Not just a problem for ’developing countries’

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