The document summarizes a conference on participatory democracy and open governance in Eastern Partnership countries. It discusses Estonia's experience with regulatory reforms between 1992-2015 to establish good governance, better regulation, and anti-corruption measures with limited resources. Selected slides from the conference presentation on Estonia's reforms provide context on its transition following independence in 1991, the drivers of governance change, and regulatory impact assessment as a competence for public managers.

1. Participatory Democracy, Open Governance & Efficient eGovernment Services (PADOS) –
Capacity Building Support to Eastern Partnership Countries* by Finland & Estonia (*Armenia,
Azerbaidzan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine). Kick-off conference 1-2.4.2015 in Helsinki
How to cut the developmental curve
of Western European countries
with limited human and financial
resources?
The case of Estonian governance reforms 1992-2015:
better regulation and control of corruption measures
Aare Kasemets
Estonian Academy of Security Sciences
?

2. Selected slides:
1. Estonian regulatory governance reforms in context
2. Good governance, better regulation and regulatory
impact assessment (competence & training areas for middle
managers and advisers in the ministries dealing with policy &
budget planning, draft legislation and public service design).
3. Good governance and anti-corruption policy measures
(Which countries are successful and why? What Works?)
4. Estonian ‘drivers of governance change’ 1991+
5. Some additional sources (articles, guidelines, BIO, etc)

3. https://e-estonia.com/ * http://www.visitestonia.com/en/
Estonia: restored independence in 1991; parliamentary democracy;
population 1.3Mil (e.g. ca 25% Russian speaking population);
territory 45,227 km2 ; capital Tallinn. In 01.03.2015 Estonia had
general elections of the 13th Riigikogu. 3 party coalition
1. Estonian transition in context

4. Some guiding questions behind the Estonian
regulatory reforms 1992-2004 and 2005-2015
(1) How to lead the country out from the Soviet regime and to
reach more quickly the developed OECD / EU countries?
How to "cut the curve of developmental sinosoid” learning from
successes and failures of other countries, usinf new ICT, etc?
(2) How to optimize the public sector services and organization
(ca 70 strategies, etc) and how to compensate for the limited
human and financial resources? This has been an existential
question for smaller states like Estonia?
(3) „What works?!“ How to design and implement the strategies to
achieve the strategic aims on (g)local grass-roots level?
(4) ……..

5. Comparison of Finnish and Estonian public service
shows that Estonia has similar list of functions,
challenges, EU duties, etc, but many times smaller
population, less of civil servants, budgetary resources
etc, and very different historical starting point.
Estonian public service web

6. Estonia as a transition country: context
• Transition of governance regime from totalitarian Soviet Union
regime to free open access regime: Estonia 1991-2004 +
• Institutionalization* of good governance, better regulation,
control of corruption etc concepts/tools in terms of *values,
organisational culture, top+mid-level managers thinking and
decision-making routines (e.g use of impact assessment, etc).
• Estonia restored its independence in 1991 (UN) and joined
to European Union 2004
NATO 2004
OECD 2010
EURO zone 2011
• Development periods: 1992-1995; 1996-2004; 2005-2010;
2011-2015 (e.g. stagnation > need for new reforms); 2015+

7. OECD (2012) http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/ria.htm
Trends: adoption of regulatory impact analysis
(RIA) system across OECD juridistictions
RIA seminar in Tallinn, 1998
Estonia joined to OECD: 2010

8. Estonian regulatory and legal policy reforms:
long (r)evolution and current situation
• OECD has since 1980’s had the leading role in enhancing principles
of better regulation and quality standards for regulations.
• Estonia joined to the ‘3rd wave’ of regulatory reforms in OECD/EU
countries (1998+) and in many aspects this wave is still on the way:
the use of of impact assessment methods has been not systematic.
• To answer those challenges:
The Concept of Regulatory Impact Assessment 2007–09 (MoJ, 2010)
The Development Plan for Legal Policy until 2018 (Parliament, 2011).
• Since 2011 the amount of knowledge-based regulatory initiatives
(e.g. draft laws) is rising step by step. The Ministry of Justice in co-
op with Ministry of Finance and Cabinet Office has the key role.
• The key question is why many regulatory reforms tend to fail?>
Sources: Kasemets & Talmar 2014; Kasemets, Sepp &Traat 2014

