Defining Good Governance Assessment Frameworks
Objective 9.1 – Promote transparency, accountability
and anticorruption
Objective 9.2 – Enforce the rule of law
Marie Laberge
UNDP Oslo Governance Centre
Objective 9.1 – Promote transparency,
accountability and anticorruption
• Users’ Guide to Measuring Corruption
• How to measure integrity (as opposed to
corruption)
• Survey data: Public servants
(Afghanistan)
Users’ Guide to Measuring Corruption (2008)
By UNDP & Global Integrity
Literature review of best practices for corruption
measurement, and classification of existing tools
Based on the views of professionals
tasked with measuring corruption
Identifies good practices
Case studies
Key Findings
• Practitioners want actionable data, and existing
global indicators are inadequate.
• Perception-based data viewed as the least
useful data when perceptions measured are
‘external’. However, perceptions of local actors
can be useful.
• Indicators customized to country specificities are
most useful and seen as more ‘credible’ by
policymakers
Corruption indicators
-Number of reported cases of bribery within the police
-Police ranked as second most corrupt institution in
national perception surveys
-Bribe payments as % of income among individuals
in low-income districts
- Existence of safe corruption reporting mechanisms
- Proportion of registered complaints that have resulted in
sanctions
Corruption indicators can measure…
1. The incidence of corrupt transactions
experience & perception data
2. The impact of corruption
data sensitive to vulnerable groups & gender
3. The effectiveness of anti-corruption mechanisms
‘integrity indicators’
How to measure ‘integrity’ – as opposed to
corruption?
• Rather than measuring the "cancer" of corruption  let’s
assess the quality of the "medicine" being applied to fight it:
anti-corruption mechanisms
•The Global Integrity Framework measures:
the existence (in law)
the effectiveness (in practice)
and citizen access to key anti-corruption mechanisms
•Type of data used: Fact-based, supported by objective
evidence (laws, official policy documents, newspaper
articles, administrative data, independent reports, academic
sources, etc.)
Framework to measure integrity
(existence, effectiveness and citizen access to anti-corruption mechanisms)
1. Civil society, public information and media
 CSOs
 media
 public access to information
2. Elections
 voting & citizen participation
 integrity of elections
 regulations around political financing
3. Government accountability
 executive accountability
 legislative accountability
 judicial accountability
 budget process
Framework to measure integrity
(existence, effectiveness and citizen access to anti-corruption mechanisms)
4. Administration and civil service
civil service regulations
whistle-blowing measures
procurement
privatization
5. Oversight and regulation
national ombudsman
supreme audit institution
taxes & customs
state-owned enterprises
business licensing and regulation
6. Anti-corruption and rule of law
anti-corruption law
anti-corruption agency
rule of law
Example: To assess whistle-blower measures (Administration
& Civil Service):
1. In law, is there an internal mechanism (i.e. phone hotline,
e-mail address, local office) through which civil servants
can report corruption?
2. In practice, is this internal mechanism effective? (outcome)
•In practice, the internal reporting mechanism has a
professional, full-time staff? (input)
•In practice, the internal reporting mechanism receives
regular funding? (input)
•In practice, the internal reporting mechanism acts on
complaints within a reasonable time period? (process)
•In practice, when necessary, the internal reporting
mechanism initiates investigations? (output)
Designing integrity indicators: Afghanistan
Indicator 7: State-public interface
•Site observation to measure the extent to which
fees for the delivery of public services (e.g. heath,
driver’s license), and a functioning telephone number
where complaints can be lodged, are posted in
publicly visible places, at the site where civil servants
interact directly with the public
• What sites to sample? All ministries that have a
direct service delivery function  Addresses of
service delivery locations  7 sites randomly
selected for each ministry
Designing integrity indicators: Afghanistan
Observation protocol:
1. Printed fee schedule?
2. Method to lodge complaints? (phone number to
call, designated responsible person)
3. Clearly posted?
4. Complaints mechanism is functional? (number
actively in service?)
Scores assigned from 0 – 10, based on the above
criteria
What do you think…?
• Perceptions are better indicators of progress than facts
• Facts are better indicators of progress than perceptions
• Both perceptions and fact-based indicators are useful
• Neither is helpful, it is not possible to measure corruption
How can perception data
help or hinder
corruption monitoring?
Drawbacks of perception data
•
Seen as biased, leading some to minimize its use, or
rule it out entirely
•
Politically sensitive, especially in polarized political
climates, where the media is influential
•
Lag effect: perceptions often lag behind reforms
But perception data matters!
•
High perceptions of corruption (even if not justified) are
correlated with low perceptions of state legitimacy
•
High perceptions can fuel corrupt practices by:
• encouraging people to believe they must pay bribes
• reducing the likelihood of citizens reporting
• leading those with power to believe that there is
nothing wrong with accepting bribes.
•
Perceptions and opinion reveal important information
about how corruption works in a specific context
Afghan Civil Servant Corruption Survey
A) Perceptions of corruption in the civil service:
• Perceptions of the extent of corruption
• Perceptions regarding whether exposing acts of corruption
would hurt the civil servant’s career.
If perceptions of corruption are high:
 lowers the barriers to corruption (such as guilt, fear of
punishment, reputational harms)
 increases corrupt practices
Afghan Civil Servant Corruption Survey
B) Conceptions of corruption in the civil service:
• Do they align with definition of corruption in AC reforms?
(e.g. can civil servants recognize acts of corruption from a
given list?)
• Personal attitudes and beliefs may dominate legal
definitions of corruption...
If discrepancy between civil servant conceptions of
corruption and the law:
 promotes transgressions and will undermine reform
efforts
Afghan Civil Servant Corruption Survey
C) Tolerance of corruption in the civil service:
• Extent to which certain corrupt practices are
considered acceptable within the civil servant’s
values system or justified as a display of hospitality
or gratitude for efforts of the civil servants.
If tolerance of corruption is high:
 Raises the probability that a civil servant will
participate in corrupt acts
 Reduces the probability that corrupt acts will be
exposed
Afghan public servant survey:
Tolerance of corruption in the civil service
Example: Please indicate how much do you agree
with the following statements:
• I would feel comfortable helping my family member get a job
in my govt office, provided they were qualified.
• …even if they were not as qualified as another candidate.
• I would feel obligated to use my influence as a civil servant
to help my friend / relative with a problem if I could.
• Corruption by low-level employees is more acceptable than
corruption by high-level officials.
“Strong and accountable
institutions”
Calculations
ARAB DEMOCRACY INDEX
Indicator 12: ‘Government accountability’
No. of proposed votes of + 250 points for each
no confidence in the
vote of no confidence
government officials
no. of investigations into + 50 points for each
government
investigation
no. of fact-finding
committees formed
+ 50 points for each
fact-finding committee
no. of cases in which
government officials
were questioned
+ 1 point for each
question put to an
official
Data sources
1) Parliament
(including
Secretariat)
2) Reports by
CSOs
3) Media
“Strong and accountable institutions” (Arab Democracy Index)”
Some indicators from the opinion poll
Indicator 16:
The public’s perceptions of the use of wasta in employment in the
public sector (governmental institutions, institutions financed from
the state budget such as the parliament, the president’s office and
local government authorities, etc.)
Indicator 20:
The public’s belief that the executive authority is introducing
political reforms or that there is a genuine interest on its part to do
so