Secondary links

User links

Resource

Global Integrity Assessment Scorecard

Producer: 
Global Integrity
Publication year: 
2011
Source of the information: 
Global Integrity

 

 

To measure the existence (in law), the effectiveness (in practice), and citizen access to key good governance / anti-corruption mechanisms in a country that should ideally prevent, deter, or punish corruption.” The Global Integrity framework does not measure corruption. Rather than attempting to measure the "cancer" of corruption, the Global Integrity framework assesses the quality of the "medicine" being applied to fight it: good governance and anti-corruption mechanisms.

Highly specific fact-based indicators (more than 300) supported by objective evidence (laws, official policy documents, newspaper articles, administrative data, independent reports, academic sources, etc.)

 Original on-the-ground research by in-country experts (leading local NGOs, universities, research institutes), backed by peer-reviewed commentary and references.

The questionnaire raises questions on the existence, effectiveness and citizen access to good governance / anti-corruption mechanisms in 6 areas:

1.    Civil society, public information and media

2.    Elections (voting & citizen participation, integrity of elections, regulations around political financing)

3.    Government accountability (across the executive, legislative & judicial branches of government, and in budget processes)

4.    Administration and civil service (civil service regulations, whistle-blowing measures, regulatory processes around procurement & privatization)

5.    Oversight and regulation (ombudsman, supreme audit, taxes & customs, financial sector regulation, business licensing)

6.    Anti-corruption and rule of law (anti-corruption agency, access to justice, law enforcement)

 

For each question, a scale is provided with detailed scoring criteria.

 

To assess whistle-blowing measures (Category 4 - Administration & Civil Service):

 

1)      In law, is there an internal mechanism (i.e. phone hotline, e-mail address, local office) through which civil servants can report corruption?

2)      In practice, is the internal mechanism (i.e. phone hotline, e-mail address, local office) through which civil servants can report corruption effective?

o   In practice, the internal reporting mechanism for public sector corruption has a professional, full-time staff.

o   In practice, the internal reporting mechanism for public sector corruption receives regular funding.

o   In practice, the internal reporting mechanism for public sector corruption acts on complaints within a reasonable time period.

o   In practice, when necessary, the internal reporting mechanism for public sector corruption initiates investigations.

Very actionable: The “de facto” indicators are particularly actionable, with a focus on availability of human, financial and other resources required for the anti-corruption mechanisms to be effective, thus allowing policymakers to detect instances where resources are lacking. Other “de facto” indicators measure the performance of these mechanisms (e.g. time required to obtain information, to complete an investigation, etc.), thus allowing policymakers to monitor the effectiveness of mechanisms, and to identify bottlenecks that need to be addressed.

Assesses both the existence of anti-corruption mechanisms “in law”, and their functioning “in practice”, including an assessment of citizen access to these mechanisms. Since the focus of the assessment is on anti-corruption mechanisms, indicators are input-based.