corruption_in_ukraine_2007-2009_2011_engl

Chart 4.4

Believe that Corruption is Never Justified

Findings of the qualitative survey show that citizens are well aware of the negative consequences of corruption. Corrupt behavior is perceived as widely spread legalized racket affecting primarily the quality of life of average citizens.

“Another negative factor is that even if you pay for a university diploma, you’ve got to work with it and you don’t have the necessary qualifications. Let’s assume a person bought a diploma of a medical doctor and somebody turns to them for medical treatment. This is absolutely horrific.”

“A similar situation is when a person applies for a job as a chef in a restaurant or café, which requires a medical examination certificate. And they are told, “No worries. Come to work and we will take care of it”. Then, some clients fall ill from food poisoning.”

“This may be good for me personally, if I have more money than everybody else sitting at this table and I can resolve my problems quicker. For me personally this is good, but generally speaking it is not good and it’s unfair.”

“Or they sell a gun to a sick person for money. The man goes and shoots himself one day. He was a drug addict.Hewenttoseeatherapistandgavehimmoney.Thenhewenttoseeapsychiatristandalsogavehim money. And both of specialists issued him a certificate.

“It also may be due to the lobbying of somebody’s interests. In order to get rich through criminal channels, one may be forced to lobby somebody else’s interests”.

“I recall the beginning of perestroika, when the word “racket» could be heard everywhere. I’ve got a feeling that we are sliding back into that era. But this time it is more legal and on a government level.”

On the other hand, the participants of the discussions claimed that corruption may have some positive effects,providedthatbribesareextortedin“reasonable”amounts.Inthiscase,corruptioncouldbejustified:

“When applying to obtain any official document, applicants are told they will be ready by a certain date. If they need it sooner, a bribe or a gratuity is demanded and the document will be ready in a matter of a few hours”

“This fuels competition and allows people to climb the career ladder not based on their professional qualifications, rather on the amount of a bribe they pay some civil servant.”

“100hryvniaisnotenough.1,000oraminimumof500willbesufficient.So,wheredoessomebodyfindsuch big money?”

Changes in the level of corruption since 2004

As noted earlier, there is a reverse correlation between the level of trust in the government and the population’s perception of corruption. Findings of the 2011 survey show differences in perception of corruption according to political preferences of the respondents. Results of the survey demonstrate that over a half of the surveyed supporters of the current administration (the Party of Regions, which is the party of the current president and government,andthepoliticalforceoftheSpeakeroftheUkrainianParliamentVolodymyrLytvyn,believethelevel of corruption either has not changed or has fallen compared to 2004.

4. PERCEPTIONS OF CORRUPTION

21

4. PERCEPTIONS OF CORRUPTION

22

Chart 4.5

Perceived Change in Level of Corruption in Ukraine since 2004 Depending on the Respondents’ Political

Preferences

Question: In your opinion, has the level of corruption changed in Ukraine compared to 2004 and how?

The situation is slightly more complicated when it comes to followers of Serhiy Tihipko’s Strong Ukraine and the Communist Party of Ukraine led by Petro Symonenko. Here, less than half of the respondents believe that corruption is worse today than it was before the Orange Revolution. As for the supporters of the “orange” forces, more than 60% are convinced that the level of corruption has increased compared to 2004.

For a more precise assessment of the effectiveness of the MCC Threshold anti-corruption programs, we asked respondents in this survey about their perceptions of changes in corruption over the last two years after the previous survey in 2009.

Overall, the assessment of such changes is not as flat as two years ago: almost 40% of respondents are convinced that the situation has not changed, although 41.7% said the level of corruption has increased. Another 5% of the respondents said the level of corruption is lower than in 2009. Noteworthy is that 55.8% of respondents of the 2009 survey said the level of corruption has increased over the past two years.

Chart 4.6

Perceived Change in Level of Corruption in Ukraine Two Years Prior to the Survey

Question: How has the level of corruption in Ukraine changed to-date compared to early 2009 (2007)?

Spread of corruption and the effectiveness of preventative measures

Theresultsofthesurveyshowthatpublicperceptionsofcorruptionatalllevelsofgovernmenthavedecreasedover thispastyearandarealmostthesameasin2007.54.5%ofrespondentsbelievethatthehighestlevelcorruptionis in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. Slightly less than half of the respondents perceive the President, his Secretariat and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine as highly corrupt entities.

Theincumbentpresidentapparentlymanagedtoconvincehisvotersofhiscommitmenttoeradicatingcorruption, which gives him a better image than the current government as to the level of perceived corruption. As earlier, respondents believe that the lowest level of corruption is among local authorities (32.7%).

.

Chart 4.7

Spread of Corruption by Level of Government

Question: in your opinion, to what extent is corruption rampant among government authorities at various levels?

