TAG:2012 SWS Surveys on Corruption

7/30/2019 TAG:2012 SWS Surveys on Corruption

1/25G 2012 (23Octrev).pptx/23-Oct-12 /LABUCAY

1

The TAG 2012SWS Surveys on Corruption

Public Presentation of Results

24 October 2012, Cagayan De Oro

25 October 2012, Cebu City

2TAG 2012: SURVEYS OF ENTERPRISES

ON CORRUPTION

PRESENTATION OUTLINE

A. Survey Design

B. Survey Results1) PUBLIC SECTOR CORRUPTION2) SINCERITY IN FIGHTING CORRUPTION3) GOVERNMENT EFFORTS TO FIGHT CORRUPTION

4) PROSECUTION OF HIGH PROFILE CORRUPTION CASES5) ENTERPRISES SOLICITED FOR A BRIBE6) TRANSACTIONS WITH GOVERNMENT7) PRIVATE SECTOR CORRUPTION8) BUSINESS EFFORTS TO FIGHT CORRUPTION9) HONEST BUSINESS PRACTICES10) THE BUSINESS CLIMATE

C. Summary of Findings


ON CORRUPTION

a. Are Time Series 10 rounds in National Capital Region (2000-09, 2012) 7 rounds in Metro Cebu (2004-09, 2012) 7 rounds in Metro Davao (2004-09, 2012) 5 rounds in Cavite-Laguna-Batangas and Cagayan

de Oro-Iligan (2005-07; 2009, 2012) 1 round in Metro Angeles (2012) 1 round in Metro Iloilo (2012)

b. Are Stratified by Size

2/3 weight: Small & Medium Enterprises 1/3 weight: Large Enterprises.

THE SWS SURVEYS OF ENTERPRISES, 2000 TO 2012


ON CORRUPTION

Total Small & ErrorFieldwork Dates TotalArea Sample Large Medium Margin

Aug 14 Oct 26 2000 NCR 604 204 400 4%

Sep 4 Dec 4 2001 NCR 505 200 305 4%

Oct 25 Feb 25 2002/03 NCR 500 214 286 4%

Nov 13 Jan 28 2003/04 NCR/Ceb/Dav 701 285 416 4%

Jan 21 Mar 15 2005 NCR/CLB/Ceb/Dav/CDO-I 701 232 469 4%

Feb 18 Apr 27 2006 NCR/CLB/Ceb/Dav/CDO-I 700 231 469 4%

Mar 4 May 11 2007 NCR/CLB/Ceb/Dav/CDO-I 703 233 470 4%

Sep 9 Oct 10 2008 NCR/Ceb/Dav 402 135 267 5%

Nov 3 Dec 5 2009 NCR/CLB/Ceb/Dav/CDO-I 550 184 366 4%

Jul 16 Oct 16 2012 7 areas (target 950) 972 326 646 3%

NCR: National Capital Region (target 350) 372 127 245 5%

Ang: Metro Angeles (new) 100 33 67 10%

CLB: Cavite-Laguna-Batangas 100 33 67 10%

Ilo: Metro Iloilo (new) 100 33 67 10%

Ceb: Metro Cebu 100 33 67 10%

Dav: Metro Davao 100 33 67 10%

CDO-I:Cagayan de Oro/Iligan City 100 33 67 10%

THE SWS SURVEYS OF ENTERPRISES, 2000 TO 2012: SURVEYDATES AND SAMPLE SIZES


ON CORRUPTION

7 Areas 972 246 726

NCR 372 126 246

METRO ANGELES 100 22 78

CALABA 100 27 73

METRO ILOILO 100 15 85

METRO CEBU 100 13 87

METRO DAVAO 100 18 82

CDO-I 100 25 75

THE SWS SURVEYS OF ENTERPRISES, 2012:Integrity Initiative Signatories in the Sample

Total Total Total

2012 Integrity Initiative non-IIinterviews (II) signatories signatories


ON CORRUPTION

Fieldwork Sample Error

Dates Sizes Margins

The SWS May 24-27, 2012 National Survey of Adultsalso has corruption items

PHILIPPINES : May 24-27 1,200 3%

Metro Manila : May 24-27 300 6%Balance Luzon : May 24-27 300 6%

Visayas : May 24-27 300 6%Mindanao : May 24-27 300 6%



2


ON CORRUPTION

1) PUBLIC SECTOR CORRUPTION


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: EXTENT OF CORRUPTION IN THEPUBLIC SECTOR, 2000 TO 2012

A lot

Some

A little

None

63

77

6065 66 67 61 64 64

43

25

19

2926 28 28 33 31 32

44

104

10 65 5 5 4 3

12

2 1 2 1 1 0.3 1 1 0.2

'00* '01* '02* '03** '05*** '06*** '07*** '08** '09*** '12****


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES SAYING THERE IS A LOT OF CORRUPTION IN

THE PUBLIC SECTOR, BY AREA, 2009 AND 2012

2009 2012

6470

6357

66

56

43

51

27

39

47

33

4640

All areas NCR ANG CLB ILO CEB DAV CDO-I


ON CORRUPTION


THE PUBLIC SECTOR, BY AREA, 2000 TO 2012

63

77

60

6763

58

71

59

66

58

6467

72

63

71

6165

62

5760

45

71

5955

70

63

57

66

56

51

39

33

46

40

NCR CLB CEB DAV CDO-I

27

47

ANG ILO

'00* '01* '02* '03** '05*** '06*** '07*** '08** '09*** '12****


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES VS. GEN. PUBLIC: EXTENT OF CORRUPTION INTHE PUBLIC SECTOR, 2012

Enterprises Gen. Public

33% 51%

5%11%

None

A lotSome

A little

44%

43%

0.2%12%

None

A lotSome

A little


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT WHERE CORRUPTIONHAPPENS, 2009 and 2012

Q32.Among the different levels of government, where do you think corruption happens? Is it at the? (MULTIPLERESPONSE ALLOWED)

Base: Total Who Say There Is Corruption in the Public Sector

Nationalgovernment

City/municipalgovernment

Provincialgovernment

Barangaygovernment

93

65 67

48

8178 72

54

2009 2012



3


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT WHERE CORRUPTIONHAPPENS, BY AREA, 2012


