survey 2012 engl
DESCRIPTION
ÂTRANSCRIPT
Sociological Study Corruption in Republic of Moldova:
Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences
of Households and Business People
This study was conducted by Transparency International–Moldova and was made possible by the generous
support of the American people through the United States Department of State. The content of this study is
the responsibility of TI-Moldova, and does not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the United
States Department of State.
Chisinau, 2012
Contents
I. Objective and tasks of the sociological study .................................................................................................................... 4
Methodological aspects......................................................................................................................................................... 4
II. General information about the respondents.................................................................................................................... 6
Geographical distribution of the respondents ....................................................................................................................... 6
Residence .............................................................................................................................................................................. 8
Age of Respondents .............................................................................................................................................................. 8
Education .............................................................................................................................................................................. 8
Occupational group ............................................................................................................................................................... 9
Income .................................................................................................................................................................................. 9
III. Perception of corruption ................................................................................................................................................ 10
Problems that the respondents face ..................................................................................................................................... 10
Awareness of threat of corruption ....................................................................................................................................... 12
Evolution of corruption ....................................................................................................................................................... 12
Causes of the spread of corruption...................................................................................................................................... 13
Conflict of interest as cause of corruption .......................................................................................................................... 13
Sources of information about corruption ............................................................................................................................ 14
Spread of corruption ........................................................................................................................................................... 15
Unofficial ways to solve problems with public servants .................................................................................................... 16
IV. Experiences while contacting public institutions ......................................................................................................... 18
Most contacted institutions ................................................................................................................................................. 18
Amount of Average Bribe................................................................................................................................................... 20
Total estimated amount of bribe ......................................................................................................................................... 22
The purpose of unofficial payments ................................................................................................................................... 23
Unofficial payments made voluntarily or under pressure? ................................................................................................. 24
Concrete cases of corruption invoked by correspondents ................................................................................................... 24
V. Corruption and business environment ........................................................................................................................... 31
The contribution of the state in the business environment .................................................................................................. 31
Work time spent on solving problems with public servants .................................................................................................... 31
The response of control agencies to deviations from the law ............................................................................................. 32
The size of bribe compared with the tax evasion ................................................................................................................ 32
Frequency of controlsperformed by the government .......................................................................................................... 33
Participation in public procurement bids ............................................................................................................................ 33
VI. Engagement in preventing corruption .......................................................................................................................... 34
Disposition to pay a bribe ................................................................................................................................................... 34
Emotional aspects of paying a bribe ................................................................................................................................... 34
Tolerance towards corruption ............................................................................................................................................. 35
VII. Resistance to corruption ............................................................................................................................................... 36
Facing cases of corruption .................................................................................................................................................. 36
Denouncing corruption ....................................................................................................................................................... 36
Solving problems in a legal way ......................................................................................................................................... 36
Professionalism and credibility of the law enforcement institutions .................................................................................. 37
VIII. Can corruption be curbed in Moldova? .................................................................................................................... 39
Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences
3
Facing cases of corruption .................................................................................................................................................. 39
Corruption risks .................................................................................................................................................................. 40
Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................... 42
Transparency International – Moldova
I. Objective and tasks of the sociological study
Transparency International – Moldova carried out this study with the support of the U.S. State Department
and in collaboration with the Center for Sociological Studies and Marketing "CBS-AXA".
The objective of the study was to analyze the perceptions and the experiences with corruption of households
and business people in the Republic of Moldova.
The results of the study will be used to evaluate the impact of the implementation of the National
Anticorruption Strategy in 2012.
The tasks of the study are the following:
- Identifying the main sources of information about corruption and evaluating the credibility of
information on corruption from mass-media;
- Evaluating the awareness of the population on the threat of corruption for doing business;
- Identifying the main causes of corruption and their evolution in time;
- Evaluating the perception and the personal experience with corruption in 38 domains of public life;
- Estimating the total amount of unofficial payments in various public institutions/services;
- Evaluating the professionalism and credibility of the law enforcement staff members;
- Evaluating the acceptability of corruption, unofficial payments and readiness to pay bribes;
- Evaluating public awareness about conflict of interest;
- Identifying the most efficient measures to detect and combat corruption;
- Calculating corruption risks indicators for law enforcement institutions.
Two types of respondents were interviewed for this study: businesspeople and household representatives.
Separate questionnaires were used for each of the two categories. The questions referred to respondents’
perceptions on the spread of corruption in the country, as well as their personal experiences with corruption
during the last 12 months. In total, 38 domains/authorities were analyzed in this study. The questionnaire
also included an open type question that allowed respondents to share concrete examples of corruption and
other abuses by public servants.
Methodological aspects
The size of the sample: 490 business people and 1106 household representatives over the age of 18;
Sample: stratified, random, two-staged.
Stratification criteria:12 geographical regions based on territorial administrative units that were in place
before the last territorial-administrative reform, residential environment (urban-rural), size of urban
localities (2 types), size of rural localities (2 types of rural localities); The sample is relevant to analyze the
following strata of respondents: urban, rural, North, South and Center zones, with respective error margins
corresponding to the size of each strata of respondents.
Sample selection:
a. The sizes of each stratum and the totals for the regions (former districts) were calculated
proportionally to the number of population in accordance with the data of the National Bureau of
Statistics. The size of the rural localities was calculated proportionally to the number of voters in the
election lists;
Stages of randomization:
I. Locality: within the adjusted strata the localities were selected randomly, based on a table
with random numbers;
Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences
5
II. Household: the maximum number of interviews made in one pooling locality was 9. The
households were selected using the method of random route with statistical step;
III. Respondent: in households with several adults, the person whose birthday was closest was
selected for the interview.
b. The sample for business people was selected based on listings in the catalogue of goods and services
VARO–INFORM MOLDOVA 2012. A statistical step was used to select the subjects for the
interview. To replace the refusals a repeated selection was made. The procedure was repeated until the
necessary number of respondents was accumulated.
Representation: the sample is representative at the national level with a maximal error of +2.9% for
households and +4.4% for business people.
Time of interviewing: July 26–August 7, 2012 to interview household representatives, and July 26–
September 10, 2012 to interview business people. The interviews were conducted at the respondents’
homes by the network of operators of CBS-AXA. The questionnaire was prepared in Romanian and
Russian, the selection of the language being offered to the respondent.
Verification: To verify the quality of data collection, CBS-AXA contacted about 10% of respondents at
their homes and 30% by telephone. The data was processed using SPSS 15 statistical software.
Transparency International – Moldova
6
II. General information about the respondents
Geographical distribution of the respondents
Center
Households – 21.6%
Businesses – 12%
Municipality ofChişinău
Households– 23.4%
Businesses –64.9%
South
Households – 22.2%
Businesses – 8%
North
Households – 27.7%
Businesses – 9.2%
Bălţi
Households– 5.1%
Businesses – 5.9%
Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences
7
Distribution of respondents by rayons, %
Rayon Households Businesses
Chisinau 23.5 65.4
Balti 5.1 6.0
Anenii Noi 2.9 1.2
Basarabeasca 2.1 0.4
Briceni 2.3 1.0
Cahul 3.9 1.2
Cantemir 2.6 0
Calarasi 2.2 0.6
Causeni 2.5 1.0
Cimislia 2.6 1.2
Criuleni 2.0 0.6
Donduseni 1.2 0.2
Drochia 2.7 0.4
Dubasari 1.3 0
Edinet 2.0 0.8
Falesti 2.1 0.4
Floresti 2.0 0.8
Glodeni 1.7 0.2
Hincesti 1.4 1.2
Ialoveni 2.6 2.2
Leova 1.9 0
Nisporeni 2.1 0.4
Ocnita 1.1 0.8
Orhei 2.4 2.4
Rezina 1.4 0.6
Riscani 1.7 1.0
Singerei 2.2 0.8
Soroca 2.8 0.8
Straseni 2.0 1.0
Soldanesti 1.6 0.6
Stefan Voda 1.7 0.8
Taraclia 0.9 0.8
Telenesti 2.7 0.6
Ungheni 2.7 2.2
UTA Gagauzia 4.1 2.4
Transparency International – Moldova
8
Residence
Age of Respondents
Gender of Respondents
Education
Education: households, %High
education,
including
incomplete
26.6%
Incomplete
secondary
14,8%
Secondary
32.7%
Special
secondary
25.9%
Education: businessmen,%
High
education,
including
incomplete
76.3%Secondary
5.9%
Special
secondary
17.6%Incomplete
secondary
0,2%
Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences
9
Occupational group
Income
Transparency International – Moldova
10
III. Perception of corruption
Problems that the respondents face
How acute are the following problems for you? (Average, calculated on a scale from 1 to 6, where 1 means – not a problem at all, 6 – major problem)
For household representatives, corruption did not change its position compared to 2008 and remains on the
third place among the biggest problems that affect their life.
Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences
11
To what extent do the following factors impede doing business in Moldova?(Average, calculated on a
scale from 1 to 6, where 1 means - does not impede at all, 6 – blocks the development).
For business people, more problems emerged since 2008; thus, they place corruption on the 6th place,
behind political instability, frequent modification of legislation, inflation and high taxes.
Transparency International – Moldova
12
Awareness of threat of corruption
Public awareness of the threat posed by corruption among business people and household representatives
has increased. If 10 years ago the main part of respondents considered poverty as the main cause of
corruption, at present two thirds of the respondents understand that corruption causes poverty. The share of
households that understand the impact of corruption on poverty increased from 56.8% in 2008 to 66.9% in
2012. Among business people their share increased from 57.1% in 2008 to 63.5% in 2012.
Evolution of corruption
The largest group of households (49.6%) and business people (41.9%) think that the corruption
phenomenon increased in the last 12 months.
The share of respondents who think corruption increased during the last 12 months 2005 2007 2008 2012
Households 38 45.4 41 49.6
Businesses 37 35.4 33 41.9
Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences
13
Causes of the spread of corruption
What are the main causes of corruption in Moldova? Average, calculated on a scale from 1 to 4 (1 –very
important cause, 4 –not a cause at all)
As stated in the previous study of this kind that was conducted in 2008, the main causes of corruption
specified by the respondents are low impunity and not treating the corruption phenomenon in a serious way
by the governance.
Conflict of interest as cause of corruption
What is conflict of interests in public service?
A conflict between public servants 17.6%
A conflict between the interests of a public servant and his/her dueties 55.6%
A conflict betweeb the interests of a public servant 21.2%
Do not know 5.9%
Having to take a decision in conflict of interest situations is one of the causes that contribute to a wide
spread of corruption. TI-Moldova studies from 20081 and 2010
2show a low understanding among central
public authority servants of the notion of conflict of interest. The share of public servants that chose the
correct option to define conflict of interest increased from 52.8% in 2008 to 76.4% in 2010. To test how
familiar is the population with the notion of conflict of interest, the survey presented respondents with three
definitions. The results showed that only 55% of all respondents selected the right answer.
1 I. Spinei, E. Obreja, Treating Conflict of Interests in Public Service: Regulations and Perceptions, TI-Moldova, 2008
2 I. Spinei, Treating Conflict of Interests in Public Service: Evolution or Stagnation?, TI-Moldova, 2010
Transparency International – Moldova
14
Sources of information about corruption
The main sources of information about corruption remained unchanged since 2008. The respondents
indicated television as the first source, followed by the printed and electronic press, radio and discussions
with friends and relatives.
Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences
15
How much do the respondents trust the information about corruption coming from mass-media?
About 34% of households and 44% of the business people trust mass-media as a reliable source of
information on corruption. Their numbers decreased compared to 2008.
Share of respondents that trust mass-media as a reliable source for information on corruption 2005 2007 2008 2012
Households z 40.3 50.0 33.9
Businesses z 38.5 55.5 44.1
Spread of corruption
How frequently do people resort to money, gifts and personal contacts to solve their problems in the
following institutions/domains? (% of respondents stating that this is happening frequently, very
frequently and always).
