Geo-Sung KIM gs@ti.or.kr Global Forum V on Fighting Corruption and Safeguarding Integrity April 3, 2007 Johannesburg, So

1. Korea’s Integrity Perceptions IndexSub-Theme 2: Taking Stock through Monitoring and Evaluation Workshop on “Monitoring the Prevalence of Corruption” Geo-Sung KIM gs@ti.or.kr Global Forum V on Fighting Corruption and Safeguarding Integrity April 3, 2007 Johannesburg, South Africa

2. Introduction • It is increasingly acknowledged that to effectively control corruption, a system of checks and balances should be established between the providers of public administrative services (public officials) and the public service users (ordinary citizens). In this context, a framework for assessment was designed in Korea to encourage public institutions to step up their anti-corruption efforts by ensuring that their integrity and corruption prevention systems are evaluated by ordinary citizens.

3. Brief History • 1999 Seoul Metropolitan Government • 1999 Anti-Corruption Special Committee • 2002 KICAC (Korea Independent Commission Against Corruption) • In 2006, KICAC assessed 304 public institutions and 1,369 areas. To upgrade the assessment framework, many academics and experts continue to work with KICAC.

4. Assessment Framework • Procedural steps • Step 1: Establishing the assessment framework • Step 2: Identifying and selecting the subject • Step 3: Making a list of survey targets • Step 4: Conducting a phone survey • Step 5: Analyzing the data collected • Step 6: Placing the findings in the public domain

5. Assessment Framework • Target institutions • In 2006, KICAC measured the level of integrity in 304 public institutions. It added 8 public institutions but exempted 35 institutions from the assessment because they performed well in 2005 (no bribery incidents and IPI score 9.0 or better), bringing the total number of target institutions to 339.

6. Assessment Framework • Target areas • Given that concessions are a great source of corruption, it is appropriate and effective to focus resources for the assessment on the risk areas. Therefore, KICAC selects and evaluates risk areas where discretionary power may affect citizens’ interests and organizational decisions; the other areas where civil affairs are handled in a simple procedure are not subject to the integrity assessment. The risk areas concern the issuing of licenses and permits, control, supervisory tasks, the use and management of government subsidies, etc.

7. Assessment Framework • Subject of survey • Those surveyed are ordinary citizens who have had firsthand experience with target public services for the preceding 12 months or so. To obtain survey samples, KICAC asks the public institution to submit a list of public service users in accordance with Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Act, and commissions research institutes to select subjects and conduct a phone survey. Samples for the 2006 assessment are limited to the persons who experienced public service during the period from July 2005 to June 2006.

8. Assessment Framework • Methodology • The level of a public official’s integrity is defined as the extent to which he or she refuses to involve in corrupt practices and performs public duties in an unbiased and appropriate manner. The assessment framework consists of two integrity factors, namely “perceived integrity” and “potential integrity.” Perceived integrity reflects the level of corruption perceived or experienced by public service users. Potential integrity refers to the prevalence of potential factors causing corruption as perceived by the citizens. While the former reflects personal experience or perception of corruption, the latter indicates the presence of factors that are likely to correlate with actual incidences of corruption in the future. • The higher the level of integrity is, the less likely is it that public service users experience or perceive corruption and that factors in the administrative system contribute to corruption.

9. Assessment Framework • Methodology Public institution’s integrity= perceived integrity (49.4%) + potential integrity (50.6%)

10. Integrity Perceptions Index 2006

11. Using Assessment Results and Ensuring Impact • IPI assists public institutions inidentifying the areas prone to corruption and the weak points in their systems and administrative procedures and in utilizing more scientific tools to root out corrupt practices. • Some areas of chronically low level of integrity • Disparities between the IPI and the public perceptions of corruption • IPI can only pressure government institution for making and practicing its comprehensive strategy and action plan to promote better governance and accountability.

12. Thank you!