80 8085 84

81 83 8085

63 64

8579

64

81

7266

70

78

74 74 73

61

51

35

69

4145

58

NCR ANG CLB ILO CEB DAV CDO-I

National City/Municipal Provincial Barangay


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WHERECORRUPTION HAPPENS THE MOST, 2012


70%

61%

54%

49%

Middle- level managers

Supervisors

Cabinet-level/top-levelmanagement officials

Rank and file employees


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WHERECORRUPTION HAPPENS THE MOST, BY AREA, 2012


Middle-levelmanagers

Supervisor Cabinet-level Rank and fileemployees

71

6562

6669

75 75

67

46 47

71

5962

58

43

56

68

57 5961 5955

44

36

58

5045

40



ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: PERCEIVED NUMBER OF COMPANIES IN OWNLINE OF BUSINESS THAT GIVE BRIBES TO WINPUBLIC SECTOR CONTRACTS, 2000 TO 2012


Almost all

Most

Few

Hardly any

None

2315

22 23 21 17 18 15 18 15

3241

35 34 3330 30 30

3026

24 25 23 24 2527 27 28

2930

8 8 7 7 78 9 11

79

11 10 12 11 13 17 14 15 14 17

'00* '01* '02* '03** '05*** '06*** '07*** '08** '09*** '12****


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES SAYING MOST/ALMOST ALL COMPANIES IN MY LINE OF

BUSINESS GIVE BRIBES TO WIN PUBLIC SECTOR CONTRACTS ,

BYAREA, 2000 TO 2012


NCR CLB CEB DAV CDO-IANG ILO

'00* '01* '02* '03** '05*** '06*** '07*** '08** '09*** '12****

55565757

64

5252

47

54

58

65

46 47 4750

38

42

51

56

49

57

49 48

35

50

4446

49

45

40

33

45 45 4442 40


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: MEDIAN PERCENTAGE OF CONTRACT ALLOTEDAS BRIBE FOR PUBLIC SECTOR CONTRACT,

2005 TO 2012

Q36. In instances when bribery happens, what percentage of an average contract is allotted for bribes towin public sector contracts?

2005*** 15%2006*** 20

2007*** 20

2008** 20

2009*** 20

2012**** 20

Base: Total Who Say Companies in Their Sector Allot a Percentage for Bribes to Win Public

Sector Contracts



4


ON CORRUPTION

3125 25 29 29 23 21

16

16 1315 12

1412

911

10

1313

1010

1415

14

1212

1412

24 27

28

25 2731

34

03** '05*** '06*** '07*** '08** '09*** '12****

ENTERPRISES: LAST TIME ONE HAD PERSONAL KNOWLEDGEOF PUBLIC SECTOR CORRUPTION IN OWN SECTOR OF

BUSINESS, 2003/04 TO 2012Base: Total Who Say There Is Corruption in the Public Sector

Last month

2-3 mos. ago

4-6 mos. ago

6-12 mos. ago

>1 yr ago


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: THE LAST TIME OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OFA CORRUPT TRANSACTION WITH GOVERNMENT IN ONES

SECTOR OF BUSINESS, BY AREA, 2012

Last month

2-3 mos. ago

4-6 mos. ago

6-12 mos. ago

>1 yr ago

2520

10 20 22 22 21

149

513 12 11 14

109

9

10 11 11 11

1313

9

14 15 14 9

2940

53

33 30 27 34



ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: WHETHER CORRUPTION IS WRONG BECAUSE ITIS IMMORAL OR BECAUSE IT HURTS THE COUNTRYS

DEVELOPMENT, 2000 TO 2012

Corruptionhurts thecountrysdevelopment

Corruption isimmoral

Both[volunteered]

41 32 45 41 50 37

47 4955

56 49 62

1119

1 3 1 1

'00* '01* '02* '03** '05*** '12****42

TAG 2012: SURVEYS OF ENTERPRISESON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: WHETHER CORRUPTION IS WRONG BECAUSE IT ISIMMORAL OR BECAUSE IT HURTS THE COUNTRYS DEVELOPMENT,

BY AREA, 2012

Corruptionhurts thecountrysdevelopment

Corruption isimmoral43 41

21

37 36 35 34

56 59

77

63 62 64 66



ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES VS GENERAL PUBLIC: WHETHER SOURCES OFCORRUPTION ARE CITIZENS WHO BRIBE OR GOVT EMPLOYEES

WHO ASK FOR BRIBES, 2012


28%67%

5%DK etc

31%60%

The citizenswho bribe

The govtemployees who ask

for bribes

DK etcThe citizenswho bribe

9%

The govtemployees who ask

for bribes


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: WHETHER SOURCES OF CORRUPTION ARECITIZENS WHO BRIBE OR GOVT EMPLOYEES WHO ASK FOR

BRIBES, BY AREA, 2012

The citizenswho bribe

The govtemployeeswho ask for

bribes64

5668

6252 48

61

2635

21 3141

40

32




5


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES VS. GENERAL PUBLIC:WHETHER A BUSINESSMAN OR A GOVT OFFICIAL IS TO BLAME

WHEN CORRUPTION HAPPENS, 2012

The official only

Mostly the businessman

Mostly the official

The businessman only

818

209

67 64

33

13

Enterprises Public

Both are equally to blame


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: WHETHER A BUSINESSMAN OR A GOVT

OFFICIAL IS TO BLAME WHEN CORRUPTION HAPPENS,BY AREA, 2012

The official only

Mostly thebusinessman

Mostly the official

The businessmanonly

Both are equallyto blame

7 7 7 8 9 9 9

24 2312

21 2014

19

65 6576

67 64 74 67

3 3 2 3 42 3

0.3 1 3 1 1 2



ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: WHETHER CAREER GOVERNMENT OFFICERS ORPOLITICAL APPOINTEES ARE MORE SINCERE IN IMPLEMENTING

ANTI-CORRUPTION POLICIES, BY AREA, 2012

Politicalappointeesare moresincere

Career govtofficers are

more sincere7063

74 7280 78

70 72

2430

20 2417 17

24 22

All Areas NCR ANG CLB ILO CEB DAV CDO-I


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES VS. GENERAL PUBLIC: COMPARING THEDEGREE OF GRAFT AND CORRUPTION UNDER

PNOY ADMIN VS PGMA ADMIN, 2012

Q37. If you compare the present administration with that of former President Arroyo, would you say that

the degree of graft and corruption is ?

