Post on 25-Feb-2016
description
transcript
Slide 1Slide 1
Corruption Challenges in Post-Conflict Countries: The Role of Diagnostic Surveys
Presented to:Building Integrity ConferenceMonterey, February 24, 2011
Presented by:Francesca RecanatiniSenior EconomistPREM Public Sector GovernanceWorld Bank
Slide 3Slide 3
A ‘Live’ Test:‘Culture’, Information and Incentives
You are approaching your car in the empty and unattended garage late at night
You see an envelope on the floor, and you pick it up
It contains 20 bills of US $100 each If no possibility that anyone would
know: No cameras, no monitoring, no reporting
What would you do with such envelope full of cash?
Source: Dani Kaufmann, World Bank Institute,, February 2006
Slide 4Slide 4
50% Undecided
33% Report and Return Funds
17% Keep
If no possibility that anyone would know: You are alone, there is no monitoring, cameras, or possibility of
being reported
Option Finder Results: Various AudiencesSource: Dani Kaufmann, World Bank Institute, February 2006
Slide 5Slide 5
If 30% probability that information is shared (e.g. 30% that camera recording info which may be reviewed)
74% Report and Return Funds
22% Undecided
4% Keep
Source: Dani Kaufmann, World Bank Institute, February 2006
Slide 8Slide 8
The role of governance assessments
Will and PoliticalLeadership for
Institutional ReformsOn governance
Strategy and Action Plan
Governance assessment:- Identification of severe obstacles- Vulnerability of each institution- Identification of priorities
Empirical Tools and Data Capacity building and
coalition building
Slide 9Slide 9
Governance diagnostic surveys - Approach A participatory process to identify
governance challenges and build local capacity
Key features: Three surveys: households, firms and public
officials Questions focused on experience, adapted to
local realities and tested in the field Survey instruments and results validated through
focus groups Rigorous technical implementation Local institution implements
Slide 10Slide 10
The power of diagnostic data and key dimensions for analysis:
Unbundle corruption – administrative, state capture, bidding, theft of public resources, purchase of licenses
Identify weak and strong institutions Assess the costs of corruption on different
stakeholders Identify key determinants of good governance Input to develop concrete policy
recommendations
Governance and A-C diagnostic surveys
Slide 11Slide 11
0% 15% 30% 45% 60% 75% 90%
% of public officialsreporting frequentpublic funds mis-
management
% of public officialsreporting frequent
purchase of positionsin their institutions
% citizens reportingbribes used frequently
to obtain publicservices
Sierra Leone(2003) Guatemala(2004) Zambia(2003)Paraguay(2005) Mozambique(2004) Madagascar(2005)
Country Diagnostic ResultsExtent of corruption, (Selected Countries ‘03-’05)
Slide 12Slide 12
Corruption imposes barriers to households to access basic services, Sierra Leone 2003
Cost of Corruption:discouraged users by service
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Municipal and District Councils
Public education services
Public health services
Sierra Leone Roads TransportAuthority (RTA)
Sierra Leone Housing Corporation(SALHOC)
Proportion of head of households reporting that they decide to not conduct procedures with these institutions because they couldn't pay the unofficial costs
Sierra Leone Housing Corporation
0% 10% 20% 30%high incomemiddle incomelow income
0% 10% 20% 30%
Sierra Leone Roads Transport Authority
Slide 15Slide 15
Mechanisms to participate to the policy process
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Association/NGO Direct tie topublic officials
Do not participate
Southern Northern Eastern Western
% of households reporting to use the following channel to participatein the policy process (Sierra Leone, 2003)
Slide 16Slide 16
Bribes to win contracts with Government, (as reported by public officials, 1999-2005)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Colombia(2001)
Guatemala(2004)
Honduras(2001)
Paraguay(2005)
Sierra Leone(2003)
Zambia(2003)
Mozambique(2004)
% of public officials reporting that the practice is frequent
Executive Local Governments
Slide 17Slide 17
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Min. of DefenceMin. of Development
Min. of InformationNat. Commissions
OthersPara-statals
Min. of FinanceMin. of Local Govt.
