Report study aed2 eng
-
Upload
ti-moldova -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Report study aed2 eng
Strengthening Civil Society Monitoring Capacity in Moldova
Perceptions and experiences of household representatives and businessmen regarding
corruption in the Republic of Moldova
(Report)
The present research has been conducted by Transparency International – Moldova within the “Strengthening Civil Society Monitoring Capacity in Moldova” Program with the support of the Academy for Educational Development (based in cooperation agreement with United States Agency for International Development No. 121-A-00-07-00707).
Chisinau
January 2009
GOVERNMENT OF THE
REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA
MOLDOVA
2
Perceptions and experiences of household representatives and businessmen regarding
corruption in the Republic of Moldova Summary
page
I. The objectives and tasks of the sociological research
3
II. General information about respondents Geographical distribution Residential area Age Sex Occupational groups Incomes
4
III. Perceptions about corruption Problems faced by respondents Awareness of corruption impact Evolution of corruption Reasons for spreading of corruption Sources of information about corruption Familiarization with the implementation of the Threshold Country Program Spreading of corruption Unofficial ways to solve problems with public servants The contribution of the state to business development Work time dedicated to problem solving with public servants in state institutions The behavior of public servants from control bodies in the process of detecting violations of legislation Participation in public procurement
9
IV. Experiences in contacting public institutions Most frequently contacted institutions The institutions, where unofficial payments are done more often Average bribe Estimated total bribe The purpose of unofficial payments Unofficial payments done voluntarily or under pressure
18
V. Engagements concerning combating corruption Readiness to give a bribe Emotional aspect of the bribe payer Tolerance towards corruption
24
VI. Confronting and denouncing corruption cases Confronting corruption cases Denouncing corruption cases Solving problems in official ways Assessment of trust in institutions monitored under the TCP and the professionalism of their employees
25
VII Is it possible to combat corruption in the Republic of Moldova? Most efficient ways to reduce corruption Salaries vs. unofficial payments
27
Summary
28
3
I. The objectives and tasks of the sociological research
Transparency International – Moldova conducted within the project “Monitoring the
implementation of the Threshold Country Program (TCP) in the fiscal system” financed by the US Government, two sociological researches: one at the beginning of the project, and the second
one at its closing. The objective of the researches was to analyze the perceptions and experiences
of household representatives and businessmen about corruption in the Republic of Moldova and to evaluate the impact of TCP on the process of preventing and combating corruption.
In the researches perceptions and experiences have been evaluated regarding corruption in the Republic of Moldova of two categories of respondents: businessmen and household
representatives. The analysis focused on the situation in 6 priority areas/institutions of the Threshold Country Program: public health, judicial system, fiscal system, customs, police, the Center for Combating Economic Crimes and Corruption.
The tasks of the research are following:
- To identify the main sources of informing the population about corruption, about the
implementation of the Threshold Country Program; to assess the level of trust in information
about corruption provided in the mass-media;
- To evaluate the main problems that are subject of concern for the population and the
businessmen;
- To identify the main causes of corruption and to evaluate them in time;
- To assess the perception of corruption in 38 areas/sectors/institutions;
- To estimate the total amount of unofficial payments in various public services/institutions,
including the 6 priority areas of TCP;
- To assess the opinions of respondents regarding the level of professionalism of staff in institutions monitored under the TCP and the credibility of the respective institutions;
- To evaluate the tolerance level of the population towards the corruption phenomenon, the acceptability of unofficial payment and readiness to bribe;
- To identify the most efficient measures to prevent and fight corruption;
- To develop and calculate the indicator of corruption risk in 6 priority areas of TCP.
Methodological aspects
• The sample size: 1060 persons with the age of more than 18 years, in case of households;
503 business units;
• Sample: stratified, random, bi-stage.
• Stratification criteria: 12 geographic units, based on the administrative territorial units prior
to the latest administrative territorial reform, residential area (urban-rural), size of urban
localities (2 types), size of rural localities (2 types of rural localities). The sample offers the necessary size for a representative analysis for following strata: urban, rural, North, South, Center zones, with margins of error corresponding to the size of the strata.
• Sampling: a. The size of the urban strata and the total per regions (former counties – “judeŃe”) has
been calculated proportionally with the number of the population indicated according
to the data communicated by the National Bureau of Statistics. The sizes of rural strata have been calculated proportionally with the number of electors;
4
Randomization stages: I. Locality: within adjusted strata, the selected localities were established
aleatory, based on a table with aleatory numbers;
II. Household: the maximum number of interviews conducted in one
sampling point was 6. The households where the interview took place have been selected by the method of aleatory route, with a statistic step; III. Person: in the cases when in the selected households there are several
adult persons, the interviewed person was selected by method of closest
birthday.
b. The sample for business has been developed based on the Directory of Goods and Services VARO – INFORM MOLDOVA 2008. A statistical step was used to select the subjects to be interviewed; in order to replace those who refused from the first
selection, a repeated selection was done; this procedure was repeated until the necessary number of interviews was in place.
• Representativity: the sample is representative at national level, with a maximum error of +3%
for the household sample and +4,4% for the business units;
• Data collection period: October 2008. The interviews were conducted at the homes of
respondents, by the operators of CBS-AXA network. The questionnaire was prepared in Romanian and Russian languages, the respondents having the possibility to choose the
version;
• Verification: The quality of data collection and credibility of conducting the interviews was
carried out by the CBS-AXA verifiers. About 15% of respondents have been re-contacted at
home, and about 40% of respondents have been re-contacted by phone. The method of verification of logical connections between variables was used.
