mongolia corruption benchmarking survey viii - december 2009...10 mongolia corruption benchmarking...

Mongolia Corruption Benchmarking SurveyMongolia Corruption

Benchmarking Survey

2 Mongolia Corruption Benchmarking Survey

This survey was made possible through support provided by the U.S. Depart-ment of Agriculture, through a grant managed by the U.S. Agency for Interna-tional Development (Agreement # G-438-2000/556-00-A). The opinions ex-pressed herein do not re ect the views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture or the U.S. Agency for International Development.

3Mongolia Corruption Benchmarking Survey

Contents

Introduction 4

Survey Methodology 5

1. Key Findings 7

2. Major Trends 8

3. Con dence in Institutions 16

4. Household Incidence of Corruption 23


In 1996 the Mongolian Parliament passed the rst anti-corruption law in the country’s history. The implementation and impact of this law did not meet the needs of a society that was undergoing serious social transformation. The transition to both a new political and economic system created an imperative for anti-corruption measures.

Following public pressure, Parliament rati ed the United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) in late 2005. Due to growing criticism toward implementation of anti-corruption measures, Parliament then adopted the new Anti-Corruption Law in July 2006, which came into effect on November 1, 2006. The Law contains elements that address the major provisions in the UNCAC, notably investigation and intelligence gathering, public education and awareness, asset and income disclosure, and thus contributes to increased compliance with the Convention.

To examine public attitudes towards corruption, The Asia Foundation, in part-nership with the Sant Maral Foundation, launched the rst Corruption Bench-mark Survey (CBS) in March 2006. From March 2006 until September 2009 eight polls were conducted on a national level. The survey has become an important tool to observe the impact of various legal, government and civic initiatives to ght corruption in Mongolia. It provides observation on both at-titudes of the population toward institutions and on the impact of corruption in day-to-day life of Mongolian households.

INTRODUCTION


From September 11-21, 2009 the Sant Maral Foundation completed data col-lection for the eighth semi-annual corruption benchmarking survey. More than 600 adult participants (above the age of 18) were surveyed in Ulaan Baatar, and in Zavkhan, Khentii, Dundgobi and Arkhangai aimags (provinces). The following table shows the selection of aimag for each region in each survey.

Survey# Date City Western

Region Khangai Region Central Region

Eastern Region

1 March 2006 Ulaanbaatar Hovd Khovsgol Umnugovi Dornod

2 September 2006

Ulaanbaatar Uvs Arhangai Selenge Khentii

3 March 2007 Ulaanbaatar Uvs Uvurkhangai Selenge Sukhbaatar4 September

2007Ulaanbaatar Uvs Arhangai Umnugovi Sukhbaatar

5 March 2008 Ulaanbaatar Hovd Uvurkhangai Tov Dornod6 September

2008Ulaanbaatar Zavkhan Bulgan Dornogovi Khentii

7 March 2009 Ulaanbaatar Zavkhan Khovsgol Tov Sukhbaatar8 September

2009Ulaanbaatar Zavkhan Arhangai Dundgovi Khentii

The sample size of this survey is similar to the second through sixth surveys conducted since September 2006. These surveys are conducted in the spring and autumn of each year. The rst and seventh surveys had a slightly larger sample size of 1000 respondents to create a baseline in the rst survey and then review it in the seventh survey. As general trend analysis in the 2nd to 6th and 8th surveys did not require sub-sampling, the size of the sample was reduced to 600. This reduction did not signi cantly affect sampling error, which was around +/- 3% during each survey. All surveys used the same questionnaire as the original baseline survey.

SURVEY METHOLOGY


The survey is designed to measure both changes in public attitudes and coun-try-speci c indicators that are comparable across countries. The institutional corruption assessment used in this survey is designed to rank institutions by attitudinal means. In this way it is opposite to the CPI of Transparency Inter-national, which creates an index-oriented measurement. As the CBS measure-ment is based on public attitude, it is strictly correlated to media reporting and personal experience that impact perception.

