countering corruption in southeast europe: monitoring, results, and csos role
TRANSCRIPT
Countering Corruption in Southeast Europe:
Monitoring, Results, and CSOs RoleInternational Conference
Effective combat high level corruption: matter of person or a system?
Mr. Ruslan StefanovCenter for the Study of Democracy, Bulgaria
SELDI Coordinator
March 22, 2016Skopje
Contents
• SELDI and the Regional Anticorruption Report• Corruption Monitoring System: Some
Highlights • Corruption and Anti-corruption Dynamics
2002 – 2014: Main Findings• Anti-corruption Diagnostics in SEE
• Key Recommendations
Regional anti-corruption report
Corruption pressure and involvement in corruption (2014)
Turkey
Croatia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Kosovo
Macedonia
Serbia
Bulgaria
Montenegro
Albania
8.8
9.2
15.9
20.4
21.5
27.4
29.3
31.6
38.9
13.3
9.8
22.9
23.4
25.6
29.9
39.4
34.3
45.3
(% of the population 18+ who have been asked to give and have given a bribe (money, favour, gift) in the last year)
Pressure (have been asked for a bribe) Involvement (have given a bribe)
Source: SELDI/CSD Corruption Monitoring System, 2014
Resilience to corruption pressure
Source: SELDI/CSD Corruption Monitoring System, 2014, base: respondents who experienced corruption pressure
Turkey
BiH
Croatia
Bulgaria
Serbia
Montenegro
Kosovo
Macedonia
Albania
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
44%
56%
58%
60%
74%
75%
72%
74%
82%
54%
41%
40%
40%
25%
22%
21%
21%
15%
(among those pressured into bribing)
Bribed because pressured No answerDid not bribe, despite pressure
Feasibility of policy responses to corruption (%)
Albania
Macedonia
Bulgaria
Serbia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Kosovo
Montenegro
Croatia
Turkey
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
73%
61%
60%
58%
50%
49%
49%
45%
33%
26%
34%
39%
35%
37%
46%
47%
53%
47%
1%
5%
0%7%
13%
5%
4%
2%
20%
(% of the population 18+)
Corruption can not be substentially reducedCorruption can be substentially reduced or eradicatedDon't know/No asnwer
Source: SELDI Corruption Monitoring System, 2014
Civil society in anticorruption
• CSOs are among the most important stakeholders in anticorruption.
• However, there is a lack of effectively established formal mechanisms for engaging civil society on the part of the national governments. Lack of administrative capacity and clear vision and understanding of the potential of CSOs.
• The risk of the capturing of CSOs by special interests and corruption stems from:– absence of mandatory procedures for transparency in the sector;– ineffective control of compliance with financial regulations; – lack of auditing culture;– low level of self-regulation.
Estimates of the proliferation of corruption among the following groups
Albania
BiH
Bulgaria
Macedonia
Croatia
Kosovo
Serbia
Montenegro
Turkey
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
MPs
Judges
Businessmen
NGO repre-sentatives
Source: SELDI Corruption Monitoring System, 2014
Key recommendations
• Sentencing of corrupt politicians from the top political echelon provides a strong example for everyone and have proven very effective in strengthening anti-corruption measures in Croatia and Slovenia.
Deliver effective prosecution of high-level
corruption
• The mechanism should be implemented through national and/or regional civil society network(s), and should be independent of direct national government funding. It should serve as a vehicle for opening up administrative data collection and public access to information.
Adopt an independent corruption and anti-
corruption monitoring mechanism
• Energy, public procurement, corporate governance of state owned enterprises, large-scale investment projects.
Anti-corruption efforts should be focused on
critical sectors