• Entry and processing of collected data was done in SPSS 15 software.
II. General information about respondents, 20081
Geographical distribution of respondents.
Distribution of respondents by zones
1 Taking into account that both researches were conducted in 2008 and the respondents expressed their opinions and experiences regarding the last 12 months, conventionally the first research is indicated with
2007, and the second research with 2008.
5
Center
Households - 17,1% Business people – 12,4%
Chişinău Municipality
Households - 28,5% Business people – 50.2%
South
Households - 22% Business people -17,5%
North
Households – 32,5% Business people – 19,9%
6
Distribution of respondents by rayons, %
Households Business
people
Anenii Noi 2,5 1,6
Balti 3,2 10,1
Basarabeasca 0,9 1,4
Briceni 2,4 1
Cahul 3,8 4,6
Calarasi 1,1 1,4
Cantemir 1,2 1,4
Causeni 2,2 1,8
Chisinau 21,9 48
Cimislia 2,5 2,6
Criuleni 2,5 0,6
Donduseni 1,2 1,2
Drochia 2,4 0,6
Dubasari 1,2 0,4
Edinet 2 1,4
Falesti 3,7 0,4
Floresti 1,2 0,6
Glodeni 1,2 1,2
Hincesti 3,7 2,8
Ialoveni 2,2 0,6
Nisporeni 1,2 0
Ocnita 1,3 0
Orhei 3,8 2,4
Rezina 1,2 0,4
Riscani 3,7 1,4
Singerei 3,7 0,8
Soldanesti 1,2 0,4
Soroca 2,5 1,2
Stefan Voda 2,5 1,2
Straseni 3,7 2,8
Taraclia 1,1 0
Telenesti 2,5 0,4
Ungheni 3,7 0,6
UTAG 4,9 4,5
Leova 0 0,2
7
Residential area
Age of respondents
Sex of respondents
Residential area: households
Urban 39%
Rural 61%
Sex of respondents: households
Male 45.8%
Female 54.2%
Sex of respondents: businessmen, %
Male
49.3 % Female
50.7%
Age of respondents: households 21% 20.4%
18.5% 16%
9.6%
14.5%
0
5
10
15
20
25
18–24 yrs. 25–29 yrs. 30–39 yrs. 40-49 yrs. 50–59 yrs. Over 60 Yrs.
Age of respondents: businessmen, %
5.8
12.5
24.6
31
22.1
4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
18–24 25–29 30–39 40-49 50–59 Over 60
Residential area: businessmen, %
Rural
17.3%
Urban
82.7 %
8
Education level of respondents
Occupational groups
Incomes of respondents
Incomes of respondents
35.6%
23.8%
36.1%
4% 0.5% 1.2%
21.7%
58.8%
13.1% 5.2%
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Very low
incomes
Incomes
lower than
middle
Middle
incomes
Incomes
higher than
middle
Very high
incomes
households
businessmen
Occupational groups: households, %
Employed without labor contract 4.8%
Officialy
as registered unemployed 2.3%
Do not work, but look for work
10.8%
Do not work and do not look for work
7.3 %
Students 5.4% Employed,
temporary labor contract 10.2%
Employed,
permanent
labor contract 29.5%
Others(invalid,
retired, etc.)
29.7%
Education level of respondents: households
Secondary
professional
27%
Secondary 35.7%
Incomplete
secondary
14.9%
High,
including
incomplete
22.4%
Education level of respondents: businessmen, %
Secondary 8.3%
Secondary
incomplete
0.8%
High,
including
incomplete
65.3%
Secondary professional
25.6%
9
III. Perceptions about corruption How severe are the following problems for you? (Average, estimated on a scale from 1 to 6, where 1 signifies that the factor is not a problem, 6 – a major problem)
Problems faced by households, average
3.69
3.75
3.83
3.95
4.01
4.12
4.19
4.19
4.20
4.20
4.34
4.31
4.47
4.68
4.91
4.34
3.27
3.3
3.6
3.59
3.73
4.1
3.94
4.22
4.05
4.13
4.26
4.48
4.59
4.72
5
3.87
3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00
Limited access to public information
Complicated regulation of business
Low quality of educational system
Frequent modifications of legislation
Red tape
Unsatisfactory communication services (roads,
phone lines, Internet access, etc,)
Political instability
Criminality
Unfair judicial system
Unsatisfactory quality of medical care
Pollution of environment
Inflation
High taxes
Corruption
High unemployment
Poverty 2007
2008
10
To what extent the following factors hinder the business development in Moldova? (Average, it is evaluated on a scale from 1 to 6 (1 – does not hinder at all, 2 – hinders sometimes, 3 – hinders a little, 4 – hinders a lot, 5 – hinders very much, 6 – blocks)
Problems that hinder business development in
Moldova, average
3.05
3.05
3.21
3.37
3.42
3.45
3.52
3.52
3.58
3.60
3.61
3.64
3.65
3.68
3.68
3.73
3.80
3.98
4.07
3.03
3.19
3.32
3.73
3.59
3.41
3.53
3.45
3.57
3.56
3.8
3.62
3.64
3.73
4.03
3.86
3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00 5.50 6.00
Difficult access to bank credits
Lack of property for pledge
Lack of raw material
Control of prices
Criminality
Regulatory problems of export-import
Imperfect labor legislation
Complicated regulation of business
Unfair judicial system
Exagerated number of controls and inspections
Monopol situations on the market
Weakly developed market infrastructure
Shortage of skilled labor
Frequent modifications of legislation
Political instability
Inflation
Imperfect tax legislation
High taxes and fees
Corruption 2007
2008
11
Awareness of corruption impact
Evolution of corruption
We are poor because we are corrupt,%
2007
60.1% 2007
59.9%
2008
56.8%
2008
57.1%
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
Households Businessmen
Evolution of corruption during the last year:
households, %
1.2
11
11
17.6
27.8
31.4
1.5
11.2
11.5
17.8
23.2
34.8
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Decreased a lot
Decreased a little
Don’t know/No answer
Increased a little
Increased a lot
Remained almost the same
2008
2007
Evolution of corruption during the last year:
businessmen, %
1.2
8.2
14.2
17.1
18.3
41
8.5
15.3
1.4
17.1
15.9
41.8
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Decreased a lot
Don’t know/No answer
Decreased a little
Increased a lot
Increased a little
Remained almost the same
2008
2007
12
Reasons for spreading of corruption
How important are following reasons for the spreading of corruption in the Republic of Moldova?
