Nicholas Charron, Associate Professor Quality of Government Institute,

University of Gothenburg

WP 5: Pan European Survey Measuring

Governance at the Sub-National Level

Governance & Corruption in Europe

• Not just a problem for ’developing countries’

• "The links between corruption and the ongoing financial and fiscal crisis in these countries can no longer be ignored,“ (Finn Heinrich, TI, 2012)

• “Corruption in Greece Continues Virtually Unchecked” (Der Spiegel, 2012)

• The European Commission has described corruption as a “disease that destroys a country from within” and that “Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain – the euro zone’s most financially troubled nations – have deeply rooted problems in their public administration, namely that officials are not accountable for their actions” (Irish Times, 2012)

Defining & Measuring Governance (QoG) in General

• Key building concepts: 1. Impartiality (Rothstein and Teorell 2008)2. Corruption, Definition: «Public abuse for private gain»3. Quality/ effectiveness (Kaufmann, Kraay & Mastruzzi)

• “NON ZELI AD ZELUM, NEC MERITI AD MERITUM, SED SOLUM NUMERI AD NUMERUM FIAT COLLATIO” (“comparison should be made not on zeal, nor merit, but solely of numbers”) Gregorius X (1210-1276, Papa 1271)

• Although QoG measures still imperfect, improving in both scope and availability world-wide

• like some measures of’democracy’, most measures of QoG are mostly SUBJECTIVE, built mostly on opinions by experts, firms, citizens, NGO’s, etc.

• Quantitative studies are only a piece of the puzzle

Measuring Governance in EU

Lots of indicators: 1.CPI2.WGI3.ICRG4.Freedom House5.Eurobarometer& more…

GROUP Country WGI Score World Rank EU Rank Non-EU EquivilantDENMARK 2.42 1 1 NEW ZEALAND

SWEDEN 2.22 3 2 NEW ZEALAND

Group 1 FINLAND 2.19 4 3 SWITZERLAND

LUXEMBOURG 2.17 5 4 CANADA

NETHERLANDS 2.17 6 5 CANADA

GERMANY 1.69 16 6 BARBADOS

BELGIUM 1.58 17 7 CHILE

Group 2 UK 1.54 19 8 JAPAN

FRANCE 1.51 20 9 JAPAN

IRELAND 1.50 22 10 JAPAN

AUSTRIA 1.44 23 11 United States

PORTUGAL 1.09 37 12 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES

SPAIN 1.06 41 13 QATAR

CYPRUS 0.96 44 14 BOTSWANA

Group 3 SLOVENIA 0.93 45 15 BOTSWANA

ESTONIA 0.91 46 16 TAIWAN, CHINA

MALTA 0.91 47 17 TAIWAN, CHINA

POLAND 0.51 61 18 COSTA RICA

HUNGARY 0.34 70 19 CUBA

Group 4 CZECH REP. 0.32 71 20 VANUATU

SLOVAK REP. 0.29 72 21 BAHRAIN

LITHUANIA 0.29 73 22 BAHRAIN

LATVIA 0.21 78 23 BRAZIL

CROATIA 0.02 87 24 SOUTH AFRICA

ITALY -0.01 91 25 JORDAN

Group 5 GREECE -0.15 94 26 GEORGIA

BULGARIA -0.17 95 27 PERU

ROMANIA -0.20 96 28 TUNISIA

What about below the country level?

• EU is a community of regions (ERDF, REGIO, structural funds, etc.)

• Regional difference in development wider than states at times:

Ex. 2011 unemployment rates in:IT: Bolzano (2.7%) vs. Sicilia (14.7%)ES: Pais Vasco (10.5%) vs. Andalucia(28%)BE: Flanders (5.1%) vs. Wallonne (11.5%)SK: Bratislava Kraj (6.2%) vs. Východné Slovensko (18.5%)

Country ex.: Denmark (7.4%) vs. Bulgaria (10.4%)

**So we need to measure corruption/governance at regional level as well..

The ’European Quality of Government Index’ (EQI)

• Almost all existing corruption/ QoG data (from the mid-1990s) at national-level

• 2010: we present 1st (and only) mulit-country, sub national data on QoG to date. Funded by EU Commission (REGIO)

• We created a QoG Composite Index for 172 E.U. regions• The study is based on a citizen-survey of respondents in EU• 34,000 respondents in 18 countries (+/- 200 per region).