9. ‘Ancor law’: 12 preconditions for knowledge-based
smart regulatory reforms, e.g. impact assessment*
1. Legitimacy of political institutions and constitutional laws
2. Political commitment in regulatory policy aims and use of IA*
3. Legal basis for better regulation (e.g. IA*, consultations, supervision)
4. Coordination and regulatory management capacity (EU+ Cabinet Office
+ Ministry A, B, C, D + Parliamentary research service, etc)
5.Methodological guidelines and programmes
6. Analytical capacity and data collecting strategies of ministries
7. Systematic involvement of experts and interest groups (stakeholders)
8. Simplification of regulations & services (e.g. marketing, service design)
9. Transparency and accessibility of law-drafing & IA* data
10. Systematic training of ministerial officials and policy analysts
11. Basic quality control and surveillance mechanisms
12. Links between decisions, laws & possibility of negative sanctions.
Based on OECD reports 1995-2003, A.Kasemets 2006

10. Theoretical approaches1: levels of analysis and action
Table. Institutions operate at different levels of jurisdiction, from
the world system to localized interpersonal relationships.
Level Examples
World system OECD and EU countries: values, concepts, rules,
norms, routines, artefacts etc
Societal Estonia: values, concepts, rules, norms, routines
etc (see Scott 2001: 77)
Organisational
field
The public sector (e.g. Government, Parliament,
State Audit Office, Court, ministries etc): values,
concepts, rules, routines, etc >>
Organisational
population
Politicians and civil servants, contractual experts
Organisation Ministries, e.g. The Ministry of the Interior
Organisational
subsystems
Ministerial departments and agencies
Source: R.W.Scott 2001:48; adopted by Kasemets 2005, 2012

11. Theoretical approaches1: institutional theory
and institutional carriers
The institutional theory is providing various opportunities for
the explanation of politico-administrative behaviour. It may
also explain why actors who identify the opportunities to
improve regulatory management may be unwilling to do so in
Practice (OECD 2000: 70-72).
W.R.Scott (2001:77) identifies 4 types of institutional carriers:
symbolic systems (rules, laws, values, expectations, terms, ..)
relational systems (governance regimes, authorities, identities)
routines (protocols, standard procedures, jobs, roles, …)
artefacts (objects with mandated specifications, standards, ..).

12. Theoretical approaches2: legitimacy and certainty
• The legitimacy of rule-making and rules is especially important
in the social, economic, security etc policy fields which are
directly linked to peoples basic needs and constitutional rights.
2 frameworks:
• Positivist realistic legisprudence framework: one function of
better regulation programs could be the increase of legitimacy and
acceptance of the proposed rules. These in turn are preconditions
for a state based on the rule of law (OECD 1995, Tala 2010, etc).
• Political economy framework: the system of better regulation has
mainly two roles in OECD countries – political control over
bureaucracy and minimization of uncertainty (Radaelli 2010, etc).
Basically, the minimization of uncertainty and related legitimate
expectations are central for both approaches looking for the roles
of better regulation measures (e.g. impact assessment tools, etc).

13. 2. Good Governance, Better Regulation &
Regulatory Impact Assessment
The competence requirements and training areas for middle
managers and advisers in the ministries. Some topics.

14. OECD regulatory reform ‘classics’: concepts
• Since 1995 the Recommendation of the Council of the OECD (EU) on
Improving the Quality of Government Regulation, e.g. checklist.
• The checklist covers a number of the relevant questions that policy
makers should ask themselves when evaluating policy options...
• As an aid to decision making Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA)
includes an evaluation of possible alternative regulatory and non-
regulatory approaches with the overall aim of ensuring that the final
selected regulatory approach provides the greatest net public benefit.
• RIA is a key tool for evidence based options analysis, risk assessment,
cost-benefit analysis, effective consultations with stakeholders, etc
OECD (2008) BUILDING AN INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS. Paris
See also s33-38 and the Glossary of EC/OECD report : http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/44952782.pdf