Title of institutions/service/domain Households, % Businesses, %
2008 2012 2008 2012
Central public administration 43 40.2 32.8 45.9
Local public administration 35.9 30.0 30 33.8
Fiscal inspectorates 43.1 39.8 41.2 45.9
Customs 57.8 62.1 55.4 53.9
Police 61.7 69.5 59.8 57.6
Prosecutor offices 53.1 60.5 41.8 45.5
Sanitary inspections 44.1 39.7 39.8 37.4
Cadastral Bureaus 37 35.3 26.2 26.3
Privatization 40.1 37.7 28.8 31.0
Renting the state property 35.9 35.5 30.6 31.0
Courts of law 48.5 59.3 36.6 52.3
Public procurements 38.3 34.6 30 31.9
Education institutions 55 65.6 57 Z
Health care institutions 60.5 67.1 63.5 Z
Offices of civil records 28 30.4 21.5 Z
Passport bureaus 32.1 25.6 28.3 18.8
Utility service 24.5 18.4 17.7 15.8
Chamber of State Register 25.7 23.3 18.5 17.4
Fire inspections 25.5 22.8 23.3 26.1
Power/electricity inspections 25.1 20.8 21.3 19.6
Environment inspections 25.5 22.0 20.5 22.0
Chamber of Commerce and Industry 26.9 Z 18.3 Z
CCECC 28.1 32.4 19.1 27.0
Transparency International – Moldova
16
Information and Security Service Z 21.1 Z Z
Issuing visas 38.9 30.7 31.2 21.4
Licensing 39.1 37.0 32.8 25.2
Notary offices 37.8 35.8 26.9 20.8
Attorneys 39.7 49.9 27.7 32.4
Access to credits/loans 24.1 23.3 17.5 23.1
Vehicle registration, issuing driving licenses 41.3 53.1 40 42.7
Technical revision of vehicles 43.1 51.2 41.8 43.5
Issuing construction authorizations 36.9 50.6 38 42.1
Water supply 21.1 20.6 14.6 15.6
Power supply 20.5 18.9 14 16.4
Gas supply 21.3 17.2 13.6 14.6
Heating supply/thermic agent 17.6 17.4 13.2 14.4
Labor inspection 20.3 22.3 18.7 19.4
Telecommunications 16.5 16.5 12.2 11.0 Insurance companies 18.3 17.7 15.3 10.6
Household representatives consider that the corruption phenomenon is most spread among police, health
care institutions, education institutions, customs, prosecutor offices and courts of law. Compared to 2008,
the share of respondents that indicated these domains as most corrupt has increased.
In the opinion of business people, the institutions/domains most affected by corruption are: police, customs,
law courts, fiscal inspectorates, prosecutor offices. Compared to 2008, the share of respondents indicating
courts of law, fiscal inspectorates and prosecutor offices as the most corrupt areas has increased.
When asked which of the three branches of governance is most corrupt, both categories of respondents
indicated the Judiciary system.
Which branch of the governance is most corrupt? %
Households
Business
people
Legislative (Parliament) 25.7 11.6
Judiciary (Courts system) 45.7 51.8
Executive (Government) 22.7 19.8
Do not know 5.9 16.7
Unofficial ways to solve problems with public servants
Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences
17
Households as well as business people consider cash as the main way to solve problems with public
servants. Compared to 2008, their share increased.
Is it easier to solve a problem in an unofficial way?
Compared to 2008, the share of respondents who consider that it is easier to solve their problems unofficial
ways slightly increased.
Share of respondents who consider that it is easier to solve their problems in an unofficial way,%
2005 2007 2008 2012
Households z 48.6 49 53
Business people z 45.7 41.8 47.6
Transparency International – Moldova
18
IV. Experiences while contacting public institutions
Most contacted institutions
Did you contact the following institutions/authorities during the last 12 months? (%of the total)
Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences
19
Institutions where unofficial payments are made most frequently. Did you pay unofficially while dealing
with the following institutions/authorities during the last 12 months? % of those who paid.
Transparency International – Moldova
20
Amount of Average Bribe
Business people: average bribe
Number of
payments
Minimal
amount,
lei
Maximal
amount,
lei
Average,
lei
Health care institutions 107 20 9000 1174
Customs 72 50 12000 3145
Police 64 50 10000 2032
Education institutions 61 100 8000 1205
Technical revisions of vehicles 56 50 2500 523
Fiscal inspections 55 50 10000 1781
Sanitary inspections 54 100 5000 955
Fire inspections 42 30 7000 2282
Vehicle registration and issuing the driving licenses 27 100 3000 952
Cadastral bureaus 24 150 10000 2740
Environment protection services 22 30 8000 3024
Notaries 19 100 1000 439
Labor inspections 18 100 6000 1139
Issuing construction authorizations 16 400 4000 2463
Passport bureau 13 100 1500 685
Courts of law 12 98 6000 4550
Telecommunications 10 100 2500 460
Access to credits/ loans 9 100 1500 672
Visa issuing 8 800 3000 1663
Prosecutors 5 1000 3000 2000
Gas supply 5 100 600 370
Utility services 5 50 500 250
Attorneys 4 1000 2000 1375
Licensing 3 1000 4000 2000
Power supply 3 100 5000 1867
Power inspection 3 500 2500 1667
State Chamber of Register 3 300 1000 600
Renting state property 1 1000 1000 1000
Public procurements 1 1000 1000 1000
Privatization 1 300 300 300
Water supply 1 100 100 100
Heat supply/thermic agent 1 100 100 100
Center for Combating Economic Crime and Corruption 0 0 0 0
Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences
21
Households: average bribe
Number of
payments
Minimal
amount, lei
Maximal
amount, lei
Average,
lei
Central public administration 8 30 3000 652
Health care institutions 229 50 5000 992
Education institutions 125 50 5000 1412
Police 63 20 5000 687
Customs 46 50 8000 1061
Technical revision of vehicles 32 30 1000 347
Local public administration 19 10 5000 1021
Sanitary inspections 16 50 6000 1084
Registering vehicles and issuing driving licenses 16 50 2000 689
Fiscal inspectorates 14 100 6000 1072
Passport bureaus 12 20 700 237
Cadastral bureaus 10 30 6000 1116
Civil register offices 10 50 3000 528
Issuing visas 9 300 10000 2787
Courts of law 7 210 5000 1701
Utility services 5 50 150 90
Notaries 5 50 400 213
Prosecutors 4 2000 6000 4378
Attorneys 4 2000 10000 5274
Water supply 4 100 700 305
Labor inspection 4 250 3000 1218
Telecommunications 4 50 300 158
Privatization 3 1000 2000 1485
Power inspections 2 180 7000 4111
Licensing 2 1500 3000 2293
Access to credits/ loans 2 100 1000 647
Issuing construction authorizations 2 200 500 408
Fire inspections 1 200 2000 1131
Power supply 1 500 500 500
Renting state property 0
Public procurements 0
State Chamber of Register 0
Environment inspection 0
Center for Combating Economic Crime and
Corruption
0
Internal Security Service 0
Gas supply 0
Heat supply/thermic agent 0
Insurance companies 0
Transparency International – Moldova
22
Total estimated amount of bribe
The estimation of the total amount of bribes paid by households and business people in separate institutions
was based on such indicators as the incidence/frequency of bribes in each institution/domain, the amount of
the average bribe and the total number of businesses/households in the country. The estimation of the total
number of households3 on January 1, 2012 was based on the official statistics on the total population of the
Republic of Moldova (excluding Transnistria) and the average size of households.
The estimation of the total amount of bribes paid by households was based on the total number of
households (1,131 thousand), while the estimation of the total amount of bribes paid by business people –
the total number of economic agents registered at the State Chamber of Registration4 - 162,360, of which
66,404 individual entrepreneurs, 79,181 limited liability companies, 4,808 corporations, 4,017
cooperatives, 1,490 state and municipal enterprises, 3,313 non-commercial organizations, 3,147 - other.
According to the calculations, the total amount of bribes paid by households made in 2012 was about 732.7
million Lei, increasing in absolute terms, compared to 2008, by over 15%. Taking into consideration an
about 30% increase in consumer prices for goods and services in the same period of time5, in real terms
the amount of bribes paid by households decreased by almost 15%. In 2012, the households paid bribes
mostly to health care institutions (238 million Lei), education institutions (185 million Lei) and police (45.4
million Lei). It is notable that while the police made good progress in these terms compared to 2008, when
the total amount of bribes decreased from 97 million Lei in 2008 to 45.4 million Lei in 2012, the situation
in health care and education system was different. Thus, the total amount of bribes paid to the health care
system increased, compared to 2008, by a quarter, or a little slower than the increase of the consumer prices
for services. As for the education system, the total amount of bribes paid in this domain increased 2.9
times, compared to 2008. This in no way can be explained by the inflation phenomenon.
Households - Evolution of Total Bribes (Mill. Lei)
2005 2007 2008 2012
Police 81.5 79.9 97 45.4
Education 126 76.5 64 185
Health care 200 153 190 238
Other 493.6 280.6 279 264.3
TOTAL 901.1 590 630 732.7
The total amount of bribes paid by businesses in 2012 amounted to about 390 million Lei, increasing by
approximately 49% compared to 2008. The main payments were made to the customs officers (75 million
Lei), health care institutions (41.6 million Lei), police (41 million Lei) and fiscal inspectors (32.4 million
Lei).
Estimated Total Bribes: Businesses, Mill. Lei
Customs 75
Health care system 41.6
Police 41
Fiscal inspectorates 32.4
Fire inspectors 31.8
3http://statbank.statistica.md/pxweb/Database/RO/02%20POP/POP01/POP01.asp 4http://cis.gov.md-content/6#1 5http://statbank.statistica.md
Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences
23
Educational institutions 24.4
Environment inspections 22
Cadastral bureaus 21.8
Courts of law 18.1
Sanitary-epidemiological inspections 17.1
Issuing construction authorizations 13.1
Technical revision of vehicles 9.7
Vehicle Registration, Driver’s License
issuing authority 8.5
Labor inspections 6.8
Other 26.7
TOTAL 390
The evolution of the estimated total amount of bribes paid by businesses shows a 1.5 times growth of this
indicator compared to 2008, which cannot be explained only by inflation and, essentially, proves a
worsening of the business environment in Moldova.
Businesses – evolution of the total amount of
bribes (million Lei)
2005 2007 2008 2012
Customs 120 66.1 33.8 75
Fiscal inspections 69.3 36 25.8 32.4
Courts of law Z 23.3 11.2 18.1
Construction authorization
authorities 14.5 26.5 8.1 13.1
Other 203 155.7 185.1 251.4
TOTAL 406.8 307.6 264 390
The purpose of unofficial payments
The respondents were asked to indicate the aim of the unofficial payment that they have made. They had to
choose from two options: to avoid punishment for breaking the law or tospeed up the process (so-called oil
the wheels), which is to obtain a faster or better service that had to be provided in any case. The answers
differed from one domain to another. If the majority of unofficial payments made to medical institutions
were made to speed up the provision of services, in the law enforcement institutions about half of the bribes
were given to avoid punishment/sanctions.
Households (% of respondents that paid unofficially)
Police
Health care institutions
Courts of law
To avoid punishment 36.3 17.1
59.1
To speed up the process 63.7 82.9 40.9
Business people(% of respondents that paid unofficially)
Customs Fiscal inspectorates
To avoid punishment 33.3 64.6
To speed up the process 66.7 35.4
Transparency International – Moldova
24
Compared to 2008, the share of those who offered unofficial payments to police officers to speed up the
process increased; in the rest of the areas, this numbers diminished, the most essential decrease being
registered in the fiscal inspectorates, where the share of these payments decreased from 75.3% in 2008 to
35.4% in 2012.
Unofficial payments made voluntarily or under pressure?
The respondents were asked to indicate whether they paid unofficially on their own initiative or if they
have been forced to do so. The answers indicated that the payments to the police and health care
institutions were made voluntarily, while the ones made in the courts of law, customs and fiscal
inspectorates were made under pressure.
Households(% of respondents that paid unofficially)
Police
Health care institutions
Courts of law
Were forced to pay 46.9 36.5 74.2
Paid on their own initiative 53.1 63.5 25.8
Businesses(% of respondents that paid unofficially)
Customs Fiscal inspectorates
Were forced to pay 64.5 58.6
Paid on their own initiative 35.5 41.4
Compared to 2008, in all of the sectors mentioned above, the share of those who made unofficial payments on their own initiative has diminished. The most significant change was achieved in the courts of law, where this indicator decreased from 67.8% in 2008 to 25.8% in 2012.
Concrete cases of corruption invoked by correspondents
All of the respondents were asked to give concrete examples of corruption from their experience in the last 12 months. To protect them from eventual persecution or pressure, the information that allows them to be identified was removed from this report.
Households:
My sister was not allowed to pass the border at the airport, because her luggage was too heavy.
After she gave 15 Euro to the customs officer, she was let to go (Questionnaire 4);
To receive a new passport, birth certificate and marriage license faster, I had to make unofficial
payments of about 200-300 Lei for each document at the Civil Registry Office and the Passport
Bureau (Questionnaire 6);
To see a doctor within an hour, I had to pay an unofficial fee of 100 Lei; otherwise, the
appointment would have been in two weeks (Questionnaire 10);
To see a doctor without an appointment I had to pay him 100 Lei (Questionnaire 15);
I was forced to pay bribes by a university professor - 300 Lei to pass each exam (Questionnaire 17);
I was needlessly directed to the passport bureau, the archives, and the registry office to resolve a
problem, and at each location I was told to bribe in average 100 Lei to solve my problem
(Questionnaire 20);
I have been asked to pay money to check my child out of the hospital (Questionnaire 21);
I had to pay the doctor 100 Lei to see the results of my medical tests (Questionnaire 23);
Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences
25
The Chief of Department at the Nisporeni Clinic required money to allow me to ask for a second
opinion at a better clinic in Chisinau. I gave her the money, because my child was very sick.
