corruption_in_ukraine_2007-2009_2011_engl

CORRUPTION IN UKRAINE

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF NATIONAL SURVEYS:2007–

2009, 2011

KYIV, 2011

Corruption in Ukraine. Comparative Analysis of National Surveys: 2007–2009, 2011 Kyiv – 47 p.

This report was prepared by the European Research Association in cooperation with Kyiv International Institute of Sociology in the framework of the USAID funded project «The Ukraine National Initiatives to Enhance Reforms (UNITER)» implemented by Pact Inc. Ukraine. Presented in the report are comparative results of National sociological surveys on the state of corruption in Ukraine conducted in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2011. The survey was targeted at measuring public perception of the problem of corruption and its experience with it. This report is intended to reach a wide readership.

3

4

SUMMARY

InMarch–May2011alargescalenationalsurveyofpublicopiniononcorruptioninUkrainewasconductedunder the aegis of the UNITER project financed by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The survey was based on the methodology used in 2007–2009, when three surveys were conducted in Ukraine, which were specifically targeted at measuring public perception of the problem of corruption and its experience with it.

The 2007-2009 surveys were of a monitoring nature, therefore their findings enabled to trace the changes in perceptions and experience with corruption in Ukraine over an extended period of time. The baseline survey was conducted at the beginning of 2007 and created the basis for further comparison of the findings of the surveys at the beginning of 2008 and 2009, as well as the latest data obtained in early 2011. All four surveys were conducted by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS): in 2007-2009 under the leadership of Management Systems International (MSI) and in 2011 – in cooperation with the European Research Association and UNITER Project implemented by PACT, Inc. Ukraine.

During 2009-2010 different branches of government, the donor community, non-government organizations and other agencies drafted and partially implemented reforms and different activities aimed at the fight against corruption in Ukraine. In addition to that, many significant political and economic events that are likely to have hadanimpactonpublicperceptionofcorruptionandtrendsofcorruptbehaviorshaveoccurredinUkraineduring this period. In particular, there were several phases of reshuffling of staff in the government. The financial crisis precipitated a halt to economic growth and a decrease in industrial output over the period 2009 – 2010, which resultedinadecreaseinbusinessactivityonthewholeandadropinpeople’sstandardsofliving.Theresultsofthe 2011 survey confirmed the previous years’ findings, sustainability of the perceptions of corruption (in most cases) and reflected certain changes.

Key findings

Perceptions and experience of corruption. A comparative analysis of the survey data between 2007 and 2009 indicates a decrease in the actual corruption experiences, though an increase in the perception that corruption is widespread. In 2011, i.e. almost two years after the last survey, the situation changed slightly: citizens’ perception ofthespreadofcorruptionhasremainedalmostattheleveloftwoyearsago,whilethecorruptionexperiencehas not spread, it has increased in its intensity, which is primarily due to the increase in the number of government bodies where citizens are confronted with open extortion on the part of the bureaucrats.

While the overall level of corruption remains extremely high in Ukraine, the 2009 and 2011 surveys show that the level has slightly dropped off. Indeed, in 2011 a total of 60.1% of respondents said they were involved in corrupt transactions with government officials over the past 12 months as compared to 62.5% in 2009 and 67% in 2007.

Involved in Corruption over the Past 12 Months

Specific forms of corruption. When looking at the specific forms of corruption that have been encountered, the resultsshowthatextortionhasreturnedtothe2007level(25.8%in2011and25.6%in2007),eventhoughin2009 it declined to 22.1%. Voluntary offering of bribes, after decreasing to 9.9% in 2009 from 13.1% in 2007, remains

5

that there is practically no alternative to corruption. They believe that allocation of additional budgetary funds to the healthcare sector and raising the salaries of its employees will help curb bribery and fraud.

4.2. Corruption in schools:

•Of the 22% of respondents who have school-aged children, a significant share is enticed into engaging in various forms of corrupt activities (61.1% were extorted bribes and 61.6% voluntarily offered bribes).

•Over the last two years, the spread of corrupt practices in this sector has not changed. The main forms of corruptactionsaremonetarydonationstoschoolorclassfunds(55%),payingforclassroomrepairs(56%), and donating money for flowers and gifts for teachers (33%). The last form of contribution is more often voluntarilyprovidedattheparents’initiative(51%).Thereisaslightincreaseinthenumberofparentsthat offer bribes to ensure that their children are admitted to a selected school, are given higher grades and those that forced to hire the additional services of private tutors in schools.

•As for the medical sphere, the respondents believe that curbing corruption in the schools should be accomplished through allocating more funds for education from the state budget. At the same time, the share of those willing to pay such money to teachers instead of financing the sector as a whole is on the rise.

