Introduction
The Urban Corruption Survey is a tool that helps stakeholders understand the existing realities related to corruption , transparency and the quality of governance in their city. This assessment is essential in order to formulate strategies that not only address existing problems but also help to develop systems to ensure greater transparency in the future.
Purpose
The Urban Corruption Survey has the following key objectives:
-
To identify the organizations, institutions or sections within institutions, where corruption is prevalent,
-
To quantify the costs of corruption to the average citizen,
-
To increase public interest in the issues surrounding corruption, and
-
To provide a basis for actions to be taken in the light of the findings of the survey.
Linkage to Transparency
The Urban Corruption Survey is a tool that facilitates the identification of any unethical practices in specific urban areas, highlighting ordinary people’s perceptions of corruption in organizations operating at the local level. The Urban Corruption/Bribery Index, formulated as a result of the Survey, can play an important role in the development of appropriate measures to counter bribery and enhance transparency.
How it Works – The Key Elements
The key components in designing the survey and conducting the exercise are described below. These elements of the survey methodology are drawn primarily from the design and experiences of the Urban Bribery Index developed by TI-Kenya (See Kenya Urban Bribery Survey: Findings and Lessons).
Designing the Framework. The objectives of the survey must be clearly defined in the beginning, and must inform the design of the exercise. The survey can be applied to all or some of the public agencies at the local level, or even to specific activities or sections within the local government and public and private service providers. The survey should be designed to capture information from all key stakeholders – the public and private sectors as well as civil society. The target audience must also be clearly identified at this stage. It is only after these steps have been completed that the survey instrument can be designed.
Survey Instrument. The most popular survey instrument is the traditional questionnaire. No survey is better than its questionnaire. The questionnaire must aim to collect as much information as possible. However, it should be kept simple, clear and easily understood by the various respondents. The questions included should be systematic and short and not overly numerous. A substantial amount of time has to be put into structuring the questionnaire and, if necessary, the assistance of relevant expertise could be secured to help in the design of the survey. If possible, questions should be pre-tested in order to remove as much ambiguity as possible. A sample of issues that the questionnaire could cover is given in Table 2.
Table 2: Key Issues covered by the Urban Corruption Survey
| Issue |
Description |
| Frequency of Interaction |
Organizations that the respondent has interacted with in the last one year and how often (whether once a month or more often, less than once a month or only once in the last one year) |
| Purpose of Interaction |
The purpose of interaction could be classified into five categories as follows: a. Services (e.g., health, education, utilities) b. Law enforcement or regulatory related c. Business related d. Employment e. Other |
| Bribery Incidence |
Whether or not bribes are required or demanded to obtain or expedite services (or avoid law enforcement) and what the respondents expect to be the consequences of declining to bribe (i.e., satisfactory service, bad service, harassment, delay or denial of service) |
| Bribery Transaction |
The actual bribes that the respondents have paid or know others (e.g., friends, business associates or competitors) to have paid. Respondents to provide information on the amount, the frequency (every day, at least once a week, at least once a month, at least once in the last 12 months), and the purpose as classified above |
| Corruption Trend |
Organizations which respondents have perceived improvement or deterioration in the level of corruption, the magnitude (small, moderate or big), and the period over which the change is perceived (last one year, last three years, last five years) |
Index. The overall index is an aggregate of all(46) indicators, which capture different dimensions and impact of bribery. These could include, for instance:
-
Incidence: How often people are asked for bribes in the organizations that they deal with.
-
Prevalence: The percentage of the population that is affected by bribery in an organization/institution/local government department.
-
Severity: Consequences of declining to bribe, which ranges from unsatisfactory service to denial of service altogether (i.e. no bribe, no service).
-
Frequency: The actual level of bribery reported in an organization, that is, how many bribes officials of the organization receive.
-
Cost: The estimated cost of bribery in an organization to the public, measured as a "bribery tax" per person.
-
Bribe size: The average size of bribes paid to officials of the organization.
Limitations of the Survey. One of the key limitations in any study of this nature lies in the computation of values. Computation of any aggregate index invariably entails making subjective judgements about what to include and what not to include, what measures to use, whether or not to attach weights to individual components and, if so, what weights to attach. Cross sectional comparison (ranking units at a point in time) often entails a trade-off with comparability over time and vice versa. In the Kenya survey, each of the indicators is given equal weight, although this in itself is a value judgement since some of the indicators are arguably more critical than others. However, corruption is a very new area of academic research, and there is as yet no accepted convention as to which dimensions of it are more critical than others. Finally, the indicators that are chosen may not the only possible ones. For any one aggregate index, there is always a different equally valid set or combination of indicators that could yield different rankings.
Funding. Implementation of a comprehensive survey requires ready financial resources. As suggested in Chapter 1, any transparency exercise should ideally be supported (at least in part if not in full) by the local government in order to ensure ownership and sustainability.
Reporting. Reports of the results need to address the various target groups identified in the beginning of the exercise. A technical report that details the methodology, questions, and statistical details is important, but separate reports focusing on different aspects of the results, tailored to different audiences, might also be necessary. Each of the indicators should be presented and discussed separately in the technical report.
Use of Media. This is important to ensure that information reaches different audiences. The requirements of different media – e.g., print, electronic and the Internet – should be understood and catered for.
City/Country Examples
Kenya
Urban Bribery Survey: Findings and Lessons
Survey
to Assess Corruption in Municipal Elections in Brazil
Further information and contacts
|
||||