(Questionnaire 37);
I have been asked to pay for gifts for the teachers and school principle, because they did not want to
“wear out their shoes for my child” (Questionnaire 45);
The doctor did not want to take the castoff my leg. Despite my insurance, he said that he did not
work for free. He also demanded 50 Lei when I asked to receive a note for school to explain my
absences from physical education classes (Questionnaire 56);
The doctor requested 1,500 Lei to see me with my 6 month old baby. This consultation was
supposed to be free (Questionnaire 69);
I bribed a doctor 50 Lei to get a health certificate for the youth summer camp (Questionnaire 82);
I bribed the police so I would not get arrested (Questionnaire 86);
When passing the border with over 4 liters of wine, I bribed the border agent 1000 Russian Rubles
(Questionnaire 93);
Because I work and go to school, I often miss classes. My professor hinted that money could solve
the problem with my absences (Questionnaire 100);
On one instance, the professor told me to put 300 Lei into my transcript papers that he had to sign
to get an 8 in his class (Questionnaire 108);
At the university my daughter paid 200 Lei for each exam (Questionnaire 112);
I bribe the police officer 100 Lei each time to avoid getting a police record (Questionnaire 114);
My child was forced to pay 300 Lei for each exam (Questionnaire 116);
I paid the professor 100 Lei for each exam (Questionnaire 118);
I paid a 100 Lei bribe to the police officer for exceeding the speed limit. The officer asked, „should
we solve this now, or should I start writing a police record?” On a different occasion I bribed a
doctor 100 Lei to get a medical screening (Questionnaire 122);
I could not pass the driving test, so I paid a 50 Euro bribe to get my license (Questionnaire 140);
I was on my way to get a car inspection when I got pulled over. I had to bribe 200 Lei to be let go
(Questionnaire 153);
I drove over the speed limit and got pulled over by police. The officer asked that I step into his car,
where I was told that I would need to pay unofficially (Questionnaire 162);
I was very ill: I was having terrible headaches and dizziness. The doctor examined me and asked
for a 200 Lei bribe to share his medical opinion and decision on whether I should be hospitalized
(Questionnaire 173);
I was beaten badly by a person in my community. When I filed a report at the police station, they
told me that they will look into my case only if I pay a 1,000 Lei bribe (Questionnaire 186);
When they see that you are coming from temporary work in Moscow, the agents at the border
between Moldova and Ukraine start looking for all sorts of flaws that you can pay a 10 or 20 Euro
bribe for to be allowed to cross the border (Questionnaire 195);
I went to see the doctor in the rayon. The medical assistant told me that without 50 Lei bribe the
doctor won’t even look at me (Questionnaire 202);
I paid 250 Euro at the Civil Registry Office to speed up the process of issuing my documents
(Questionnaire 220);
My mom was supposed to receive disability benefits. She was asked to pay informally 500 Lei,
which she could not afford and therefore, she did not receive the disability benefits (Questionnaire
225);
I was forced to pay my child’s teachers 1,500 Lei. I was told that if I did not pay, my child would
not pass the end of school baccalaureate exams (Questionnaire 235);
Transparency International – Moldova
26
To pass the baccalaureate exams in the town of Orhei, they collected 1,500 Lei from each student
(Questionnaire 238);
I have been asked to pay 1,300 Lei for the baccalaureate exams of my son (Questionnaire 243);
I paid to the judge 3,000 Lei to solve the case in my favor. Otherwise, I would have lost
(Questionnaire 268);
Our former mayor required a 200 USD bribe to offer me a little land lot where I could open a store
(Questionnaire 269);
My son was arrested and released after I paid a bribe. The police officers and the prosecutor shared
the money among themselves (Questionnaire 295);
I bribed the professor 2,000 Lei to improve my son’s grades (Questionnaire 298);
I was required to pay 1,500 Lei unofficially to place my child in kindergarten (Questionnaire 300);
I was asked to pay unofficially 1,000 USD for my mom’s surgery, otherwise they would not do it
(Questionnaire 303);
The police stopped me for exceeding the speed limit. They hinted that I should give a bribe to avoid
getting a police record. They did not let me go until I paid 100 Lei (Questionnaire 316);
I was in the hospital for the fifth day in a row and they still did not pay to me any attention. I was
forced to “thank” them by paying a bribe to receive help (Questionnaire 359);
My husband was asked to pay 100 USD to receive a disability certificate (Questionnaire 385);
For the admission in Soroca College I was asked to pay 4000 Lei for the contract and bribe in
advance 1,200 Lei for the exams (Questionnaire 394);
My husband ran for mayor as an independent. He was proposed to join a political party in exchange
for more votes (Questionnaire 396);
My vehicle did not pass the technical revision for the last 8 years. When the police stops me, I give
them a bribe (Questionnaire 397);
The windshield of my car is broken and I pay bribes each time I have to pass a technical revision
(Questionnaire 399);
I was supposed to pass a medical examination with my one year old child. They told me that I will
have to bribe 20 Lei to each of the 7 doctors. I did not have the money and my child was not
examined (Questionnaire 401);
My husband required hospitalization and the doctors asked for a bribe. Without payment, they told
me, my husband would need to wait for another 3 months. I did not have the money and my
husband is still staying ill at home (Questionnaire 406);
I was hospitalized in Floresti to have a surgery and my mother bribed 6,000 Lei for my care
(Questionnaire 408);
I was hospitalized to have a spine surgery. Even with health insurance, the doctors requested that I
pay a bribe of 200 Lei for the consultation and 2,000 Lei for the surgery (Questionnaire 420);
In the town of Edineţ, in addition to the official fee, the doctors asked for an unofficial payment of
8,000 Lei for my child delivery (Questionnaire 421);
In the district disability council I was told that my documents were not in order and asked to pay
300 Euro to increase my disability status, even thou the documents were in order and issued in
Chisinau. (Questionnaire 424);
The mail delivery woman that brings us our pensions required that I pay her for the service, even if
these are her duties. She collects all of the newspapers and brings them with a 4-5 days delay
(Questionnaire 438);
I had two incidents involving traffic police. The first time I exceeded the speed limit and to avoid
all of the trouble, I paid them half of the official fine. The second time I was not even guilty, but I
gave them a bribe, because I did not have time to give them explanations (Questionnaire 447);
Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences
27
I paid the doctors for the surgery. In addition, the anesthesiologist asked for 800 Lei. He did not
even want to hear of a smaller amount (Questionnaire 458);
I gave a 175 Lei bribe to the cadastral office, otherwise my problem would have been solved in a
much longer time (Questionnaire 462);
I needed medical control certificate urgently to be able to apply for a job. The doctor said that a 100
Lei bill in his pocket would get me the certificate in one day (Questionnaire 474);
When I was hospitalized with my baby-child, I had to bribe the medical assistant 30 Lei for each
injection. Before that, they were giving each shot with a lot of anger. After I paid them, they
became friendlier. On a different occasion, I bribed a judge 5,000 Lei through the attorney to solve
the problem accrued in an road accident that I was not guilty of (Questionnaire 477);
To avoid getting a 600 Lei fine for driving over the speed limit, I paid the police officer 100 Lei
(Questionnaire 478);
I bribed the police officer 500 Lei for an infringement that is usually punished by a 1,000 Lei fine.
Also this year, I paid 300 Lei to pass an exam. I put the money into the exam book (Questionnaire
485);
We pay for grades at our university – 150-500 Lei each time (Questionnaire 505);
I had problems related to property division. I bribed the judge and almost won the case, when the
other side paid more and won the process (Questionnaire 509 );
I gave 500 Lei and a bottle of cognac to the doctor that attended my delivery at the maternity ward.
The doctor made a scandal, because I paid too little (Questionnaire 521);
I voluntarily gave my professors 1,000 Lei to improve my grades (Questionnaire 525);
The road police stopped me on many occasions for breaking traffic rules and each time I gave them
on average 150 Lei (Questionnaire 526);
I had to pay for my medical treatment. I wanted to pay at the cash register and the doctor said that I
should not go there myself, and that I should not worry as he would pass the payment to the cash
register on his own (Questionnaire 527);
I had to have a surgery in Chisinau and I did not receive a medical consultation until I paid 1000
Lei before the surgery and then 3,000 Lei for a better treatment, otherwise they would not have
even looked at me (Questionnaire 528);
My husband had a surgery at the oncology hospital. It is scary what happens there. If you do not
put money in the medical card, nobody will look at you, even if you die there. Now, when he goes
there for a consultation, he does not even walk in without bringing 200 Lei (Questionnaire 533);
The public servant at the office that issues construction authorizations said that he does not work
for free and that his wage only motivates him to come to work. To do the actual job, he needs
additional payments of at least 200 Lei. I gave him all that I had and it seems that it was not
enough, because he extended the procedure for an extra week (Questionnaire 534);
My husband works in Odessa and comes home only once every three weeks, because the customs
officers demand 150 Ukrainian Hrivnas to enter the country and 150 to leave (Questionnaire 544);
To extend the term of the disability pension, I paid 300 Lei to the disability evaluation commission
(Questionnaire 564);
My granddaughter asked for 800 Lei (my entire monthly pension) to pay a bribe for her school
exams. They told her that if she did not pay, she would not graduate and will not be allowed to take
the baccalaureate exam (Questionnaire 571);
My grandson was registered for kindergarten. Immediately, the director required 1,000 Lei to cover
the needs of the kindergarten. I did not have the money and therefore, had to take the grandson
home (Questionnaire 580);
When I was returning from Italy, at the border the customs officers unpacked my entire luggage
making me understand that they would not let me go until I give them 50 Euro. I waited for 4 hours
and was let go only after I gave those 50 Euro (Questionnaire 581);
Transparency International – Moldova
28
I paid the doctor 1,000 Lei for the surgery and then another one 200 Lei to pay attention to my
problems. They called me themselves behind a door and told me how much I had to pay
(Questionnaire 589);
I paid a 3,000 Lei bribe to receive my son’s diploma faster and with better grades. I do not wish to
name the university. (Questionnaire 590);
My son has a second degree disability, because of a problem with his knee. When we went to the
medical disability evaluation commission, the doctors told me that when I come next time, I should
remember to pay each one of the three members of the commission. They added that if I did not do
that, they would give my son a third degree of disability. My son’s disability pension is 104 Lei
(Questionnaire 627);
My brother has cancer. In 2009 he had a surgery and received the second degree of disability. Last
year they gave him the third degree, but he cannot work. We addressed the disability evaluation
commission, but did not resolve our problem. Other employees of the hospital told us that we could
solve the problem for 2,000 Lei (Questionnaire 649);
Four months ago my nephew got very sick. He lives outside Moldova and has another citizenship. I
called the ambulance and the doctors said that the child needs hospitalization. The hospital doctors
refused to assist my nephew, because he did not have Moldovan citizenship, but when I gave them
200 Lei, the problem was solved (Questionnaire 653);
My son had an appendicitis surgery at the Sîngerei hospital. The doctors asked for extra money
before and after the surgery (Questionnaire 661);
I wanted to maintain the second degree disability for a life time, but the doctors asked for 1,000
Lei. I negotiated and paid him 700 Lei. After this, he said he would solve my problem next year. I
think he will require money again (Questionnaire 670);
I was hospitalized for an urgent surgery and they did not want operate on me until I paid them
unofficially 2,000 Lei (Questionnaire 692);
I had a surgery at Hospital Nr.1. The doctors required 2,000 Lei in advance to avoid problems and
complications during the surgery (Questionnaire 703);
Before giving birth, I paid 100 Euro in advance to the doctor to be sure he will help me
(Questionnaire 770);
After giving birth, I thanked the doctor with 150 Euro, the medical assistant – with 50 Lei and all
other medical personnel – 30 Lei each (Questionnaire 780);
I had to pay at the university for the exams about 100 - 200 Lei, even if otherwise I had good
grades (Questionnaire 795);
The fiscal inspector conducted a control and we had to pay 5,000 Lei to avoid paying a bigger fine
(Questionnaire 799);
To pass the baccalaureate exams, my granddaughter had to pay 1,500 Lei (Questionnaire 802);
Our family doctor kept complaining that she had 50 children to take care of in her sector and that
nobody properly thanked her. I decided to buy her a 200 Lei gift (Questionnaire 818);
I bribed a doctor 500 Lei to get an X-Ray of my hand faster (Questionnaire 886);
My child was hospitalized with a head tumor. I do not event want to start describing how the
doctors mistreated him until I paid 15,000 Lei (Questionnaire 888);
I had problems with my leg and even having health insurance they squeezed from me about 5,000
Lei (Questionnaire 892 );
My son was in critical condition in a hospital in Chisinau. I talked to the doctor and paid a 150 Lei
bribe before and 150 Lei after he looked at my child (Questionnaire 899);
I had to cross the border in Galaţi and I had too many cigarettes. I paid to the customs officers and
they let me go (Questionnaire 918);
I have a child with a second degree of disability. Twice a year he gets treatment at the Centre for
rehabilitation of people with disabilities in Chisinau. I am forced to pay bribe to each staff member,
Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences
29
beginning with the chief-doctor and ending up with custodians, otherwise nobody care of my child
(Questionnaire 952);
I even had to pay bribe to transfer my sic relative from her hospital room into the surgery room.
