Report on the TIGCB 2006: political parties, parliaments are viewed as most corrupt-II

Registrations and permits require the biggest bribes: Within Africa, Figure 3 shows that the largest bribes are paid to the legal system and judiciary, followed by the police and education system. The average bribe to each of these organisations is greater than €50.
The amountpaid to utilities organisations, which are the second most commonly bribed, is much lower at only €6. For many people in these countries even such an amount is significant; for the poorest it would be prohibitive, with the result that they may be denied basic services due to an inability to pay bribes.
Figure 4 shows the cost of bribes paid by respondents in Latin America. By far the largest bribes were paid for medical services, on average more than €450. Bribes paid to the legal system/judiciary and tax revenue are the next largest, both surpassing €200. These amounts would be considerable to most people living in any part of the world; for the regions' poor they likely provide an insurmountable hurdle to securing basic health and legal services.
How does experience of bribery relate to expert perceptions of corruption? The results of TI's Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) 2006, which measures expert perceptions of public sector and political corruption, can be compared with the findings related to the experience of bribery. Figure 5, below, shows that there is a link between scores on the CPI and the number of bribes paid in the countries polled in the Global Corruption Barometer 2006. The correlation for this is 0.63.
No country with a score of five or more in the CPI (indicating a lower level of perceived corruption) has more than 7 percent of respondents who report paying a bribe in the past year; for most countries this figure is substantially less. For those countries whose results are weaker in the CPI 2006, there is far more differentiation in the experience of bribery.
In many countries, there are significant problems both in terms of perceived public sector and political corruption and bribery for services. In Albania, for example, this result is marked: Albania scored 2.6 in the CPI 2006 and two-thirds of respondents who had contact with public services also admitted to paying at least one bribe in the past year.
GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE ON ANTI-CORRUPTION: The Transprency International Global Corruption Barometer 2006 (TIGCB) examines how governments are tackling the problem of corruption in the eyes of the general public. Given that the CPI reflects the opinion of experts, some of whom are based outside the country being assessed, the Barometer offers a different perspective on government and its demonstrated ability to reduce corruption.
While the Barometer data does not amount to an index of government effort to fight corruption, it does provide some feedback on the power of government to influence the public agenda, its political will to fight corruption and in some cases its power to effect real change in country, in terms of combating corruption.
It can be unfair to lay the entire blame of corruption in a country on governments that have been in power for only a short period of time. However, it is important that governments take firm and effective action to fight corruption, and that the public gain a sense that government efforts - among others'- are taking hold and making a difference in their lives. This is particularly the case in countries where the need to pay bribes for services ruins livelihoods and can even cost lives.
GOVERNMENTS ARE UNDERPERFORMING IN THE FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION:
The majority of people around the world have a poor opinion of their government's anti-corruption efforts. While one in five surveyed find government actions positive, more than half indicate that the government is not doing a good job. Perhaps most worrying is the fact that a full 15 percent of the public worldwide believe that not only is government not effective in its anti-corruption work, but that government is actually a source of the problem because it encourages corruption. Table 2 shows the opinions on government efforts to fight corruption, by region.
Only one in five members of the public in the EU+ and North America thinks that their government is effective to any degree in fighting corruption. Of additional concern is the one in five in North America and one in seven in the EU+ who thinks that their government actually encourages corruption rather than fighting it.
In contrast to the results in Europe and North America, respondents in Africa and Latin America demonstrate a considerable difference in opinion. More than half of respondents in Nigeria, for example, see their government's efforts as effective or very effective, while only 11 percent in Gabon report the same. In Latin America, 43 percent of Mexicans believe the government actually encourages corruption, while 54 percent of those in the Dominican Republic believe the government is effective or very effective.
Respondents in the NIS paint a picture of governments that make little attempt to fight corruption. The most common response in the region was that governments were 'not effective' in the fight against corruption (40 percent), whilst 24 percent answered that the government does not fight corruption at all. The lack of effectiveness of government efforts to fight corruption, as judged by the public in the NIS and elsewhere, is different from the absence of political will to fight corruption, but is nevertheless a concern.
One partial explanation for the results here may be the importance of anti-corruption efforts in different regions. Concerted anti-corruption efforts by governments in Western Europe and North America are relatively limited and might mean the public is less aware of - in addition to being less confident in - government efforts to curb corruption.
Judgement by the public in those areas is likely based on the prosecution of headline cases and not on the work of anti-corruption commissions or the implementation of anti-corruption strategies. In Africa, where corruption is generally considered to present a substantially higher risk, governments tend to address corruption, at least ensuring it is on the political agenda. This may or may not translate into effective action, but it does heighten awareness of government efforts in this regard.
VIEWS ON GOVERNMENT EFFORTS AND PUBLIC SECTOR CORRUPTION DO NOT ALWAYS ALIGN:
There is no correlation between a good score in the CPI 2006 and the public endorsement of a government's anti-corruption efforts. This may be because some governments will have been in power for only a short period of time when polling is done for the Barometer, while a country's performance in the CPI also reflects the performance of past administrations, not just the present one.
In addition, good performance by government in anti-corruption can only come about through sustained change that translates into better quality of life for ordinary citizens.
It is interesting that some governments with good performance in the CPI have the approval of their people. For example, Singapore has a CPI 2006 score of 9.4, and 89 percent of respondents believe that their government is effective or very effective in fighting corruption. Other top CPI performers have more mixed results.