Justasinthepreviousyears,respondentswereaskedtoevaluatethespreadofcorruptionin20sectors.Asearlier, there are increased perceptions of corruption in the State Auto Inspection agency (64.4%) and the judicial system (60.3%). It is important to note that this year the state healthcare system has caught up with the judicial system (60.3%) and the [p;oce (59.1%), which earlier ranked third in this anti-rating list.

Amidst all proposed sectors, only three demonstrated a slight decrease in the level of corruption compared to 2009: university management and faculty (from 49% to 47.1%), obtaining government subsidized housing (from 40.2% to 38.3%) and registration or privatization of real estate (from 35.4% to 33.5%) – all changes are statistically significant at the level of p=0.01.

In the majority of sectors, perceptions of corruption have increased.

The most tangible increase in the public perceptions of corruption was revealed in such sectors as healthcare services (from 54.2% to 60.3%), passing through customs control and obtaining customs documents (from 38.6% to 42.1%), being hired for a government job (from 31% to 36.2%), regulation of business activity (from 29.3% to 34%) and applying for and obtaining unemployment and other social assistance (from 16.3% to 20.4%).

In the opinion of respondents, corruption also increased in the sphere of public utility services, specifically state subsidized installation and repair of equipment in schools and among tax inspectors.

Perceived corruption in the other eight sectors remained at the level of two years ago.

4. PERCEPTIONS OF CORRUPTION

23

4. PERCEPTIONS OF CORRUPTION

24

Table 4.1

Dynamics of the perceived spread of corruption

and the effectiveness of preventive measures5

Respondents of the last survey more critically assess the effectiveness of the new governments’ anti-corruption measures in certain spheres. The only sector in which the effectiveness of countermeasures was perceived as being slightly more effective was the police (without SAI), where 53.6% of the respondents said they were somewhateffectivevis-à-vis 50.1%in 2009(astatistically significantdifferenceatthelevelof p=0.05). Meanwhile, the significant reduction in effectiveness of counter measures is perceived in as many as 10 sectors (in the range from 4.3 to 11.9 p.p.).

Thus, although the respondents do not believe that the government has curtailed its anti-corruption activities compared to 2009, they do perceive them as less effective.

It is interesting that regulation of business activity is the only sector where significant changes are noted in all three indices: the respondents note increased corruption in this sphere (from 29.3% to 34%) simultaneously with the growth of public awareness of the government’s anti-corruption measures (from 8.7% to 12.2%) and reduced effectivenessofsuchmeasures(from65.3%to56.7%).Thecloseattentiontothisspherewasclearlyevidentinthe events following the adoption and implementation of the new Tax Code.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the spread of corruption is definitely perceived to be the result of government’s inactivity, but more the lack of active government reforms in fighting corruption within various sectors that influence public perception of the spread of corruption.

5The table shows changes (— increase, — decrease) in corresponding indices for 2011 in comparison to 2009 (changes over 3 percentage points (p.p.) are shown with double simbolsor . All of these changes are statistically significant at a level of р=0.05). The list of sectors is sorted according to decreases in the perceptions of the level of corruption.

6Percentage of those who feel that the government applies measures within the corresponding sector.

4. PERCEPTIONS OF CORRUPTION

25

4. PERCEPTIONS OF CORRUPTION

26

Overall corruption perceptions index by region

The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) is calculated based on respondents’ answers to the question of how widespread they believe corruption to be within Ukraine’s governing bodies and among public officials. The more respondents believe that corruption is widespread across the 20 different functions and sectors, the higher the CPI value (which ranges from 100 – the highest perceived corruption to 0 – the least perceived corruption). The median value for the CPI in Ukraine increased from 33 in 2007 to 37 in 2008 and has remained at this level to date.

Therefore, respondents perceive that the spread of corruption within the country has not changed over the last two years. Currently, on average, Ukrainians perceive that more than one-third of all of the country’s major sectors and institutions are highly corrupted.

In terms of regional distribution, the worst situations have appeared in the Kirovohrad oblast, joined now by the Sumy, Volyn and Donetsk oblasts, as well as Crimea, where the population considers more than half the sectors of the economy to be corrupt and believes that the corruption situation has significantly worsened over the last two years.

Overall, in eleven Ukraine’s oblasts (districts), the CPI has grown, while growing more than five points in ten of them. A significant decline in the corresponding index (by more than 5 points) has been witnessed in only five oblasts: Kharkiv (-14.1), Chernihiv (-9.9), Zaporizhzhia (-9.0), Kherson (-4.5) and Luhansk (-3.9). The remaining 10 oblasts did not show any change in the level of perceived corruption.

Chart 4.9

Corruption Perception Index

Overall, an analysis of correlations in previous surveys is corroborated by the findings of the last survey. They indicated that the perception of corruption (as measured by the CPI) is strongly related to a number of factors:

•The perception of the spread of corruption is strongly related to the lack of trust in government at all levels.