4.3. Corruption in the SAI:

•The situation with bribery within the SAI remains complicated, though relatively unchanged over this last period. The most widespread form of corruption during transactions with SAI workers is still unofficial payments for violating traffic rules. The share of drivers extorted by inspectors has increased from 35% in 2009 to 42%, while the share of those who initiate bribes themselves has decreased from 23% to 21%. Another reason for increased instances of bribery in the SAI is technical inspections of vehicles: 25.2% in 2011 versus 19% in 2009.

•In contrast to healthcare and schools, Ukrainians do not often sympathize with SAI employees. They recommend stricter punishment for corruption and abuse of power as the best way to fight bribery.

5.Responses to corruption

5.1. Only 4% of victims of corruption admitted that they tried to defend their rights. The main reason for not filing complaints against an official remains the belief that such actions will be futile.

5.2. The share of respondents indicating that they are ready to stand up for their rights is about a third of the population: 33% in 2007, 36% in 2009 and 34% in 2011. As earlier, males, young people, citizens with a higher education and higher incomes make up the most active group of citizens willing to defend their rights. This group also experiences the highest number of cases of corruption.

5.3. For the first time the initiatives of incumbent authorities, in particular, those under the current president) are declared more often than corruption is exposed in the mass media: 33% of respondents are aware of the anti-corruption activities of the president as compared to 30% of respondents who discovered information about cases of corruption in the mass media. Moreover, the respondents are convinced that the effectiveness of the president’s anti-corruption programs has increased. It should also be emphasized that while no more than 17.6% of respondents consider any anti-corruption measures in Ukraine to be effective, it should be stressed that this percentage was derived from the number of the citizens that are aware of such programs.

5.4. Thesurveyfindingsshowthatthenotionofintensifyingstrictmeasuresagainstcorruptofficialsisbecoming less popular among Ukrainians. At the same time, such less radical and more progressive measures of modifyingandimprovinglegislationand,whatismoreimportant,enhancingthelevelofpublicawareness andintroducingpubliccontrolaregaininginpopularity.Inspiteofthis,Ukrainiancitizenscontinuetoinsist on the need to strip the Verkhovna Rada deputies of their immunity status and consider the equality of all before the law a prerequisite to effective implementation of any anti-corruption efforts.

SUMMARY 9

I. INTRODUCTION

In 2007 – 2009, three series of public opinion surveys entitled Corruption in Ukraine were was conducted as a part of the project Promoting Active Citizen Engagement in Fighting Corruption in Ukraine (ACTION) with the aim of increasing public involvement in fighting corruption in Ukraine. To complement the corruption monitoring, another large scale public opinion survey was conducted in 2011. This report presents the comparative results of identical corruption surveys conducted in 2007 – 2009 and 2011 to monitor trends in corruption perceptions and the experience of Ukrainian citizens.

Four nationwide surveys were conducted by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) and financed by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The baseline survey was conducted in February

- March 2007 (N = 10580) . A mid-term survey was conducted in March – April 2008 (N = 2013) and February – March 2009 (N = 10577). Those three surveys were conducted under the leadership of Management Systems

International (MSI). The last survey was conducted in March – April 2011 (N = 10639) under the leadership of the UNITER project implemented by PACT Inc. Ukraine and in cooperation with the European Research Association

(ERA).

In most cases, the analysis in this report focuses on the comparison of the 2007, 2009 and 2011 surveys, while the large sample size of the three surveys offers a more sound analysis in separate oblasts (provinces) of Ukraine. However, the 2008 mid-term survey results are included when they offer additional insight or reveal interesting dynamics.

Survey methodology

All four surveys collected quantitative information on the following issues:

•Attitudes of the adult population in Ukraine towards the problem of corruption;

•Citizen experiences with corruption;

•Citizen assessments of the effectiveness of anti-corruption measures taken by authorities and other anticorruption activists;

•The public’s willingness to engage in anti-corruption activities.

The sample developed for each of the four surveys is representative of the adult population of Ukraine (18 years and older) as a whole and separate regions. Data from the 2007, 2009 and 2011 surveys are also representative of each oblast of Ukraine, including the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Kyiv. The methodology developedamultistageprobabilitysamplewithquotaselectionatthefinalstage.Duringthefirststageofsampling, randomsettlementswereselectedwithineveryoblastandtheARofCrimeaproportionaltotheirpopulations.The second stage used random selection of postal districts within the selected settlements. In these postal districts randomstreets,buildings,andapartmentswereselected.Thefinalstageconsistedofrespondentselectionwithin a household. The data obtained was compared to that of the 2001 All-Ukrainian Population Census.

Table 1.1 presents the basics characteristics of all four surveys

2Management Systems International (2007) Corruption in Ukraine: 2007 Baseline National Survey for the MCC Threshold Country Program. Kyiv: MSI

10