Base: Those who say there is corruption in the public sector


More now

Less now

Same asbefore

Same asbefore

More now

Less now2% 5%

25%29%

73%64%


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: COMPARING THE DEGREE OF GRAFT ANDCORRUPTION UNDER PNOY ADMIN VS PGMA ADMIN,

BY AREA, 2012Base: Those who say there is corruption in the public sector

More nowSame asbefore

Less now75

57

72 71 70 71

84

20

39

24 25 27 28

15

3 3 4 1 21



ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES VS. GENERAL PUBLIC:EXTENT OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE PNOY ADMINS

ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORTS, 2012

Q38. How much do you know about the current efforts of the government to fight corruption?


Enterprises Gen. PublicNone at allAlmost no

knowledge Extensiveknowledge5%

14%

62%

Littleknowledge

15%Extensiveknowledge

39%

59%

Littleknowledge

Almost noknowledge

3%

None at all1%



6


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: EXTENT OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE PNOY ADMINS

ANTI-CORRUPTION EFFORTS, BY AREA, 2012


None at allAlmostno knowledge

Extensiveknowledge

Littleknowledge

3525

3138 42 43

47

60

6864

60 56 53 47

44 3

2 2 2 51 2

2



ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES VS. GENERAL PUBLIC: EFFECTIVENESS OF THESTEPS TAKEN BY PNOY ADMIN TO ERADICATE GRAFT AND

CORRUPTION, 2012

Q39. In your opinion, how effective are the steps being taken by the present administration to eradicatecorruption in our country? Are the steps being taken by government?



Very effective

Somewhat effective

Hardlyeffective

Not at all effective

66%19%

3% 13%

Somewhateffective

52%25%

6%16%Very effective

Hardlyeffective

Not at all effective


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: EFFECTIVENESS OF THE STEPS TAKEN BY PNOYADMIN TO ERADICATE GRAFT AND CORRUPTION, BY AREA, 2012


Not at allHardlyeffective

Very effective

Somewhateffective

10 10 1319

1116 16

64 6765

67

68 5963

20 21 1910

16 24 18

3 2 2 4 5 3



ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: OPINION ON HOW OFTEN THE GOVT PUNISHES

CORRUPT GOVT OFFICIALS, BYAREA, 2012


Almost never

Seldom

Almost allOften

5 3 5 16 7 6 8

2216

23 21 22

29 31 29

61

63

6669 56

57 52 55

1217

5 815

7 11 8



ON CORRUPTION

2) SINCERITY IN FIGHTING CORRUPTION


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: EXCELLENT SINCERITY RATINGS IN 2012

+10

-15

-3

-27

-37

+80

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2012

Office of thePresident

+10

+30

+50

+70

-10

-30



7


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: SINCERITY RATING OF THEOFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, BY AREA, 2009 AND 2012

2009 2012

-37-45

-53

-16-21

-49

+80+83

+70

+81 +81+76

+87+78

ANG ILO DAVAll areas NCR CLB CEB CDO-I


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: VERY GOOD SINCERITY RATINGS IN 2012

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2012

Dept. of Health Dept. of Tradeand Industry

+10

+30

+50

+70

-10

Dept. ofEducation

+40

+11

+26

+3

+32

+54

+10

+30

+42

+7

+37 +38

0

+61 +60

+51


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: SINCERITY RATING OF DOH,BY AREA, 2009 AND 2012

2009 2012


+37 +38 +37+41

+33

+52

+61 +60

+77

+65

+52+57 +59 +55


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: SINCERITY RATING OF THE DTI,BY AREA, 2009 AND 2012

2009 2012


+38

+30 +28

+39

+45

+57+59 +57 +56

+65

+58 +60 +56

+64


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: SINCERITY RATING OF DEPED,BY AREA, 2009 AND 2012

2009 2012


0

-1

-21

9

0

9

+51+62 +60

+50

+32

+47

+40 +40


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: GOOD SINCERITY RATINGS IN 2012

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2012

+10

+30

+50

-10

-30

+22

-13-17

+5

-17

-32

+9

-7

-18

+4

-6

-23

-8

-1

-25

+39+36

+30

Senate

Office of theOmbudsman

Dept. of Interior &Local Government



8


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: SINCERITY RATING OF THEOFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, BY AREA, 2009 AND 2012

2009 2012


-8

-33

-15

+22 +21

-15

+39

+45

+27 +29+32

+42

+35

+46


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: SINCERITY RATING OF THE SENATE,BY AREA, 2009 AND 2012

2009 2012


-1

-8

0

+14

-3 -4

+36

+28

+44 +46

+29 +30

+41

+53


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: SINCERITY RATING OF DILG,BY AREA, 2009 AND 2012

2009 2012


-25

-38-47

-10 -10-6

+30+36

+16+23

+31+25

+28

+36


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: MODERATE SINCERITY RATINGS IN 2012 (1/2)

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2012

+10

+30

+50

-10

-30

+19

+48

+24

+13

+40

0

+14

+45

+5+5

+37

-7

+8

+40

-17

+27+24 +23

Sandiganbayan Supreme Court

Dept. of Budget &Management


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: MODERATE SINCERITY RATINGS IN 2012 (2/2)

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2012

+10

+30

+50

-10

-30

Your City/Municipal

govt

Dept. of Trans &Comm.+27

+22

-22

+26

-13

+35

-27

+35

-30

+21

+10


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: SINCERITY RATING OF THESANDIGANBAYAN, BY AREA, 2009 AND 2012

2009 2012


+8

-2

+0

+20 +21

+8

+27

+23

+29 +28

+17

+35+33 +32



9


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: SINCERITY RATING OF THESUPREME COURT, BY AREA, 2009 AND 2012

2009 2012


+40

+46

+29

+42 +42

+31

+24 +25

+16 +17

+23

+31

+17

+39


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: SINCERITY RATING OF DBM,BY AREA, 2009 AND 2012

2009 2012


-17 -16

-41

-10-7

-17

+23

+33

+10+6

+33

+16

+20

+17


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: SINCERITY RATING OFYOUR CITY GOVERNMENT, BY AREA, 2009 AND 2012

2009 2012


+35

+22+19

+51

+65

+21+21

0

+55

+31 +33+34

+66

-13


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: SINCERITY RATING OF DOTC,BY AREA, 2009 AND 2012