Denmark has a CPI 2006 score 9.5 and 50 percent of respondents judge their government as effective or very effective in its anti-corruption activities. In Iceland (CPI score 9.6) and Sweden (CPI score 9.2), however, the public does not rate government efforts so highly, with more than 60 percent indicating that government was not effective or did not fight corruption at all.
HOW CORRUPTION AFFECTS PUBLIC SECTORS AND INSTITUTIONS:
For the third year the Barometer provides data showing the extent to which people believe corruption affects different public sectors and institutions in their country. This public perception of the levels of corruption is a vital indicator of how corrupt or clean the average citizen finds a number of key institutions.
Such perceptions can influence the public's dealings with these institutions, creating the expectation that graft is necessary to obtain services. Corruption in the system then becomes a self- fulfilling prophecy, as people pay where they assume it is necessary.
Political parties and parliament are still viewed around the world as the most corrupt. The results of the TI Global Corruption Barometer 2006 show that political parties and parliament/legislature are perceived to be most affected by corruption (see Figure
6). The police are also viewed rather poorly, a result which coincides with the findings presented earlier in this report that the police are the institution most likely to be bribed around the world. Identifying parties, parliaments and police as corrupt throws into question some of the most representative and authoritative institutions in a society, and puts at risk their capacity to perform credibly with any degree of transparency and integrity.
The results are consistent with those of the Barometers in 2005 and 2004, and the lack of improvement is disappointing. The perception of parties and parliaments as most corrupt reinforces the view that governments are not on the whole acting effectively in fighting corruption. Rather, they themselves are seen to be a part of the problem, creating a dynamic in which they actually encourage corruption in a country.
POLICE RATE POORLY IN AFRICA AND THE NIS: Respondents in Africa and the NIS consider the police to be the most corrupt sector (with mean scores of 4.6 and 4.1 respectively). This is in contrast to the results in the EU+ and North America, where the police are considered to be relatively less corrupt compared with most other sectors (2.7 and 3.1, respectively). In the EU+ and North America, political parties were viewed as the most corrupt, followed by business in EU+ and parliament/legislature in North America.
Political parties and the police are judged equally as bad in Latin America. In Eastern Europe, the legal system and medical services are considered the most corrupt.
In Taiwan, the Global Corruption Barometer 2006 highlights a substantial increase in the perceived level of corruption in many sectors: NGOs, religious bodies, police and military all emerged as more corrupt in the eyes of the public. Similarly, a number of sectors in Hong Kong (NGOs, business and media) and Croatia (media, education and business) reveal an increase in perceived corruption.
In contrast, Indians report a substantial reduction in the perceived level of corruption in a number of sectors. Improvements encompass education, the legal system/judiciary, media, parliament/legislature, and utilities. It should be noted, however, that Indian respondents still indicate that the majority of sectors highlighted are significantly affected by corruption. These improvements should therefore be understood as a positive sign of progress, but not an indication that the problem of corruption has been solved.
HOW CORRUPTION AFFECTS PERSONAL AND POLITICAL LIFE AND THE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT:
Each of the four editions of the Global Corruption Barometer has asked respondents to assess to what extent corruption affects different spheres of life, including personal and family life, the business environment and political life on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 4 (to a large extent).
The Barometer 2006 strongly supports the findings of past editions, with political life (mean score 3.4) emerging as the sphere thought to be most affected by corruption, followed by the business environment (3.1), and, of much less concern, personal and family life (2.3). This ordering is the same in all regional groupings covered by the survey.
It is worth noting that respondents' answers for the three spheres of life align to a great extent. In particular, there is a statistically significant correlation between perceived corruption in business and political life. Thus respondents that perceive corruption to be a problem in one sphere are more likely to perceive it to be a problem in the others. Stated differently, if one sphere is judged to be very corrupt, the others are likely to be judged similarly.
Although all regional groupings demonstrate a perception that corruption is a major problem in political life, at the country level there is considerable variation, as Table 3, below, shows. Nevertheless, the public in a majority of the countries covered in the Barometer believe corruption affects political life to a large extent.
In North America, there are very strong opinions about the extent to which corruption affects the business environment and political life. There, more than four out of five respondents think that the business environment and political life are affected by corruption to a moderate or large extent. In addition, corruption in political life in the United States is perceived to have worsened when compared with earlier Barometers.
Corruption's impact on family life is less of a concern to most people around the world. One could argue that this may be an instance where the public compares real experience - whether corruption has caused personal hardship - with perceptions of how corruption affects society more broadly, such as the scandals reported in the media. The latter may often be viewed as more ever-present and pervasive in its influence.
However, respondents' experience of corruption in their personal and family life differs substantially in different parts of the world. In the EU+ and the NIS, respondents state that corruption affects their lives very little (78 percent and 71 percent of respondents respectively answering 'to a small extent' or 'not at all'). It would therefore seem that these respondents may have answered this question taking into account their direct experience of bribery and its influence on their household.
In contrast, 70 percent of respondents in Africa and 59 percent in South East Europe think that their family lives are affected to a 'moderate' or 'large' extent. In Africa, this is clearly support by the data on experience of bribery reported above. In South East Europe, however, reported experience of bribery was relatively low.
As compared with previous Barometers, change for the worse has been demonstrated in Iceland, Japan and Spain. Corruption's impact on Iceland's business environment and family life is perceived to have increased over the past two years. In Japan, the business environment is believed to be worse when compared with the 2005 results. Finally, despite a reduction in the perceived level of corruption in Spanish political life and the business environment between 2004 and 2005, the scores for 2006 show large increases, which more than cancel out previous improvements.
TABLE 2 ASSESSING THE CURRENT GOVERNMENT'S ACTIONS IN THE FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION (%):

