corruption_in_ukraine_2007-2009_2011_engl

Each survey was conducted using individual interviews and identical methodology instruments. A total of 50 questions were asked, including public trust in various levels of government, serious problems facing Ukraine, the spread of corruption across levels of government and key sectors and institutions, actual first-hand experience with corruption, sources of information about corruption, the effectiveness of various government responses to corruption, and personal readiness to fight corruption.

General characteristics of the 2011 survey sample

Overall, the distribution of respondents according to key demographic characteristics corresponds to the population’s make-up in official statistics. Among those surveyed, 55% were female and 45% were male. Almost 32% of respondents were of retirement age (55 years and older for females and 60 years and older for males). Respondents from all educational categories were represented. The average size of a household size was 3 individuals. Charts 1.1 present the respondents’ distribution by major demographic characteristics.

44.2% of all surveyed were gainfully employed, 2.5% of which said they were self-employed and 2.4% were working pensioners. In terms of the form of enterprise, 11.5% were employed by state enterprises, 32.8% were employed by other state institutions, 46.7% were employed by private businesses and 6.4% were employed by mixedenterprises.Theremaining55.7%ofrespondentsthatdonotworkincludepensioners(30.2%),unemployed (11.1%), housewives (8.9%), students (4.0%) and the disabled (1.5%).

1. INTRODUCTION

11

1. INTRODUCTION

12

Households fall into the following categories based on their total income (Table 1.2).

Table 1.2

Total household’s income

Charts 1.2 present the distribution of respondents by regions and types of settlements in which they reside. The oblasts are distributed among the regions as follows:

Western Region – Volyn, Zakarpattia, Ivano-Frankivsk, Lviv, Rivne, Ternopil, Khmelnytsk and Chernivtsi oblasts.

Central Region – The city of Kyiv, Vinnytsia, Zhytomyr, Kyiv, Kirovohrad, Poltava, Sumy, Cherkasy and Chernihiv oblasts.

Southern Region – The Autonomous Republic of Crimea, Dnipropetrovsk, Zaporizhzhia, Mykolayiv, Odesa and Kherson oblasts.

Eastern Region – Donetsk, Luhansk and Kharkiv oblasts.

Chart 1.2

Respondents’ distribution by regions and settlement’s type

Qualitative survey

The2011qualitativesurveywasconductedin5cities–centersofregionsofUkraine:Kyiv,Lviv,Donetsk,Simferopil and Chernihiv. The selected methodology was focus-group discussions (FGD) with females /males over 18 years of age. Overall, 5 FGDs were conducted.

The purpose of this stage was to collect information on actual acts of corruption and the problems of citizens’ interaction with government authorities and other state institutions financed from budgets of different levels. FGDs on the whole enabled to clearly identify the mechanisms, causes and dynamics of corruption activities in Ukraine and understand the causes behind the citizens’ lack of readiness or unwillingness to defend their rights3

3 The findings of the qualitative survey are highlighted and the quotations in the text are given in italics with the vocabulary and syntax of the respondents preserved

2.ATTITUDES TOWARD THE GOVERNMENT

14

Responsibility for the fight against corruption

Despite the low level of trust in government institutions, the majority of Ukrainians continue to feel that the highest bodies of government should assume the greatest responsibility in the fight against corruption. As earlier, the majority believes that the fight against corruption is the responsibility of the President – the share of such respondents increases year by year (61.1% in 2007, 68.8% in 2009 and 77.6% in 2011).

In comparison to prior years, the share of those who feel that Verkhovna Rada should be responsible for fighting corruption has practically not changed (48.8% in 2009 and 45.5% in 2011). Less expectations fall upon the Azarov government to be responsible for anti-corruption activities (33.0%) as compared to the Tymoshenko government in 2009 (45.2%).

Therefore,todateandsincetheperiodwhenthebaselinesurveywasconducted,citizensbelievethattheCabinet of Ministers, the militsiya force and the Prosecutor General’s Office share approximately an equal degree of responsibility for fighting corruption (a third of the respondents is confident in this).

The hierarchical breakdown of the remainder of authorities responsible for fighting corruption has not changed over the years of monitoring. No more than 18% of respondents feel that average Ukrainian citizens should be responsible for the fight against corruption, while only 2% place their expectations on non-government organizations (NGOs).

Chart 2.3

Most Responsible for Fighting Corruption

Question: In your opinion, who is primarily responsible for overcoming corruption in Ukraine?

