ON LAND / REAL ESTATE / BUILDING / LEASE 3,7% 3,0%
FISCAL SERVICEAPPROVAL DOCUMENTS ISSUING / OBTAINING A PERMIT / LICENSE / TECHNICAL CONDITIONS / CERTIFICATES / ENQUIRIES
0,7% 2,1%
STATE REGISTRATION SERVICE REGISTRATION / CLOSURE OF AN ENTERPRISE - 1,8%
FISCAL SERVICEWHILE CONDUCTING TRANSACTIONS / ORDINARY OPERATIONS / ALL THE OPERATIONS
- 1,8%
FISCAL SERVICEEXECUTION /HARMONIZATION / ISSUING / SUBMISSION OF OTHER DOCUMENTS / EXECUTION OF CONTRACTS
0,9% 1,4%
FISCAL SERVICEINDUCING TO BRIBE / DELIVERING CHERTABLE PAYMENTS /PAYMENTS WITHOUT RECEPTS / PAYMENTS OF EXTRA SERVICES
1,5% 1,1%
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIONINDUCING TO BRIBE / DELIVERING CHERTABLE PAYMENTS /PAYMENTS WITHOUT RECEPTS / PAYMENTS OF EXTRA SERVICES
0,9% 1,0%
Colored data indicate statistically considerable differences between the data of the 1st and 2nd waves (level of significance 90%). Marked green – the value in the 2nd wave has increased, marked red – has decreased.
24
Thank you for your attention!