Average, it is evaluated on a scale from 1 to 4 (1 – very important reason, 2 – quite important reason, 3 –
less important reason, 4 – it is not a reason)
Sources of information about corruption
Sources of information about corruption:
households, %
0.4
1.4
1.6
5.8
14
24.7
13.9
38
0.9
0.4
1.1
0.8
6.7
15.8
14.4
23.4
36.5
Press releases of international organizations
.
Press releases of NGOs
Reports of state authorities
Own experience
Press
Discussions with relatives, friends
Radio
Television
2007
2008
Main reasons of corruption, average
2.63
2.53
2.2
1.98
1.98
1.88
1.85
1.79
1.68
1.54
1.47
2.83
2.76
2.28
1.99
1.93
1.88
1.94
1.76
1.65
1.49
1.47
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Pressures from relatives and friends
Pressures from the superior
It is already a tradition
Lack of standards of conduct for public servants
Lack of transparency in the activity of public institutions
Low level of culture
Greed
Lack of internal control in public institutions
Government does not approach the problem seriously
Corrupt persons are not sanctioned
Low salaries
Businessmen
Households
13
How trusted is the information about corruption provided in the mass-media
Familiarization with the implementation of the Threshold Country Program Households
Businessmen
2007 2008 2007 2008 Share of population who knows about the implementation of TCP (% of total number of respondents)
26.7 34.3 35.0 52.1
How much do you trust the information about corruption in mass-media: households, %
8.9
31.4
49.4
10.3 8.3
41.7 40
10
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Very much A lot Little Don’t trust at all
2007
2008
How much do you trust the information about
corruption in mass-media: businessmen, %
6.8
31.7
47.6
13.9 10
45.2
38.6
6.2
0
10
20
30
40
50
Very much A lot Little Don’t trust at all
2007
2008
Sources of information about corruption: businessmen, %
1.4
2.1
2.3
10.2
11.6
17.5
20.9
34
2.0
2.7
1.2
11.9
14.0
15.8
20.9
31.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Press releseas of international organizations
Press releases of non-governmental organizations
Reports of state authorities
Own experience
Discussions with relatives, friends, acquintances
Radio
Press, including electronic
Television
2007
2008
14
Perceptions about spreading of corruption
How often it is appealed to money, gifts, and personal contacts in order to „solve” problems?
(%, summing up the share of respondents who consider that one appeals to unofficial payments
“often”, “very often” and “always”) Households
Businessmen
2007 2008 2007 2008
Tax inspectorates 43.8 43.1 39.9 41.2
Customs 62.3 57.8 53.9 55.4
Police 67.1 61.7 59.3 59.8
Public prosecution 53.3 53.1 40.7 41.8
Sanitary-epidemiological inspections 37.8 44.1 38.3 39.8
Cadastral offices 28 37 24.9 26.2
Privatization 31 40.1 25.7 28.8
Rent of state property 29.9 35.9 29.3 30.6
Courts of justice 50.6 48.5 39.3 36.6
Public procurement 28.1 38.3 27.8 30
Education institutions 63.7 55 53.5 57
Health institutions 68.9 60.5 64 63.5
Ministries and departments 35 43 32.5 32.8
Local Public Administration 30.8 35.9 32.5 30
Civil Registry Offices 21.4 28 16.9 21.5
Passport bureaus 31.3 32.1 24.1 28.3
Utility services 15.8 24.5 12.3 17.7
Chamber of State Registration 18.9 25.7 19.3 18.5
Anti-fire inspections 18.2 25.5 21.6 23.3
Energetic Inspectorate 19.1 25.1 18.3 21.3
Environmental Protection Services 18.3 25.5 19.1 20.5
Chamber of Commerce and Industry 19.4 26.9 21.3 18.3
CCECC 21.1 28.1 23.1 19.1
Sources of information about the implementation
of TCP measures, % (2008)
0.6
2.4
2.5
12.4
16.3
25.1
40.7
2.1
4.7
4.1
10.3
24.6
15.8
38.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Press releases of international organizations
Press releases of non-governmental
organizations
Reports of state authorities
Discussions with relatives, friends, acquintances
Press, including electronic
Radio
Television
Businessmen
Households
15
Visa issue 44.2 38.9 32.7 31.2
Licensing 37.5 39.1 31.2 32.8
Notary 35.6 37.8 23.5 26.9
Law firms 39 39.7 26.7 27.7
Access to credits, loans 21.9 24.1 17.7 17.5