=========================================================================================

Government is   Total      EU+    South      NIS     Africa    Latin    Asia-     North

                Sample            East                         America  Pacific   America

                                  Europe

=========================================================================================

Very effective     5        4       6         3        17         7        4         2

Effective         17       18      21        14        27        18       15        17

Not effective     38       42      30        40        24        29       34        50

Not fighting      16       14      19        24        20        19       18         9

corruption at all

Not fighting      15       14       9        15         9        23       15        19

corruption, but

actually encouraging

it DK/NA           8        8      14         5         3         4       15         4

=========================================================================================

Source: Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer 2006:

======================================================================================================

Corruption    More than                Bolivia, Cameroon, Greece, South Korea, Taiwan

affects       70%

political                Albania, Argentina, Bulgaria, Chile, Croatia, France, Gabon, Hong Kong,

life to a                Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Kenya, Macedonia, Mexico, Nigeria, Peru, Paraguay,

large         51 - 70%   Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, South Africa, Russia, Senegal, Spain,

extent                   Turkey, UK, Ukraine, US

                         Canada, Colombia, Congo-Brazzaville, Czech Rep., Dominican Rep., Fiji,

              31 - 50%   Germany, Iceland, India, Japan, Kosovo, Moldova, Morocco, Pakistan,

                         Panama, Serbia, Singapore, Thailand, Venezuela

======================================================================================================