(Questionnaire 968);
I paid a 3,000 Lei bribe to the doctor for a surgery (Questionnaire 973);
My son passed the Baccalaureate exam and the driving test. I had to pay bribes for both.
(Questionnaire 1004);
Two months ago I had to pay 2,500 Lei to the midwife for the birth. If I wouldn’t pay, she would
not take care and be rude with my wife (Questionnaire 1023);
They asked that I pay for the X-ray. When I presented my health insurance card they sarcastically
suggested that I show it to my husband (Questionnaire 1028);
I paid 1,000 Lei so that my son passes the end of school baccalaureate exam (Questionnaire 1060);
My wife passed away because the doctors did not state the right diagnosis. They extorted all of my
money, and as soon as I stopped paying bribes they interrupted the treatment (Questionnaire 1066);
I am building a home in Făleşti and to solve my problems with the Cadastral Bureau I had to pay a
bribe (Questionnaire 1067);
To enroll her child in kindergarten, my daughter paid 200 USD (Questionnaire 1069);
The doctor told me my diagnoses only after I paid 400 Lei (Questionnaire 1072);
I was working on my property papers and found out that half of my garage was on the property of
the city hall. They asked for a 500 USD bribe and modified the borders of my land plot
(Questionnaire 1076);
The endocrinology doctor waited for me to put an envelope with money on his desk and then
started examining me (Questionnaire 1073);
My mother left me a small piece of land. To inherit the property, I was sent from office to office to
dispute it, and at the end of the way, the land was not worth the time that I have spent on
transferring it into my name. After I bribed the employees of the Cadastral Bureau, the documents
were ready in 30 minutes (Questionnaire 1080);
My doctor in Făleşti does not even look at the health insurance card and always hits that I have to
pay. This happens each time. I do not want to ever see him again (Questionnaire 1083);
The doctor asked for money and I did not give it to him. I paid for the health insurance and did not
have money for a bribe. My neighbor in the hospital room paid a bribe and they treated her well
(Questionnaire 1084);
I have eye problems and had to bribe the eye doctor for a certificate I needed to receive a driver’s
license (Questionnaire 1097);
Business people:
My daughter had to pay 2,000 Lei so that my grandson could pass the baccalaureate exam
(Questionnaire 34);
I paid at the customs 5,000 Lei so that they would „close their eyes” and not see the goods that I
was bringing from abroad. I also paid 400 Lei to the fiscal inspector so that he would not register
the deviations from the law (Questionnaire 44);
I paid 300 Lei the customs agent to speed up passing the border (Questionnaire 51);
We had a fiscal control and the inspector found some irregularities. I paid the inspector 10,000 Lei
so that he did not register the problems in his report (Questionnaire 52);
I got a surgery at the Oncology Hospital in Chisinau. The doctor called me in and told me to pay
him 200 Euro. I did (Questionnaire 58);
Transparency International – Moldova
30
I was bringing goods for sale from the Ukraine to Moldova and paid 300 Lei to the customs officers
so that they would not retain me at the border (Questionnaire 60);
I paid a 3,000 Lei bribe to the customs officer (Questionnaire 88);
I wanted to participate in a public procurement bid, but I found out that the son of a highly ranked
public servant won the bid before it started (Questionnaire 103);
I had to pay 100 Euro to be able to enter into the country (Questionnaire 113);
Last year, during a fiscal control, they found some discrepancies in my bills. I was risking paying a
big fine, because I had similar problems previously. The fiscal inspector named the amount of
money that I had to pay to avoid problems, so I paid. (Questionnaire 137);
I wrote a petition against the city mayor. The Prosecutor office opened a criminal file against me,
but the Center for Combating Economic Crime and Corruption closed the case due to my highly
ranked relatives (Questionnaire 157);
Policemen come each Sunday to my little store and demand money (Questionnaire 182);
My farm was robbed. The guilty person was not punished because he shared what he stole with
policemen. They did not even examine the case. They even did not note his name. (Questionnaire
208);
To avoid standing in line at the border, we always pay and pass the border quickly (Questionnaire
235);
The employees of the fire department found some irregularities and I had to pay a 10,000 Lei fine. I
paid to their chief a part of the amount and solved my problem (Questionnaire 254);
I could not solve my problem at the Cadastral Bureau until I paid a 800 Lei bribe. I also paid on my
own initiative 300 Lei to the doctor to have a more rigorous examination and to get better attention
(Questionnaire 259);
When I visited the Cadastral Office in 2010 to make the evaluation of the real estate, they told me
that there is no need for this. In 2012 I got a fine, because I did not declare the real estate property
and had to pay 30% of the undeclared amount – about 1,600 Lei. They suggested me to pay
unofficially 800 lei. I did not accept and preferred to pay the fine. (Questionnaire 267);
To avoid customs control, I give my driver 30% of the cost of the goods. Then he makes
arrangements with the customs officers and everything goes well (Questionnaire 288);
To receive an advantageous credit I paid to the bank clerk 10% of the credit (Questionnaire 295);
We always pay 20% to the customs to pass the border faster (Questionnaire 342);
I paid a bribe to speed up the issuance of the construction authorization (Questionnaire 368);
I solicited a lot of land from local authorities to open a business and received a refusal that said
there cannot be any business on this public place. A month later, the son of the city mayor opened
his business on that very location (Questionnaire 386);
I paid a bribe for the construction authorization (Questionnaire 393);
I gave a bribe of 400 Lei to the policeman when he came with a control (Questionnaire 416);
The fire inspector found irregularities and required a bribe of unofficial payments. I gave them
everything I had. (Questionnaire 426);
When I cross the border in my car, the customs officers always require a bribe in the form of
money (Questionnaire 427);
I paid a bribe to those from Sanitary Inspection to receive a certificate faster so that I could start my
business (Questionnaire 448);
Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences
31
V. Corruption and business environment
The contribution of the state in the business environment
One third of respondents consider that the state institutions impede entrepreneurial activities. It is
remarkable that during the last 10 years this negative perception significantly decreased.Compared to
2002, the share of business people thinking in this way diminished more than two-fold, from 74.7% to
33.2%.
Share of business people who think that the state mainly impedes their activity, %
2005 2007 2008 2012
46,7 47,3 33,8 33,2
Work time spent on solving problems with public servants
The results show that in 2012, business people spent a little more than one tenth (11.1%) of their time
settling problems with the representatives of public institutions, although this indicator has declined almost
two-fold since 2005.
Transparency International – Moldova
32
The response of control agencies to deviations from the law
It is interesting to see that the changes in the respondents’ perception regarding the behavior of control
bodies also changed in a positive way. Thus, more than two thirds of the respondents consider that the
fiscal inspector behaves correctly, following the procedures. It is also notable that the share of business
people who have positive experience with fiscal inspectors increased from 41.1% in 2005 to 72.5% in
2012.
Share of businesses that consider that the fiscal inspector follows the correct procedures during the fiscal
controls, %
2005 2007 2008 2012
41,1 60,5 66 72,5
The size of bribe compared with the tax evasion
If the fiscal inspector discloses a tax infringement X, which part of this X one can give to the fiscal
inspector to „solve the problem”? (% from X)
Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences
33
According to the business people, when an infringement is discovered, they can bribe the fiscal inspector
on average 15.6% of the amount that they owe to the state to resolve the problem. The trend shows a
constant decrease of this amount between 2005-2012. This trend cannot be interpreted in a positive way,
but rather it means that tax evasion is not discouraged and the losses of the state, due to corruption in fiscal
inspections, become more significant, compared to the size of the bribes accepted by the public servants,
particularly by fiscal inspectors.
Frequency of controlsperformed by the government
Average number of visits by state control bodies during one year
2005 2007 2008 2012
Fiscal inspectors 2.72 3.23 2.67 1.74
Police officers 4.38 2.88 2.48 1.33
Fire inspectors 1.55 1.76 1.92 0.68
Power/energy inspectors 2.96 3.25 2.88 0.75
Sanitary inspectors 3.04 2.75 2.36 0.87
Center for Combatting Economic Crime
and Corruption officers
2.38 1.69 1.63 0.28
Environment protection officers 1.58 2.37 1.54 0.32
Labor inspectors 1.43 1.91 1.79 0.49
According the responses of the business people, they were visited most frequently by police officers. This
shows adecreasingin the number of visits from the state representatives. Thus, in 2008 the total number of
visits was about 21 and in 2012 it diminished to 6.5, or decreased more than three-fold.
Participation in public procurement bids
19.2 % of the interviewed businesses participated in public procurement bids; this share slightly decreased
when compared to 2008 (22.1%).
The main argument they made for this was the low transparency and fairness in the public procurements
procedures.
Reasons for non-participating in public procurement bids, %
2005 2007 2008 2012
Complexity of the process 46.6 47.4 40.1 17.7
High cost of the procedure 43.2 56.5 41.1 16.4
Too much competition 45.1 46.8 39.1 20.9
Would not win without paying a bribe 46.4 48 33 20
The procurement bids are not
transparent and fair
49.4 53 36.5 27.6
Direct contracts are simpler 58.7 59.6 50.4 29.1
Transparency International – Moldova
34
VI. Engagement in preventing corruption
Disposition to pay a bribe
The respondents in both categories were asked „If you are in a difficult situation, would you pay a bribe?”
More than two thirds of the respondents answered affirmatively. However, the overall number of those
who answered negatively increased.
Share of respondents that are NOT willing to pay bribes in difficult situations, %
2005 2007 2008 2012
Households 23 24,1 34,7 27,1
Businesses 12 19,5 23,5 27,9
Emotional aspects of paying a bribe
How do you feel when you give a bribe to solve a problem?
Households
Business People
Revolted 33.2% 37.8%
Humiliated 39.9% 38.8%
Indifferent 10.5% 12.2%
Satisfied 6.1% 3.5%
Happy 3.3% 0.4%
Do not know 7.0% 7.3%
Three quarters of the respondents in both categories had negative emotions related to bribing. However,
compared to 2008, the share of people that do not tolerate bribes increased significantly. Their share among
households increased from 49.3% in 2008 to 73.1% in 2012 and for business people – from 41.2% in 2008
to 76.6% in 2012.
Share of respondents that had negative emotions related to bribing,%
2005 2007 2008 2012
Households 49.6 42.1 49.3 73.1
Business people 44.1 43.8 41.2 76.6
Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences
35
Tolerance towards corruption
How acceptable is the situation when a public servant accepts an informal payment and uses it to pay
his/her utility bill, %
Households Business people
Totally acceptable 2.1% 2.7%
Partially acceptable 10.7% 5.3%
Acceptable as exception 16.8% 12.7%
Not acceptable 60.4% 75.4%
Do not know/no response 10.0% 3.9%
Compared to 2008, the share of those who do not consider acceptable these situations increased among
households from 55.8% in 2008 to 67.1% in 2012. Among business people this share increased from
61.8% in 2008 to 78.5% in 2012. In a more extended dynamic this trend can be seen better.
Share of respondents that would not accept a situation in which a public servant accepts bribes to
pay his/her utility bills
2005 2007 2008 2012
Households 43 60.2 55.8 67.1
Businesses 49 58.1 61.8 78.5
Transparency International – Moldova
36
VII. Resistance to corruption
Facing cases of corruption
Denouncing corruption
Solving problems in a legal way
Whom did you complain to?, %
Households Businesses
To the police 24.7 33.3
To the prosecutor 18.8 44.4
In courts of law 18 0
To my superior 14.9 11.1
To Center for Combatting Economic Crimes and Corruption 12.9 11.1
To mass-media 8.8 11.1
To the Government, President, Parliament 8.8 0
Attorney 7.6 11.1
Other 6.3 0
Friends, relatives 6.1 0
Why was a complaint not submitted? (Multiple choice answer)
Households
Businesses
Did not know to whom to address it to 6.8% 4.8% It would have taken too much time 12.0% 16.0% Nothing would have changed 57.4% 54.0% It would have created more problems 32.7% 39.6% Other 3.8% 0%
Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences
37
It is important to note that the share of those who do not know where and how to submit a complaint
severely diminishes.
