basics of measuring corruption
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Measuring corruption: ‘The basics’
By Marie LabergeUNDP Oslo Governance Centre
What challenges are involved in measuring corruption?
What challenges matter the most in the Tajik context?
Choosing appropriate assessment methods can go a long way towards mitigating these challenges.
Why measure corruption risks?
Corruption is usually performed ’in the dark’, ’in the shadows’, where it rarely can be observed directly
Therefore easier to focus on potential ’risk areas’ and collect evidence about vulnerability to corruption (’red flag indicators’)
In other words, it’s easier to measure the ’opposite’ of corruption, i.e. the effectiveness of anti-corruption mechanisms (and more useful to monitor the effectiveness of the ’remedy’ than to monitor the seriousness of the ’cancer’)
Complementarity of indicatorsInput indicators / ‘in law’
indicatorsImpact indicators/ ‘in practice’
indicatorsMeasures the existence and quality of formal rules found in documents, laws, regulations and the constitution
Measures what has been delivered to citizens
Answers the question: “What has been done?”
Answers the question: “Are citizens benefiting from specific institutions and policies?”
Says nothing about actual progress Measures actual improved governance
Example: In law, there is an anti-corruption agency mandated with the fight against corruption and protected from political interference.
Example: In practice, the public feels informed about the activities and services offered by the anti-corruption agency, and knows how to access these services.
Exercise: Combining input (’in law’) indicators with impact (’in practice’) indicators to assess integrity in the civil service
Two types of ‘tools’ for diagnosing and measuring corruption risks
1) Internal tools
Purpose: To identify institutional factors that enable corruption: leadership, institutional culture & incentives, internal procedures, regulations, enforcement mechanisms, transparency of operations
Sources of info: Water utility staff, experts, review of internal documents (procedural manuals, budgets, procurement documents)
Example: ’Vulnerability assessment’
2. External tools
Purpose: To validate the corruption risks identified by ’experts’ (by adding a ’water user perspective’)
Sources of info: water consumers, water utility, contractors, civil society, business community
Examples: Corruption surveys, participatory corruption apparaisals
Two types of ‘tools’ for diagnosing and measuring corruption risks
Research methods (for collecting information)
Qualitative approaches (document review, interviews, focus groups, observation) are better at describing and explaining situations
Quantitative approaches (questionnaires) are better at measuring
Used together, they provide a richer understanding of a situation
What kind of data collection methods can you think of?What are their strengths and weaknesses?
1. Surveys
2. Interviews
3. Focus groups
4. Observation
5. Field tests
6. Analysis of documents
Research methods (for collecting information)
Positive NegativeEfficient way of collecting info from a large area / population
Unavailability of sampling frames
Produces quantitative data (factual or opinion data), which is easily used by policymakers
High cost of administering a survey, especially face to face
Can identify trends through disaggregation
Questionnaire can hinder detailed exploration of a topic (‘response categories’ created by researcher)
Can make inferences about a population (random sampling)Cost of surveys brought down if attached to a planned census
1. Surveys
Positive NegativeQualitative, useful for preliminary and exploratory
More time consuming (data collection, transcription, analysis)
Helpful in explaining complex experiences, perceptions, identifying incentives, causes and effects
Small sample sizes can’t be generalized to entire population (not representative)
Reduces researcher bias, gives respondents more control over what to discuss, for how long
Interviewers must be well-trained
Often uncovers new issues Ideally best if interviews area carried out by the same person
2. Interviews
Positive NegativeQuick way of getting in-depth information from a group
Focus groups may be affected by intimidation and domination by elites
Can get a range of views on an issue
Potential of bias in sampling of groups
Cost and time-effective (no need for extensive preparation or training)
Need clear agenda and skilled facilitator
3. Focus groups
Positive NegativeObserving people or infrastructure in context gives greater insight / accuracy
Presence of researcher may cause people to act or respond differently
Cheap to carry out Bias in observation from researcher’s interpretation
Requires little training for analysis
Amount of time varies
4. Observation
Positive NegativeInnovative way of determining effectiveness of certain governance processes or reforms from a user perspective (e.g. use of trained teams compare ability to access information with groups of local volunteers)
Small sample sizes can’t be generalized to entire population (not representative)
Shows how different backgrounds and levels of know-how affect ability to access certain services
Timing of data collection varies
Cost effective
5. Field tests
Positive Negative
Necessary at early phase of research to determine available data sources, understand context and issues
Disaggregating administrative data is difficult
Event-based data: newspaper articles, individual records (e.g. testimonies collected by NGOs), information from independent researchers
Event-based data not generalisable, problems of under-reporting
Wide range of sources: academic, administrative, NGO, newspaperMany countries have high quality administrative data (e.g. through tax collection, registration for social security, census)
Bias of the media needs to be taken into account
6. Analysis of documents
Triangulation, a means to ‘verify’ information
The same topic is discussed with different groups of peopleAn issue is analyzed by the same group of people, but using
different methodsThe same group analyzes the issue at different points in timeResults from the analysis carried out by one group are shared
for discussion with another groupResults of the study are shared with the community at the end
to ’validate’ the findings