They are the ’consumers’ of QoG

• 16 QoG-focused (all translated into country languages) questions on: – personal experiences & perceptions – of the Quality, Corruption & Impartiality… – …on Education, Health care, and Law Enforcement

– 2013: we build on this past research in WP5

Selected Publications on the EQI data

Article: Charron, Nicholas, Lewis Dijkstra & Victor Lapuente (2013): Regional Governance Matters: Quality of Government within European Union Member States, Regional Studies, Link: DOI:10.1080/00343404.2013.770141

Book: ’Quality of Government and Corruption from a European Perspective’ eds. Charron, Nicholas, Victor Lapuente and Bo Rothstein. 2013. Edward Elgar Publishing

EU Commission Working Paper: ‘Charron, Nicholas, Lewis Dijkstra & Victor Lapuente. 2012. ’Regional Govrnance Matters: A Study on Regional Variation of Quality of Government in the EULink: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/work/2012_02_governance.pdf

2013 Survey: the sampleSub-national Level of Survey: WP5NUTS 1 NUTS 2 #of regions # of total respondents Politically relevant?GERMANY 16 6400 yesU.K. 12 4800 someSWEDEN 3 1295 noBELGIUM 3 1208 yesHUNGARY 3 1215 noGREECE 4 1613 noTURKEY 12 4800 no

ITALY 21 8415 yesDENMARK 5 2028 yesFINLAND 5 2000 someNETHERLANDS 12 4822 yesAUSTRIA 9 3600 yesCZECH REPUBLIC 8 3236 noSLOVAK REPUBLIC 4 1609 noSPAIN 17 6800 yesPORTUGAL 7 2886 someFRANCE 26 10409 yesPOLAND 16 6400 yesROMANIA 8 3200 noBULGARIA 6 2402 noSERBIA* 5 2015 someUKRAINE 6* 2400 someCROATIA 2 804 noIRELAND 2 800 no

23 Countries 206 85157 135

The Questions• 34 questions total

• 20 Focused primarily on regional level governance in 3 sectors: education, health care & law enforcement, as well as media & elections (16 go to build the’EQI’)

• 7 demographic

• Other 7: social trust, perceptions of ’meritocracy’ in public & private sectors, party support, electoral corruption

Demographics of sampleindicator %

Gender Female 53.9

Male 46.1

Education elementary 10.1

some 2ndary school 17.6

finished 2ndary School 34.2

finished a college degree 27.8

post-graduate degree 9.7

no response 0.3

Age 18-29 17.9

30-49 35.8

50-64 26.9

65+ 19.3

no response 0.2

Income low 26.2

middle 31.6

high 28.9

no response 13.3

Occupation Employed public 18.3

Employed Private 35.4

Student, pensioner, housecare 35.9

Unemployed 8.2

no response 0.7

Population < 10k 34.5

of residence 10k - 100k 35.5

100k - 1 million 20.3

> 1 million 8.4

no response 1.3

Personal Experience with Primary Services in

QuestionSample Mean: 0.387

0 .2 .4 .6Proportion having family member enrolled in area's pub. school in last 12 months

BulgariaHungaryUkraineAustriaFranceKosovo

PortugalCzech Rep.Slovak Rep.

