CSPP WHO PAYS FOR WHAT WHERE AND WHY

CSPP WHO PAYS FOR WHAT WHERE AND WHY? INDIVIDUAL EXPERIENCE OF CORRUPTION IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT PROFESSOR RICHAD ROSE FBA Director, Centre for the Study of Public Policy University of Strathclyde Glasgow www. cspp. strath. ac. uk Quality of Government Institute, U. of Gothenburg 17 January 2012

2 PROJECT OUTLINE ♦Data: Up to 500 sample surveys of individuals in 120+ countries in five continents, with most countries covered in two different samples, 20062012. ♦Criteria for inclusion: Key questions asked about contact with specific public services and whether a bribe is paid for the service. ♦Four-year project: 2012 -2015. ♦Funding: British Economic & Social Research Council ♦Co-investigator: Prof. William Mishler, U. of Arizona ♦Project partner: Transparency International Berlin

3 A STRUCTURED BOTTOM UP APPROACH TO AGGREGATION ♦Data about individual experience can be aggregated within a nation, at national level, trans-nationally or multi-nationally Social groups: e. g. poor, women, old Specific public services: e. g. police, health care Context: Urban/rural. National. Categories of countries. ♦Compare national scores as an composite of aggregate scores

4 FORMS OF SOCIAL CAPITAL—PRE-MODERN, MODERN or ANTI-MODERN Q. What should you do to get prompt admission to a hospital; a governmentsubsidized flat you were not entitled to; a permit or official document? Hospital Housing Permit (endorsing: more than one answer allowed) Wait, nothing can be done 17 25 20 Beg, tell a story, write letter 22 5 27 Use connections 44 24 38 Offer a "tip" 24 25 32 Buy in the market 20 30 7* *Percent saying do what you want without a permit Source: Centre for the Study of Public Policy, New Russia Barometer VII, 6 March – 13 April 1998. Number of respondents: 2, 002.

5 BRIBERY DISTORTS QUALITY OF GOVERNANCE, RULE OF LAW BUREAUCRATIC SERVICE DELIVERY: Provision of public services to individuals in accord with legal and institutional definitions without favouritism or corruption. PRE-MODERN VIOLATIONS. Favouritism, clientelism, patronage. BRIBERY: Payment of money to secure a personal benefit from a public authority through illegal activity (not entitled to a service) and/or unbureaucratic procedures (jumping queue, discretionary favours). LEVEL OF BRIBERY *Centralized, wholesale benefits: Bribes paid to high ups in central government for highway contracts, mineral rights, etc. *Individual, street-level benefits: Bribes paid to persons delivering services, e. g, police to ignore a speeding violation. Relevant to households and electorates.

6 HYPOTHESES ACCOUNTING FOR BRIBE-PAYING 1. CONTACT. Bribe-paying varies with an individual’s contact with public services that provide entitlements or impose obligations. 2. SERVICES DIFFER. Bribe-paying varies with institutional characteristics. Bribery for a service more likely if: Local service providers Tend toward monopoly High on discretion Low on accountability Burdensome obligations

7 CONTACTS WITH SERVICES AND PAYMENT OF BRIBES Q. In the past two years have you or anyone in your household contacted any of the following public institutions? Q. (IF contact) In dealing with this institution, was it necessary to pay a bribe? No contact Contact No bribe Bribe (% all respondents) Doctor, hospital 24 60 16 Police 75 20 5 Education 74 19 7 Permit office 78 19 4 Social security 67 30 3 Army recruiting 84 14 2 Tax inspectors 87 11 2 Source: Centre for the Study of Public Policy, New Russia Barometer XV, 13 -24 April 2007. Number of respondents: 1, 606.

8 PERCEPTION OF CORRUPTION GREATER THAN EXPERIENCE OF BRIBERY Q. To what extent do you see the following institutions as affected by corruption? Q. In dealing with any of these institutions in the past two years, was it necessary for you or anyone in your household to give a bribe? Source: Centre for the Study of Public Policy, New Russia Barometer XV, 13 -24 April 2007. Number of respondents: 1, 606.

9 3. VULNERABILITY. Bribe-paying varies with socio-economic vulnerability e. g. income-education-class; gender, urban/rural. Percentage bribe-paying by lower income quartile differs from upper income quartile: Permits Utilities Customs Police Education Health Land uses Tax Judiciary 13% 8% 8% 7% 7% 6% 3% 2% -4% Source: Transparency International 2010 Global Corruption Barometer Report, p. 15, 91, 600 pooled respondents in 86 countries.

10 4. EVERYBODY IS DOING IT. The more corruption is perceived as normal, the more likely individuals are to pay bribes. (Not confirmed by Russian analysis) 5. NATIONAL CONTEXT INFLUENCES BRIBE-PAYING Colonial past Post-Communist European Union member state Media freedom Elections; democracy Urban or rural location Economic development; oil (To be tested with multi-level modelling within and between continents)

IMPACT OF PAYING BRIBES ON RUSSIAN REGIME SUPPORT Dependent variable: Support for political regime. Variance accounted for: 39. 6% B s. e. Corruption Number of contacts -06 07 Number of bribes paid -17 13 General perception corruption -10 14 Mean perception, corrupt services 24 20 Bribery acceptable 00 12 Political performance Evaluation current economy Trust political institutions 09** Officials act fairly Feel freer now Regime is democratic 11 Beta -02 -03 -02 03 00 51 02 35 54** 10 59 38 16 16 14 06 09** 06* Political awareness Learn from friends Learn from what I see Learn from media Political interest 27 13 -15 24 13 12 14 12 05 03 -02 05 Ability to pay Age Education Social status Income quartile Female -00 -20 14 -02 31 01 12 09 11 21 -00 -04 04 -00 03

12 POLICY SUGGESTIONS ♦ Delivery to end users of public services needs More transparency Maximize impersonality through the Internet ♦ Bribery more common for non-market than for market services such as post office, shopping. supplier? Vouchers to create alternative sources to monopoly ♦ Reducing national corruption score requires specifying disaggregated targets

13 COMPARING APPROACHES TO CORRUPTION/ BRIBERY Defintion Topics Data Methods Geography: Policies Qo. G CSPP Compound Singular Extensive Intensive Aggregated Judgmental Disaggregated Experiential Mixed Historical Models supported by multi-level modelling Intensive, EU Trans-national NUTS regions Extensive, global Within societies, Local Institutional Sectoral Service-specific Individual