Share of respondents that do not know whom to address in cases of corruption,%
2005 2007 2008 2012
Households z 19.3 10.4 6.8
Businesses z 7.3 3.5 4.8
The answers show that 37.3% of the total number of representatives of households faced corruption, 1.9%
tried to solve their problem in a legal way/complained about their case and only 0.9% of the total
succeeded to solve their problem entirely or partially.
Also, 40% of the total number of businesses faced corruption in the last 12 months, 1.8% of the total tried
to address their problem in a legal way and only 0.7% succeeded to solve them partially or entirely. This
explains the low level of willingness to collaborate with public institution in the matters of preventing
corruption.
Professionalism and credibility of the law enforcement institutions
Professionalism of law enforcement and control bodies’ staff members, %
2007 2008 2012
High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low
Fiscal inspectors (resp.- bus) 17.2 68.1 14.7 22.4 61 16.6 21.6 64.4 14.0
Police officers (resp.- households) 6.3 57.7 36 11.4 58.5 30.1 9.8 50.5 39.7
Customs officers (resp. - buss) 8.2 66.2 25.6 14.3 56.1 29.6 6.2 66.5 27.2
Judges (resp.- households) 11.5 67 21,5 16.1 62.1 21,8 21 55,6 23,4
Collaborators of CCECC (resp.-
bus)
18.1 62.9 19 30.2 52.1 17.7 19.6 63.6 16.7
Collaborators of Internal Security
Service (resp.- bus)
z z z z z Z 26.3 60.3 13.4
Prosecutors (resp.- households) z z z z z z 18.9 60.0 21.1
If a ranking of law enforcement institutions and control bodies would be made based on the respondents’
evaluation, the officers of the Internal Service and Security would be ranked as most professional, second
would belong to the fiscal inspectors, followed by collaborators of the Center for Combatting Economic
Crimes and Corruption, and the prosecutors’ office. The list would be closed by judges, customs officers
and police officers.
Transparency International – Moldova
38
Credibility of law enforcement and staff members of the control bodies, %
How much trust do you have in the following professions, %
2007 2008 2012
Absence
of trust
or few
trust
A lot of
trust or
total
trust
Absence
of trust
or few
trust
A lot of
trust or
total
trust
Absence
of trust
or few
trust
A lot of
trust or
total
trust
Fiscal inspectors (resp.- bus) 61.5 38.5 68.8 31.2 66.2 33.8
Customs officers (resp.- bus) 84.6 15.4 84.6 15.4 81.3 18.7
Policemen (resp.- households) 84.2 15.8 84 16 86.8 13.2
Judges (resp.- households) 78.6 21.4 79.2 20.8 83.7 16.3
CCECC officers (resp.- bus) 69.4 30.6 59.7 40.3 72.1 27.9
Officers of the Internal Security Service (resp.-
bus) z Z z z 76 24
Prosecutors (resp.- households) z Z z z 77.8 22.2
In a ranking of this type, participants identified fiscal inspectors, followed by CCECC officers as the more
credible groups, and closed the list with customs officers, judges and police officers.
Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences
39
VIII. Can corruption be curbed in Moldova?
Most efficient measures to combat corruption
Facing cases of corruption
What should be the monthly salary of the public servant that he/she won’t be tempted to accept bribes?
USD It is certain that if the supremacy of the law is not ensured and corrupt persons are not properly sanctioned,
increasing the salary of public servants would only contribute to inflation and the public servant would
adjust the size of the bribe to the his/her new salary. The estimation made in this study on the total bribe
Transparency International – Moldova
40
paid in Moldova confirms this premise. Still, when asked what should be the monthly salary of a public
servant that would make him/her resistant to bribes, the respondents proved a good understanding and
came up with realistic and well-motivated figures.
2007 2008 2012
Households Businesses Households Businesses Households Businesses
Minister 1600 2300 1615 2280 1356 1939 Head of Department
900 1270 1090 1460 912 1160
Ordinary public servant
560 685 705 850 653 783
Judge z z z Z 1334 1931
Corruption risks
The financial benefits and other personal gains that result from a corrupt act are the main factors in the
spread of corruption. However, the notion of corruption is very broad and cannot be limited simply to
bribery.
Several indicators pertaining to the risks posed by corruption can be calculated based on the estimated
total bribe and total number of bribes paid in separate domains, as well as the official number of public
servants in these domains, their average wage, and number of corruption cases opened against them.
Corruption risks indicators Judges
(Housh.) CCECC
collaborators
(Bus)
Police officers (Housh.
)
Customs
officers (Bus.)
Fiscal inspectors
(Bus)
Doctors and
assistants
(Housh.)
Teachers/ Professors (Housh.)
Total number, persons 440 507 12899 1809 1706 33512 40159
Average monthly salary (including bonuses, premiums, etc.)
4880 4302 3800 3725 4291 2920 3323
Average bribe, Lei 1701 0 687 3145 1781 992 1412
Estimated total bribes, Mil. Lei 12,5 0 45,4 75 32,4 238 185
Estimated total number of bribes 7163 0 64471 23857 18224 234348 127919
Number of criminal dossiers opened by the CCECC/Anti-corruption Prosecutor Office
0 0 42 10 1 18 20
Average salary compared to the minimum subsistence, %
320 290 250 250 290 190 220
Average bribe compared to the average salary, %
30 0 20 80 40 30 40
Average bribe per person, Thou. Lei
28,4 0,0 3,5 41,5 19,0 7,1 4,6
Probability of being caught read handed (with a bribe), %
0,000 Z 0,065 0,042 0,005 0,008 0,016
Share of persons being caught read handed in the total number, %
0,00 0,00 0,33 0,55 0,06 0,05 0,05
Calculations show that when persons involved in corruption are not properly punished, even a
relatively high salary is not an impediment for taking bribes. For example, for customs employees,
whose salary covers the minimal consumer basket 2.5 times, the average bribe is still high in absolute
terms and compared to their salary.
Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences
41
Furthermore, unpunished corrupt persons easily adjust to new conditions and quickly compensate their
losses. Once the size of the bribe diminishes, their frequency increases to balance the loss.
Finally, calculations show that the probability to be caught red-handed was higher among customs
officials. Nonetheless, this likelihood remains extremely low (lower than 1%) in all of the domains,
which further facilitates the spread of the corruption phenomenon.
Transparency International – Moldova
42
Summary
Transparency International - Moldova carried out this study with the support of the US State Department.
The objective of the study was to analyze the perceptions and the encounters with corruption of households
and business people in the Republic of Moldova, as well as to evaluate the impact of the implementation of
the National Anticorruption Strategy in 2012.
The tasks of the study are the following:
- Evaluating the awareness of the population on the threat of corruption for doing business;
- Identifying the main causes of corruption and their evolution;
- Evaluating the perception and the personal encounters with corruption in 38 domains of public life;
- Estimating the total amount of unofficial payments in various public institutions/services;
- Evaluating the professionalism and credibility of the law enforcement staff members;
- Evaluating public tolerance towards corruption, the acceptability of unofficial payments and
willingness to pay bribes;
- Evaluating public awareness about conflict of interest;
- Identifying the most efficient measures to prevent and combat corruption;
- Identifying the main sources of information about corruption and evaluating the credibility of
information from mass-media;
- Calculating corruption risks indicators for the law enforcement institutions.
Two types of respondents were interviewed for this study: businesspeople and household representatives.
Separate questionnaires were used for each of the two categories.
The size of the sample: 490 businesspeople and 1106household representatives over the age of 18.
Representation: the sample is representative at the national level with a maximal error of +2.9% for
households and +4.4% for business people.
Sample: stratified, random, two-staged.
Stratification criteria:12 geographical regions based on territorial administrative units that were in place
before the last territorial-administrative reform, residential environment (urban-rural), size of urban
localities (2 types), size of rural localities (2 types of rural localities); The sample is relevant to analyze the
following strata of respondents: urban, rural, North, South and Center zones, with respective error margins
corresponding to the size of each strata of respondents.
Time of interviewing: July 26–August 7, 2012 to interview household representatives, and July 26–
September 10, 2012 to interview business people. The interviews were conducted at the respondents’
homes by the network of operators of CBS-AXA.
The comparison of the results of this study with the results of similar studies conducted by TI-Moldova in
the last 10 years allowed us to reveal some clear trends in perception and personal experience with
corruption by the general public, as well as in the behavior of representatives of public institutions and the
results of applied policies. For example:
For the household representatives, the gravity of corruption as an impediment for country’s
development did not change compared to 2008, and it remained third on the list of problems that
they face. For businesses, compared to 2008, a number of other priority problems have emerged
in addition to corruption, such as political instability, imperfections in the fiscal legislation,
frequent changes in legislation and high taxes. Corruption took the sixth place in their ranking.
Public awareness about the threat of corruption for the country’s development among
households and businesses has increased. If ten year ago the main part of the respondents
would consider poverty as the main cause of corruption, at present two thirds of respondents
understand that corruption causes poverty and therefore, fighting corruption is the main way to
Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences
43
address poverty. The share of households that are aware of the impact of corruption on poverty
increased from 56.8% in 2008 to 66.9% in 2012. Among businesses the number increased from
57.1% in 2008 to 63.5% in 2012.
About half of the households (49.6%) and business people (41.9%) think that the corruption
phenomenon increased in the last 12 month.
The share of respondents that think corruption increased in the last 12 months, %
2005 2007 2008 2012
Households 38 45,4 41 49,6
Businesses 37 35,4 33 41,9
Just as in the 2008study, the causes of corruption stated by the respondents were the lack of
punishment for those who commit acts of corruption and the lack of firm action taken by the
governance. To obtain the support of the public, the governance needs to conduct an extended
awareness raising campaign on the implementation of its engagements vis-a-vis corruption
prevention in diverse public institutions.
An important factor in the spread of corruption is conflict of interest in decision making situations.
The Law on conflict of interest and the mechanism of its implementation was modified in 2001.
To evaluate the degree of familiarization of the population with the notion of conflict of interest, the
representatives of the households were asked to select the right definition out three options. The
results showed that only 55% selected the correct answer. For comparison, in 2010, 76% of public
servants from central public authorities gave a correct answer. These statements suggest the need to
train the population and public servants to better understand conflict of interest and the
consequences for ignoring the law.
The main sources of information about corruption remained unchanged since 2008. The
respondents indicated television as the first source, followed by the printed and electronic press,
radio and discussions with friends and relatives. It is important to note that 34% of the household
respondents and 44% of businesses believed the information on corruption coming from mass-
media; however, their share slightly decreased since 2008. Mass-media needs to consolidate the
quality of the information related to corruption, to prove impartiality, ethical treatment and
good quality of argumentation of corruption cases.
Share of respondents that trust the information on corruption from mass-media,% 2005 2007 2008 2012
Households Z 40,3 50,0 33,9
Businesses Z 38,5 55,5 44,1
In the perception of household respondents, corruption in most spread among police employees,
health care and education institutions, customs, prosecutors and judges.
In the perception of business people, the most affected by corruption are police employees,
customs, law courts, fiscal inspectorates, and prosecutors. Compared to 2008, there is an increased
perception that corruption in law courts, fiscal inspectorates and prosecutor offices has raised.
Having been asked which branch of the state power is most corrupt, both categories of respondents
indicated the judicial branch.
Which branch of the state power is most
corrupt, %
Households Businesses
Transparency International – Moldova
44
Legislative 25.7 11.6
Judiciary 45.7 51.8
Executive 22.7 19.8
Do not know 5.9 16.7
Both, representatives of households and businesses consider money (cash) as the main modality to
solve unofficially their problems with public servants. This suggests that an efficient prevention of
corruption is impossible without a sound system of declaration and control of incomes and assets
by public servants.
When compared to 2008, the share of those who think that it is easier to solve problems through
unofficial channels is simpler remained within the margin of error.
Share of respondents that think it is easier to solve problems by unofficial channels,% 2005 2007 2008 2012
Households Z 48.6 49 53
Businesses Z 45.7 41.8 47.6
Among the institutions contacted by members of households the most are health care (55.2% of
total) and educational institutions (28%), as well as local public administration offices (23.6%). In
2012, business people contacted most frequently fiscal inspectorates (66.9% of total), health care
institutions (51%), vehicle technical inspectorates (47.1%), customs (44.3%) and sanitary
inspectorates(39.4%).