2009 2012


-30

-38

-47

-25

-9

-24

+10+15

0

+17

+1+7 +7

+12


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: NEUTRAL SINCERITY RATINGS IN 2012

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2012

-44

-28

-39 -40

-23

-32

-25

-41

-34 -34

+1

-6

+10

-10

-30

-50

Dept. ofEnvt&

Nat. Resources

House of

Representatives


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: SINCERITY RATING OF DENR,BY AREA, 2009 AND 2012

2009 2012


-34

-42-45

-24 -23-27

+1

-4

+18 +16

+10+7

-17 -15



10


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: SINCERITY RATING OF THEHOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, BY AREA, 2009 AND 2012

2009 2012


-34

-50

-36

-5

-36

-25

-6

-22

+6

+14

-12

0 +3

+16


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: POOR SINCERITY RATINGS IN 2012 (1/2)

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2012

-59-59 -58

-36

-49

-27

-56

-8

-57

-13-20

-10

-30

-50

-70

Commissionon Elections

Bureau ofInternalRevenue

-42

-36

-23

-18-17

-12

PhilippineNationalPolice


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: POOR SINCERITY RATINGS IN 2012 (1/2)

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2012

-66

-45

-66

-38

-55

-31

-63

-32

-65

-39

-21 -26

-10

-30

-50

-70

LandTransportation

Office

Dept. ofPublic Works &

Highways


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: SINCERITY RATING OF THE PNP,BY AREA, 2009 AND 2012

2009 2012


-17

-28

-23

-16

-5

+1

-12

-31

-19

-4 -5

+3

+18

+5


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: SINCERITY RATING OF THECOMELEC, BY AREA, 2009 AND 2012

2009 2012


-8

-4

-16

-2

-16

-11

-13-12

-24

-18

-1-2

-11

-24


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: SINCERITY RATING OF BIR,BY AREA, 2009 AND 2012

2009 2012


-57

-66-60

-46-43

-67

-20-27

-12

0

-19-13

-24-30



11


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: SINCERITY RATING OF DPWH,BY AREA, 2009 AND 2012

2009 2012


-65-71 -71 -70

-56-52

-21

-8

-30

-20

-32-36

-24-30


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: SINCERITY RATING OF LTO,BY AREA, 2009 AND 2012

2009 2012


-39 -40

-55

-37

-24

-48

-26-30

-35

-7

-15

-29-26

-29


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: BAD SINCERITY RATING IN 2012

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2012

-75 -74

-68-72

-69

-46

0

-10

-30

-50

-70

Bureau of Customs


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: SINCERITY RATING OF THE BOC,BY AREA, 2009 AND 2012

2009 2012


-69

-75 -76

-64

-30

-72

-46

-55

-42-39

-33

-46 -47-42


ON CORRUPTION

3) GOVERNMENT EFFORTS TO FIGHTCORRUPTION


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: THE GOVERNMENT CAN BE RUN WITHOUT

CORRUPTION OR CORRUPTION IS PART OF THE WAY THE

GOVT WORKS, 2000 TO 2012

The govt canbe runwithoutcorruption

Corruption

is part ofthe waygovt works

55 57 5660 60 56

49 4450

59

43 42 4440 40 43

50 5650

41

'00* '01* '02* '03** '05*** '06*** '07*** '08** '09*** '12****



12


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: THE GOVERNMENT CAN BE RUN WITHOUT

CORRUPTION OR CORRUPTION IS PART OF THE WAY THE

GOVT WORKS, BYAREA, 2012

The govt canbe runwithoutcorruption

Corruptionis part ofthe waygovt works

6152

68 64

4756 59

3948

32 36

52

44 40



ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES VS GENERAL PUBLIC: THE GOVERNMENT CAN

BE RUN WITHOUT CORRUPTION OR CORRUPTION IS PART OF

THE WAY THE GOVT WORKS, 2012


33%

65%59%

41%

The govt can be runwithout corruption

Corruption is part of theway govt works

The govt can be runwithout corruption

Corruption is part of theway govt works


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES ON IT IS NOW EASIER FOR ANYONE WHO WANTSTO BID ON A GOVERNMENT CONTRACT TO GET INFORMATION

ABOUT THE BIDDING, 2007 TO 2012

*NET Agreement: % Agree minus % Disagree.

54 57 53 60

21 16 19 2223 26 26 16

'07*** '08** '09*** '12****

Agree

Undecided

Disagree


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: WHERE WOULD YOUR COMPANY GETINFORMATION ABOUT BIDDING FOR GOVT CONTRACTS,

2012

4841

272020

12

Newspapers

Internet

Inside information/tip

TelevisionWord of mouth

from family/friendsRadio


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: WHERE WOULD YOUR COMPANY GETINFORMATION ABOUT BIDDING FOR GOVT CONTRACTS,

BY AREA, 2012

Newspaper Internet Inside info. Television RadioWord of mouth

48

41

36

45

51

64

4845

52

3538

34

44

36

23

15

24

3437

39

26

9

3734

21

12

22

1716 15

23

29

2321

19

6

18

9

19

13 14 14



ON CORRUPTION

4) PROSECUTION OF HIGH-PROFILECORRUPTION CASES



13


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: OPINION ON THE CURRENT PACE OF THE TRIALOF SELECTED CORRUPTION CASES IN GOVT, 2012

Might notsucceed, doneTOO QUICKLY

Carefullymoving at

RIGHT PACE MUCH TOO SLOW

Graft vs PGMA: NBN-ZTE

Graft vs Ben Abalos: NBN-ZTEGraft vs Mike Arroyo: allegedlyanomalous PNP helicopter sale

Malversation of funds vsex-PAGCOR Chair Genuino:

Donated rice

Plunder vs Maj. Gen. Garcia

Perjury and Falsification ofPublic Docs vs V. Garcillano:

Hello Garci

17

15

12

8

8

6

29

29

21

25

11

22

56

56

66

6654

81

71


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: THE ON-GOING TRIALS OF SOME CORRUPTIONCASES ARE CONDUCTED FAIRLY OR UNFAIRLY, 2012

