Towards a Unified Towards a Unified Methodology for Measuring Methodology for Measuring

CorruptionCorruption

Global Forum V on Fighting Corruption and Safeguarding Integrity2 – 5 April 2007Johannesburg, South Africa

Kris Dobie &Prof. Michelo Hansungule

centre for business & professional ethics

UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA

Stakeholders

OtherOther

AUAU

SADCSADC

Country ACountry A

Country BCountry B

Country CCountry C

Country DCountry D

Aid agenciesAid agencies

Civil societyCivil society

International Business

International Business

Unified Methodolo

gy ?

Unified Methodolo

gy ?

ConventionSecretariats

ConventionSecretariats

UNUN

Convention Signatories / individual countries

Convention Signatories / individual countries

OverviewMonitoring instruments

Monitoring implementation of international legal instruments

Measuring instrumentsMeasuring of corruptionTracking of institutional / governance features

Monitoring InstrumentsMonitoring Instruments

Monitoring InstrumentsInternational legal instruments

Africa AU Convention SADC Protocol ECOWAS Protocol

America’s Inter-American Convention

Europe (GRECO) Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public

Officials in International Business Transactions Criminal Law Convention Civil Law Convention

UN UN Convention against Corruption UN Convention against Transnational Organised Crime

Indicators / measurables• Anti-Corruption legislation• Anti-corruption bodies• Standards of conduct in public functions, and

mechanisms to implement • Transparency / access to information• Witness / whistleblower protection• Sound management practices (Public finances, hiring

and procurement)• Private Sector standards and oversight• Civil Society & Media freedom• Minimum guarantees for a fair trial• Political party funding• Organised crime / money laundering• Extradition / international cooperation• Asset recovery• Compensation for damage• Public education

The way forwardMonitoring fatigue

Report / result sharing between monitoring bodiesGRI for conventions?

Forum / conference fatigue?

Measuring InstrumentsMeasuring Instruments

Our criteriaPotential for global applicationComparable figures for country-level corruption

OutlineAnalysis of current approaches1. Surveys

a. Composite / perception indices• TI - Corruption Perception Index• WBI - Worldwide Governance Indicators

b. Alternative approaches• TI – Global Corruption Barometer• TI – Bribe Payers Index• WB – Business Environment and Enterprise

Performance Survey

2. Tracking of Institutional Features• Global Integrity Index

Composite indicesTI - Corruption Perception Index / WBI - Worldwide Governance Indicators

StrengthsLarger country coverageGives us something to work with

LimitationsOpaque resultsCannot recognise reformersLack of recommendationsMisuse of information

Perception indicesTI - Corruption Perception Index / WBI - Worldwide Governance IndicatorsPerceptions can be influenced by:

Media freedomFocus of the media on corruption scandalsCorruption statistics

We should distinguish between:Vague perception questions Quantitative experience based questions

Alternative approachesWhat do these single source surveys add to the picture?TI – Global Corruption Barometer

Adds experience questionsNot just a single score

TI – Bribe Payers IndexMeasures supply side of corruption (business contribution)Not truly experiential questions

WB – Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey

Measures both administrative corruption and political (relational) corruption

The way forwardMeasuring corruption prevalenceThe reality:

Composite indexes have limitations, but still provide the widest coverage. Single source surveys provide useful information, but have limited coverage

The way forwardMeasuring corruption prevalence

Recommendation:Standardised instrument implemented at country levelData forwarded to international body to incorporate in an accessible databaseFollowing aspects need to be agreed on:

Perception and experience indicators Petty and grand corruption / Administrative and political Supply and demand side Business and government corruption

Business and government Urban and rural Experts (resident and non-resident) and general

population

Sample base

What is measur

ed

Tracking of institutional featuresGlobal Integrity Index

Measures public integrity systems Existence: ‘In law…’ Effectiveness: ‘In practice…’

Expert assessment (peer reviewed)Over 290 indicators with pre-defined criteriaCategories

Civil Society, Public Information and Media Electoral and Political processes Branches of Government Administration and Civil Service Oversight and Regulatory Mechanisms Anti-Corruption Mechanisms and Rule of Law

Tracking of institutional featuresGlobal Integrity Index

StrengthsTransparencyClear policy implicationsChanges can be trackedInclusion of ‘stories’

Limitations:Lack of Global CoverageDoes not measure corruption

ChallengesMeasuring in a way that is legitimate and informative to many (most) stakeholdersAchieving global coverage

The way forwardTracking institutional features

The Global Integrity Index provides useful information, but should be balanced by information on the prevalence of corruption

Interface between Interface between Monitoring & Measuring Monitoring & Measuring

InstrumentsInstruments

Interaction between instruments

Monitoring implementation

of Legal Conventions

Instruments tracking

institutional features

Instruments measuring corruption prevalence

Counter-check

Information & Counter-check

Interaction between instruments

Monitoring implementation

of Legal Conventions

Instruments tracking

institutional features

Instruments measuring corruption prevalence

Counter-check

Information & Counter-check