Min. of Social WelfareMin. of Education
Min. of JusticeS.L Police
Min. of AgricultureMin. of Health
% of Public Officials that said irregularities/(misappropriations) are frequent
Public funds are mismanaged by agency(as reported by Public Officials, Sierra Leone, 2003)
Slide 18Slide 18
Agency-level Indicators Using responses from public officials Public officials are employees of each
agency Public official’s responses are re-scale
(from 0 to 100) and then aggregated by agency using factor analysis technique
0 always meaning the lowest level of quality of governance, corruption, access or service performance
South North East West SIERRA Prov. Prov. Prov. Area LEONE
Overall corruption 22 32 35 33 32Corruption in budget 35 43 48 39 40Corruption in public contracts 18 35 29 33 30Corruption in personnel 39 44 55 53 49
Accessibility for poor 85 74 87 74 78Audit Mechanisms 55 59 66 58 58Enforcement of rules 70 67 80 73 71Politicization 21 34 22 34 32Quality of rules 62 62 70 61 63Resources 54 51 47 55 52Transparency 51 55 53 51 55Citizen voice 70 59 65 66 66Meritocracy 66 65 70 69 68
Governance and corruption indicators by province
Slide 24Slide 24
Lessons learnt How do we balance global (ranking)
measurement tools with national assessments?Two sides of the same coins, but with different objectives. Important that the two approaches complement each other
Who should be involved in measuring?It depends on the country reality. Our experience: the country as a whole. But donors, INGOs can play a very important role (Sierra Leone, Mozambique, Haiti). NSOs should also be involved to promote sustainability (Peru, Paraguay)
Slide 25Slide 25
Lessons learnt, cont. What are the advantages and disadvantages of
the approach used?Pros: Greater local capacity, consensus and ownership that can ensure sustainability of reform process; south-south knowledge dissemination (Costa Rica, Zambia, Mozambique, Haiti)Cons: Time consuming and costly; challenging to coordinate many different actors, especially international ones; unforeseen political changes
To what extent have measurement tools helped shape public sector reforms?Only when paired with political will, donor coordination and medium term vision
Slide 28Slide 28
THANK YOU!
Q & A
Slide 29Slide 29
Extra slides
Slide 30Slide 30
Peru and Colombia: extent of "State Capture" by elites (as reported by public officials, 2001)
30 50 70 90
Central Bank decisions
Regulatory Agencies
High Officials (influencing presidentialdecrees/decisions)
Judiciary (influencing major courtdecisions)
Parliamentarians (to influence laws)
ColombiaPeru Confidential
% public officials report bribes to agency influence business climate
Capture by Vested Interests of:
Slide 31Slide 31
Peru: Sources of Undue Private Influence on the State
10
40
70
100
DrugConglomerates
EconomicGroups
FDI/TransnationalCorporations
OrganizedCrime
ProfessnlAssociations
Labor Unions
% re
porti
ng a
gent
is h
ighl
y in
fluen
tial
Firms Public officials
Confidential
Based on governance diagnostic surveys of public officials and enterprises
Responses by:
Slide 32Slide 32
Sector Level Diagnostic Surveys: Key questions (e.g. transport)
Institutional structure of the sectors under study How does transport work in Mauritania? What needs to happen at the
implementation level? Possible vulnerabilities
Internal to the sector: transporters, officials and regulations. External to the sector: linked to banking sector? International issues?
Mechanisms of poor governance Is it difficult to get a trucking license? Are bribes required to cross
borders with freight? Do civil servants have necessary capacity? Are rules clear?
Costs of poor governance What price do transporters and customers pay to ‘facilitate’ antiquated or
inadequate processes? What is the mark up on contracts due to fraud? How many roads are narrower than they should be because of corruption?
Who are the major players and what are their policy needs? Potential entry points for reform? Who plays a role in the reform
process? Who can be a potential deal breaker? How can we understand the political landscape to ensure policy outcomes are politically viable?
Slide 33Slide 33
Methodological Approach
Sector LevelGovernance Assessment
Tools & Info
Desk Study: history,
sector structure, current context
In-Depth Interviews
3 Surveys(Experience Based)
Audit & Project Data Cross-Sector Team
(PREM, WBI, SDV,PDS, Procurement)Country Ownership
Political Economy Assessment
Team Capacity Needs
Transparent Process
Local PartnershipGov’t + Civil Society
Donor Partnership w/Active Donors
Partnershipw/ Bank Country Team
Broad PeerReview
Process Needs
Outcomes:
1. Governance Baseline
2. Agency Specific Indicators3. Public Dissemination &
Participatory Policy Process
Iterative process: 8-12 months
Slide 34Slide 34
Innovative features Sector-specific focus:
Apply methodology and solutions to country and sector realities Mixed methods:
Focus groups & In-depth Interviews Surveys (households, businesses & civil servants) Desk study Project cost data
Active participation of civil society and government to contribute to policy making process.
Close collaboration with donors’ colleagues. Active links to on-going sector projects
WB transport and port projects EU transport ministry aid project