PolandGermany

CroatiaIrelandFinland

UKBelgium

ItalyTurkey

NetherlandsRomaniaDenmark

SpainSwedenGreeceSerbia

Direct Experience with Education

Personal Experience with Primary Services in

Questionsample mean: 0.817

0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1Proportion of Respondents having used health services in last 12 months

PolandBulgariaCroatia

SpainFinlandFrance

SwedenDenmark

Slovak Rep.UK

Czech Rep.TurkeySerbia

NetherlandsPortugalHungaryUkraine

ItalyBelgium

IrelandRomania

AustriaGermany

GreeceKosovo

Respondents' Experience with Health Care Sector

Personal Experience with Primary Services in

QuestionSample mean: 0.221

0 .1 .2 .3 .4Proportion of Respondents with personal/family contact (pos or neg) with law enforcement in last 12 months

AustriaCroatia

BelgiumFinland

SwedenGermany

TurkeyGreecePoland

Slovak Rep.Bulgaria

NetherlandsItaly

Czech Rep.France

DenmarkSpain

RomaniaUK

SerbiaIreland

PortugalUkraine

HungaryKosovo

Personal Experience with Law Enforcement

Other info on respondents

obs: 77,293

010

2030

40P

erce

nt

2 4 6far left far rightleft - right political scale (self placement)

Respondent left-right political Self Placement

Other info on respondents

010

2030

40P

erce

nt

very good somewhat good somewhat bad very bad

opinion of the current state of the economy in home country

Opinion of the current state of the economy in home country

0 .2 .4 .6 .8economy (very good + somewhat good)/ (somewhat bad + very bad)

AustriaGermanySwedenFinland

DanmarkTurkeyKosovo

NetherlandsPoland

HungaryBelgium

Czech RepublicRomania

UKIreland

SlovakiaCroatiaSerbiaFrance

BulgariaUkraine

SpainGreece

ItalyPortugal

Satisfaction with the Economy in Respondent's Home Country

Other info on respondents

0 .2 .4 .6 .8% respondend 'most people can be trusted'

SwedenDenmark

UKFinlandTurkeyAustriaIreland

NetherlandsItaly

GermanySpain

RomaniaPortugalCroatia

BelgiumPoland

BulgariaUkraineGreeceFrance

HungaryKosovo

Czech RepublicSlovakia

Serbia

Level of Aggregate Social Trust

Perception of what it takes for sucess in public sector

2 4 6Hard Work Luck & Connections

country mean

SerbiaBulgariaGreeceCroatia

Slovak Rep.RomaniaUkrainePortugal

PolandItaly

Czech Rep.Hungary

SpainBelgiumKosovo

NetherlandsIrelandFrance

SwedenFinland

DenmarkGermany

UKAustriaTurkey

Perceived Meritocracy in Public Sector

Perception of what it takes for sucess in

private sector

2 4 6hard work Luck & Connections

country average

SerbiaUkraineCroatia

BulgariaKosovoPolandGreece

SpainRomaniaHungary

Slovak Rep.PortugalSweden

Czech Rep.France

ItalyBelgium

NetherlandsDenmark

FinlandGermany

UKIrelandAustriaTurkey

Level of Perceived Meritocracy: Sucess in Private Sector

Other info on respondents

0 1 2 3 4 5 6mean regional response

ITG2 - Sardegna

ITF1 - Abruzzo

ITF6 - Calabria

ITG1 - Sicilia

ITF5 - Basilicata

ITF2 - Molise

ITE4 - Lazio

ITE2 - Umbria

ITE3 - Marche

ITF3 - Campania

ITF4 - Puglia

ITC1 - Piemonte

ITC3 - Liguria

ITE1 - Toscana

ITD5 - Emilia-Romagna

ITD4 - Friuli-Venezia Giulia

ITC2 - Valle d'Aosta/Vallée d'Aoste

ITD3 - Veneto

ITC4 - Lombardia

ITD1 - Provincia Autonoma Bolzano/Bozen

ITD2 - Provincia Autonoma Trento

Perceived Meritocracy of Private Sector in Italian Regions

EQI data, 2010 & 2013

3 ’Pillars’ of EQI• Corruption, Impartialtiy & quality • For ex. , for corruption, We combine

perceptions and experiences of citizens (as opposed to ’experts’ – less risk of ’feedback loop’)