15. Knowledge-based public policy, better
regulation and administration (good
governance) links
15
Good = knowledge-
based policy & RIA
Quality of legislation
(better regulation)
The quality of implementation
(good public administration)
Clear description of
strategic objectives
(desired impacts )
The legislative process
is transparent (incl. RIA,
involvement information)
Ensuring customer-centric
approach (focus: expectations,
needs, interests of groups)
S
O
C
I
Honest evaluation of
problems and ex ante
analysis of regulatory
impacts (ex-ante)
The offered educational,
legal, administrative,
financial actions are
optimal
Indicators for measurement of
a legal act/service quality;
monitoring and ex post RIA
T
Y
L
Clear measurable
impacts description for
those affected by the
policy (to ensure
stakeholder support)
Minimum expenditure (of
the State, LocGovs) for
citizens and businesses
Motivated and well trained
staff. Readiness for
implementation of public
policies (incl. laws & services).
I
F
E
H.Brinkmann (EIPA 2008), adopted by A.Kasemets (Better regulation trainings, 2010, 2015)

16. Strategies, laws, services and …impacts

17. If we are hearing/watching politicians
speaking on good governance, policy, law
and/or public administration …
… then we could ask every time in public (or in our mind), for whom,
how and to what extent the given policy, law and/or public service
is good = valuable and profitable?
• Individual persons?
• Families?
• Experts, emplyees?
• Top and middle managers?
• Owners?
• Industry? Shops? Banks?
• Non-profit Organistaions?
• Political Parties?
• Politicians? Civil servants?
• Ministries?
• Local Authorities?
• Child, adult or retired?
• Woman or men?
• Family with children or not?
• Relatively rich or pure?
• Living in city or in village?
• In own or in rent house/flat?
• Ethnic identity, language?
• With PC & internet or not?
• Educational level?
• (……)
IMPACT ANALYSIS HELPS TO BE HONEST
and to see the grass-root level of society

18. The stages of policy development and use of IA
1. to determine that a problem 1+n exists and to define the
problems properly (part of IA),
2. to consult and involve the interest groups (part of IA),
3. to decide that Government action is needed,
4. to idenyify the options: to decide the proper form that
Government action should take (legislation or other alternatives
including taking no action)
5. to determine, if action is taken, what impact it will have on the
economy, society and the environment,
6. to communicate the policy (partly based on IA)
7. to implement the policy (training, administration, networking)
8. to evaluate the policy and related regulations (ex post IA).
Source: OECD Sigma 2004; Staranova, Kovaczy, Kasemets 2006
NB! During the training seminars usually the concrete policy initiatives,* related target groups,
problems, etc are analysed. *The cases could be found from ministerial work’ plans:)

19. Definitions/tools: better regulation
Key areas of better regulation (basic structure):
1) policy implementation options to consider by
policymakers
2) impact assessment (IA) is providing a structured
framework for handling policy problems
3) consultation is a key for open governance
4) simplification to update and simplify existing regulations
5) access - those affected by EU or national regulation have
the right to be able to access and understand it;
6) supporting responsible structures
7) effective implementation of EU and national regulation.
Source: EU Commission, Mandelkern Group Report 2001, pp 13-52
NB! The content analysis of policy documents focused on areas 1-5

20. Main areas of impact assessment
1. Socio-demographic impacts, e.g. impact on civil society
2. Economic impacts, e.g. Impact on consumers behaviour,
small- and medium size enterprises, IT, agriculture, etc
3. Environmental impacts
4. Regional impacts
5. Impacts on internal security and cooperation with
international organizations
6. Administrative impacts, e.g impact on human resource
management and work organization (state and local level)
7. Budgetary impacts (state ja local municipalities level)
Source: Estonian regulatory impact assessment guidelines 2001, 2011