Registration of transport and qualification of drivers 42.3 41.3 36.6 40
Technical revision of cars 42.7 43.1 39.1 41.8
Granting of construction authorizations 38.2 36.9 44.1 38
Water supply 13.8 21.1 14.6 14.6
Electricity supply 12.4 20.5 12.6 14
Gas supply 11.4 21.3 14 13.6
Heating supply/ heat carrier 11.4 17.6 12.2 13.2
Labour inspection 18.2 20.3 22.1 18.7
Telecommunications 14.5 16.5 11.7 12.2
Insurance companies 17.5 18.3 15 15.3
Unofficial ways of solving problems with public servants
Is it easier to solve problems through official
than unofficial ways? % (2008)
6.9
6.9
8.6
10.9
19.8
22.3
24.6
7.6
8.2
15.5
6.6
17.7
16.5
27.9
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Always
Never
Very rare
Don’t know/No answer
In most cases
Very often
Sometimes
Business 2008
HH 2008
Unofficial ways of solving
problems with public servants: HH, %
0
0.5
2.2
14.4
22.3
60.6
0.1
0.9
2.1
15.7
20.7
60.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Other
Pressures from criminal organizations
Pressures from superiors
Presents
Contacts/relations
Money HH 2008
HH 2007
Unofficial way of solving problems with
public servants: businessmen, %
0.4
0.6
3.2
12.4
41.8
41.6
0
0.8
2.7
9.9
37.2
49.4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Other
Pressures from criminal organizations
Pressures from superiors
Presents
Contacts/relations
Money
bus. 2008
bus. 2007
16
The contribution of the state to business development How do you assess the contribution of the state to the development of your business? (% of total
number of interviewed businessmen)
2007 2008
Helps a lot 2.1 2.2
Helps somehow 5.6 12.9
Helps very little 16.1 20.7
Is absolutely neutral 26.4 27
Sometimes even hinders 26.3 23.7
Hinders more 21 10.1
Don’t know/No answer 2.5 3.4
What part of your work time do you use to solve problems with public servants in state
institutions? (% of total number of interviewed businessmen)2
The behavior of tax inspectors in the process of detecting violations of legislation
2 Data for 2004: Diagnosis of Bribery in Business, Transparency International – Moldova, 2005.
Work time used to solve problems with
public servants in state authorities, %
2008
17.3%
2007
21%
2004
22.4%
0
5
10
15
20
25
If the tax inspector detects a violation of legislation,
how does he/she normally proceed? %
60.5
20.4
3.1
16.0
66.0
17.6
3.7
12.7
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Registers the violations and elaborates the
control act according to the regulation
Implies that it is necessary to pay in order to “solve” the problems
Names the price to correct the
data of the report
Registers and then implies that it is
necessary to pay
2007
2008
17
Share of unofficial payments in the amount indebted to the state for breaching the legislation.
If a violation of legislation is detected, for which you have to pay a fine in the amount X, usually, what
part of this amount is needed to be paid directly, in order to solve the problem?3 (% of X)
Participation in public procurement
22.1% of businessmen participated in the last two year in public procurement tenders (in 2007 – 16.3%).
Reasons for non-participation in public procurement, %
Very
important
Impor-
tant
Minor
reason
This is
no reason
Complexity of procedure 11.6 28.5 14.6 45.3
Cost of procedure 16.6 24.5 14.3 44.6
Too much competition 11.3 27.8 16.2 44.7
I would not win the contract without making some
unofficial payments
9.1 23.9 18.6 48.4
The procurement procedure is not transparent and fair 11 25.5 15.6 47.9
Direct contracts are easier 21.8 28.6 11.3 38.3
It is not our profile 49.1 18.2 10.4 22.3
Visits paid by representatives of control bodies
Average number of visits, times per year 2007 2008
Tax inspectorate 3.23 2.67
Police 2.88 2.48
Anti-fire inspectorate 1.76 1.92
Energetic inspectorate 3.25 2.88
Sanitary-epidemiological inspections 2.75 2.36
CCECC 1.69 1.63
Environmental Protection Services 2.37 1.54
Labour Inspection 1.91 1.79
3 Ibidem.
2008 27%
2007
36%
2004 39.7%
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
18
IV. Experiences in contacting public institutions, 2008
Most frequently contacted institutions, 2008.