Face-to-face interview was the only method used to collect data in the survey. The target population was the adult population, ages 18 and above, and settled residents (not nomads). Multi-stage random sampling with probability sample in an area cluster design was implemented. Probability sample means that the sample was broken down into several levels. At the rst level of randomization, four provinces were selected randomly in each of Mongolia’s four regions, in addition to capital city residents. After selecting the city and aimags, a num-ber of streets were selected for each district/soum and khoroo/bag. Finally, at the street level a random route methodology was used to interview individual households. The households were selected by skipping four households, and then calling on the fth house. Fieldwork usually began on Fridays, in order to collect the bulk of sampling during the weekend when the most members of a household are present. Once the interviewer entered the household, they selected respondents usually based on head of household status. If after this rst stage of sample collection a certain demographic/social group was under represented, interviewers were instructed to give more priority of selection of respondent to that group.


The key ndings present both the results from the eighth corruption bench-marking study and trends over the past four years. These will be further de-scribed in sections two and three of this survey report:

• Corruption has decreased in ranking in the top problems facing Mongolia.

• However, a signi cant majority of people thinks that corruption is a “common practice in Mongolia”.

• On average, one in every ve Mongolian households pays a bribe within a three-month timeframe.

• Since 2007 there has been a dramatic increase in the total annual amount of bribes being paid by Mongolian households. The burden on family budget is increasing accordingly.

• The total cost of corruption to the country over the past four years was approximately $337 Million US Dollars.

• Starting from 2007 there has been a steady increase of respondents that will not pay a bribe. Acceptance of corruption is also decreasing.

• Despite little change in evaluation of the Independent Authority Against Corruption (IAAC), respondents indicate there is a signi cant drop of public con dence in this organization.

• The IAAC is continuing to lead as the top organization to ght corruption, followed by the government.

• Land authority is perceived as the most corrupt institution over four years of observation.

• Teachers, doctors and administrators are the actual most frequent bribe recipients. Doctors moved into the lead in 2009 as being the most corrupt.

1 KEY FINDINGS


After conducting eight surveys over four years, it is now possible to examine some of the major trends in the data. During this period there has been a change of Prime Ministers from M. Enkhbold to S. Bayar, the 2008 Parliamentary elections and formation of a Coalition government, and the 2009 Presidential election and swearing-in of newly elected President Elbegdorj. In addition, the nancial crisis has also impacted the country’s economic development. In July 2009, Parliament passed an Amnesty Law, giving amnesty to rst-time offend-ers and those convicted before they turned 18, women with young children, pregnant women, those who had lost more than 70 percent of their labor capac-ity, and women older than 55.

This section will provide a look at some of the major trends over this time pe-riod, including public opinion and perceptions about corruption, as well as ac-tual incidence of corruption at the household level and its cost to the country.

2.1 Main challenges facing Mongolia

Respondents were given a list of problems facing Mongolia, and were asked to select what they believe are the two most important problems. Unemployment, poverty, in ation, and corruption were the most commonly listed problems. Corruption, however, decreased from a high of 28.8 percent in the rst survey in March 2006, to a low of 8.5 percent in March 2009, before increasing back to 14.3 percent in the most recent survey in September 2009.

2 MAJOR TRENDS


In your opinion what is the most important social, economic or political problem of the country today?

(Multiple choice, select 2)

2.2 Corruption is a common practice in Mongolia

The percentage of respondents who agree that corruption is a common practice in Mongolia has decreased ten percent from March 2006 (79.1%) to September 2009 (69.1%).

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement; “Corruption is a common practice in our country.”

“Agree” Responses


2.3 Perceived corrupt agencies

The correctness of perception is very dependent on how far the available in-formation on a level of corruption in a particular institution is reliable. Media in this aspect is considered by general public as one of the least corrupt area. Its ranking was 21 in March 2009 and 22 in September 2009 from the list of 25 subjects. The number one ranked agency in terms of corruption is the Land Utilization of ce and this remains unchanged since the start of the survey in 2006.

One of the positive signs is movement downward of the mining area from second position in the March 2009 survey to fth in the September survey in corruption ranking. Signing the Investment Agreement on Oyu Tolgoi was accompanied by very heated debates linked to public con dence to decision makers.

The other positive development is the improving public attitude related to cor-ruption and the customs service. On the negative side, however is the steady increase of the judiciary to the top of the corruption list replacing mining and customs.