2.ATTITUDES TOWARD THE GOVERNMENT

15

2.ATTITUDES TOWARD THE GOVERNMENT

16

Will of the government to fight corruption

Firstly, no more than 17% of the citizens believe that the government authorities are demonstrating the political will to fight corruption. After tangible disappointment demonstrated by the 2009 survey findings, Ukrainians are making another effort to show their trust in the new government’s willingness to fight corruption. It is the president, who showed the strongest desire to fight corruption. Indeed, it is the president, as was the case four years ago, should be the leader in the fight against corruption.

Second place, as earlier, goes to the local authorities, although their willingness to fight corruption is practically at the same level as it was two years ago (13.5%). The current premier is also demonstrating greater will to fight corruption than his predecessor (11.0% versus 7.8%), though this percentage can hardly be considered sufficient. Eventhoughtheleveloftrustinthewillingnessonthepartoftherestofgovernmentauthoritiestofightcorruption is slightly increasing, it still remains very low – from 6.9% to 8.0%.

Chart 2.4

Willingness to Overcome Corruption

Question: Do you think [ANY BODY OR BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT] are willing to overcome corruption in Ukraine?

Based on the results of the qualitative survey, the government’s fight against corruption is perceived as nonsense and none other than a theatrical performance by a corrupt government for the electorate.

The participants of the FGDs spontaneously mentioned the President as the first person responsible for overcoming corruption. Then comes the Verkhovna Rada, law enforcement authorities, other government bodies and only in the process of discussions was an inference made that citizens are indirectly responsible for initiating and spreading corruption.

“The President, as the guarantor of constitutional rights of each citizen. If it is written that healthcare and education are free of charge in our country, then, please, guarantee it, do it. And if one thing is on the paper andanotheroneisinreallife...Heisnottheonlyonetoblame,thissituationhasbeenobservedfor20years. And no one has done a stroke of work”.

4. PERCEPTIONS OF CORRUPTION

19

4. PERCEPTIONS OF CORRUPTION

20

respondents,thetraditionallycommonplacenatureofcorruptioninUkrainiansocietyisanotherimportantreason for the troubles the country faces today.

The qualitative interviews complemented findings on the major causes of corruption in Ukraine, among which are massive bureaucratic red-tape in formal procedures and processes, thus forcing people in their dailylifetooptfor“fast-track”mechanisms,suchasbribery,reluctancetomakehonesteffortstoaccomplish tasks and looking for easier ways to get an education and various services and the commonplace practice of extortion.

“I’dratherpay.Yes,I’dratherpayinthisparticularcasethanspendtwoorthreemonthsrunningaroundtown from one committee or public service to another.”

“Inmyview,thementalityofmanypeopleisthatitismucheasierandfastertogivesomecivilservantabribe, rather than trying to get things done on their own and legally. This is true both in the education sphere and in seeking gainful employment.”

“This fact of life is engrained in the people’s minds. It is genetically inherent and is difficult to eradicate. This does not have to do only with poverty or greed. This is the system throughout.”

“Ifapersongetsintothissystem,theymustlivebythelawsofthesystemandcannothelpbutacceptcashin the pocket for rendering a given service.

“To me, extortion is a deeply entrenched pattern. And whenever somebody tries to break this pattern, they are driven out of the system. It all goes through the people and if somebody goes against the grain, they are fired and somebody more suitable is hired”

Can corruption be justified?

A significant change over the last two years is that many people do not justify corruption as a way for them to resolve important matters. Compared to 36.9% in 2009, the percentage of such respondents increased to 41.2% (a statistically significant difference at the level p=0.001). In parallel, a group of people that can use bribes or personal ties for their own personal interests decreased from 8.1% in 2007 to 7.6% in 2009 and to 6.1% in 2011 (a statistically significant difference at the level p=0.001). Noteworthy is the fact that the number of respondents inclined to exploit corruption from time to time if it helps resolve personal problems quickly remains practically unchanged (42%).

Chart 4.3

Can Corruption be Justified?

Question: Do you believe that giving bribes, unofficial services or gratuities can be justified if it is necessary for resolving

a problem that is important for you?

Asinearliersurveys,thereisstillaclearcorrelationbetweenageandtheinclinationtojustifycorruption.Theolder a person is, the stronger their conviction that corruption can never be justified. Younger people tend to perceive corruption as a very useful tool. At the same time, it should be noted that the number of those against corruption increased in all age groups, in correspondence with the growing number of opponents in society as a whole. In other words, both older and younger people are increasingly less inclined to justify corruption.