Have you contacted the following institutions/services during the last 12 months? (% of respondents
who contacted the institution)
(% of respondents who contacted the institution)
Most frequently contacted institutions: businessmen, %
0
10
20
30
40
50
60 Tax inspectorates
Health institutions Utility services
Sanitary-epidemiological inspections
Police
Education institutions
Customs
Local public administration Technical revision of cars
Anti-fire inspections
Notary
Labor inspection Passport bureaus
Energetic Inspectorate
Telecommunications
Environmental protection services
Registration of transport and
qualification of drivers
Electricity supply
Insurance companies
Access to credits, loans
Most frequently contacted institutions: households, %
0
10
20
30
40
50 Health institutions
Education institutions Police
Customs
Utility services
Passport bureaus
Local public administration
Tax inspectorates
Electricity supply Technical revision of cars
Civil Registration Offices
Visa issue Notary
Gas supply
Telecommunications
Acces to credits, loans
Registration of transport
and qualification of drivers
Water supply
Courts of justice Insurance companies
19
Institutions where unofficial payments are made more often, 2008. Have you made unofficial
payments in the following institutions/services during the last 12 months? %
Institutions where unofficial payments are made more often:
businessmen, %
0
10
20
30
40
50 Health institutions
Customs Police
Education institutions
Technical revision
of cars
Granting of construction
authorizations
Courts of justice
Visa issue
Public procurement
Licensing Privatization
Law firms
Registration of transport and qualification of drivers
Rent of state-owned property
Sanitary-epidemiological inspections
Anti-fire inspections
Passport bureaus
Tax inspectorates
Cadastral offices
Public prosecution
Institutions where unofficial paments are made more often:
households, %
0
10
20
30
40
50
60 Customs
Registration of transport and qualification of drivers
Police Health institutions
Technical revision of cars
Granting construction authorization
Privatization
Visa issue
Law firms Education institutions
Environmental protection services
Sanitary-epidemiological inspections
Public prosecution
Notary
Rent of state-owned property
Civil Registration Offices
Gas supply
Courts of justice
Tax inspectorates Passport bureaus
20
Average bribe, 2008
Businessmen: average bribe
Number of
unofficial
payments
Minimal
amount,
Lei
Maximal
amount,
Lei
Average,
Lei
Health institutions 94 10 8000 707
Police 52 50 20000 1033
Customs 50 20 15000 1383
Education institutions 40 60 10000 990
Tax inspectorates 32 50 20000 1531
Technical revision of cars 27 50 5000 541
Sanitary-epidemiological inspections 19 50 3000 682
Anti-fire inspections 16 50 1000 303
Passport bureaus 13 30 3000 480
Registration of transport and qualification of drivers 13 100 3500 654
Visa issue 10 100 1500 480
Licensing 10 100 6000 1137
Notary 10 50 1000 243
Public procurement 8 100 15000 2913
Ministries and departments 8 50 5000 1550
Energetic Inspectorates 8 50 200 119
Law firms 8 50 1000 381
Rent of state-owned property 7 200 4000 1529
Courts of justice 7 20 10000 2824
Granting of construction authorization 7 100 9000 2036
Labour inspection 7 30 8000 1711
Local Public Administration 6 50 2000 692
Environmental Protection Services 6 50 2000 588
Chamber of Commerce and Industry 6 70 1500 528
Civil Registration Offices 5 50 1000 272
Public Prosecution 4 270 15000 5193
Cadastral offices 4 200 3000 1050
Privatization 4 100 1500 700
Electricity supply 4 80 300 145
Chamber of State Registration 3 500 8000 4167
Water supply 3 100 8000 2783
Utility services 2 200 6000 3100
Access to credits, loans 2 150 600 375
Heating supply/heat carrier 2 200 200 200
Telecommunications 2 50 1000 525
Insurance companies 2 50 200 125
CCECC 1 2000 2000 2000
Gas supply 1 100 100 100
21
Households: average bribe Number
of
unofficial
payments
Minimal
amount,
Lei
Maximal
amount,
Lei
Average,
Lei
Health institutions 200 20 14000 783
Customs 86 50 3400 591
Education institutions 75 30 5000 677
Police 70 20 14000 1082
Passport bureau 30 25 1000 302
Technical revision of cars 30 50 1000 357
Tax inspectorates 22 25 1500 287
Visa issue 22 100 7100 1177
Registration of transport and qualification of drivers 21 50 5000 833
Notary 16 40 1600 356
Civil registration offices 15 20 400 116
Law firms 12 100 2000 800
Water supply 10 50 780 224
Gas supply 10 80 7000 901
Sanitary-epidemiological inspections 9 20 7000 1036
Courts of justice 9 100 3000 767
Electricity supply 9 50 100 79
Public Prosecution 8 200 7000 2213
Privatization 8 150 3000 905
Environmental Protection Services 8 50 200 106
Granting of construction authorizations 8 50 2000 419
Local Public Administration 7 20 500 179
Energetic Inspectorate 7 40 200 100
Anti-fire inspections 6 50 100 75
Heating supply/heat carrier 6 50 200 105
Labour inspection 6 50 200 98
Telecommunications 6 50 100 77
Rent of state-owned property 5 50 800 470
Utility services 5 90 500 219
Insurance companies 5 50 470 224
Cadastral offices 4 100 1000 413
Public procurement 4 100 300 150
Licensing 4 50 2300 1200
Ministries and departments 2 100 300 200
Chamber of Commerce and Industry 2 102 350 226
Access to credits, loans 2 50 200 125
CCECC 1 1000 1000 1000
Chamber of State Registration 0 0 0 0
22
Estimated total bribe. In order to estimate the total value of bribes paid by businessmen and household representatives in various institutions, services and field, following indicators have been
used: the frequency of bribes, the average bribe in the institution/service/fields and the total number of
economic agents/households. In the institutions/services, where the indicator of average bribe was not
stable, i.e. the number of registered bribes was not sufficient to obtain a stable average, the average was used which was calculated for the institutions in the „other” category.
For the estimation of the total value of bribes paid by household representatives, the official statistics
on the total number of households was used (1131 thousand), and for the estimation of bribes paid by businessmen – the total number of economic agents, which is 166172, out of which 149342
enterprises (including 66524 individual enterprises, 64941 societies with limited liability, 4984 joint
stock corporations, 4074 cooperatives, 1509 state and municipal enterprises, 1019 unions and associations, 2927 branches and representations, 3364 – other type of enterprises)4 and 16830 holders
of entrepreneurial patent.
According to the calculations, the total volume of estimated bribe in the household profile amounted
about 6300 million Lei in 2008, increasing with 7% compared to 2007. Most unofficial payments were made in health institutions (190 million Lei), police (97 million Lei), education institutions (64
million Lei), and customs (61 million Lei).