The land utilization of ce has been perceived as the most corrupt agency in all eight corruption benchmarking surveys. Customs agency and the mining sector were perceived as the second and third most corrupt agencies during the rst three surveys, and switched positions during the next three surveys. In the most recent survey, in September 2009, judges and police were perceived as the 2nd and 3rd most corrupt agencies.

To what extent do you perceive the following sectors in this country to be affected by corruption?

1 rank 2 rank 3 rank 4 rank 5 rankMar 06 Land authority Customs Mining Judges PoliceSep 06 Land authority Customs Mining Judges Police

Mar 07 Land authority Customs Mining Judges Registry and permit service

Sep 07 Land authority Mining Customs Registry and permit service Judges

Mar 08 Land authority Mining Customs Registry and permit service Judges

Sep 08 Land authority Mining Customs Judges ProsecutorsMar 09 Land authority Mining Judges Customs ProsecutorsSep 09 Land authority Judges Police Prosecutors Mining


2.4 Incidence of Corruption

Over the four-year period, the proportion of households who have paid a bribe during the prior three months of the survey decreased from 26.2 percent in March 2006 to 19.8 percent in September 2009. The chart below shows that the trend is for more households to pay bribes in the September cycle of the survey than in the March cycle.

In the past three months, have you or anyone in your household paid a bribe in any form?

2.5 Household expenditures on corruption

The average amount of bribes paid by households signi cantly increased from an average of MNT 181,000 in March 2006 to MNT 308,000 in September 2009. Using the average bribe amount, frequency of bribes, and number of households in Mongolia, the survey has calculated the total amount spent on bribes during this period. The total cost of corruption to the country over this four year time period is MNT 478.7 billion (approximately $337 million USD in current exchange rates).


What was the approximate amount of money paid overall by you in the past three months?

(Note: This question was only asked to respondents who had paid bribes in the previous three months.)

Average amount of bribe paid by a household in last 3

months(In 1000 MNT)

Total amount paid by households in

last 3 months(In 1000 MNT)

Approximate amount of annual

bribes(In billion MNT)

Mar 06 181 30018108.2Sep 06 136 24104

Mar 07 102 1502382.7Sep 07 187 26344

Mar 08 136 17703119.4Sep 08 298 42025

Mar 09 397 42215168.4Sep 09 308 42384

Average 212 119

2.6 Actual bribe recipient agencies

The highest ve actual bribe recipient agencies – doctors, teachers, clerks, po-licemen, and customs of cers – remained the same throughout the surveys. In the past year, doctors were the highest actual bribe recipients in both March 2009 (42.8%) and September 2009 (42.7%).


To whom have you paid bribes in the past three months? (Check all that apply)

(Note: This question was only asked to respondents who had paid bribes in the previous three months.)

2.7 Willingness to report corruption

When confronted with a bribe situation, the percentage of those willing to re-port to law enforcement decreased from 13.4 percent in March 2006 to 9.1 percent in September 2009. This nding highlights the difference caused by different aimags used in each round. The reporting of corruption seems to have fallen from 13.4 percent in March 2006 to 9.1 percent in September 2009. However, there was an increasing trend in willingness to report until March 2009.


If you faced a situation in which you are directly asked for a bribe from a public or private of cial, what could be your possible action?

2.8 Public intolerance

The percent of respondents who are not willing to pay a bribe has increased from a low of 34.1 percent in March 2007 to 48.7 percent in September 2009. Meanwhile, respondents who will pay bribes decreased signi cantly from 45.7 percent in March 2007 to 28.1 percent in September 2009.


If you are in a situation and are directly asked for a bribe from a public or private of cial, what would you do?

Summary

The percent of respondents who think that corruption is common practice trended downward over the four-year timeframe, decreasing from 79.1 percent in the rst survey in March 2006 to 69.1 percent in the most recent survey of September 2009. Overall incidence of corruption has trended downwards dur-ing this period, reaching an all time low of 15 percent in March 2009, before increasing back to 20 percent in September 2009. However, bribe payment amounts have increased signi cantly over the past four years, peaking at an average bribe size of 397,000 MNT in March 2009. According to four years of data, a total of approximately USD 337 million has been spent on bribes. The land authority agency was perceived as the most corrupt agency in all eight surveys. Customs, mining, judges, and police were also commonly perceived top 5 agencies. However, doctors, teachers, clerks, policemen, and customs of cers were the most frequent actual bribe recipients.