21. Example. Linking better regulation and
internal security policy areas
1. Policy implementation
objectives and options
2. Impact assessment (IA)
3. Consultation
4. Simplification
5. Access to regulation
----
6. Supporting structures
7. Implementation of
regulation (e.g. ex post IA)
Terrorism
Serious and organised crime
Political corruption
Drug trafficking. Cyber-crime
Trafficking in human beings
Sexual exploitation of minors
Child pornography
Economic crime and corruption
Trafficking in arms
Cross-border crime
Natural and man-made disasters, e.g.:
fires, earthquakes, floods, storms,
toxic elements in food, water
etc, etc
Better regulation
measures (main structure)
(In+)formal regulations
(see substudies)
Internal security policy
(e.g. regulation) areas
Internal security policy
strategies, e.g. resources
Law-
making
and laws
Institutions: symbolic and relational systems, working routines...
P
o
l
i
c
y
d
e
s
i
g
n
P
o
l
i
c
y
i
m
p
a
c
t
s

22. Main methods of regulatory impact analysis
(‘your selection is your responsibility’)
1) Cost-benefit analysis – CBA (‘all costs and benefits in society’)
2) Cost-effectivness analysis (‘more services for n EUR’)
3) Compliance cost analysis (‘... with objective, law etc’)
4) Standard cost model (SCM) (‘time = money’)
5) Social impact analysis – SIA (‘focus on wellbeing of family’) >>
6) Business impact analysis – BIA (‘...SMEs competitiveness’)
7) Environmental impact assessment – EIA (‘all living creatures
[e.g. trees], ecosystems and natural resources [e.g. air, soil, oil]* ’)
*8) Product lifecycle analysis (green public procurement)
9) Risk assessment (e.g IS); 10) Risk-risk assessment
11) Multicriterial impact analysis (mix of criterions and methods)

23. A. Trumm 2011, adopted by
A.Kasemets 2014
23
Example: main elements social impact
assessment - SIA
• Identification of key problems in observed sectors
• Identification of main target and mediate groups (stakeholders)
• Identification of the factors that shape effects / impacts
• Institutions / organisations: assessment of roles and impacts
• Collection and systematisation of data and information
• Social impact analysis
• Adjustment of implemented measures and assessment of
improvement’ possibilities
• Risk assessment of draft proposals for further decision-making.
Problems
Target groups
Factors
Roles
Data
Opportunities
Risks
Impact analysis

24. 24
Example: budgetary assessment and
the idea of systematic performance budgeting
In performance–oriented budgeting, performance targets and
performance information are employed as justification for the
preliminary decisions on outcome targets, operational
performance targets and related costs.
Basic performance criteria
1. Policy effectiveness (outcome targets)
2. Operational performance (output targets)
• Operational efficiency
• Outputs and quality management
• Human resource management (e.g. trainings)
See next figures

25. 25
Basic performance criteria
(true and fair information on outputs, outcomes and impacts)
Policy
effectiveness
Outputs and
quality
management:
-goods and
services
- service capacity
and quality
Operational
efficiency
-economy
- productivity
- profitability
- cost-equivalence
Human resource management
Outcome targets
Operational
performance
targets
Policy effectiveness:
outcomes
How operations and
finances have affected
policy effectiveness
Operational
results: outputs
(which can be
influenced through
management)
Finnish Model. Finnish and Estonian performance oriented budgeting seminar in Tallinn, 2009,
adjusted by A.Kasemets 2015

26. Definitions/tools: civic engagement

27. + The outputs of impact assessment (IA)
information (e.g re-use and -cycling of data:)
IA information
(categories/structure):
+Socio-demograpfic
+ Economic (CBA:
families, firms, NGOs)
+Environmental (e.g PP)
+Regional / Territorial
+ Security, risks (e.g IS)
+Administrative (HRM)
+ Budgetary (public
sector: state/local)
A.Kasemets 2011, 2015
1. Ex ante IA report on draft policy/act
2. Memo to the top managers of
Ministry, Minister, Parl.committee, etc
3. Planning of consultation, PR/media
4. Public intention of a draft policy, act
etc (e.g. additional IA plan, if needed)
5. Ministry: Report to the Cabinet
6. The explanatory memoranda of
draft strategy / act / programme, etc
7. Communication: website, press, etc
8. Cabinet: Report to the Parliament
9. Parliamentary committee: reports, ..
10+ Media+ NGOs+ Courts+ expost IA