FAIRNEITHER FAIRNOR UNFAIR UNFAIR

Graft vs PGMA: NBN-ZTE

Graft vs Ben Abalos: NBN-ZTE

Graft vs Mike Arroyo: allegedlyanomalous PNP helicopter sale

Plunder vs Maj. Gen. Garcia

Perjury and Falsification ofPublic Docs vs V. Garcillano:

Hello Garci

76

71

71

67

68

67

18

22

23

25

25

24

5

6

6

7

5

10

Malversation of funds vsex-PAGCOR Chair Genuino:

Donated rice


ON CORRUPTION

5) ENTEPRISES SOLICITED FOR BRIBE


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES SOLICITED FOR BRIBE, 2012

Getting localgovt permits/licensesAssessment/payment of income taxes

Getting nationalgovt permits/ licensesComplying with import regulations incl. payment ofimport duties

Supplying govt with goods/ services

Collecting receivables from govt

Availing of govt incentives

Any of seven listedbribes80

31

27

19

17

14

13

5


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES SOLICITED FORANY OF SEVEN LISTED BRIBES, 2005 TO 2012

6861

57 6171

6050

'03** '05*** '06*** '07*** '08** '09*** '12****143


ENTERPRISES SOLICITED FOR A BRIBE:GETTING LOCAL GOVT PERMITS/LICENSES, 2000 TO 2012

55 54

50

41

3633

40

49

3231

'00* '01* '02* '03** '05*** '06*** '07*** '08** '09*** '12****



14


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES SOLICITED FOR A BRIBE: ASSESSMENT/PAYMENTOF INCOME TAXES, 2000 TO 2012

5250

43

39

30 29

33

46

40

27

'00* '01* '02* '03** '05*** '06*** '07*** '08** '09*** '12****


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES SOLICITED FOR A BRIBE: GETTING NATIONALGOVT PERMITS/ LICENSES, 2000 TO 2012

42

3437

28 2829

37

47

32

19

'00* '01* '02* '03** '05*** '06*** '07*** '08** '09*** '12****


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES SOLICITED FOR A BRIBE: COMPLYING WITHIMPORT REGULATIONS INCL. PAYMENT OF IMPORT DUTIES, 2000

TO 2012

17

10

1813

21 2225

3127

17

'00* '01* '02* '03** '05*** '06*** '07*** '08** '09*** '12****


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES SOLICITED FOR A BRIBE:SUPPLYING GOVT WITH GOODS/ SERVICES, 2000 TO 2012

15 1418

15 1618

22

29

22

14

'00* '01* '02* '03** '05*** '06*** '07*** '08** '09*** '12****


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES SOLICITED FOR A BRIBE:COLLECTING RECEIVABLES FROM GOVT, 2000 TO 2012

9 8

1311

1816

2024

20

13

'00* '01* '02* '03** '05*** '06*** '07*** '08** '09*** '12****


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES SOLICITED FOR A BRIBE:AVAILING OF GOVT INCENTIVES, 2000 TO 2012

64

10

5

10 1113

22

14

5

'00* '01* '02* '03** '05*** '06*** '07*** '08** '09*** '12****



15


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES SOLICITED FOR ANY OF SEVEN LISTED BRIBES,BY AREA, 2012

58

3631

4756

47 50

NCR ANG CLB ILO CEB DAV CDO-I155


ENTERPRISES SOLICITED FOR A BRIBE:GETTING LOCAL GOVTPERMITS/LICENSES, BY AREA, 2000 TO 2012

'00* '01* '02* '03** '05*** '06*** '07*** '08** '09*** '12****

5554

50

46

32

26

45

12

33

39

21

42

20

24

33

19

48

24

37 37

24

60

22

46

2928

39

19

42

2325

37

23

3229

26

ANG ILONCR CLB CEB DAV CDO-I


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES SOLICITED FOR A BRIBE:ASSESSMENT/PAYMENT OF INCOME TAXES, BY AREA, 2000 TO 2012

'00* '01* '02* '03** '05*** '06*** '07*** '08** '09*** '12****


5250

4342

38

23

36

19

2224

37

33

20

24

29

23

34

24

36

32

35

55

18

41

32

28

50

25

37

32

43

33

13

28

22

30


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES SOLICITED FOR A BRIBE:GETTINGNATIONAL GOVT PERMITS/ LICENSES, BY AREA, 2000 TO 2012

'00* '01* '02* '03** '05*** '06*** '07*** '08** '09*** '12****


42

34

37

32

25

9

33

11

23

30

25

36

21 22

27

22

43

33

39

30

21

59

14

42

27

19

39

20

40

22

2523

14

20 20

16


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES SOLICITED FOR A BRIBE:COMPLYING WITH IMPORTREGULATIONS INCL. PAYMENT OF IMPORT DUTIES,

BY AREA, 2000 TO 2012'00* '01* '02* '03** '05*** '06*** '07*** '08** '09*** '12****


17

10

18

1416

2

25

12

24

19

12

28

13

23

16

7

31

17

25

18

13

41

18

27

1412

40

19

30

14

17

20

9

28

10 9


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES SOLICITED FOR A BRIBE:SUPPLYING GOVT WITH GOODS/ SERVICES,

BY AREA, 2000 TO 2012

'00* '01* '02* '03** '05*** '06*** '07*** '08** '09*** '12****


1514

18

13

18 18

15

3

17

29

1918

8

13

28

18

22

18

24 24 23

32

6

25

28

11

21

13

30

17

27

15

5

1821

18



16


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES SOLICITED FOR A BRIBE:COLLECTING RECEIVABLES FROM GOVT,

BY AREA, 2000 TO 2012

'00* '01* '02* '03** '05*** '06*** '07*** '08** '09*** '12****


9 8

13

1012 13

18

7

15

26

23

15

1113

28

15

19

16

19

30

20

27

10

21 20

16

22

16

22

13

27

14

6

1114

22


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES SOLICITED FOR A BRIBE:AVAILING OF GOVT INCENTIVES,

BY AREA, 2000 TO 2012'00* '01* '02* '03** '05*** '06*** '07*** '08** '09*** '12****


64

10

46

2

9

3

9

17

111113

911

9

13

17

14 14

9

25

5

21

15

2

14

9

18

10

19

5

2

8 79


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: REPORTING OF BRIBE-SOLICITATION,2005 TO 2012