The total value of bribes paid by businessmen amounted about 264 million Lei, decreasing with 15% compared to 2007. Most unofficial payments were maid in customs (34 million Lei), health
institutions (30 million Lei), tax inspectorates (26 million Lei), and police (25 million lei).
Estimated total bribe: businessmen
Institutions, services, fields Amount per
country,
million Lei
Health institutions 29.9
Police 25.2
Customs 33.8
Educations institutions 18
Tax inspectorates 25.8
Technical revision of cars 7.3
Sanitary-epidemiological inspections 7.4
Anti-fire inspections 2.4
Passport bureaus 3
Registration of transport and qualification of drivers 4.3
Visa issue 2.1
Licensing 6.8
Notary 1.2
Other 96.7
Compared to 2005, in the profile of areas monitored under the TCP5, the amount of estimated bribe changed in the following way: • In customs – reduced with about 50%; • In fiscal system – reduced with 28%;
4 Chamber of State Registration, www.registru.md. 5 In judiciary system and CCECC: the statistics of cases of accepting bribes have been insufficient (respectively 9 and 1 testimony), which does not allow making significant estimations.
23
• In public health – increased with 24%; • In police – increased with 26%. The purpose of unofficial payments. The respondents were asked to indicate what the purpose of unofficial payments was: to avoid a punishment in case of a violation of law or to „grease the wheels”, i.e. to obtain something, for which he/she is entitled according to the law. The situation in the six areas monitored under the TCP is following (the indicator represents the share of those who paid for the mentioned purposes, out of the total number of respondents who made unofficial payments)
6.
Respondents - households
Police
Health institutions
Courts of justice
2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008
To avoid the punishment (sanction ) for breaching the law
48.0
42.4
1.1
3.1
54.2
33.3
To “grease the wheels” 52.0 57.6 98.9 96.9 45.8 66.7
Respondents - businessmen
CCECC Customs Tax
2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008
To avoid the punishment (sanction ) for breaching the law
75.0
66.7
15.9
26.2
24.7
35.5
To “grease the wheels” 25.0 33.3 84.1 73.8 75.3 64.5
Unofficial payments made voluntarily or under pressure. The answers of respondents to the questions
„Have you made the unofficial payments willing or you were forced to pay?” in the profile of six institutions/areas monitored under the TCP show, that the respondents paid prevailingly upon own
initiative, which confirms a high readiness to pay a bribe. (The indicator represents the share of those who
paid voluntarily and were forced to pay out of the total number of respondents who made unofficial
payments)7.
Respondents - households
Police
Health institutions
Courts of justice
2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008
Were forced to pay 36.3 43.2 37.3 43.6 * *
Made unofficial payments upon own initiative
63.7 56.8 62.7 56.4 * *
* Insufficient number of cases of bribing
Respondents - businessmen
CCECC Customs Tax
2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008
Were forced to pay * * 54.8 60.6 35.7 37.3
Made unofficial payments upon own initiative
* * 45.2 39.4 64.3 62.7
* Insufficient number of cases of bribing
6 In case of courts of justice, police and health institutions the indicator from the households survey is reflected, and for tax inspectorates, customs and CCECC – from the businessmen survey. 7Ibidem
24
V. The engagement of the society to prevent corruption
Readiness to offer a bribe
Households Businessmen
2007 2008 2007 2008
Yes 29.3 20.9 27.6 17.5
No 24.1 34.7 19.5 23.5
Depends on
the situation
46.6 44.4 52.9 59
In your opinion, how would feel the person who offered a present to a public servant in order to
solve his/her problem?
Households Businessmen
2007 2008 2007 2008
Revolted 13.5 17.5 12.8 18.1
Humiliated 28.6 31.8 31 23.1
Indifferent 10 12.1 11.3 11.9
Satisfied 19.9 18.4 25.3 27.3
Happy 19.1 9.1 10.7 10.1
Don’t know/No answer 8.9 11.1 8.9 9.5
Tolerance towards corruption
How acceptable is the situation when... % Households Businessmen
2007 2008 2007 2008
Accep-table
Unaccep-table
Accep-table
Unaccep-table
Accep-table
Unaccep-table
Accep-table
Unaccep-table
A regular public servant accepts an unofficial payment and uses it to pay his debts for utility services
39.8 60.2 44.2 55.8 41.9 58.1 38.2 61.8
A minister accepts an unofficial payment and uses it to pay for the education of his/her child
28.7 71.3 34.8 65.2 29.6 71.4 28.3 71,7
A president of rayon council accepts an unofficial payment and uses it to pay for the medical treatment of his/her relative
33.8 66.2 36.9 63.1 36.7 63.3 30 69.9
Readiness to offer a bribe:
households, %
No 34.7%
Yes 20.9%
Depends on
the situation
44.4%
Readiness to offer a bribe:
businessmen, %
Depends on
the situation
59%
Yes
17.5%
No
23.5%
25
VI. Confronting corruption cases in the TCP areas
Have you been confronted during the last year with bribing, protectionism in the following
institutions?
Have you complained about the corruption cases you were confronted with?
