Towards a Unified Methodology for Measuring Corruption

1. UNIVERSITY OF PRETORIA centre for business & professional ethics Towards a Unified Methodology for Measuring Corruption Global Forum V on Fighting Corruption and Safeguarding Integrity 2 – 5 April 2007 Johannesburg, South Africa Kris Dobie & Prof. Michelo Hansungule

2. Stakeholders Country A Other AU Country B SADC Country C UN Country D Convention Secretariats Convention Signatories / individual countries Unified Methodology ? International Business Aid agencies Civil society

3. Overview Monitoring instruments • Monitoring implementation of international legal instruments Measuring instruments • Measuring of corruption • Tracking of institutional / governance features

4. Monitoring Instruments

5. Monitoring Instruments International 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

6. 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

7. The way forward Monitoring fatigue • Report / result sharing between monitoring bodies • GRI for conventions? • Forum / conference fatigue?

8. Measuring Instruments • Our criteria • Potential for global application • Comparable figures for country-level corruption

9. Outline Analysis of current approaches 1. Surveys • Composite / perception indices • TI - Corruption Perception Index • WBI - Worldwide Governance Indicators • 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

10. Composite indices Strengths • Larger country coverage • Gives us something to work with TI - Corruption Perception Index / WBI - Worldwide Governance Indicators • Limitations • Opaque results • Cannot recognise reformers • Lack of recommendations • Misuse of information

11. Perception indices Perceptions can be influenced by: • Media freedom • Focus of the media on corruption scandals • Corruption statistics We should distinguish between: • Vague perception questions  • Quantitative experience based questions  TI - Corruption Perception Index / WBI - Worldwide Governance Indicators

12. Alternative approaches What do these single source surveys add to the picture? TI – Global Corruption Barometer • Adds experience questions • Not just a single score TI – Bribe Payers Index • Measures 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

13. The way forward Measuring corruption prevalence The reality: • Composite indexes have limitations, but still provide the widest coverage. • Single source surveys provide useful information, but have limited coverage

14. The way forward Measuring corruption prevalence Recommendation: • Standardised instrument implemented at country level • Data forwarded to international body to incorporate in an accessible database • Following 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 What is measured Sample base

15. Tracking of institutional features Global Integrity Index • Measures public integrity systems • Existence: ‘In law…’ • Effectiveness: ‘In practice…’ • Expert assessment (peer reviewed) • Over 290 indicators with pre-defined criteria • Categories • 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

16. Tracking of institutional features Global Integrity Index Strengths • Transparency • Clear policy implications • Changes can be tracked • Inclusion of ‘stories’ Limitations: • Lack of Global Coverage • Does not measure corruption

17. Challenges • Measuring in a way that is legitimate and informative to many (most) stakeholders • Achieving global coverage

18. The way forward Tracking institutional features • The Global Integrity Index provides useful information, but should be balanced by information on the prevalence of corruption

19. Interface between Monitoring & Measuring Instruments

20. Interaction between instruments Monitoring implementation of Legal Conventions Information & Counter-check Instruments measuring corruption prevalence Instruments tracking institutional features Counter-check

21. Interaction between instruments Monitoring implementation of Legal Conventions Information & Counter-check Instruments measuring corruption prevalence Instruments tracking institutional features Counter-check