HOME | SITE MAP | CONTACT | e-DISCUSSION | KOREAN    
   
  CONFERENCE
PROGRAM
Program at a glance
Plenaries
Workshops
Delegate Initiated Meetings
  REGISTRATION
  PRACTICAL
INFORMATION
  ORGANIZERS AND SPONSORS
  PARALLEL ACTIVITIES
  NEWS & FEEDBACK
  ABOUT THE IACC SERIES
  MEDIA
 
CONFERENCE PROGRAM >> Workshops >> Stream 11
 




Those seeking to minimize corruption would like to measure the amount and types of corruption that occur within and across different administrations for several reasons, for example:

i) to identify how and where best to intervene if we knew what types of corruption were most widespread in different systems and in which types of systems corruption was most likely to occur we would know where best to put our resources to reduce corruption

ii) to evaluate the success of our anti-corruption strategies to be able to say how effective our anti-corruption efforts have been it would be useful to compare the amount (and type) of corruption that was occurring before we intervened with the amount that occurred after we intervened with our anti-corruption strategies and to see how any change in the amount or nature of the corruption compares to before and after measures with similar systems where we did nothing.

Unfortunately measuring corruption is not straightforward. One cannot base measurement on the number of allegations or complaints received. Some types of corrupt activities tend to be carried out in secret with few witnesses. That which is not witnessed cannot be reported. Even corrupt conduct that is witnessed may not be reported for a wide range of reasons (e.g., not considering that it is their responsibility to report, fear of reprisal, belief that nothing will be done about it if it were reported). On the other hand not all allegations/complaints about corrupt conduct would be able to be substantiated as corruption. In some cases, because a person is unsuccessful with a tender bid or job application, they think that the process must have been corrupt when that actually was not the case.

Despite these difficulties, different people have tried to measure corruption or indirect indicators of corruption in a range of ways: from opinion polls to public sector expenditure tracking and in-depth diagnostic surveys.

This stream focuses on measurement tools and the lessons learnt from them. The main aims of the stream are to:

(i) to familiarize participants with the range of tools available for measuring corruption and measuring the effectiveness of anti-corruption strategies; and

(ii) to provide participants with a framework for the selection of the most appropriate tools to use when assisting client countries to improve governance



WS 10.1 Tools that directly measure corruption
27 May Sunday 14:30-17:00


Coordinator : Marie Wolkers
Thomas Wollnick 		TI-Secretariat
Inwent

Chair : Elena Paniflova TI-Russia

Rapporteur : Bruno wilhelm Speck
 State University Campinas

Panelists : Aleksandras Dobryninas
Daniel Kaufmann		 TI-Lithuania

World Bank Institute

  In a methodological essay in 1994 entitled “What cannot be analysed in statistical terms“, corruption was cited as the classic example of an observable phenomenon that was not quantifiable since “there cannot be statistics on a phenomenon which by its very nature is concealed“. Since then, these assumptions have changed and in subsequent years, a remarkable growth in empirical research on corruption issues has been observed. These efforts were fostered by an international interest in finding concrete means to combat corruption and they have been bolstered by support and interest from multilateral organisations, foundations and research institutions in a variety of countries.
Therefore, the question today is no longer whether corruption can be measured and/or analysed empirically. The questions are rather: How? With what level of robustness? And to what effect?

Topics:
1. Data collection and evaluation
2. Methodological issues and techniques (not on political discussions)
3. Possibilities and limitations of surveys to capture corruption (i.e. sources of measurement, obstacles, etc.)
4. Impact of the surveys in term of awareness raising and policy inputs
5. Recommendations for duplication of similar tools



WS 10.2 Tools that indirectly measure corruption
27 May Sunday 14:30-17:00

 
Coordinator : Claudio Abramo   Transparencia Brazil

Chair : Claudio Abramo Transparencia Brasil

Rapporteur : Shane Cave
TI-New Zealand

Panelists : Tay Keong Tan
Marianne Lala Camerer
Jeremy Pope
Unathi Millie
UN-OIOS
Centre for Public Integrity, USA

TI-Center for Innovation and Research
PSAM, South Africa

  Topics:
1. National Integrity Systems
2. National Integrity Strategy in Singapore
3. The methodology of Global Access



WS 10.3 New Frontiers
27 May Tuesday 14:30-17:00

 
Coordinator : Alan Rousso
Goran Hyden		 EBRD
University of Florida, USA

Chair : Alan Rousso EBRD

Rapporteur : Goran Hyden
 University of Florida, USA

Panelists : Daniel Kaufmann
Goran Hyden
Joel Hellman 		World Bank Institute
University of Florida, USA
World Bank

  The workshop will cover quantitative and qualititative methods of measuring governance, and the challenges both methods present to researchers. Cases examined in the workshop will span the transition countries of Eastern and Central Europe and the CIS, Asia, Latin America, and Africa.

Topics:
1. The Human Development Report experience of measuring governance
2. Measuring governance in transition: Methodological issues in designing the BEEPS
3. Broadening the database: The value of local informants
4. Governance and development: What do we know, and how do we know it?
5. The value of 'Thick' case studies: The experience of the Asian governance study