Base: Those Who Were Solicited for a Bribe

8 7 1114 9 9

92 93 8986 91 91

'05*** '06*** '07*** '08** '09*** '12****

Reportedbribe-solicitation

Did not reportbribe-solicitation


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: REPORTING OF BRIBE-SOLICITATION,BY AREA, 2012

Base: Those Who Were Solicited for a Bribe

Reportedbribe-solicitation

Did notreportbribe-solicitation

814 16

6 511 6

9286 84

94 9589 94



ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: REASONS FOR NOT REPORTINGBRIBE-SOLICITATION, 2012

Base: Those Who Were Solicited for a Bribe But Did Not Report It, 91%

Nothing would be done

anywayCannot prove anything

Afraid of reprisal

Too small a thing to botherDo not know how/whom to

reportIts a standard practice not

to report

4539

342625

2120

136

Will spend muchDont want to betray anyone

It is embarrassing174


ENTERPRISES: REASONS FOR NOT REPORTINGBRIBE-SOLICITATION, 2005 TO 2012

Q73. IF DID NOT REPORT: Why did you not report this? (ENCIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY)

Nothing would be done anyway 60% 69% 69% 79% 75% 45%Cannot prove anything 46 50 45 61 50 39

Afraid of reprisal 43 54 49 55 51 34

It is too small a thing to bother 38 44 47 52 48 26

Do not know how or whom to report 28 34 35 40 44 25

It is standard practice anywaynot to report the incident 43 52 48 57 46 21

Will spend much 32 44 45 59 50 20

Do not want to betray anyone 17 29 27 29 32 13

It is embarrassing 12 19 18 24 23 6

05 06 07 08 09 12

Base: Those Who Were Solicited for a Bribe But Did Not Report It



17


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: PART OF THE COMPANY THAT IS MOSTVULNERABLE TO BRIBERY, 2012

Q44. In your sector of business, which part of a company is most vulnerable to bribery? Please rank youranswers from the MOST VULNERABLE (1).

Base: Total Who Say There Is Corruption in the Private Sector

Rank 1 Rank 6

(Most vulnerable) (Least vulnerable)

50

19

12

10

5

1

15

24

6

18

25

4

10

21

8

18

19

8

7

12

8

20

16

11

5

7

11

12

9

28

5

3

30

3

7

22

Procurement

Sales & marketing

Top management

Finance

Logistics

Human resource mgt


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: PART OF THE COMPANY THAT IS MOSTVULNERABLE (% RANK 1) TO BRIBERY, BY AREA, 2012


Procurement Sales &marketing

Top mngt. Finance HR mngtLogistics

64

3229

42

54 53

32

16 17

3026

15

21 22

8

20

13

18 18

2

20

5

1720

3

9

14 13

2

10

15 4

730.3 1

3 24



ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: SECTORS THAT ARE MOST VULNERABLE TOCORRUPTION, 2012


6053

4227

2521

1713

998

3

Construction

Mining & quarrying

Government services

Forestry

Transportation/communications/storage

Trade

Finance

Ownership of dwellings & real estate

Electricity, gas, & water

ManufacturingAgriculture and fishery

Other private services


ON CORRUPTION

6) TRANSACTIONS WITH GOVERNMENT


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: TRANSPARENCY OF TRANSACTIONPROCEDURES OF THE CITY/MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OFFICES,

2009 AND 2012

16 15

58 58

22 23

5

2

'09*** '12****

DefinitelyTransparent

SomewhatNot Transparent

SomewhatTransparent

Definitely

Not Transparent


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: WHETHER THE PROCESS OF BUSINESSPERMITS/LICENSES RENEWALS IS EASIER OR HARDER NOW

THAN 3 YEARS AGO, 2009 AND 2012

Much easier now

Not changed

Somewhat easier now

Somewhat harder now

19 18

38 37

28 32

11 9

4 3

'09*** '12****

Much harder



18


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: THE COMPANYS EXPERIENCE IN USING AN

INTERMEDIARY IN ITS RENEWAL OF BUSINESSPERMITS/LICENCES, 2009 AND 2012

Always used

Uses only now

Never used

Used before not now

Uses from time to time

58 64

108

25 20

1 26 6

'09*** '12****


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: WILLINGNESS TO PAY TWICE AS MUCH TODOUBLE THE VALIDITY PERIODS OF GOVT ISSUED

LICENSES/PERMITS, 2012

Q62. How willing are you to pay twice as much to double the validity periods of government issuedlicenses/permits?

Very much

willing

Somewhat willing

Not much willing

Not willing at all

40%

23%

16%

21%


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: WILLINGNESS TO PAY TWICE AS MUCH TODOUBLE THE VALIDITY PERIODS OF GOVT ISSUED

LICENSES/PERMITS, BY AREA, 2012

Very willing

Somewhatwilling

Not muchwilling

Not willingat all

49

21 23

4452

34 34

20

28 24

2620

2721

13

29

18

15 12

17

14

18 22

35

15 15 22

29



ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: INTERNET-BASED GOVERNMENTTRANSACTIONS THE COMPANY HAS DONE, 2012

56

55

53

48

31

26

SSS: Online paymentBIR: eFPS (Electronic

Filing & Payment System)BIR: Online

Registration System

PHILHEALTHonline services

PhilGEPS: Get info onbidding opportunities

BOC: E2M (electronic tomobile) Customs

Automated Process


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: HAVE YOU EVER SUBMITTED A BID FOR AGOVERNMENT CONTRACT? BY AREA, 2012

Submittedbid

Have notsubmittedbid

3238

16 17

3136 36

30

6861

84 83

69 63 63 70



ON CORRUPTION

7) PRIVATE SECTOR CORRUPTION



19


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: EXTENT OF CORRUPTION IN THEPRIVATE SECTOR, 2000 TO 2012

A lot

Some

A little

None

14 9 13 9 10 9 8 8 9 11

3944

43

34 37 34 34 35 3637

43 44 41

49 48 53 53 52 48 45

4 3 3 8 55 5 5 7 7

'00* '01* '02* '03** '05*** '06*** '07*** '08** '09*** '12****


ON CORRUPTION


THE PRIVATE SECTOR, BY AREA, 2000 TO 2012

'00* '01* '02* '03** '05*** '06*** '07*** '08** '09*** '12****

14

9

13

10

12

4

11

13

9

8

4

8

13

9

8

11

7

12

10

7

1

9

7 7

8

9

7

14

5

12

8

1312

10


7

12


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES VS. GEN. PUBLIC: EXTENT OF CORRUPTION INTHE PRIVATE SECTOR, 2012

None

A lot

Some

A little

None A lot

SomeA little


45% 37%11%7%

37%

38%7%

16%


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: NUMBER OF COMPANIES IN THE SAME LINE OFBUSINESS THAT GIVE BRIBES TO WIN PRIVATE SECTOR