Two types of questions:A.general perceptions questions (0-10, higher

= more perceived corruption)B.Experiences with ’petty corruption’

*Let’s look at the aggregated regional scores

2 4 6Low Highregional mean

UA4-KievUA7-Lviv

RS23 - KosRS21 - Šum

rs11 - belRS22 - Sou

UA15-ZakarpattUA25-CrimeaUA21-OdessaUA13-Kharkov

MEANfi13 - eas

PL63 - Pomie01 - bor

PL61 - KujDK02 - SjæDK05 - NorDK04 - MidDK01 - HovDK03 - Syd

fi20 - ala

Perceived Corruption in Education Sector

2 4 6low highregional mean

UA4-KievUA7-Lviv

BG41 - YugUA15-Zakarpatt

RS11 - belRS21 - Šum

GR2 - kentUA25-Crimea

UA13-KharkovRS23 - Kos

SAMPLE MEANFI18 - sou

NL21 - oveIE01 - bor

DK03 - SydIE02 - sou

DK02 - SjæDK05 - NorDK04 - MidDK01 - Hov

FI20 - ala

Perceived Corruption in Health Care

2 4 6Low HighRegional mean

UA4-KievUA7-Lviv

UA13-KharkovUA15-Zakarpatt

UA25-CrimeaUA21-Odessa

BG41 - YugRS11 - bel

BG31 - SevRS21 - Šum

SAMPLE MEANFI13 - easFI19 - wesFI18 - souFI1a - nor

DK05 - NorDK02 - SjæDK01 - HovDK03 - SydDK04 - Mid

FI20 - Åla

Perception of Corruption in Law Enforcement

2 4 6never frequently

regional mean

UA4-KievUA7-Lviv

UA15-ZakarpattRS21 - Šum

GR2 - kentGR3 - Athens

GR1 - voreUA21-Odessa

RS22 - SouHR03 - Jad

SAMPLE MEANDK05 - NorNL11 - groNL13 - dreFI1a - norNL12 - friIE01 - borFI19 - wesFI18 - souFI20 - ÅlaFI13 - eas

'Perception of Others in my Area Engaging in Bribery'

0.0

2.0

4.0

6p

rop

ortio

n o

f re

spon

dent

s pa

ying

a b

ribe

in la

st 1

2 m

ont

hs

Personal Experience with Bribery by Sector

Eudcation Health CareLaw Enforcement Other Public Sector

0 .1 .2 .3 .4

propotion of respondetns paying a bribe in last 12 months

Sample MeanUA7-Lviv

ITF5-BasilicataGR2-Kentriki Ellada

ITF6-CalabriaITF2-Molise

ITF3-CampaniaUA15-Zakarpatt

HU2-DunántúlBG33-Severoiztochen

RS23 - KosovoUA25-Crimea

UA4-KievHU3 - TransdanubiaRO31-Sud-Muntenia

RO12-CenterHU1-Budapest

RO42-VestRO11-Nord VestRO21-Nord East

RO41-SudvestUA13-Kharkov

BG41-Yugo(Sofia)RO22- Sud East

UA21-OdessaRO32 - Bucharest

all regions with 15% or greater

Regions with most reported bribery in health care sector

Results from 2010

1.5

12.7

2.65.1

33.2

15.4

05

10

15

20

25

30

35

% o

f re

port

ed

ca

ses

Bu

cure

sti(R

O)

Bu

da

pe

st(H

U)

Ve

st(R

O)

Su

d-M

un

ten

ia(R

O)

No

rd-E

st(R

O)

Ce

ntr

u(R

O)

Su

d-E

st(R

O)

Su

d-V

est

(RO

)

Pra

ha

(CZ

)

Du

ná

ntú

l(H

U)

Ész

ak

és

Alfö

ld(H

U)

Ca

mp

an

ia(I

T) -

E.U

. A

ve.

