Presentation 2.1 Estimating corruption levels

582
-1

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
582
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
30
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Presentation 2.1 Estimating corruption levels

  1. 1. Module 2. How serious is corruption in water? Session 2.1 Estimating the level of sector corruption Training workshop 6-7 Apr 2011 Strengthening transparency, integrity and accountability IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre
  2. 2. Introduction Klitgaard’s formula: C = M + D - A Corruption equals Monopoly power plus Discretion by officials minus Accountability but ‘how can one measure a phenomenon that one cannot fully observe?’
  3. 3. Corruption indicators • TI’s Corruption perception index • World Bank’s Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI) • Global Integrity Report etc • Only paint a general picture… not sector specific
  4. 4. Correlation or cause? Transparency International CPI Index (Rank of 178 countries: 1=best, 163=worst; 2010) Human Poverty Index (HPI-1 rank, 2010) Water supply coverage % (2008) Sanitation coverage % (2008) Children under five mortality rate (per 1,000 live births, 2009) Global Integrity Initiative Sweden 4 9 100 100 2.8 Nd Netherlands 7 7 100 100 4.4 Nd UK 20 26 100 100 5.5 Na Poland 41 41 100 90 6.7 Strong 2008 Italy 67 23 100 nd 4.0 Moderate 2008 Senegal 105 144 69 51 92.8 Weak 2006 Bolivia 110 95 86 25 51.2 Nd Tanzania 116 148 54 24 107.9 Weak 2008 Honduras 126 106 86 71 29.7 Na Ecuador 127 77 94 92 24.2 Weak 2008 Nicaragua 127 115 85 52 25.6 na Sources: www.transparency.org; www.undp.org; http://mdgs.un.org/; http://www.wssinfo.org/
  5. 5. GCR 2008 • 25-45% based on Davis (2004) – Bribes 1-6% contract values – Kickbacks during construction 11% – 15-20% higher than market costs – 3-5% materials never supplied • Higher estimate pushes a connection fee from US$400 to 580 • Under high corruption scenario 30% fewer lives saved through WASH investments
  6. 6. • Stalgren (2006) quotes 30% estimate based on World Bank range between 20- 40% • Equivalent to leakage of US$20 billion over decade
  7. 7. • But, there is little reliable research on levels of corruption in water • Proxies offer an alternative: costs before and after anti-corruption interventions
  8. 8. Pipe prices in Colombia • High levels of price fixing and collusion in contracts to procure pipes • Private sector pipe manufacturers introduced self-regulation (led by professional association and supported by TI and govt) • Integrity pact not to pay or accept bribes (based on TI’s Business Principles for Countering Bribery (BPCB)) • Claim significant fall in prices (30%) Source: Lencina, et al 2008 (p62 in GCR and Alma Rocío Balcázar, pers. Comm)
  9. 9. Cost of latrines in Kerala • The NGO SEUF targeted diversion of funds to reduce costs in latrine construction • Mix of strategies: • more information • extra checks & spot checks • public postings • double signatures • action on complaints at lowest level • referral of problems • Community contracting lowered construction costs by estimated 15- 40% Source: Mathew et al 2008 (SEUF, Kerela)
  10. 10. Conclusions • Estimates are useful for policymaking, but prone to over-extrapolation • Proxy measures may be more reliable, and can convey a positive message • People are understandably touchy about being accused of high levels of corruption: public sector, governments, donors • Should we do more to estimate and communicate high levels of leakage?
  11. 11. Conclusions • What kind of research or measurement? • Multiple and actionable measures

×