Where did you complain about the corruption cases you were confronted with? 2008 8
8 Number of businessmen who complained about corruption cases is insignificant.
Where did you complain about corruption cases?
households, %
Friends,
relatives 13.3%
Court of justice 6.7%
Superior public
servant 6.7%
CCECC 4.4%
NGOs 4.4%
Mass-media
2.2%
Police
33.3%
Lawyer
13.3%
Public prosecutions
15.6%
Have you been confronted with bribing, protectionism... : households, %
9.9
2
26.9
13.1
4.6
26.9
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Police
Courts of justice
Health institutions
2008
2007
Have you been confronted with bribing, protectionism...: businessmen, %
23.9
21.8
7.4
17.5
23.3
4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Tax
inspectorates
Customs
CCECC 2008
2007
Have you complained about the corruption cases? households, %
No 96.3%
Yes 3.7%
Have you complained about the corruption cases?
businessmen, %
No 97.8%Yes 2.2%
26
Reasons for not denouncing cases of corruption
Households Businessmen 2007 2008 2007 2008
You did not know who to address and where 19.3 10.4 7.3 3.5
It would have taken too much time 8.6 12.7 15.6 20.2
Nothing would change 45.6 49 46.9 43.7
It would have created only problems for you 23.7 27.8 28.4 32.6
Other reasons 2.8 10.4 1.8 0
Has your problem been solved? (2008)
Credibility of TCP institutions, %
Full trust A lot of trust Little trust No trust at all 2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008
Tax inspectorates (respondents-businessmen) 7.6 5.4 30.9 25.8 47.6 50.2 13.9 18.6 Customs (respondents-businessmen) 2.6 2.2 12.8 13.2 56.5 56 28.1 28.5 Police (respondents-households) 3.5 1.4 12.3 14.6 46.5 49.3 37.7 34.7 Courts of justice (respondents-households) 3.9 1.6 17.5 19.2 51.8 52.1 26.8 27.1 CCECC (respondents-businessmen) 7.2 9.1 23.4 31.2 45.8 41.3 23.6 18.4 Health institutions (respondents-households) 7.0 4.4 25.3 23.4 44.0 47.8 23.7 24.4
Professionalism of employees in TCP institutions, % High Medium Low
2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008 Tax inspectorates (respondents-businessmen) 17.2 22.4 68.1 61 14.7 16.6 Customs (respondents-businessmen) 8.2 14.3 66.2 56.1 25.6 29.6 Police (respondents-households) 6.3 11.4 57.7 58.5 36.0 30.1 Courts of justice (respondents-households) 11.5 16.1 67.0 62.1 21.5 21.8 CCECC (respondents-businessmen) 18.1 30.2 62.9 52.1 19.0 17.7 Health institutions (respondents-households) 16.5 18.7 58.5 57.9 25.0 23.4
Has your problem been solved?
households, %
Partially 40%
Yes
13.3%No
46.7%
27
VII. Is it possible to combat corruption in the Republic of Moldova?
Which of the following statements do you agree with? % (2008)
Which of the following statements do
you agree with? %
5.2
5.6
21.5
24.2
43.5
4.2
2.2
17.7
30
45.9
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Corruption can be completely eradicated
Don’t know/No answer
Corruption cannot be combated
Corruption can be significantly reduced
Corruption will always exist, but can be limited
Businessmen
Households
Most efficient measures to reduce corruption, %
2.46
2.70
2.67
2.79
2.80
2.92
3.04
3.15
3.24
3.31
3.34
2.46
2.54
2.76
2.81
2.78
2.95
3.13
3.25
3.45
3.43
3.47
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3,00 3,50 4,00
Reducing the number of state interventions in
economy
Control of declarations of income made by public servants
Ensuring independence of judges
Publication of budgets of public institutions
Informing the population about the danger of corruption
Enforcement of rules of conduct in public service and introduction of sanctions for their violation
Promotion in career of public servants according to merits
More severe sanctions for those who give bribes
To increase salaries
More severe sanctions for those who accept bribes
Introduction of some severe sanctions for corrupt behavior
Businessmen
Households
28
Measures to reduce corruption, % (2008) Salaries vs. unofficial payments What salary should receive a public servant, in order not to be tempted to accept bribes?
(opinions of respondents)
Monthly average salary, US Dollars
Households Businessmen
2007 2008 2007 2008
Minister 1600 1615 2300 2280
Head of department/directorate 900 1090 1270 1460
Regular public servant 560 705 685 850
Summary
In the framework of TI-Moldova monitoring project two sociological surveys have been conducted (one at the TCP launch and the second one at its finalization), the objective being the
assessment of the situation concerning the perception and experiences related to corruption in the
Republic of Moldova of two categories of respondents: households and businessmen. The analysis focused on the situation in the 6 priority areas of TCP. The number of respondents: 1060
households and 503 businessmen.
The results of the survey show that, as expected, the results of TCP implementation have not been felt substantially by the respondents in a period shorter than one year, especially taking into
account the fact that in several TCP areas the activities have not been finalized yet.
It is important to mention the fact that a part of TCP activities had an indirect nature of
preventing and combating corruption and the impact of these activities would be felt only in a
longer term.
Also, since some questions were of perception nature, the responses have been influenced by the
general feeling of comfort or discomfort of citizens in the interview phase (seasonal nature). Therefore, in the first sociological survey the interview phase took place in February-March 2008,
and in the second – in October-November 2008.
Some indicator modifications may be considered insignificant, considering the margin of error of the survey (3% for household and 4.4% for businessmen).
Still, some effects of TCP implementation can be mentioned even in this short period of time.