E.U

. 1

5

N.M

.S.

E.U

. 1

5 -

no IT

or

GR

12 Regions with over 15%, & E.U. Averages

Reported Bribery in the Health Care Sector

% of respondents paying any bribe in last 12 months

Building the Index 1. AggregationAggregate 400 respondents by region for each of 16 questions•Using PCA, 3 groups (’pillars’) identified: corruption, impartialtiy and quality – 16 indicators aggreated to 3 pillars •3 pillars aggregated to Regional QoG Index2. Normalization of Data•Standardized indicators (z-distribution)3. Weights•Equal Weighting

Individual Level Data Regional Level Data

QoG Survey Question QoG Indicator

QoG Survey Question QoG Indicator QoG Pillar

QoG Survey Question QoG IndicatorQoG Regional Index

QoG Survey Question QoG Indicator

QoG Survey Question QoG Indicator QoG Pillar

QoG Survey Question QoG Indicator

Regional and National QoG• Combine regional data with

national level WGI data• Set each country’s EQI mean

to WGI average of 4 QoG pillars

• Aggregate regional scores (population weighted), around which regional scores show within-country variation

Why?• Regional QoG embedded in

National Context• Include countries with no

NUTS 2 regions• Can retroactively adjust when

new regions/countries added in future

The EQI: 2010• A composite

index based on 16 QoG survey questions from 2009-2010.

• Round 2 in 2013

EQI 2013, w/ cluster groups

Robustness of Data• 2010: Extensive sensitivity

testing (both WGI data and regional data),

• Alternative aggregation, weighting, normalization method, exluding certain individual charactoristics by gender, income, education and age.

• Constructed 95% confidence intervals around each regional estimate

-4

-2

0

2

EQ

I

0 50 100 150 200

Rank order of regions and countries by EQI

EQI Estimates and Margins of Error

EQI 2010 -3

-2-1

01

2

0 50 100 150 200 250EQI by Rank order

EQI 2010 95% c.i.

EQI 2010 and Margins of Error

Åland(FI)

Kiev (UA)

-4-3

-2-1

01

23

0 50 100 150 200 250

EQI by Rank Order (2013)

EQI 2013 95% c.i.

EQI 2013 and Margins of Error

AT11AT12

AT13

AT21AT22AT31AT32

AT33

AT34

BE1

BE2

BE3

BG31

BG32

BG33

BG34

BG41

BG42

CZ01 CZ02CZ03

CZ04

CZ05CZ06

CZ07CZ08

DE1DE2

DE3DE4

DE5DE6DE7 DE8DE9

DEA

DEBDECDED

DEE

DEF

DEG

DK01DK02DK03DK04DK05

ES11

ES12ES13 ES21ES22ES23

ES24ES30ES41

ES42

ES43

ES51ES52

ES53ES61

ES62

ES70

FR10FR21FR22FR23

FR24FR25

FR26FR30

FR41FR42FR43FR51

FR52

FR53FR61FR62FR63FR71FR72

FR81

FR82FR83

FR91

FR92

FR93

FR94

GR1 GR2GR3

GR4HU1

HU2HU3 ITC1

ITC2

ITC3

ITC4

ITD1ITD2

ITD3

ITD4

ITD5

ITE1 ITE2ITE3

ITE4

ITF1

ITF2

ITF3

ITF4ITF5

ITF6 ITG1

ITG2

NL11NL12NL13

NL21

NL22NL23NL31NL32NL33NL34NL41NL42

PL11PL12

PL21

PL22PL31PL32PL33

PL34PL41

PL42PL43

PL51

PL52PL61PL62PL63 PT11

PT15

PT16PT17

PT18

PT20

PT30

RO11

RO12

RO21RO22

RO31

RO32

RO41RO42

SE1SE2SE3

SK01SK02SK03

SK04

UKCUKDUKE

UKFUKGUKHUKI UKJ

UKKUKL

UKMUKN

Beta: 0.89

p-value: 0.000

Rsq: 0.88

Obs: 180

-2-1

01

2E

QI (

201

3)