•The greater the Corruption Perception Index, the less one believes that authorities are doing as much as they can to reduce corruption.

•Societyseemsmorecorrupttocitizenswhoareabletoprofitfromcorruptionforpersonalgains,asopposedto those who are less inclined to justify corruption.

•The higher the CPI, the more citizens feel that the level of corruption has grown over the last two years.

•The more respondents see the state sector as being corrupt, the more they express their readiness to defend their rights against dishonest officials.

•Perceptions of the level of corruption are strongly related to past corruption experience. Those who have personal experience with corrupt transactions are more convinced of its spread within government.

•Middle-agedpeople,educatedcitizens,higherincomegroups,andthosewholiveincitiestendtoperceivethat there is a wider spread of corruption than the average respondent. This may be explained, in part, by the fact that these socio-demographic groups experience corruption more often than the average respondent.

68,7%

67,4%

66,2%

2007

2009 2011

Question: Over the last 12 months, have you or anyone in your family dealt with government authorities or with any of the state institutions to get the following services?

5.CITIZENS’EXPERIENCES WITH CORRUPTION

28

Extortion, voluntary bribes and use of personal connections (by sector)

Despite the fact that Ukrainian perceptions of the spread of corruption within various sectors and institutions has not changed, the level of real corruption experiences is decreasing. Overall, compared to 2009, the share of those who encountered any form of corruption over the last year decreased by more than 2.4 p.p (a statistically significant difference at the level of p=0.001). Over the last 12 months, 60.1% of respondents or their family members were involved in some form of corrupt transactions when dealing with state officials (in comparison to 62.5% in 2009 and 67% in 2007).

Chart 5.2

Involved in Corruption over the Past 12 Months

Question: Over the last 12 months have you or members of your family had to deal with any corrupt behavior of representatives of

government authorities, including educational, healthcare and other organizations?

Aqualitativesurveycomplements the pictureof quantitativedata with real lifeexamples of encounters with corruption. Participants of the discussions are convinced that there is hardly any sector in which corruption does not exist:

“Healthcare,education, judges, militsiya. Corruption is everywhereand all theway through. It’s everywhere, wherethereisroomforrent-seeking.Ifthereisnoroom,thereisnocorruption.Inastore,acheapergoodmay beheldbackandlateronsoldatahigherprice.Therearesectorswherecorruptionisimpossiblealtogether.”

“Ifinuniversitywehadtopassanexaminanotsoimportantdiscipline,wejustagreedtohowmucheveryone will chip in.”

“He says to me: Dad, let’s pass a motor vehicle inspection honestly. I say, let’s do it son. And we went there and tried to pass the inspection honestly. We were passing it for a whole week and we did not manage to complete it. Eventually we were forced to get it done the dishonest way”.

“WeareplanningatriptoCrimeawithmyfriends.Iapproachaticketboothattherailwaystationandaskthe clerk if there are tickets to Simferopol. No tickets. To Sevastopol? No tickets. I said I will pay double the price. Shegivesmehertelephonenumberandaskstocallherin10minutes.Icallherin10minutes.Sheasks,“How manyofyouaregoing?”Irespond,“Sixpersons”.Shesays,“Ihavefoundticketsforyou,comepickthemup”.

“He paid money to work as a deputy judge for a meager salary and a long tenure. He was forced to pay a hugeamountofmoneytogetthisjob,becauseadeputyjudgeisjustonestepawayfrombecomingajudge”.

“Or get in line for government subsidized housing. Your number in the line does not matter. For example, you may be 120th, then they dole out apartments, and after that you find out that your number is now 130th. ThisiswhatIcallcorruption:somebodyhaspaidtoskipaheadoftheline.Ipersonallyencounteredthat.This is my own experience”.

“And when you cross the country’s border you have to pay. Otherwise you will stand in line for two days and your goods will spoil. And you need money to get into a hospital and have contact with any government institution”.

Corruption by types of bribery

Amoredetailedreviewofcorruptionexperiencesbysectorsthatprovideservicewithfundingfromthebudgetsof all levels shows some variation. Some sectors show decreases in extortion, while others show increases. In Chart 5.3,thesectorsaresortedbychangesinextortionexperiences(fromthehighestdecreasetothehighestincrease).

55.2% of respondents encountered extortion at least in one sector and this value does not differ from the 2009 findings. No statistically significant decrease was recorded in any of the sectors. Quite to the contrary, a notable increaseinbriberywasreportedbyusersofsuchservicesasregistrationorprivatizationofrealestate(from22.6% to 32.2%), SAI (from 39.7% to 45.1%), state tax administration (from 19.6% to 28.7%) and the militsiya (from 46.1 to 53.1%).

Chart 5.3

Bribes Extorted

(percent of respondents who had contacted respective state institutions)