Call Girls Service Race Course Road Just Call 7001305949 Enjoy College Girls ...
Public Integrity Indicators Slides
1. Financial contributions to political parties are still not fully transparent or protected from political/foreign
influence.
Ban on anonymous donations
Ban on contributions from
foreign states or enterprises
Ban on contributions from publicly owned enterprises
11
6
1
1
None of these 3 bans
4
Financial contributions to political parties are still not fully
transparent or protected from political/foreign influence.
2. Financial reports from political parties are not always publicly available or submitted on time
86%
14%
Regulations require that parties and/or candidates report their
finances during electoral campaigns.
76%
24%
Regulations require political parties to make financial reports
public, including all contributions exceeding a fixed ceiling.
29%
71%
All political parties have in practice submitted accounts related to
elections within the timelines defined by national legislation.
71%
29%
Financial reports from all political parties
are publicly available in practice.
Financial reports from political parties are not always publicly available or submitted on time
Yes No
3. 3
Practice (de facto)
Regulatory safeguards (de jure)
Conflict of interest
73% 33%
Lobbying
39% 38%
Political finance
64% 54%
Lobbying is more sparsely regulated than political finance and conflict of interest.
Practice is best for political finance.
4. Only two countries have cooling off periods for both public officials and lobbyists
Only two countries have cooling off periods for both public officials and lobbyists
5. 5
The judiciary has least conflict-of-interest safeguards. Regulations are not always followed in practice.
Regulatory requirement to submit an interest declaration
(De jure)
% countries: Yes % countries: Yes
Submissions of interest declarations in practice
(De facto)
78%
Members of government
91%
Members of parliament
61%
Highest bodies of judiciary
70%
Top-tier civil servants
56%
Members of government
(100% for past 6 years)
28%
Highest bodies of judiciary
(>80% for past 4 years)
56%
Members of parliament
(>90% for past 6 years)
39%
Top-tier civil servants
(>80% for past 4 years)
The judiciary has least conflict-of-interest safeguards.
Regulations are not always followed in practice.
6. Electronic submission of interest declarations still not the norm
40% 45%
55%
Electronic submission of interest declarations still not the norm.
All declarations submitted electronically
Not all declarations submitted electronically
7. 10%
6%
11%
41%
8% 7%
27%
0%
6% 5%
15%
5%
1% 0%
25%
2%
64%
45%
41%
39%
30%
27%
12% 12% 12%
3% 3% 2% 2%
0% 0% 0% 0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Frequent use of extraordinary procedure in parliament and amendments to laws limited democratic
controls, regulatory stability and legal certainty in 2021.
Laws amended within one year Laws adopted in extraordinary procedure
8. Draft laws sent for public consultation
100%
93%
86% 85%
74%
57%
40% 39%
18%
11%
3% 3% 0% 0%
CZE EST FRA MEX SWE TUR
Draft laws sent for public consultation
Countries with data not available:
9. 35%
38%
43%
48%
50%
50%
53%
Strategies cover mainly classic areas such as HRM and internal control
79% of countries have set strategic
objectives to mitigate integrity risks
AUS AUT BRA CAN COL CRI
CZE DNK
NOR
FIN FRA DEU
ESP
HUN
CHE
JPN
LVA
GRC
LTU MEX
ISL
NLD PER POL PRT
ROU SVK SWE TUR GBR USA
ARG
LUX
CHL
79%
Strategies in place Coverage
Strategic objectives focus
mostly on HRM and
internal control
Internal Control & Risk Management
Fraud & corruption
Public Procurement
Private sector, SOEs, PPPs
Public Finance Management
Other areas
Human Resource Management
Strategies cover mainly classic areas such as HRM and internal control
10. Strategies to mitigate integrity risks suffer from an implementation gap
Implementation rate
55% of actions set out to reach strategic
objectives have been implemented
55%
Tracking
implementation
45%
45% of countries track
implementation of action plans to
reach strategic objectives
Quality of
implementation structures
39% of criteria on quality of
implementation structures are fulfilled
39%
Strategies to mitigate integrity risks suffer from an implementation gap
Editor's Notes
In this slide you can see a macro view of the differences between regulation (in blue) and practices (in green), in the areas of lobbying, political finance, and conflict of interest. As a main approach, you can see how lobbying performs worse overall when compared to the other two areas.
You can see that there is still a lot of work to do in the area of regulations.
You can also see how in the areas of political finance and conflict of interest, practice lags when compared to the strength of their regulatory framework.
Another interesting fact is the gap between regulation and practice, which is of 18 percentage points in political finance, and 44 percentage points in conflict of interest.
Now looking at a concrete example within the area of conflict of interest, this slide shows data on a commonly accepted good practice in public administration such as submitting interest declarations.
The pie charts goes even deeper in the difference between regulation and practice by unpacking the specific sectors that require further attention (Government, Parliament, the Judiciary and Top-tier civil servants).
Here you can see how the judiciary has the least regulatory safeguards, and the submissions of interest declarations are not truly followed in practice in all four sectors.
Finally, the last slide shows primary data on the use of extraordinary legislative procedures which affects parliamentary scrutiny and democratic controls. If countries with low trust in parliament such as Greece, where only 28% of citizens trust parliament, wants to improve, what can they do?
Improving some objective metrics such as these two indicators can help. For example in Greece, 64% of laws passed through parliament without scrutiny and almost 1/10th of laws were amended within a year of their adoption.
Excessive use of extraordinary procedures and frequent amendment of laws can lead to regulatory instability and legal uncertainty. This undermines the rule of law and public trust.