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2EQI (2010)

Comparison of EQI scores for Regions in both Surveys

-3-2

-10

12

0 50 100 150 200 250

EQI 2010 95% c.i. 2010EQI 2013 95% c.i. 2013

2013 EQI Changes from 2010

Thuringia Wien

Galicia

Piemonte

Attica

-2-1

01

2

20 40 60 80 100 120

EQI rank order 2010

EQI 2010 95% c.i. 2010EQI 2013 95% c.i. 2013

Regions with Significant Negative Changes since 2010

London

Kujawsko-Pomorskie(PL61)

-1-.

50

.51

105 120 135 150 165 180 195

EQI rank from 2010

EQI2010Final eqilow10/eqihi10eqi13final eqilow13/eqihi13

Regions with Significant Positive Changes since 2010

Within country variation: 2010

Group 1: High QoG

Group 2: Moderate QoG

Group 3: Low QoG

-3-2

-10

12

EQ

I Sco

re

DK

SE FI

NL

LU

AT

UK IE DE

FR

BE

MT

ES

PT

CY

EE SI

CZ

HU

SK

LV

GR LT

PL IT

BG

RO

EQI Region score Country Score (WGI)

EQI: National Averages and Regional Variation

-4-2

02

EQ

I (20

13)

DK FI

SE

NL

LU AT

DE

BE

UK IE FR

CY

MT

ES

EE

PT SI

CZ

PL

SK

HU LT LV IT

GR

HR

TR

BG

RO

RS

UA

EQI (regions) EQI (country level)

EQI by Country and Sub-National Variation

0 .025 .05 .075 .1 .125 .15 .175 .2

Gini Index of EQI Regional Inequality (pop. weighted)

TRBGIT

UARORSBEESPLFRATCZPTHUUKDEGRSKNLHRDKIE

SEFI

Sub-National Variation of EQI by Country

How closely do perceptions match experiences?

Perceptions vs. Experiences 2013 by

sector and total

Pearson's: 0.67***Obs: 212

02

46

8M

ean

Per

cept

ion

of C

orr

uptio

n in

Edu

catio

n

0 .05 .1 .15 .2Proportion of respondent who paid bribe in Education

Experiences and Perceptions of Corruption in Education

Pearson's = 0.77Obs = 212

02

46

8M

ean

Per

cept

ion

Re

spon

se

0 .1 .2 .3 .4Proportion of respondents who paid a bribe in health care

Experiences and Perception of Corruption in Health Care

Pearson's = 0.58

Obs = 212

02

46

8

Mea

n P

erce

ptio

n R

esp

onse

0 .05 .1Proportion of Respondents who paid a bribe in law enforcement

Experiences and Perceptions of Corruption in Law Enforcement

Beta: 0.09p-value: 0.000Rsq. = 0.53obs: 212

02

46

8co

mb

ined

per

ceiv

ed

corr

uptio

n

0 10 20 30 40

% of respondents paying a bribe in last 12 months

Perceptions vs. Experience with Corruption by Region

FR10 - Île de France

FR21 - Champagne-ArdenneFR22 - Picardie

FR23 - Haute-NormandieFR24 - Centre

FR25 - Basse-Normandie

FR26 - Bourgogne

FR30 - Nord - Pas-de-Calais

FR41 - Lorraine

FR42 - AlsaceFR43 - Franche-ComtéFR51 - Pays de la Loire

FR52 - BretagneFR53 - Poitou-CharentesFR61 - Aquitaine

FR62 - Midi-Pyrénées

FR63 - LimousinFR71 - Rhône-Alpes

FR72 - AuvergneFR81 - Languedoc-RoussillonFR82 - Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur

FR83 - Corse

FR91 - GuadeloupeFR92 - Martinique

FR93 - GuyaneFR94 - Réunion

BG31 - Severozapaden

BG32 - Severen tsentralen

BG33 - Severoiztochen

BG34 - Yugoiztochen

BG41 - YugozapadenBG42 - Yuzhen tsentralen

PT11 - Norte

PT15 - Algarve

PT16 - Centro (P)PT17 - Lisboa

PT18 - Alentejo

PT20 - Região Autónoma dos Açores

PT30 - Região Autónoma da Madeira

DK01 - HovedstadenDK02 - SjællandDK03 - SyddanmarkDK04 - MidtjyllandDK05 - Nordjylland

SE1 - Östra SverigeSE2 - Södra SverigeSE3 - Norra Sverige

be1 - région de bruxelles-capitale / brussels hoofdstedelijk gewest

be2 - vlaams gewest

be3 - région wallonne

HR04 - Kontinentalna Hrvatska

HR03 - Jadranska Hrvatska

gr1 - voreia ellada

gr2 - kentriki ellada

gr3 - attikigr4 - nisia aigaiou, kriti

de1 - baden-württembergde2 - bayern

de3 - berlin

de4 - brandenburgde5 - bremende6 - hamburgde7 - hessen

de8 - mecklenburg-vorpommernde9 - niedersachsendea - nordrhein-westfalen

deb - rheinland-pfalzdec - saarlandded - sachsen

dee - sachsen-anhalt

def - schleswig-holstein

deg - thüringen

ITC1 - Piemonte

ITC2 - Valle d'Aosta/Vallée d'Aoste

ITC3 - Liguria

ITC4 - Lombardia

ITD1 - Provincia Autonoma Bolzano/BozenITD2 - Provincia Autonoma Trento

ITD3 - Veneto

ITD4 - Friuli-Venezia Giulia

ITD5 - Emilia-Romagna

ITE1 - Toscana

ITE2 - UmbriaITE3 - Marche

ITE4 - Lazio

ITF1 - Abruzzo

ITF2 - Molise

ITF3 - Campania

ITF4 - Puglia

ITF5 - Basilicata

ITF6 - CalabriaITG1 - Sicilia

ITG2 - Sardegna

ES11 - GaliciaES12 - Principado de Asturias

ES13 - Cantabria

ES21 - País VascoES22 - Comunidad Foral de Navarra

ES23 - La Rioja

ES24 - AragónES30 - Comunidad de MadridES41 - Castilla y LeónES42 - Castilla-La ManchaES43 - Extremadura

ES51 - CataluñaES52 - Comunidad ValencianaES53 - Illes BalearsES61 - Andalucía

ES62 - Región de Murcia

ES70 - Canarias

ukc - north east (england)ukd - north west (england)uke - yorkshire and the humber

ukf - east midlands (england)ukg - west midlands (england)

ukh - east of englanduki - londonukj - south east (england)

ukk - south west (england)ukl - wales

ukm - scotlandukn - northern ireland

hu1 - kozep-magyarorszag

hu2 - dunantulhu3 - alfold es eszak

CZ01 - PrahaCZ02 - Stredni Cechy

CZ03 - Jihozapad

CZ04 - Severozapad

CZ05 - Severovychod

CZ06 - Jihovychod

CZ07 - Stredni MoravaCZ08 - Moravskoslezsko

SK01 - Bratislavsky krajSK02 - Zapadne Slovensko

SK03 - Stredne SlovenskoSK04 - Vychodne Slovensko

RO11 - Nord-Vest

RO12 - CentruRO21 - Nord-Est

RO22 - Sud-Est

RO31 - Sud - Muntenia

RO32 - Bucuresti - Ilfov

RO41 - Sud-Vest Oltenia

RO42 - VestAT11 - Burgenland (A)