28. 3. Good governance and
anti-corruption policy measures

29. Corruption as a problem in our societies
Example: corruption and tax collection in EU
“A simple estimate on the basis of regression analysis show
that if EU member states would all manage to control of
corruption at the Danish level, tax collection in the
Europe would bring in yearly about 323 billion EUR more,
so the double of EU budget for 2013.” *
* MUNGIU-PIPPIDI, A. and KUKUTSCHKA, R.M.B. (2013) European Union Member States. in A.Mungiu-
Pippidi (ed) “Controlling Corruption in Europe”. The Anticorruption Report 1, Barbara Budrich
Publishers, p 19. Via ANTICORRP: http://anticorrp.eu/publications/european-union-member-states-1

30. Transparency and e-government (EU 27)
• Transparency, in a variety of areas (fiscal transparency; transparency of assets for public
officials; transparency of decision-making) is a key instrument for reducing administrative
discretion. The more states offer their services electronically, the more corruption
decreases. The effect is however mediated by a population able to use such e-services:
Source: Capgemini, IDC, Rand Europe, Sogeti and DTi for the European Commission, Directorate General for Information
Society and Media, “Digitizing Public Services in Europe: Putting ambition into action”, 9th Benchmark Measurement,
2010. http://anticorrp.eu/publications/european-union-member-states-1 (A.Mungiu-Pippidi et al 2013)
Examples: who are successful and why?
Why? Which kind of cultural,
political, legal, social,
economic, techological, etc
conditions ‘are working’?

31. Administrative discretion, SCM, “Red tape” vs corruption.
There is a very strong association between minimization of administrative burdens (use
SCM=standard cost model etc ‘red tape’ methods) and corruption, as excessive regulation is the
main instrument used to increase administrative discretion and through it corruption. This
indicator is an objective assessment and not subjective, so examining its components leads
directly to the problem areas.
• :
• http://anticorrp.eu/publications/european-union-member-states-1 (A.Mungiu-Pippidi et al 2013)

32. Free media and well informed ‘critical citizens’
•
http://anticorrp.eu/publications/european-union-member-states-1 Mungiu-Pippidi et al 2013; Kasemets 2012)

33. The former Soviet Union: civil society vs corrupton
Roxana Bratu (ERCAS) analysed the efforts to control corruption in 12
countries of the former Soviet Union: Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine,
Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan,
Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Russia.
http://anticorrp.eu/publications/the-former-soviet-union-controlling-corruption-in-
europe-the-anticorruption-report-volume-1-1 (R.Bratu, 2013)

34. Example: Estonian Internal Security Developmental Plan
2015-2020: decision-making levels and 8 programs

35. Internal Security and Control of Corruption Model

36. The control of corruption resources and constraints
Source: A.Mungiu-Pippidi (2011); B. Vaz Mondo (2011), adapted by A.Kasemets: EE is good=bold (2014)
MAIN RESOURCES OF CORRUPTION MAIN CONSTRAINTS OF CORRUPTION
A. POLITICAL POWER DISCRETION: A1. Year
of Independence (1992). System of
government (parl. democracy). Restart of free
elections (1991). Authoritarian rule (SU 1945-
91). A2. Background of political elites. Ruling
party and Coalition. Opposition. Alternation
in power. Party competition. Separation of
powers. Government tenure. Power
concenration. Transparency and
accountability mechanisms, etc
C. REGULATORY [e.g. LEGAL] CONSTRAINTS:
Anti-curruption regulations, e.g. UNCAC,
GRECO, OECD, etc conventions, national anti-
corruption strategies, laws, statutes, etc. Open
Information Act. Political finance regulation.
Public Service Act. Legal basis for regulatory
impact analysis. Oversight institutions.
Ombudsman. Prosecution for corruption.
Judicial independence. Open Data,
eGovernment etc conventions and standards; ..
B. MATERIAL RESOURCES: Natural resources
(forest, oilshale). Government consumption
spending. State-owned companies, property
(e.g. lack of transparent eGov). Public
contracting (e.g. the lack of transparent
eProcurement). Public employment.
Privileges to private companies and loyal
NGO-s. Public servises (e.g. lack of eServices
transparency). Foreign aid, EU funds, etc.
D. NORMATIVE CONSTRAINTS: Civil society (e.g.
an anti-corruption NGO-network). Autonomy
and financing of NGO-s. Communication
infrastructure (web). Media and press freedom.
Indipendent anti-corruption research. Codes of
conduct for MPs, civil service, Businesses, NGOs
etc. Anti-corruption education. Political
pluralism and participation (e.g. minorites,
immigrants). Trust in political institutions, etc