Victimization of corruption: Police
resp. - HH
Health
institutions
resp. - HH
Courts of law
resp. – HH
CCECC
resp. –
businessmen
Customs
resp. –
businessmen
Tax bodies
resp. –
businessmen
I
survey
II
survey
I
survey
II
survey
I
survey
II
survey
I
survey
II
survey
I
survey
II
survey
I
survey
II
survey
Share of respondents who made unofficial payments to representatives of state institutions during the last 12 months (% of total number of respondents)
9,9
7,9 24,7 21,4 0,9 1,1 1,9 1,0 13,4 14,5 17,9 10,1
29
Pressure of corruption: Police
resp. - HH
Health
institutions
resp. - HH
Courts of law
resp. – HH
CCECC
resp. –
businessmen
Customs
resp. –
businessmen
Tax bodies
resp. –
businessmen
I
survey
II
survey
I
survey
II
survey
I
survey
II
survey
I
survey
II
survey
I
survey
II
survey
I
survey
II
survey
Share of respondents who were forced to make unofficial payments (% of total number of respondents who made unofficial payments)
36,3 43,2 37,3 43,6 32,2 50,0 60,0 0 54,8 60,6 35,7 37,3
Spreading of corruption Police
resp. - HH
Health institutions
resp. - HH
Courts of law resp. – HH
CCECC resp. –
businessmen
Customs resp. –
businessmen
Tax bodies resp. –
businessmen
I survey
II survey
I survey
II survey
I survey
II survey
I survey
II survey
I survey
II survey
I survey
II survey
Share or respondents who consider that the corruption phenomenon is widely spread in the TCP areas (total of share of respondents who consider that unofficial payments are made often, very often, and permanently)
67,1 61,7 68,9 60,4 50,6 48,6 23,1 19,1 53,9 55,4 39,9 41,2
Credibility of monitored institutions – results at TCP launch/at project closing (% of total number of respondents)
Full trust A lot of trust Little trust No trust
2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008
Tax inspectorates (respondents –
businessmen)
7,6 5,4 30,9 25,8 47,6 50,2 13,9 18,6
Customs (respondents – businessmen) 2,6 2,2 12,8 13,2 56,5 56 28,1 28,5
Police (respondents – households) 3,5 1,4 12,3 14,6 46,5 49,3 37,7 34,7
Courts of law (respondents – households)
3,9 1,6 17,5 19,2 51,8 52,1 26,8 27,1
CCECC (respondents – businessmen) 7,2 9,1 23,4 31,2 45,8 41,3 23,6 18,4
Health institutions (respondents –
households)
7,0 4,4 25,3 23,4 44,0 47,8 23,7 24,4
Professionalism of staff - results at TCP launch/at project closing, (% of total number of respondents)
High Medium Low
2007 2008 2007 2008 2007 2008
Tax inspectorates (respondents – businessmen) 17,2 22,4 68,1 61 14,7 16,6
Customs (respondents – businessmen) 8,2 14,3 66,2 56,1 25,6 29,6
Police (respondents – households) 6,3 11,4 57,7 58,5 36,0 30,1
Courts of law (respondents – households) 11,5 16,1 67,0 62,1 21,5 21,8
CCECC (respondents – businessmen) 18,1 30,2 62,9 52,1 19,0 17,7
Health institutions (respondents – households) 16,5 18,7 58,5 57,9 25,0 23,4
30
Average bribe paid in the last 12 months Police
resp. - HH
Health
institutions
resp. - HH
Courts of law
resp. – HH
CCECC
resp. –
businessmen
Customs
resp. –
businessmen
Tax bodies
resp. –
businessmen
I
survey
II
survey
I
survey
II
survey
I
survey
II
survey
I
survey
II
survey
I
survey
II
survey
I
survey
II
survey
Average bribe (Lei)
807 1082 564 783 z z z Z 3074 1383 1255 1531
Note: to take into account inflation
Total estimated bribe paid by businessmen and households during the last 12 months Police
resp. - HH
Health
institutions resp. - HH
Courts of law
resp. – HH
CCECC
resp. – businessmen
Customs
resp. – businessmen
Tax bodies
resp. – businessmen
I
survey
II
survey
I
survey
II
survey
I
survey
II
survey
I
survey
II
survey
I
survey
II
survey
I
survey
II
survey
Total estimated
bribe (million Lei)
77 97 153 190 z z z Z 66 34 36 26
The readiness of the population to make unofficial payments decreased. Thus the share of
respondents who are ready to make unofficial payments in difficult situations decreased from 80.5% to 76.5% among businessmen, and from 75.9% to 65.4% among household representatives.
At the same time it is necessary to note a higher level of skepticism among respondents concerning the
efficiency of preventing corruption. The share of respondents who consider that the corruption
phenomenon decreased during the last 12 months remained almost the same among households (12.2% / 12.7%), and businessmen (15.4% / 16.7%). The share of respondents who consider that the corruption phenomenon can be reduced varies between 75.5% and 73% among household
representatives and between 82.9% and 80.1% among representatives of business community.
TCP assessment indicators
Attitude towards corruption Households
Businessmen
I survey II survey I survey II survey
The share of respondents who consider corruption a major
impediment in the development of the country (% of total number
of respondents)
84.1 83,3 65.5 72
Corruption costs Households
Businessmen
I survey II survey I survey II survey
The share of respondents who consider poverty the main
consequence of corruption (% of total number of respondents)
60.1 56,8 59.9 57,1
Level of information of population about TCP
The share of those who know about the implementation of TCP rose from 26.7% to 34.3% among
representatives of households and from 35% to 52.1% among businessmen.
Credibility of mass-media
The share of respondents who believe in the information related to corruption in mass-media increased from 40.3% to 50% of households and from 38.5% to 55.2% of businessmen. The main
sources of information about TCP, according to the respondents are television (about 40%), written press (about 25%), and radio (16%).