Government and public institutions can play an important role in deterrence, prevention and public awareness of anti-corruption efforts. This section of the survey report focuses on the results from the eighth benchmarking survey, and where appropriate, compares the ndings to the previous survey conducted in March 2009.

Respondents were asked what their con dence was in government and public institutions to lead the ght against corruption. Respondents were asked to select up to two organizations that they believed should be leading the ght against corruption.

Con dence for the Independent Authority Against Corruption (IAAC) contin-ued to remain in the top spot with 48.1% of the respondents indicating they be-lieved the IAAC should lead efforts to combat corruption. This is a slight drop from the March survey of 54.1%. There was not much change seen between con dence in the government (36.1%) leading corruption efforts in September from the previous poll (35.5%) conducted in March. The public has a very low level of con dence in the Parliament (7.8%) and NGOs (8.4%) of their efforts to lead corruption reform measures.

Which organizations should lead in the ght against corruption? (Multiple choice, select 2)

3 CONFIDENCE IN INSTITUTIONS


Newly elected President Elbegdorj campaigned on a platform to combat cor-ruption. Survey respondents were asked to express the level of in uence that his campaign platform had on the election results. The in uence of the President’s pre-election campaign was high with two-thirds of the respondents (66.3%) indicating it somewhat or strongly in uenced the election result.

In President Elbegdorj pre-election campaign the corruption related issues took signi cant part. How much in uence did it take on the

elections’ outcome?

(Note: This question was asked for the rst time in the September 2009 survey.)

Nearly half of the respondents (50.4%) say they have con dence in President Elbegdorj ful lling his campaign promises whereas nearly one third (32.5%) do not have con dence that he will be able to play a pivotal role on corruption issues.

How much con dence do you have that Mr. Elbegdorj can ful ll his Election promises on corruption issues?

(Note: This question was asked for the rst time in the September 2009 survey.)


3.2 The Government

Following the 2008 Parliamentary Election, the two major parties in Mongolia formed a grand coalition government led by Prime Minister S. Bayar. Respon-dents were asked to what extent they thought the Prime Minister’s of ce was affected by corruption. More than one-third (35.2%) of citizens responded that they perceived the Prime Minister’s of ce was moderately or affected very little by corruption. Meanwhile, 20.8 percent felt the PM’s of ce was signi -cantly or extremely affected, and almost half (44.0%) did not know.

To what extent is the Prime Minister’s of ce affected by corruption?

Respondents were asked about their con dence in the government to ght cor-ruption. Nearly half the respondents (47.8%) were rather or very con dent in the government’s ability, whereas roughly one-third of the respondents (34.4%) were not as con dent. These responses compared with the March 2009 survey show that there was very little change in attitude with regard to con dence in the government and its actions to ght corruption.

How con dent are you about the Government’s ability to ght corruption?


3.3 Parliament

Serving Members of Parliament are granted immunity when in of ce. Citizens were asked about their perception of the legislature being affected by corrup-tion. One third of the respondents (33.8%) thought that corruption affected the Parliament while only 15.6 percent believed that the Parliament was in- uenced by little or no corruption. The results of the perception in the March 2009 survey show that there is no signi cant change in citizen’s view of the parliament.

To what extent is Parliament affected by corruption?

3.4 Judiciary

The survey asked respondents of their perceptions on the level of corruption among advocates, prosecutors and judges. More than half of respondents feel that both Judges (56.5%) and Prosecutors (51.3%) are either signi cantly or extremely affected by corrupt, and almost half (47.2%) feel the same way about lawyers.


To what extent is the Judiciary affected by corruption?

3.5 Independent Authority Against Corruption (IAAC)

Con dence in the Independent Authority Against Corruption dipped signi -cantly (more than seven percentage points) between March and September. This is the lowest level of the public’s con dence since the Authority was es-tablished in 2007. In March 2009, 45 percent of the respondents were con dent the IAAC was being effective in ghting corruption vs. 55 percent that were not con dent. In September 2009, just over one-third (36.4%) of the respon-dents were con dent as opposed to 63.6 percent that were not con dent. This shows respondent’s con dence falling between March and September by 8.6 percent of respondents who said they were con dent or very con dent.

How con dent are you in the ability of the IAAC in ghting corruption?