37. 4. Estonian drivers of change 1991+
(returne / transition to West)
What makes governance regime based on particularism (e.g.
group interest) evolve to democratic open access order (based
on equal treatment and the rule of law) in the case of Estonia?
What kind of social forces and individuals have been behind the
Estonian relatively successful transition?
Drivers of change in 3 levels of observation:
A. External environment and foreign policy: EU and
Scandivanian influences, security issues (‘past fears’, NATO)
B. Internal policy environment: ‘idealistic’ politicians, good civil
servants, academics, free media and civic activists 1992+
C. Human resources management (HRM) in transition

38. A. External (foreign policy) environment: EU and
Scandivanian influences, security threats
• The goals of joining the European Union (EU), NATO and
OECD have had a major impact in stimulating good governance
efforts in Estonia.
• Common foreign policy objectives supported the mobilization
of additional human and financial resources and conditions for
personal & organisational learning.
• Nordic dimensions: Estonian cultural and political elites have
had the desire to be again a part of Nordic countries as
before the 2nd World War, when Estonia was richer than Finland.
• Also since 1960ies, during the Soviet era, the Finnish TV was a
window to see the magic Free Western World*** >

39. • ** Finland and Estonia are linked both economically (IT firms,
banks) and socially (language, a lot of social contacts), but
…keep in mind that Uslaner wrote (2008):
“…The close ties with Finland (and other Nordic countries) lead to a more
successful transition than most other countries… Yet, these ties do not
make Estonia a little Finland. Corruption still persists in Estonia, trust is
low***, inequality is higher than it was under Communism and middle-range
by world standards, and ethnic relations are very tense…” (Eric M. “Corruption,
Ineqality and the Rule of Law” – Cambridege University Press)
• Since 2004 there is also a third, semi-external factor – the
membership of EU (see sources in the end)
• Most security threats and social fears are related to Russia
*** Different studies (e.g EBRD 2010) show that it is true in comparision with Finland but not in
comparision with Western Europe, or other transition countries
External (foreign policy) environment … 2

40. 5.1. Some sources: regulatory reforms
KASEMETS, A. and TALMAR-PERE, A. (2014) Implementation of Better Regulation Measures in the Internal Security
Draft Legislation: the case of Estonia - European Journal of Law Reform, Vol 16, issue 1, 80-103; < I can send it)
STARANOVA, K.; KOVACSY, Z. and KASEMETS, A. (2006) ’Comparing Experience of Introducing Impact Assessment
Requirement to Draft Legislation in CEE: The Case of Slovakia, Hungary and Estonia’ – in Katarina Staroňová,
William N. Dunn, Sergei Pushkarev (eds), Implementation - the Missing Link in Public Administration Reform in
Central and Eastern Europe (NISPAcee 2006), 165-197 (I can send it via e-mail)
EU COMMMISSION Impact Assessment Guidelines http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/index_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/commission_guidelines/docs/iag_2009_en.pdf
OECD: http://www.oecd.org/regreform/regulatory-policy/recommendations-guidelines.htm > e.g. (1997) Policy
Recommendations on Regulatory Reform. Regulatory Impact Analysis: Best Practices in OECD Countries; (2008)
Building an Institutional Framework for Regulatory Impact Analysis: Guidance for Policy Makers; (2001) ’Citizens as
Partners. OECD Handbook on Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-making’,
COUNCIL OF THE EU. Internal Security Strategy for the European Union. Brussels. 25.2.2010. 6870/10.
KASEMETS, A., ORUMAA, E.; TABUR, L. (2011) The sociological family photo of Ministry of the Interior 2011:
readiness for changes - Proceedings of Estonian Academy of Security Sciences 10, pp 90-109 (In EE, sum in EN)
KASEMETS, A. and OPPI, T (2013) Internal Security, Search for the Ideal Human Resource Managers and the Need
for Further Training – Riigikogu Toimetised 28 (Journal of Estonian Parliamentary Proceedings), pp 140-158 (EE,
sum in EN: http://www.riigikogu.ee/rito/index.php?id=16498 Kasemets & Oppi).
MINISTRY OF JUSTICE (2011) Regulatory Impact Assessment concept paper. Brief overview [20 pages]
+ BIO / publications / education: http://aare-kasemets.branded.me/