Households most frequently bribed police officers (41.2% of those who had contact with police),
educational institutions (40.4%), health care institutions (39.1%) and technical revision of vehicles
(33.1%). Businesses most frequently paid bribes to education (52.7%) and health care institutions
(52.4%), the police (45%), customs (42.9%), the office of construction authorizations (37%) and
the prosecutor’s office (33.3%). It is clear that to relieve the tension created in the society by the
spread of corruption, it would be most efficient to concentrate on fighting corruption in health care,
police and education institutions. If the governance aims to support businesses and increase its
budget revenue – they should concentrate on fiscal inspectorates and customs. Nevertheless, if the
governance wants to have a systemic approach in curbing corruption, it should start with such law
enforcement institutions as the prosecutor’s office and law courts.
The average bribe paid by households varies by domain. The highest bribes have been given to
attorneys (on average 5,274 lei) who, in fact, direct the bribe to judges and prosecutors (4,378 lei).
The highest average bribes paid by business people are directed to judges (4,550 lei), customs
officers (3,145 lei), cadastral bureaus (2,740 lei) and services issuing construction authorizations
(2,463 lei).
In the last 12 months, the total estimated bribe paid by households constituted about 732 million lei,
which is a 15% increase in absolute value compared to 2008. Taking into consideration a 30%
increase in consumer prices for goods and services during 2008-20126, in real terms this amount
diminished by about 15%. In the same period of time, households paid most to health care (238
million lei), education institutions (185 million lei), and police (45.4 million lei). While police
achieved considerable progress in reducing the amount of accepted bribes from 97 million lei in
2008 to 45.4 million lei in 2012, the situation in health care and education was different. Thus, in
health care the total bribe increased by one quarter compared to 2008, or a little less than the
consumer prices. As for the education system, the total amount of paid bribes increased 2.9 times
compared to 2008, which cannot be explained by the inflation phenomenon.
6http://statbank.statistica.md
Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences
45
Households – evolution of estimated total bribe (million lei)
2005 2007 2008 2012
Police 81.5 79.9 97 45.4
Education 126 76.5 64 185
Health care 200 153 190 238
Other 493.6 280.6 279 264.3
TOTAL 901.1 590 630 732.7
The total amount of bribes paid by businesses in the last 12 months reached about 390 million lei,
increasing in absolute value by 49% compared to 2008. The largest amount of bribes was paid to the
customs officers (75 million lei), health care institutions (41.6 million lei), police (41 million lei), fiscal
inspectors (32.4 million lei) and fire inspectors (31.8 million lei). The fact that, compared to 2008 this
amount increased in absolute value almost 1.5 times cannot be explained simplyby inflation, and it
demonstrates a worsening business environment in the country.
While in other domains the majority of unofficial payments were made to speed up the
provision of services, bribes to law enforcement bodies were given to avoid punishment for
breaking the law. Compared to 2008, the share of those who paid to speed up the process
increased in the police, while in other domains this share diminished. The biggest modification
was noticed in the fiscal inspectorates, where the share of payments made to speed up the
process decreased from 75.3% in 2008 to 35.4% in 2012.
The respondents stated that while the bribes made to health care providers were mostly
voluntary, those made to judges, customs officers and fiscal inspectors were made under
pressure. Compared to 2008, the share of those who paid bribes voluntarily to all of the above
mentioned groups decreased. The most significant decline has been noticed in courts of law,
where this indicator diminished from 67.8% in 2008 to 25.8% in 2012.
Although the total amount of bribes paid by businesses increased in 2012, their attitude towards
the country governance and its efforts to improve the business environment did not deteriorate.
The share of respondents who believe that the state impedes entrepreneurial activity diminished
from 46.7% in 2008 to 33.2% in 2012, and two-fold since 2000.
Share of businesses that consider the state impedes the entrepreneurial activity, %
2005 2007 2008 2012
46.7 47.3 33.8 33.2
On a positive note, the amount of time spent on solving problems with state institutions continually
reduced. From 2008, when respondents spent 17.3% of their working time on this process, the
number dropped to 11.1% in 2012.
Time spent on solving problems with public institutions, (% of total time)
2005 2007 2008 2012
22.4 21 17.3 11.1
More than two thirds of the business people stated that the fiscal inspectors correctly followed the
procedure during their controls. The share of business people who had a positive experience during
the visit of fiscal inspectors increased from 41.1% in 2005 to 72.5% in 2012.
Share of business people who consider that the fiscal inspector followedthe correctprocedures during the
fiscal controls, %
Transparency International – Moldova
46
2005 2007 2008 2012
41.1 60.5 66 72.5
The number of visits by state representatives made to businesses decreased from 21 times a year in
2008 to 6.5 times in 2012. Currently, they are most frequently visited by police officers.
Willingness to pay bribes to solve their problems with the state remains high among the
respondents. More than two thirds of them confirmed this fact. The share of those who say a firm
„NO” to bribes is slowly increasing.
Share of those who DO NOT want to pay bribes in difficult situations, %
2005 2007 2008 2012
Households 23 24.1 34.7 27.1
Businesses 12 19.5 23.5 27.9
Compared to 2005, the share of those who do not consider corruption acceptable increased 1.5
times, from 43% in 2008 to 67.1% in 2012 among households, and from 49% in 2008 to 78.5%
among businesses. This shows a clear trend of diminishing tolerance towards corruption.
Along with a diminished tolerance towards corruption, respondents changed their overall sentiment
towards offering bribes. Three quarters of both categories of respondents stated that they had
negative emotions when solving their problem by giving a bribe. Their share rapidly increased from
49.3% in 2008 to 73.1% in 2012 among households and from 41.2% in 2008 to 76.6% in 2012.
Share of respondents that state they have negative sentiments when giving a bribe, %
2005 2007 2008 2012
Households 49.6 42.1 49.3 73.1
Businesses 44.1 43.8 41.2 76.6
Even though tolerance towards corruption decreases, the will to oppose corruption by collaborating
with law enforcement institutions remains low. About 37.3% of households faced corruption in the
last 12 month, 1.9% tried to solve their case in a legal manner and only 0.9% succeeded to solve
their problem entirely or partially. Also, 40% of businesses faced corruption, 1.8% tried to solve
their problem officially and only 0.7% had some success. It is remarkable that the share of
respondents that do not know whom to address with their case of corruption continually diminishes.
Share of respondents that do not know where to address a case of corruption, %
2005 2007 2008 2012
Households z 19.3 10.4 6.8
Businesses z 7.3 3.5 4.8
Public authorities need to appeal to the population more rigorously and work together on combating
corruption. It is necessary to improve the quality of public anti-corruption hot-lines and petition systems.
An important role in this context play public awareness campaigns on achievements made in this domain,
and the consolidation of whistleblower and witness protection mechanisms.
If a ranking of law enforcement institutions and control bodies was made, respondents would
evaluate the officers of the Internal Service and Security as most professional, followed by fiscal
inspectors, the collaborators of the Center for Combating Economic Crime and Corruption and
prosecutors. The list would be closed by judges, customs officers and police officers.
Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences
47
In a ranking of this type, the most credible from the point of view of the poll participants would be
fiscal inspectors, followed by Center for Combating Economic Crime and Corruption officers. The
list would be closed by customs officers, judges and police officers.
In spite of the high level of corruption in the Republic of Moldova, the majority of households
(75.5%) and businesses (84.4%) are optimistic about Moldova’s chances to curb corruption. The
state must rely on this optimism and engage the population in the process of combating corruption.
It is certain that if the supremacy of the law is not ensured and corrupt persons are not properly
sanctioned, increasing the salary of public servants would only contribute to inflation and the public
servant would adjust the size of the bribe to the his/her new salary. The estimation made in this
study on the total bribe paid in Moldova confirms this premise. Still, when asked what should be
the monthly salary of a public servant that would make him/her resistant to bribes, the respondents
proved a good understanding and came up with realistic and well-motivated figures.
2007 2008 2012
Households Businesses Households Businesses Households Businesses Minister 1600 2300 1615 2280 1356 1939 Head of Department
900 1270 1090 1460 912 1160
Ordinary public servant
560 685 705 850 653 783
Judge z z z z 1334 1931
Among the most efficient ways to curb corruption, both categories listed increasing sanctions to
those who take and offer bribes, meritocratic promotion and increasing the salaries of public
servants.
Transparency International – Moldova
48
Anexa
CHESTIONAREA REPREZENTANŢILOR GOSPODĂRIILOR CASNICE
În atenţia operatorului. Textul ce urmează trebuie citit respondentului.
Transparency International – Moldova efectuează acest sondaj cu suportul Departamentului de Stat al SUA, Scopul
sondajului este de a studia cauzele, a evalua percepţiile şi experienţele privind corupţia în structurile statale din Republica
Moldova, precum şi pentru a elabora propuneri de remediere a situaţiei.
Coordonatorul cercetării este Dr. Lilia Caraşciuc, directorul executiv al Transparency International – Moldova. Tel./fax 20-
34-84, 23-78-76, e-mail: [email protected]
Va mulţumim anticipat pentru participare, asigurându-vă că chestionarul este anonim, iar informaţia prezentată –
confidenţială. Vă rugăm să fiţi pe cât se poate de obiectiv la completarea chestionarului.
Codul individual al operatorului:_______ _____________________
Data realizării interviului:__________________________________
Locul realizării interviului:__________________________________
Timpul începerii interviului: _________________________________
1. Vârsta
Numărul de ani 18–24 25–29 30–39 40-49 50–59 Peste 60
2. Genul
3. Studiile
1.Medii incomplete
2.Medii
3.Medii de specialitate
4.Superioare, inclusiv incomplete
4. Mediul rezidenţial
5 A. Ce venituri are familia Dvs. (un răspuns)
1.Venituri foarte joase
2.Venituri mai joase decât cele medii
3.Venituri medii
4.Venituri mai ridicate decât cele medii
5.Venituri înalte
5 B. Notaţi la ce categorie de persoane Vă referiţi:
1.Persoană angajată în baza contractului de muncă permanent
2.Persoană angajată în baza contractului de muncă temporar (ocaziţional, sezonier)
3.Persoană angajată fără contract de muncă (la negru)
4.Şomer înregistrat official
5.Persoană care nu lucrează, dar caută de lucru
6.Persoană care nu lucrează şi nu caută de lucru
7. Student
8.Alţii (invalizi, pensionari, persoane în concediu de maternitate)
6. Cât de acute sunt pentru Dvs. următoarele probleme?
Factorul 1.Nu este o
problemă
2.Puţin
acută
3.Neacut
ă
4.Acută 5.Foarte
acută
6.Problemă
majoră
Inflaţia
Calitatea joasă a sistemului
educaţional
Calitatea nesatisfăcătoare a
1.Masculin 2.Feminin
1.Urban 2.Rural
MOLDOVA
Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences
49
asistenţei medicale
Accesul limitat la informaţiile
publice
Criminalitatea
Corupţia
Impozitele înalte
Instabilitatea politică
Sărăcia
Servicii nesatisfăcătoare de
comunicaţii (drumuri, linii
telefonice, acces Internet, etc.)
Birocraţia
Schimbări frecvente în legislaţie
Reglementarea complicată a
business-ului
Şomajul înalt
Degradarea mediului ambiant
Sistemul judecătoresc
nedrept/inechitabil
Altele, indicaţi
7. Care sunt principalele surse de informare din care aflaţi despre corupţie? (3 răspunsuri)
1.Televiziunea
2.Radioul
3.Presa, inclusiv electronică
4.Experienţa proprie
5.Discuţiile cu rudele, prietenii, cunoscuţii
6.Rapoartele instituţiilor de stat
7.Comunicate ale organizaţiilor neguvernamentale
8.Comunicate ale organizaţiilor internaţionale
9.Altele, indicaţi
Căt de mult credeţi în informaţiile despre corupţie din mass-media? (1 răspuns)
1.Foarte mult 2.Mult 3.Puţin 4.Nu cred deloc
9. Cât de importante sunt următoarele cauze în răspândirea corupţiei în RMoldova?
1.Foarte
importantă
2.Destul de
importantă
3.Puţin
important
ă
4.Nu este
o cauză
Lipsa controlului intern în instituţiile publice
Persoanele corupte nu sunt trase la răspundere
Guvernarea nu abordează problema în mod serios
Lăcomia
Lipsa transparenţei în activitatea instituţiilor publice
Salariile mici
Presiunile din partea rudelor şi prietenilor
Presiunile din partea şefului
Este deja o tradiţie
Lipsa standardelor de conduită a funcţionarilor publici
Nivelul scăzut de cultură
Altele, indicaţi
10. În opinia dvs. ...
10.1 câtă încredere aveţi în …? 10.2 care este nivelul de
profesionalism al acestora?