The establishment of The Independent Authority Against Corruption created a high level of expectation from the public for the Authority to deter, prevent and prosecute corruption related offences. Investigations, by necessity, remain con dential until they are referred for prosecution. Public outreach activities are conducted regularly to convey messages to the public about ghting cor-ruption. Respondents were asked to provide their opinion on how they would evaluate the IAAC as doing over the past six months. There was a drop by six percent in respondents who evaluated the IAAC as either very good or good, indicating the need for the IAAC to intensify its activities. Although previous surveys showed that con dence in the Authority’s activities was already low, the ndings from this survey show a further decline in the public’s attitude.

During the period between March and September, the Parliament passed the Amnesty Law that amnestied individuals with sentences of abuse of power. In September 2009 evaluation of the IAAC shows a decline in positive evaluation comparing to March 2009.

How do you evaluate the activity of the Independent Authority Against Corruption?

Summary

Overall respondents’ con dence in government institutions to lead the ght against corruption remained strong. In terms of the perception of the Presi-dent’s ability to play a key role on corruption issues only one-third (32.5%) of


the respondents did not have con dence he could make a big difference. Re-spondents also concluded that the government, including the Prime Minister’s of ce, showed similar levels with about one-third (34.4%) of respondents not having con dence in the government. Adversely, in response to the question of which organization should lead the ght against corruption; the Parliament was eight out of the eight agencies with only 7.8 percent of respondents selecting the Parliament. One third of the respondents (33.8%) stated that their percep-tion was that the Parliament was affected by corruption. Similarly, when asked to what extent the Judiciary was affected by corruption, more than half of re-spondents (56.5%) perceived judges to be affected by corruption. While the public perception and con dence in the IAAC dipped in September (48.1%) by comparison to March (54.1%), it continued to remain in the top position to lead the ght against corruption.


As noted above, the survey examines actual incidence of corruption, by mea-suring individual household experience with bribes. This section will take a more in-depth examination of the current situation of corruption at the house-hold level, and compares it with the situation six months ago in March 2009.

4.1 Bribe giving

The survey measured actual incidence of corruption in Mongolia, asking if a respondent’s household had given a bribe within the past three months. Twenty percent (20%) of respondents stated that they or someone else in their house-hold has paid a bribe in the past three months. This represents a rise of ve per-cent since March 2009, when 15 percent of respondents stated their household had paid a bribe.

In the past three months have you or anyone of your household paid a bribe in any form?“Yes” Responses

To learn more about the backgrounds of the households paying bribes, please see the following three charts, which further shows household corruption inci-dence by area, age, and income level.

4 HOUSEHOLD INCIDENCE OF CORRUPTION


According to the survey, incidence of corruption was slightly higher in Ulaan-baatar than in the countryside, with 22.8 percent of Ulaanbaatar respondents having paid a bribe, compared to 17.7 percent outside of Ulaanbaatar.

In the past three months have you or anyone of your household paid a bribe in any form?

When examined by age group, young respondents, ages 18-29, have paid bribes (25%) more than middle aged (21.1%), and older respondents (12.8%).


Incidence of household corruption is very similar between income levels of respondents, with a slight increase from poorer households (18.2%) to more wealthy households (21.2%).



4.2 Bribe size

The survey sought to measure the amount of bribes that households pay. The average bribe amount paid by households decreased in September 2009 to MNT 308,000 from a high of MNT 397,000 in March 2009.

What was the approximate amount of money you paid overall in the past three months?(in thousands MNT)


4.3 Bribe frequency

Of respondents who had paid a bribe during the past three months, the per-cent of people who had paid one bribe decreased from March 2009 (56.6%) to September 2009 (47.9%). Respondents who had paid bribes two or three times both very slightly increased from March 2009. Meanwhile the percent of respondents who had paid a bribe four times or more in the past three months increased from 4.6 percent in March 2009 to 12.6 percent in September 2009.

If you have paid a bribe in that period of time, was it once, two, three or more than 4 times?

4.4 Reasons for giving a bribe

Of respondents who had paid a bribe in the past three months, the percent that were directly solicited decreased from March 2009 (28.1%) to September 2009 (19.5%). Respondents that offered a bribe to avoid a problem with the authorities also decreased from 30.1 percent in March 2009 to 23.7 percent in September 2009. However, the percent of respondents that offered a bribe to receive a service that they are entitled to increased from 70.6 percent in March 2009 to 73.7 percent in September 2009.


