|
Not just a problem for ’developing countries’
|
tarix | 15.08.2018 | ölçüsü | 3,23 Mb. | | #62568 |
|
Not just a problem for ’developing countries’ Not just a problem for ’developing countries’ "The links between corruption and the ongoing financial and fiscal crisis in these countries can no longer be ignored,“ (Finn Heinrich, TI, 2012) “Corruption in Greece Continues Virtually Unchecked” (Der Spiegel, 2012) The European Commission has described corruption as a “disease that destroys a country from within” and that “Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain – the euro zone’s most financially troubled nations – have deeply rooted problems in their public administration, namely that officials are not accountable for their actions” (Irish Times, 2012)
Key building concepts: Key building concepts: 1. Impartiality (Rothstein and Teorell 2008) Corruption, Definition: «Public abuse for private gain» Quality/ effectiveness (Kaufmann, Kraay & Mastruzzi) “NON ZELI AD ZELUM, NEC MERITI AD MERITUM, SED SOLUM NUMERI AD NUMERUM FIAT COLLATIO” (“comparison should be made not on zeal, nor merit, but solely of numbers”) Gregorius X (1210-1276, Papa 1271) Although QoG measures still imperfect, improving in both scope and availability world-wide like some measures of’democracy’, most measures of QoG are mostly SUBJECTIVE, built mostly on opinions by experts, firms, citizens, NGO’s, etc. Quantitative studies are only a piece of the puzzle
Lots of indicators: Lots of indicators: CPI WGI ICRG Freedom House Eurobarometer & more…
EU is a community of regions (ERDF, REGIO, structural funds, etc.) EU is a community of regions (ERDF, REGIO, structural funds, etc.) Regional difference in development wider than states at times: Ex. 2011 unemployment rates in: IT: Bolzano (2.7%) vs. Sicilia (14.7%) ES: Pais Vasco (10.5%) vs. Andalucia(28%) BE: Flanders (5.1%) vs. Wallonne (11.5%) SK: Bratislava Kraj (6.2%) vs. Východné Slovensko (18.5%) Country ex.: Denmark (7.4%) vs. Bulgaria (10.4%) **So we need to measure corruption/governance at regional level as well..
Almost all existing corruption/ QoG data (from the mid-1990s) at national-level Almost all existing corruption/ QoG data (from the mid-1990s) at national-level 2010: we present 1st (and only) mulit-country, sub national data on QoG to date. Funded by EU Commission (REGIO) We created a QoG Composite Index for 172 E.U. regions The study is based on a citizen-survey of respondents in EU 34,000 respondents in 18 countries (+/- 200 per region). They are the ’consumers’ of QoG 16 QoG-focused (all translated into country languages) questions on: - personal experiences & perceptions
- of the Quality, Corruption & Impartiality…
- …on Education, Health care, and Law Enforcement
- 2013: we build on this past research in WP5
Article: Article: Charron, Nicholas, Lewis Dijkstra & Victor Lapuente (2013): Regional Governance Matters: Quality of Government within European Union Member States, Regional Studies, Link: DOI:10.1080/00343404.2013.770141
Book: ’Quality of Government and Corruption from a European Perspective’ eds. Charron, Nicholas, Victor Lapuente and Bo Rothstein. 2013. Edward Elgar Publishing EU Commission Working Paper: ‘Charron, Nicholas, Lewis Dijkstra & Victor Lapuente. 2012. ’Regional Govrnance Matters: A Study on Regional Variation of Quality of Government in the EU Link: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/work/2012_02_governance.pdf
34 questions total 34 questions total 20 Focused primarily on regional level governance in 3 sectors: education, health care & law enforcement, as well as media & elections (16 go to build the’EQI’) 7 demographic Other 7: social trust, perceptions of ’meritocracy’ in public & private sectors, party support, electoral corruption
Corruption, Impartialtiy & quality Corruption, Impartialtiy & quality For ex. , for corruption, We combine perceptions and experiences of citizens (as opposed to ’experts’ – less risk of ’feedback loop’) Two types of questions: general perceptions questions (0-10, higher = more perceived corruption) Experiences with ’petty corruption’ *Let’s look at the aggregated regional scores
1. Aggregation 1. Aggregation Aggregate 400 respondents by region for each of 16 questions Using PCA, 3 groups (’pillars’) identified: corruption, impartialtiy and quality – 16 indicators aggreated to 3 pillars 3 pillars aggregated to Regional QoG Index 2. Normalization of Data Standardized indicators (z-distribution) 3. Weights Equal Weighting
Combine regional data with national level WGI data Combine regional data with national level WGI data Set each country’s EQI mean to WGI average of 4 QoG pillars Aggregate regional scores (population weighted), around which regional scores show within-country variation Why? Regional QoG embedded in National Context Include countries with no NUTS 2 regions Can retroactively adjust when new regions/countries added in future
A composite index based on 16 QoG survey questions from 2009-2010. A composite index based on 16 QoG survey questions from 2009-2010. Round 2 in 2013
2010: Extensive sensitivity testing (both WGI data and regional data), 2010: Extensive sensitivity testing (both WGI data and regional data), Alternative aggregation, weighting, normalization method, exluding certain individual charactoristics by gender, income, education and age. Constructed 95% confidence intervals around each regional estimate
Continue to build EQI/ undergo extensive robustness checks Continue to build EQI/ undergo extensive robustness checks Explore reasons why within country variation of QoG varies Explore relationship between entreprenuership and quality of regional institutions Explore relationship between gender equality and regional QoG
Dostları ilə paylaş: |
|
|