1.nu am
deloc
încredere
2.puţină
încredere
3.multă
încredere
4.încredere
deplină
5.înalt 6.mediu 7.jos
Inspectori fiscali
Transparency International – Moldova
50
Vameşi
Poliţişti
Judecători
Colaboratori ai CCCEC
Medici
Colaboratori ai Serviciul de
Informaţii şi Securitate
Procurori
11. Cât de acceptabilă după părerea Dvs. este situaţia în care un funcţionar primeşte o plată neoficială şi o foloseşte pentru
a-şi achita datoriile la serviciile comunale?
1.Acceptabilă pe deplin 2.Acceptabilă parţial 3.Acceptabilă în anumite situaţii 4.Inacceptabilă
12. În opinia Dvs., cât de frecvent se recurge la bani, cadouri, contacte personale pentru a „soluţiona” problemele în …?
Instituţiile/serviciile/
domeniile
1.Niciod
ată 2.Rar 3.Câteodată
4.Ade-
sea
5.Foarte
des
6.Întot-
deauna
7.NŞ
/NR
Administraţia publică
centrală
Administraţia publică locală
Inspectoratele fiscale
Vama
Poliţia
Procuratura
Inspecţiile sanitar-
epidemiologice
Birourile cadastrale
Privatizarea
Arenda proprietăţii de stat
Instanţele de judecată
Achiziţiile publice
Instituţiile de învăţământ
Instituţiile medicale
Oficiile stării civile
Birourile de paşapoarte
Serviciile comunale
Camera Înregistrării de stat
Inspecţiile antiincendiare
Inspectoratul energetic
Inspecţia ecologică
CCCEC
Serviciul de Informaţii şi
Securitate
Eliberarea vizelor
Licenţierea
Birourile notariale
Birourile de avocaţi
Accesul la credite,
împrumuturi
Înregistrarea transportului,
elib. certificatului de
conducere
Revizia tehnică a
automobilelor
Eliberarea autorizaţiilor de
construcţie
Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences
51
Instituţiile/serviciile/
domeniile
1.Niciod
ată 2.Rar 3.Câteodată
4.Ade-
sea
5.Foarte
des
6.Întot-
deauna
7.NŞ
/NR
Furnizarea de apă
Furnizarea de electricitate
Furnizarea de gaze
Furnizarea de căldură/agent
termic
Inspecţia muncii
Telecomunicaţiile
Companiile de asigurări
13. Căile neoficiale de soluţionare a problemelor cu funcţionarii publici, de obicei, iau forma de … (1 răspuns):
1. Contacte/relaţii
2. Cadouri
3. Bani
4. Presiuni din partea conducerii
5. Presiuni din partea organizaţiilor criminale
6. Altele, indicaţi
Încă o dată Vă asigurăm confidenţialitatea interviului nostru
14. Uneori, oamenii trebuie să plătească neoficial sau să ofere cadouri pentru a obţine diverse servicii, pentru a evita
problemele în organele de stat, precum şi pentru a obţine favoruri. Pe parcursul ultimului an Dvs. (sau altcineva din familia
Dvs.) aţi plătit neoficial sau aţi oferit cadouri angajaţilor din următoarele instituţii/servicii/domenii?
Instituţiile/
serviciile/
domeniile
14.1
Aţi contactat
instituţia?
14.2
De câte ori
aţi contac
tat-o?
14.3
Aţi plătit
neoficial?
14.4
Dacă aţi plătit
neoficil, aţi
făcut-o:
14.5
De câte ori
aţi plătit
neoficial?
14.6
Suma
totală,
lei Da Nu Da Nu Din
iniţiativ
ă
proprie
Aţi
fost
impus
Administraţia publică centrală
Administraţia publică locală Inspectoratele fiscale
Vama
Poliţia
Procuratura
Inspecţiile sanitar-
epidemiologice
Birourile cadastrale
Privatizarea
Arenda proprietăţii de stat
Instanţele de judecată
Achiziţiile publice
Instituţiile de învăţământ
Instituţiile medicale
Oficiile stării civile
Birourile de paşapoarte
Serviciile comunale
Camera Înregistrării de Stat
Inspecţiile antiincendiare
Inspectoratul energetic
Inspecţia ecologică
CCCEC
Serviciul Intern de Securitate
(SIS)
Eliberarea vizelor
Licenţierea
Birourile notariale
Birourile de avocaţi
Transparency International – Moldova
52
Instituţiile/
serviciile/
domeniile
14.1
Aţi contactat
instituţia?
14.2
De câte ori
aţi contac
tat-o?
14.3
Aţi plătit
neoficial?
14.4
Dacă aţi plătit
neoficil, aţi
făcut-o:
14.5
De câte ori
aţi plătit
neoficial?
14.6
Suma
totală,
lei Accesul la credite,
împrumuturi
Înregistrarea transportului şi
calificarea conducătorilor auto
Revizia tehnică a
automobilelor
Eliberarea autorizaţiilor de
construcţie
Furnizarea de apă
Furnizarea de electricitate
Furnizarea de gaze
Furnizarea de căldură/agent
termic
Inspecţia muncii
Telecomunicaţiile
Companiile de asigurări
15. Dacă aţi plătit neoficial (aţi dat bani, cadouri, servicii), în ce scop aţi făcut-o: (Dacă NU – treci la întrebarea 16)
Pentru a „unge roţile” (a obţine ceva ce se cuvine conform legii)
Pentru a evita pedeapsa/sancţiunea
16. Când contactaţi instituţiile de stat, este mai uşor de a soluţiona problemele prin „căi neoficiale” decât prin cele oficiale?
(1 răspuns)
1.Întotdeauna
2.În majoritatea cazurilor
3.Foarte des
4.Câteodată
5.Rar de tot
6.Niciodată
7.NŞ/NR
17. Imaginaţi-vă că aţi fost impus să oferiţi cadou unui funcţionar public pentru a vă soluţiona problema. În opinia Dvs.,
cum v-aţi fi simţit? (un singur răspuns)
1.Indignat/ă 2.Înjosit/ă 3.Indiferent/ă 4.Satisfăcut/ă 5.Bucuros/oasă 6.NŞ/NR
18. Dacă dvs. veţi fi pus într-o situaţie dificilă, veţi plăti mită?
1.Da 2.Nu 3.Depinde de circumstanţe
19. Pe parcursul ultimului an dvs. sau altcineva din familia dvs. v-aţi confruntat cu cazuri de mituire, protecţionism, trafic
de influenţă, etc. în instituţiile de stat?
1.Da 2.Nu
20. Dvs. sau cineva din familia dvs., v-aţi plâns/aţi depus plângere privitor la cazurile de corupţie? (Dacă NU – treci la
întrebarea 23)
1.Da 2.Nu
21. Daca da, unde v-aţi adresat? ? (răspuns multiplu 2)
1. La poliţie
2. La avocat
3. În judecată
4. La Procuratură
5. În presă
Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences
53
6. Funcţionarului superior
7. Prietenilor, rudelor, vecinilor
8. La CCCEC
9. La ONG-uri
10.La Guvern, Preşedinţie, Parlament
11.Altele, indicaţi
22. A fost rezolvată problema dvs.?
1.Da 2.Parţial 3.Nu
23. Dacă nu aţi depus plângere, de ce nu aţi făcut-o? (răspuns multiplu 2)
1.Nu aţi ştiut unde şi cui să vă adresaţi
2.Ar fi luat prea mult timp
3.Nimic nu s-ar schimba
4.V-ar fi creat doar probleme
5.Alte cauze, specificaţi
24. Aţi putea să povestiţi despre un caz concret de corupţie (dare/luare de mită, protecţionism, cumătrism) din propria
experienţă din ultimele 12 luni?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
____________________
25. Care ramură a puterii de stat vă pare cea mai coruptă? (indicaţi un răspuns)
1. Parlamentul 2. Sistemul judecătoresc 3. Guvernul
26. În opinia dvs., ce înseamnă un conflict de interese în sectorul public? (bifaţi un singur răspuns)
1.Un conflict dintre funcţionarii publici
2.Un conflict dintre interesele personale ale unui funcţionar public şi obligaţiile lui de serviciu
3.Un conflict dintre interese personale ale unui funcţionar public
27. Cât de eficiente ar fi următoarele măsuri pentru a reduce corupţia în Moldova?
1.Deloc
eficiente
2.Puţin
eficiente
3.Destul de
eficiente
4.Foarte
eficiente
5.NŞ/
NR
Controlul declaraţiilor de venituri ale funcţionarilor publici
Reducerea numărului de intervenţii ale statului în economie
Informarea populaţiei despre pericolul corupţiei
Aplicarea normelor de conduită în serviciul public si sancţiunilor
pentru nerespectarea lor
Asigurarea independenţei judecătorilor
Transparentizarea activităţii instituţiilor publice
Promovarea în funcţie după merit a angajaţilor din serviciul public
Înăsprirea sancţiunilor faţă de cei care iau mită
Înăsprirea sancţiunilor faţă de cei care dau mită
Mărirea salariilor
Introducerea unor sancţiuni severe pentru comportament corupt
28. Cum consideraţi, care ar trebui să fie salariul lunar al următoarelor persoane pentru ca ele să nu primească plăţi
neoficiale?
Dolari SUA
1.Funcţionar de rand
2.Şef de department
3.Ministru
Transparency International – Moldova
54
4.Judecător
5. Preşedinte de ţară
29. Care din următoarele afirmaţii o consideraţi mai corectă?
1.Suntem corupţi deoarece suntem săraci
2.Suntem săraci deoarece suntem corupţi
30. Cu care din afirmaţiile de mai jos sunteţi de acord? În Republica Moldova ... (1 răspuns)
1.Corupţia nu poate fi combătută
2.Corupţia va exista întotdeauna, dar poate fi limitată
3.Corupţia poate fi redusă substanţial
4.Corupţia poate fi complet extirpată
5.NŞ/NR
31. După părerea Dvs. pe parcursul ultimului an (12 luni), corupţia în instituţiile de stat ...
1.A
sporit
mult
2.A sporit
puţin
3.A rămas
aproximativ aceeaşi
4.S-a micşorat
puţin
5.S-a micşorat
mult
6.NŞ/NR
Timpul finalizării interviului______
Vă mulţumim pentru colaborare!
Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences
55
Anexa
CHESTIONAREA OAMENILOR DE AFACERI
În atenţia operatorului: textul ce urmează trebuie citit respondentului,
Transparency International – Moldova efectuează acest sondaj cu suportul Departamentului de Stat al SUA. Scopul
sondajului este de a studia cauzele, a evalua percepţiile şi experienţele privind corupţia în structurile statale din Republica
Moldova, precum şi pentru a elabora propuneri de remediere a situaţiei.
Coordonatorul cercetării este Dr. Lilia Caraşciuc, directorul executiv al Transparency International – Moldova. Tel,/fax 20-
34-84, 23-78-76, e-mail: [email protected]
Va mulţumim anticipat pentru participare, asigurându-vă că chestionarul este anonim, iar informaţia prezentată –
confidenţială, Vă rugăm să fiţi pe cât se poate de obiectiv la completarea chestionarului.
Codul individual al operatorului:_______ _____________________
Data realizării interviului:__________________________________
Locul realizării interviului:__________________________________
Timpul începerii interviului: _________________________________
Date despre respondent
1. Vârsta
Ani 18-24 25-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 Peste 60
2. Genul:
1. Masculin 2. Feminin
3. Studiile:
1.Medii incomplete
2.Medii
3.Medii de specialitate
4.Superioare, inclusiv incomplete
4. Mediul rezidenţial
1. Urban 2. Rural
5. Ce venituri are familia Dvs. (1 răspuns)
1. Foarte joase 2. Joase 3. Medii 4. Mai ridicate decât cele medii 5.Înalte
6. Evaluaţi în ce măsură următorii factori împiedică desfăşurarea afacerilor în Moldova?
Factorul 1.Nu
împiedi că
deloc
2.Împiedică
uneori
3.Împiedică
puţin
4.Împiedic
ă mult
5.Împiedi
că foarte
mult
6.Blochea ză
Inflaţia
Lipsa proprietăţii pentru a fi
depuse în gaj
Impozitele şi taxele înalte
Legislaţia fiscală imperfectă
Acces dificil la credite bancare
Criminalitatea
Corupţia
Deficitul de forţă de muncă
calificată
Infrastructura slab dezvoltată a
pieţei
Situaţii de monopol pe piaţă
MOLDOVA
MOLDOVA
Transparency International – Moldova
56
Lipsa materiei prime
Numărul mare de controale şi
inspecţii
Instabilitatea politică
Schimbări frecvente ale
legislaţiei
Reglementarea complicată a
business-ului
Probleme şi reglementări la
export-import
Controlul preţurilor
Legislaţia muncii imperfectă
Sistemul judecătoresc
nedrept/inechitabil
Alte, indicaţi
7. Care sunt principalele surse de informare din care aflaţi despre corupţie? (cel mult 3 răspunsuri)
1.Televiziunea
2.Radioul
3.Presa, inclusiv electronică
4.Experienţa proprie
5.Discuţiile cu rudele, prietenii, cunoscuţii
6.Rapoartele instituţiilor de stat
7.Comunicatele organizaţiilor neguvernamentale
8.Comunicatele organizaţiilor internaţionale
9.Altele, specificaţi ______________________
8. Cât de mult credeţi în informaţiile despre corupţie din mass-media? (1 răspuns)
1.Foarte mult
2.Mult
3.Puţin
4.Nu cred deloc
9. Cât de importante sunt următoarele cauze în răspândirea corupţiei în RMoldova? Se evaluează pe o scară de la 1 la 4 (1 –
cauză foarte importantă, 2 – cauză destul de importantă, 3 – cauză puţin importantă, 4 – nu este o cauză)
1.Foarte
importantă
2.Destul
de impor
tantă
3.Puţin
impor
tantă
4.Nu
este o
cauză
Lipsa controlului intern în instituţiile publice
Persoanele corupte nu sunt trase la răspundere
Guvernul nu abordează problema în mod serios
Lăcomia
Lipsa transparenţei în activitatea instituţiilor publice
Salariile mici
Presiunile din partea rudelor şi prietenilor
Presiunile din partea şefului
Este deja o tradiţie
Lipsa standardelor de conduită a funcţionarilor publici
Nivelul scăzut de cultură
Altele, indicaţi
10. În opinia dvs, ...
câtă încredere aveţi în …?
care este nivelul de profesionalism
al acestora?