AT12 - Niederösterreich

AT13 - Wien

AT21 - KärntenAT22 - Steiermark

AT31 - Oberösterreich

AT32 - SalzburgAT33 - Tirol

AT34 - Vorarlberg

nl11 - groningennl12 - frieslandnl13 - drenthe

nl21 - overijssel

nl22 - gelderland

nl23 - flevolandnl31 - utrecht

nl32 - north hollandnl33 - south holland

nl34 - zeelandnl41 - north brabant

nl42 - limburg

PL11 - Lodzkie

PL12 - MazowieckiePL21 - Malopolskie

PL22 - SlaskiePL31 - Lubelskie

PL32 - PodkarpackiePL33 - Swietokrzyskie

PL34 - PodlaskiePL41 - Wielkopolskie

PL42 - ZachodniopomorskiePL43 - LubuskiePL51 - Dolnoslaskie

PL52 - OpolskiePL61 - Kujawsko-Pomorskie

PL62 - Warminsko-MazurskiePL63 - Pomorskie

fi13 - east finlandfi18 - south finlandfi19 - west finlandfi1a - north finland

fi20 - aland

ie01 - border midland and westernie02 - southern and eastern

tr1 - istanbul

tr2 - bati marmara

tr3 - ege

tr4 - dogu marmara

tr5 - bati anadolu

tr6 - akdeniz

tr7 - orta anadolu

tr8 - bati karadeniztr9 - dogu karadeniz

tra - kuzeydogu anadolu

trb - ortadogu anadolu

trc - guneydogu anadolu

rs11 - belgraders12 - vojvodina

RS21 - Šumadija and Western Serbia

RS22 - Southern and Eastern Serbia

RS23 - Kosovo and Metohija

Number 7 - Lviv oblast (region)

Number 15 - Zakarpattia oblast (region)

Number 4 - Kiev oblast (region)Number 21 - Odessa oblast (region)Number 13 - Kharkov oblast (region)

Number 25 - Crimea

'over-perceive' corruption

'under-perceive' corruption

-2-1

01

2

0 10 20 30 40

% of respondents paying a bribe in the last 12 months

Perceptions vs. Experiences: Residuals

Pearson's = 0.76Obs = 25

0 2 4 6 8

UARS

KosHRGRSKROBGPTCZHUIT

FRESBETRPLATDESEUKNLIEFI

DK

Experiences and Percpetions with Corrupiton: Country Level

Perceived Corruption Experienced Corruption

FR

BGPT

DK

SE

BE

HR GR

DE

ITES

UK

HUCZ

SKRO

AT

NL

PL

FIIE

TR

RS

UA

Kos

Beta: 0.11p-value: 0.000

23

45

67

0 10 20 30% of respondents paying any bribe in last 12 months

Experiences and Perceptions with Corruption by Country

FR

BG

PT

DK

SE

BE

HR

GR

DE

IT

ES

UK

HU

CZ

SK

RO

AT

NL

PL

FI

IE

TR

RS

UA

Kos

'over-perceive' corruption ?

'under-perceive' corruption?

-2-1

01

2R

esi

dua

ls: P

erc

eptio

ns=

Exp

erie

nce

s

0 10 20 30

% of respondetns who paid a bribe in last 12 months

Perceptions vs. Experiences: Country Residuals

Perception vs. Experience: country & regional level: 2010

Very Clean

Highly Corrupt

24

68

10Co

rrupt

ion

perc

eptio

n in

hea

lth c

are

sect

or0 .1 .2 .3 .4

Proportion of respondents paying a bribe

Perception and Experience with Corruption in Health Care in EU Regions

More perceived corruptionLess Perceived Corruption

Spearman Coefficient: 0.78

0 .2 .4 .6

DKSENLUKESBEATDEFRCZPTIT

PLHUROBGGRSK

Perceptions and Experience with Corruption in Health Care by Country

Perceived Corruption Proportion Paid a Bribe

Examples of other plans with WP5 data

• Continue to build EQI/ undergo extensive robustness checks

• Explore reasons why within country variation of QoG varies

• Explore relationship between entreprenuership and quality of regional institutions

• Explore relationship between gender equality and regional QoG