41. 5.2. Some sources: control of corruption
KASEMETS, A. (2012) The Long Transition to Good Governance: the case of Estonia. Looking
at the changes in the governance regime and anti-corruption policy 1992-2012. IPSA,
Madrid 2012. Panel ‘Corruption and Democratic Governance’ Discussion paper via ERCAS
web site: http://www.againstcorruption.eu/?post_type=reports (see Report No 32)
MUNGIU-PIPPIDI, A. and KUKUTSCHKA, R.M.B. (2013) European Union Member States - in
A.Mungiu-Pippidi (ed) “Controlling Corruption in Europe”. The Anticorruption Report 1,
Barbara Budrich Publishers, pp 14-39.** (available also via ANTICORRP web)
KASEMETS, A. (2013) Top of the Class: The Case of Estonia - in A.Mungiu-Pippidi (ed)
Controlling Corruption in Europe. The Anticorruption Report Vol 1, .[…] pp 68-73.
MUNGIU-PIPPIDI, A. et al (NORAD, 2011). Contextual Choices in Fighting Corruption:
Lessons Learned, NORAD, Report 4/2011, p. xiii: http://www.norad.no/en/tools-and-
publications/publications/publication?key=383808
SÖÖT, M.-L. and ROOTALU, K. (2012). Institutional trust and opinions of corruption - Public
Administration Development, 32: 82–95
EBRD (2011) Nations in Trans.: http://www.ebrd.com/downloads/research/surveys/LiTS2ee.pdf
ANTICORRP (2012-2017). EU 7FP project "Anti-Corruption Policies Revisited: Global Trends
and European Responses ….“ - ** See Publications; http://anticorrp.eu/publications
MICHAEL, B. and KASEMETS, A. (2007). The Role of Incentive Design in Parliamentarian
Anti-Corruption Programmes. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 13(2), 280 - 300

42. 5.3. BIO & contact information
Hi! My professional ‘lifelong learning’ has been related to public sector and civil society
capacity building in the context of Estonian transitional reforms. Many in Estonian social
sciences and public administration community regard me as a mediator between public policy
design and social science research. In addition to leadership and research duties I have been a
trainer of … sociology of law, good Governance & better regulation, parliamentary research
service, impact assessment, civic engagement, public service design, rural sociology, green
public procurement, internal security indicators and also control of corruption.
I have over 15 years of experience in public sector services including leadership positions as
the head of research unit at the Estonian Parliament [Riigikogu] (1995-2013), the head of
strategy bureau at The Ministry of Environment (2004-08), the vice director of EuroCollege at
the University of Tartu (2008-10), and the head of research groups at Estonian Academy of
Security Sciences (under the Ministry of Interior, 2010-16).
When in Estonia I'm primarily known as a policy- and lawmaking expert, then internationally
most recent projects have been related to the control of corruption issues, e.g. as a research
correspondent of the PwC & DG HOME anticorruption project EUROVISION (2012-16), a
research fellow of EU FP7 project ANTICORRP (Hertie School of Governance, 2012-15) and an
expert of Estonian-Danish-Spanish-Latvian private-to-private corruption project PRIVACOR
(MoJ 2015-16), connecting regulatory governance and control of corruption measures.*
Best wishes,
Aare
*CV: http://www.etis.ee (people > aare kasemets). EUAid CV via aarek@ut.ee or aare1skype