1.nu am
deloc
încredere
2.puţină
încredere
3.multă
încredere
4.încredere
deplină
5.înalt 6.mediu 7.jos
Inspectori fiscali
Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences
57
Vameşi
Poliţişti
Judecători
Colaboratori ai CCCEC
Colaboratori ai Serviciului
de Informaţii şi Securitate
Procurori
11. Cât de acceptabilă după părerea Dvs, este situaţia în care un funcţionar primeşte o plată neoficială şi o foloseşte pentru
a-şi achita datoriile la serviciile comunale?
1.Acceptabilă pe deplin 2.Acceptabilă parţial 3.Acceptabilă în anumite situaţii 4.Inacceptabilă
12. În opinia Dvs,, cât de frecvent se recurge la bani, cadouri, contacte personale pentru a „soluţiona” problemele în …?
Instituţiile/serviciile/
domeniile 1.Niciodată 2.Rar
3.Câteo
dată
4.Adese
a
5.Foarte
des
6.Întot-
deauna 7.NŞ /NR
Administraţia publică centrală
Administraţia publică locală
Inspectoratele fiscale
Vama
Poliţia
Procuratura
Inspecţiile sanitar-epidemiologice
Birourile cadastrale
Privatizarea
Arenda proprietăţii de stat
Instanţele de judecată
Achiziţiile publice
Birourile de paşapoarte
Serviciile comunale
Camera Înregistrării de Stat
Inspecţiile antiincendiare
Inspectoratul energetic
Serviciile de protecţie a mediului
CCCEC
Eliberarea vizelor
Licenţierea
Birourile notariale
Birourile de avocaţi
Accesul la credite, împrumuturi
Înregistrarea transportului şi eliberarea
permisului de conducere
Revizia tehnică a automobilelor
Eliberarea autorizaţiilor de construcţie
Furnizarea de apă
Furnizarea de electricitate
Furnizarea de gaze
Furnizarea de căldură/agent termic
Inspecţia muncii
Telecomunicaţiile
Companiile de asigurări
13. Căile neoficiale de soluţionare a problemelor cu funcţionarii publici, de obicei, iau forma de … (1 răspuns):
1.Contacte/relaţii
Transparency International – Moldova
58
2.Cadouri
3.Bani
4.Presiuni din partea conducerii
5.Presiuni din partea organizaţiilor criminale
6. Altele, indicaţi
Încă o dată Vă asigurăm confidenţialitatea interviului nostru
Uneori, oamenii trebuie să plătească neoficial sau să ofere cadouri pentru a obţine diverse servicii, pentru a evita probleme
cu poliţia sau alte organe de stat, precum şi pentru a obţine favoruri speciale (loc de muncă, contract, licenţă, etc,).
14. Pe parcursul ultimului an Dvs, (sau altcineva din întreprinderea Dvs,) aţi plătit neoficial sau aţi oferit cadouri
angajaţilor din următoarele instituţii/servicii/domenii?
Instituţiile/
serviciile/
Domeniile
14.1
Aţi contactat
instituţia?
14.2
De
câte
ori aţi
contac
tat-o?
14.3
Aţi plătit
neoficial?
14.4
Dacă aţi plătit
neoficial, aţi făcut-o:
14.5
De câte
ori aţi
plătit
neofici
al?
14.6
Suma
totală, lei
Da Nu Da Nu Din
iniţia-
tivă
proprie
Aţi fost
impus Inspectoratele fiscale
Vama
Poliţia
Procuratura
Inspecţiile sanitar-epidemiologice
Birourile cadastrale
Privatizarea
Arenda proprietăţii de stat
Instanţele de judecată
Achiziţiile publice
Instituţiile de învăţământ
Instituţiile medicale
Birourile de paşapoarte
Serviciile comunale
Camera Înregistrării de stat
Inspecţiile antiincendiare
Inspectoratul energetic
Serviciile de protecţie a mediului
CCCEC
Eliberarea vizelor
Licenţierea
Birourile notariale
Birourile de avocaţi
Accesul la credite, împrumuturi
Înregistrarea transportului şi eliberarea
permisului de conducere
Revizia tehnică a automobilelor
Eliberarea autorizaţiilor de construcţie
Furnizarea de apă
Furnizarea de electricitate
Furnizarea de gaze
Furnizarea de căldură/agent termic
Inspecţia muncii
Telecomunicaţiile
15. Dacă aţi plătit neoficial (aţi dat bani, cadouri, servicii), în ce scop aţi făcut-o: (Dacă NU – treci la întrebarea 16)
Pentru a „unge roţile” (a obţine ceva ce se cuvine conform legii) 2. Pentru a evita pedeapsa/sancţiunea
16. Când contactaţi instituţiile de stat, este mai uşor de a soluţiona problemele prin „căi neoficiale” decât prin cele oficiale?
(un răspuns)
1.Întotdeauna
2.În majoritatea cazurilor
Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences
59
3.Foarte des
4.Câteodată
5.Rar de tot
6.Niciodată
7.NŞ/NR
17. Pe parcursul ultimelor 12 luni, ce organe de control şi de câte ori au vizitat compania Dvs.?
Numărul de vizite în 12 luni
Inspectoratul fiscal
Poliţia
Inspecţia antiincendiară
Inspectoratul energetic
Inspecţia sanitar-epidemiologică
CCCEC
Serviciul de protecţie a mediului
Inspecţia Muncii
Altele, indicaţi
18. Dacă inspectorul fiscal găseşte o încălcare a legislaţiei, cum procedează el de obicei …
1.Înregistrează încălcările şi întocmeşte actul de control conform regulamentului
2.Dă de înţeles că este necesar de a plăti pentru a „soluţiona” problemele
3.Numeşte preţul pentru a corecta datele raportului
4.Altele (indicaţi) ______________________________
19. Dacă vi se depistează o încălcare a legislaţiei pentru care trebuie să plătiţi o amendă într-o suma X, de obicei, a câta
parte din această sumă este necesar de plătit direct inspectorului pentru a „soluţiona” problema ( % din X) ________
20. Estimaţi, a câta parte din timpul de lucru o utilizaţi pentru a rezolva problemele cu funcţionarii din instituţiile de stat?
___ %
21. Pe parcursul ultimilor doi ani, la câte oferte de achiziţii publice a participat compania Dvs.? _______
22. Dacă nu aţi participat, cât de importante au fost
următoarele motive? (foarte important, important, minor, nu
este un motiv)
1.Foarte
important
2.Important 3.Motiv
minor
4.Nu este un
motiv
Complexitatea procedurii
Costul procedurii
Prea multă concurenţă
Nu aş câştiga contractul fără efectuarea unor plăţi neoficiale
Procedura achiziţiilor publice nu este transparentă şi
echitabilă;
Contractele directe sunt mai simple
Nu este profilul nostru
Altele, indicaţi
23. Cum evaluaţi aportul statului în desfăşurarea business-ului Dvs,? (1 răspuns)
1.Ajută mult
2. Ajută întrucâtva
3. Ajută foarte puţin
4. Este absolut neutru
5.Câteodată chiar împiedică
6.Mai mult împiedică
Transparency International – Moldova
60
7. NŞ/NR
24. Imaginaţi-vă că aţi fost impus să oferiţi cadou unui funcţionar public pentru a vă soluţiona problema.
În opinia Dvs., cum v-aţi fi simţit? (un singur răspuns)
1.Indignat/ă 2.Înjosit/ă 3.Indiferent/ă 4.Satisfăcut/ă 5.Bucuros/să 6.NŞ/NR
25. Dacă dvs. veţi fi într-o situaţie dificilă, veţi plăti mită?
1.Da 2. Nu 3. Depinde de circumstanţe
26 Care ramură a puterii de stat Vă pare cea mai coruptă? (indicaţi un răspuns)
1. Parlamentul 2. Sistemul judecătoresc 3. Guvernul
27. Pe parcursul ultimului an dvs. sau altcineva din familia dvs. v-aţi confruntat cu cazuri de mituire, protecţionism, trafic
de influenţă, etc. în instituţiile publice?
1.Da 2.Nu
28. Dvs. sau cineva din familia dvs. v-aţi plâns/aţi depus plângere privitor la cazurile de corupţie? (Dacă NU, treci la
întrebarea 31)
1.Da 2.Nu
29. Daca Da, unde v-aţi adresat? (răspuns multiplu 2)
1.La poliţie
2.La avocat
3.În judecată
4.La Procuratură
5.În presă
6.Funcţionarului superior
7.Prietenilor, rudelor, vecinilor
8.La CCCEC
9.La ONG-uri
10.La Guvern, Preşedinţie, Parlament
11.Altele, indicaţi
30. A fost rezolvată problema dvs.?
1.Да 2. Parţial 3. Nu
31. Dacă nu aţi depus plângere, de ce nu aţi făcut-o? (răspuns multiplu 2)
1.Nu am ştiut unde şi cui să mă adresez
2.Ar fi luat prea mult timp
3.Nimic nu s-ar schimba
4.V-ar fi creat doar probleme
5.Alte cauze, specificaţi
32. Aţi putea să povestiţi despre un caz concret de corupţie (dare/luare de mită, protecţionism, cumătrism) din propria
experienţă din ultimele 12 luni?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________________________
______
33. Cât de eficiente ar fi următoarele măsuri pentru a reduce corupţia în Moldova?
1.Deloc
eficiente
2.Puţin
Eficiente
3.Destul de
eficiente
4.Foarte
eficiente
5.NŞ/
NR
Controlul declaraţiilor de venituri ale funcţionarilor publici
Reducerea numărului de intervenţii ale statului în economie
Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences
61
Informarea populaţiei despre pericolul corupţiei
Aplicarea normelor de conduită în serviciul public si a
sancţiunilor pentru nerespectarea lor
Asigurarea independenţei judecătorilor
Publicarea bugetelor instituţiilor publice
Promovarea în funcţie după merit a angajaţilor din serviciul
public
Înăsprirea sancţiunilor faţă de cei care iau mită
Înăsprirea sancţiunilor faţă de cei care dau mită
Mărirea salariilor
Introducerea unor sancţiuni severe pentru comportament
corupt
34. Cum consideraţi, care ar trebui să fie salariul lunar al următoarelor persoane pentru ca ele să nu primească plăţi
neoficiale?
Dolari SUA
1. Funcţionar de rând
2. Şef de departament
3. Ministru
4. Judecător
35. Care din următoarele afirmaţii o consideraţi mai corectă?
1.Suntem corupţi deoarece suntem săraci
2.Suntem săraci deoarece suntem corupţi
36. Cu care din afirmaţiile de mai jos sunteţi de acord? În Republica Moldova … (1 răspuns)
1.Corupţia nu poate fi combătută
2.Corupţia va exista întotdeauna, dar poate fi limitată
3.Corupţia poate fi redusă substanţial
4.Corupţia poate fi complet extirpată
5.NŞ/NR
37. După părerea Dvs, pe parcursul ultimului an (12 luni), corupţia în instituţiile de stat ...
1.A sporit
mult
2.A sporit
puţin
3.A rămas aceeaşi 4.S-a micşorat
puţin
5.S-a micşorat
mult
6.NŞ/NR
Timpul finalizării interviului ______________
Vă mulţumim pentru colaborare!