CONTRACTS, 2000 TO 2012Base: Total Who Say There Is Corruption in the Private Sector

6 5 5 6 6 6 5 5 4 555

18 23 25 20 21 16 17 17 19 22

4748 46

46 4645 46 45 47

43

2017 16

18 1620 20 19 16

19

8 77

10 11 14 12 13 1210

'00* '01* '02* '03** '05*** '06*** '07*** '08** '09*** '12****

Almost all

Most

Few

Hardly any

None


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES SAYING MOST/ALMOST ALL COMPANIES IN

MY LINE OF BUSINESS GIVE BRIBES TO WIN PRIVATE SECTORCONTRACTS, BYAREA, 2000 TO 2012


'00* '01* '02* '03** '05*** '06*** '07*** '08** '09*** '12****


38

28

24

2830

26

30

2123

29

25

29

38

18

33

2122

26

18

39

18

27

2222

27

18

2224

29

23

2022

31

22

29

35


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: MEDIAN PERCENTAGE OF CONTRACTS ALLOTEDAS A BRIBE FOR A PRIVATE BUSINESS CONTRACT, 2000 TO 2012

Q43. In instances when bribery happens, what percentage of an average contract is allotted for bribes towin private business contracts?

2000* 10%2001* 15

2002/03* 10

2003/04** 10

2005*** 10

2006*** 10

2007*** 10

2008** 10

2009*** 10

2012**** 10

Base: Total Who Say Companies in Their Sector Allot Percentage of Contract for Bribes to

Win Private Sector Corruption



20


ON CORRUPTION

8) BUSINESS EFFORTS TO FIGHT

CORRUPTION


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES ON: A PERSON LIKE MECANNOT DO ANYTHINGTO REDUCE CORRUPTION IN THE GOVERNMENT, 2007 TO 2012

NET Disagreement computed as % Disagree minus % Agree.

Agree

Undecided

Disagree

29 33 33 274 6 5 6

67 61 61 67

'07*** '08** '09*** '12****


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES ON: A PERSON LIKE MECANNOT DO ANYTHINGTO REDUCE CORRUPTION IN THE GOVERNMENT, BYAREA,

2012

NET Disagreement computed as % Disagree minus % Agree.

Agree

Undecided

Disagree

20 26

25

26

32 31

453

146 3

107

4

76

6069 71

58 6251



ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: EXPECTED CHANGE IN NET INCOME, IFCORRUPTION IS REDUCED TO THAT OF SINGAPORE,

2001 TO 2012

Positivechange

No change

Negativechange

Not aware

5360 60 57 56 52 50 51 52

32

31 2927 30 37 41 37 33

1

2 35 5

4 3 54

137 8 11 8 7 5 7 10

'01* '02* '03** '05*** '06*** '07*** '08** '09*** '12****


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: CONTRIBUTION TO PAY TO FUND A PROGRAMTHAT WOULD HALVE PUBLIC-SECTOR CORRUPTION IN 10

YEARS, 2000-2012

% willing tocontribute

2000* 61 3%

2001* 70 5

2002/03* 74 5

2003/04** 71 5

2005*** 77 5

2006*** 72 5

2007*** 65 5

2008** 72 5

2009*** 71 5

2012**** 67 5

Among willing to contribute:median % of net income willingto contribute


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: SPENDING IN THE LAST 2 YEARS TO COMBATFRAUD AND CORRUPTION IN OWN COMPANY, 2007 TO 2012

1 million ++500,000 - 999,000

200,000 - 499,000100,000 - 199,000

61 61 59 57

9 11 12 12

10 9 11 12

6 5 6 44 6 3 43

33 2

6 5 5 7

2007*** 2008** 2009*** 2012****

Nothing

< 10,000

10,000 - 99,000



21


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: THECOMPANYSCONTRIBUTION TO ANYPRIVATE ANTI-CORRUPTION PROGRAM IN THE

LAST 2 YEARS, 2007 TO 2012

Nothing

< 10,000

80 78 81 76

7 10 610

5 4 5 52 2 2 21 1 1 10.3

2 0.4 112 2 1

2007*** 2008** 2009*** 2012****

1 million ++500,000 - 999,000200,000 - 499,000100,000 - 199,000


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: WAYS FOR BUSINESSES TO REDUCECORRUPTION, 2008 TO 2012

Usehonest

businesspractices

Neverpay

bribes

Know thelaws/rules

ofgovttransact.

Join ananti-

corruption CSO

Reportcorruption

to massmedia

Campaignvs corrupt

politicalcandidates

2009 2012200884

78

65

2215 15

11

7976

62

26

1522

10

82 81

61

19 17 1713

Report govtcorruption

to theOmbudsman


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: EFFECTIVENESS OF SOME SUGGESTIONS TOREDUCE CORRUPTION IN GOVERNMENT, 2012

Somewhat Not effectiveVery effective effective at all

83

82

77

73

67

54

52

38

27

16

14

21

23

27

32

39

48

49

2

3

3

4

5

14

9

14

24

Impose stiffer penalties: corrupt govtpeople

Show prominent corrupt persons areput in prison

More transparent govt biddingImpose stiffer penalties: people who

bribeBroadcast/publish where to report

corruptionMonitor closely election expenses of

candidatesRequire fewer signatures on papersSubstantially increase govt salaries

Privatize govt corporations


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: FREQUENCY OF PUNISHINGCORRUPT EXECUTIVES IN OWN SECTOR OF BUSINESS,

2003/04 TO 2012


Almost always

Often

Seldom

Almost never

29 31 34

27 30 25 33

2022

2021

2220

27

37 2823

2927

29

30

13 14 11 12 11 13

9

'03** '05*** '06*** '07*** '08** '09*** '12****


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: WILLINGNESS TO CONTRIBUTE TO ANEMPOWERMENT FUND, BY AREA, 2012

Q127. The government is setting up an Empowerment Fund to support civil society organizations (CSOs) in organizingcitizens and communities to engage with government in the implementation and monitoring of government, participate inplanning and the budget process of government. It is expected that Empowerment Fund initiative will help in reducingcorruption and enhancing transparency of government transactions. The government plans to tap private sectors, donoragencies, and even CSOs to contribute and provide counterpart funds to the Empowerment Program. How much is yourcompany willing to contribute to the Empowerment Fund?