Which of the following applies to the bribe(s) that you paid in the past three months? (Check all that apply)

4.5 Bribe impact

Of respondents who had paid a bribe in the past three months, the percentage of households whose family budget was “seriously” damaged decreased from March 2009 (42.5%) to September 2009 (29.4%).

How much does the total amount of bribes paid affect your family budget?“Seriously” Responses


When examining bribe impact according to geography, the burden of paying bribes was more seriously felt in the Aimags (38.6%) compared to in Ulaan-baatar (22.8%).

4.6 Bribe recipients

Respondents were asked which sectors they perceived as being affected by corruption. The land authority was perceived as being the most corrupt agency in September 2009, followed by judges, police, prosecutors, and the mining sector.


To what extent do you perceive the following sectors in this country to be affected by corruption?

(Measured on a scale from 1 – not at all corrupt to 5 – very much corrupt, the higher mean – the more corrupt institution or area)

4.163.913.87

3.793.783.763.733.71

3.633.533.513.47

3.393.35

3.23.19

3.092.862.84

2.662.65

2.542.34

2.232.22

2.03

Land ut ilizat io n J ud g es

P o lic e P ro s ec uto rs

M ining s ec to r Cus to m s

P o lit ic al p art ies A d v o c ates /Lawy ers

Health s y s tem Reg is try and p erm it s erv ic e

P arliam ent / leg is lature C ity /A y m ak ad m inis trat io n

E d uc at io n Internat io nal a id

P M o f f ic e Tax o f f ic e

B us ines s / p riv ate s ec to r P res id ent

B ank, f inanc ial s ec to r S o c ial S ec urity / Ins uranc e A g enc y

A nt i-Co rrup t io n A g enc yM ed ia NG O s

Utilit ies s erv ic e M ilitary

Relig io us b o d ies

R an kin g areas C o rru p tio n leve l b y Gen era l p u b lic

However, when respondents who had paid bribes during the previous three months were asked whom they had paid a bribe to, the actual bribe recipi-ents were different than perceived corrupt agencies. Doctors, teachers, clerks, and policemen were the most frequent actual bribe recipients. Bribe payments made to doctors and clerks remained the same over the past six months. Bribe payments made to teachers increased from 17.1 percent in March 2009 to 23.1 percent in September 2009. Bribes to policemen also increased from 17.8 per-cent to 20.5 percent, and to customs of cials from 5.9 percent to 10.3 percent.


Finally payments to judges increased from 3.3 percent in March 2009 to 6.8 percent in September 2009.

To whom have you paid bribes in the past three months? (Check all that apply)

When compared to rural respondents, UB respondents gave more bribes to teachers, clerks, and lawyers. Countryside respondents meanwhile gave more bribes to doctors, policemen, judges, prosecutors, tax of cers, customs of -cers, and the press.

When compared to other age groups, younger respondents gave the most bribes to teachers, tax of cers, and the press. Middle-aged respondents gave the high-est frequency of bribes to doctors, judges, lawyers, prosecutors, and customs


of cers. Finally older respondents paid more bribes than any age group to clerks and policemen.

If viewed by income level, household with low incomes gave the highest number of bribes to teachers. Middle-income households gave more bribes to policemen, judges, prosecutors, and the press than the other income levels. Fi-nally, high-income households had the highest frequency of bribes to doctors, clerks, lawyers, tax of cers, and customs of cers.


Summary

Incidence of household corruption increased slightly since the last survey in March 2009. Bribe incidence was slightly higher in Ulaanbaatar than in the countryside. Meanwhile, the average size of bribes given decreased by almost 90,000 MNT to 308,000 MNT. Correspondingly, the impact of bribes on fam-ily budgets decreased also. While the percent of respondents who paid one bribe in the previous three months decreased, the percent of people who paid multiple bribes increased. Solicited bribes and bribes paid to avoid a prob-lem decreased during this survey period. However, bribe payments for entitled services increased. Bribe payments made to teachers, policemen, customs of- cials, and judges increased since March 2009.

mongolia corruption benchmarking survey viii - december 2009...10 mongolia corruption benchmarking...

Documents