Willing to contribute 27% 28% 13% 29% 28% 27% 38% 23%

Not willingto contribute 48 48 69 47 49 44 29 46

Dont know etc. 19 16 15 17 19 22 25 21

7 areas NCR ANG CLB ILO CEB DAV CDO-I


ON CORRUPTION

9) HONEST BUSINESS PRACTICES



22


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: NUMBER OF COMPANIES IN THE LINE OFBUSINESS THAT DEMAND/ISSUE DEMAND RECEIPTS, KEEP ONE

SET OF ACCOUNTS, AND PAY TAXES HONESTLY, 2012Base: Total Who Say There Is Corruption in the Private Sector

Demand receiptsfor all payments

for expenses

Issue receipts forall revenues

Keep only oneset of accounts/

books

Pay taxeshonestly

4531

20 21

44

47

42 41

1021

32 29

1 15 6

0.1 0.3 1 2

Almost all

Most

Few

Hardly any

None


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: ALMOST ALL/MOST COMPANIES IN OWN LINE OFBUSINESS PAY TAXES HONESTLY, 2003/04 TO 2012


Almost all

Most

16 19 18 18 18 1720

3938 40 38 40 42

42

'03** '05*** '06*** '07*** '08** '09*** '12****


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: ALMOST ALL/MOST COMPANIES IN OWN LINE OFBUSINESS PAY TAXES HONESTLY, BY AREA, 2012


Almost all

Most

16 23 23 20 2327

16

4443 44

4141 39

35



ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: ALMOST ALL/MOST COMPANIES IN OWN LINE OFBUSINESS ISSUE RECEIPTS FOR ALL REVENUES, 2003/04 TO 2012


Almost all

Most

38 34 36 3437

31 31

47

48 44 4544

45 47

'03** '05*** '06*** '07*** '08** '09*** '12****


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: ALMOST ALL/MOST COMPANIES IN OWN LINE OFBUSINESS ISSUE RECEIPTS FOR ALL REVENUES, BY AREA, 2012


Almost all

Most

31 33 3324 25

3830

49

37 39 54 55

42

40



ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: ALMOST ALL/MOST COMPANIES IN OWN LINE OFBUSINESS KEEP ONLY ONE SET OF ACCOUNTS, 2003/04 TO 2012


Almost all

Most

23 24 24 22 20 19 21

4345 39 39 43

40 401

'03** '05*** '06*** '07*** '08** '09*** '12****



23


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: ALMOST ALL/MOST COMPANIES IN OWN LINE OFBUSINESS KEEP ONLY ONE SET OF ACCOUNTS, BY AREA, 2012


Almost all

Most

2315

20 1826 24

14

45

36

39 43

4340

25



ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: ALMOST ALL/MOST COMPANIES IN OWN LINE OFBUSINESS DEMAND RECEIPTS FOR ALL PAYMENTS,

2005 TO 2012Base: Total Who Say There Is Corruption in the Private Sector

Almost all

Most

50 50 4953

45 45

43 38 3736

42 44

'05*** '06*** '07*** '08** '09*** '12****


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: ALMOST ALL/MOST COMPANIES IN OWN LINE OFBUSINESS DEMAND RECEIPTS FOR ALL PAYMENTS,

BY AREA, 2012Base: Total Who Say There Is Corruption in the Private Sector

Almost all

Most

51

3744 42 42

5038

44

52 39 4351 35

45



ON CORRUPTION

10) THE BUSINESS CLIMATE


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: SATISFACTION WITH THE NATIONALGOVERNMENT IN PROMOTING A GOOD BUSINESS CLIMATE,

2007 TO 2012

53

3543

69

20

1819

1827

4738

12

'07*** '08** '09*** '12****

Satisfied

Undecided

Dissatisfied


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: PERCENT SATISFIED WITH THENATIONAL GOVERNMENT IN PROMOTING A GOOD BUSINESS

CLIMATE, BY AREA, 2009 AND 2012

2009 2012

30

44

53 54

47

69

58

7378

7469 68




24


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: SATISFACTION WITH YOUR CITY GOVERNMENTIN PROMOTING A GOOD BUSINESS CLIMATE, 2007 TO 2012

Satisfied

Undecided

Dissatisfied

64 64 63 64

16 15 16 1719 20 21 19

'07*** '08** '09*** '12****


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: PERCENT SATISFIED WITH THECITY GOVERNMENT IN PROMOTING A GOOD BUSINESS CLIMATE,

BY AREA, 2009 AND 2012

2009 2012

54

61

77 76

5255

67 6973

76

87

44



ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: BUSINESS EXPECTATIONS IN THENEXT 2 YEARS, 2000 TO 2012

1 1 3 3 6 59 6 9

1616

30 26 25

40 41

52

33

46

58

36

4442 40

40 40

32

43

37

24

34

2123

21

11 105

135

313

3 66

3 3 2 3 10.1

'00* '01* '02* '03** '05*** '06*** '07*** '08** '09*** '12****

Very Poor

Poor

Fair

Excellent

Good


ON CORRUPTION

ENTERPRISES: PERCENT EXCELLENT/GOOD BUSINESSEXPECTATIONS IN THE NEXT 2 YEARS, BY AREA, 2009 AND 2012

2009 2012

49

67 65

53 51

72

80

68 6672

8176



ON CORRUPTION

www.sws.org.ph

#52 Malingap Street,Sikatuna Village, Quezon CityTels: 926-4308, 924-4456, 924-4458, 924-4465

E-mail: [email protected]


ON CORRUPTION

www.sws.org.ph

Education

Conscientization

Analysis


25/25

25


ON CORRUPTION

www.sws.org.ph

Quot homines tot sententiae

TAG:2012 SWS Surveys on Corruption

Documents

Transcript of TAG:2012 SWS Surveys on Corruption