Transparency at Work: Monitoring Corruption with the Government Integrity Index System
description
Transcript of Transparency at Work: Monitoring Corruption with the Government Integrity Index System
![Page 1: Transparency at Work: Monitoring Corruption with the Government Integrity Index System](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/56815966550346895dc6a398/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
Transparency at Work:
Monitoring Corruption with the Government Integrity Index System
Lung-Teng Hu, Ph.D.Assistant Professor
Department of Public Policy and ManagementShih Hsin University
Taipei, Taiwan
Director of Knowledge ManagementTI-Chinese Taipei
![Page 2: Transparency at Work: Monitoring Corruption with the Government Integrity Index System](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/56815966550346895dc6a398/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Government Integrity IndexG I I
4 Dimensions13 Constructs27 Indicators
4 Dimensions13 Constructs27 Indicators
Objective Indicators&
Subjective Indicators
Objective Indicators&
Subjective Indicators
23 municipalities & counties
![Page 3: Transparency at Work: Monitoring Corruption with the Government Integrity Index System](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/56815966550346895dc6a398/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
ImpactImpact
Structure of Government Integrity Index (GII)
OutputOutputProcessProcessInputInput
4 Dimensions
![Page 4: Transparency at Work: Monitoring Corruption with the Government Integrity Index System](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/56815966550346895dc6a398/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
Structure of Government Integrity Index (GII)
13 Constructs
Input Human Resources
Budget
Law and Regulations
Process Procurement
Anti-Corruption Audit
Public Education on Anti-Corruption
![Page 5: Transparency at Work: Monitoring Corruption with the Government Integrity Index System](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/56815966550346895dc6a398/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
Structure of Government Integrity Index (GII)
Output Complaints
Disclosure
Misconduct
Law Breaking
Impact Media Report
Staff Perception
Public Opinion
![Page 6: Transparency at Work: Monitoring Corruption with the Government Integrity Index System](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/56815966550346895dc6a398/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Structure of Government Integrity Index (GII)
Government Integrity
Index
Input Index
Process Index
Output Index
Impact Index
Human Resources
Budget
Law and Regulations
Procurement
Anti-corruption Audit
Public education on
anti- corruption
Complaints
Disclosure
Misconduct
Media report
Staff perception
Public opinion
Law Breaking
Objective Indicators
Subjective Indicators
![Page 7: Transparency at Work: Monitoring Corruption with the Government Integrity Index System](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/56815966550346895dc6a398/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Structure of Government Integrity Index (GII)
Objective Indicators: come from official statistics
Subjective Indicators: come from two surveys• Public opinion telephone survey (hereafter
Public Opinion Survey)• Staff mailing survey (hereafter Staff Survey)
![Page 8: Transparency at Work: Monitoring Corruption with the Government Integrity Index System](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/56815966550346895dc6a398/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Operationalization of GII
Stage 1Standardization: from original statistics to
standardized Z scores.Normalization: multiply each standardized Z
score by -1, if necessary
• If the statistics look neutral, use their correlations with public opinion survey results to determine the directions
![Page 9: Transparency at Work: Monitoring Corruption with the Government Integrity Index System](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/56815966550346895dc6a398/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Operationalization of GII
Stage 2Combining normalized standardized scores into
sub-dimension scores.
• Weighting method:
(1) using consensus by Delphic method, or
(2) performing factor analysis for each sub-dimension
extract only the first factor then using regression
method to get weights
![Page 10: Transparency at Work: Monitoring Corruption with the Government Integrity Index System](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/56815966550346895dc6a398/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Operationalization of GII
Stage 3
Combining sub-dimension scores into dimension scores.
Weighting method:
(1) using consensus by Delphic method, or
(2) performing factor analysis for each
dimension
Dimension score adjustment using linear transformation,
• SAx = 70 + (10*Sx)
![Page 11: Transparency at Work: Monitoring Corruption with the Government Integrity Index System](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/56815966550346895dc6a398/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Operationalization of GII
Stage 4Combining dimension scores into final index.
Weighting method:
(1) using consensus by Delphic method, or
(2) performing factor analysis on six
dimension scores
Final index adjustment
using linear transformation
GII = 70 + (10*FI)
![Page 12: Transparency at Work: Monitoring Corruption with the Government Integrity Index System](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/56815966550346895dc6a398/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Features of GII Results
We have finished our Beta Version of GII with data from 23 municipalities/counties
• We are working on the second round data collection
Grouping rather than ranking by multiple comparison technique
![Page 13: Transparency at Work: Monitoring Corruption with the Government Integrity Index System](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/56815966550346895dc6a398/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Citizens’ Assessment on Governmental Integrity in General
新竹市
嘉義市
宜蘭縣
臺南市新竹縣
臺北縣
高雄市
基隆市
澎湖縣高雄縣嘉義縣臺中市
屏東縣桃園縣 彰化縣花蓮縣 苗栗縣南投縣 臺東縣
臺中縣雲林縣臺南縣
臺北市
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
0 1 2
![Page 14: Transparency at Work: Monitoring Corruption with the Government Integrity Index System](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/56815966550346895dc6a398/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
Citizens’ Assessment on Magistrates/Mayors’ Integrity
高雄縣新竹市
南投縣臺東縣
新竹縣
基隆市
臺中市桃園縣嘉義市 屏東縣
臺北市高雄市 花蓮縣澎湖縣 雲林縣宜蘭縣
彰化縣臺中縣 苗栗縣
嘉義縣
臺南市臺北縣臺南縣
-45%
-25%
-5%
15%
35%
55%
75%
0 1 2
![Page 15: Transparency at Work: Monitoring Corruption with the Government Integrity Index System](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/56815966550346895dc6a398/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Citizens’ Assessment on Department Chiefs’ Integrity
臺中市
新竹市
嘉義市
臺北市
高雄市
花蓮縣
澎湖縣
雲林縣
臺東縣
臺南市
臺北縣臺南縣
基隆市
高雄縣桃園縣
屏東縣
宜蘭縣
彰化縣
臺中縣苗栗縣
嘉義縣
南投縣
新竹縣
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
0 1 2
![Page 16: Transparency at Work: Monitoring Corruption with the Government Integrity Index System](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/56815966550346895dc6a398/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Citizens’ Assessment on Public Employees’ Integrity
高雄縣
嘉義市
高雄市
澎湖縣
雲林縣
苗栗縣南投縣
臺東縣
臺南市
臺中市新竹市
桃園縣 屏東縣
臺北市
花蓮縣宜蘭縣
彰化縣臺中縣嘉義縣
臺北縣
臺南縣
新竹縣
基隆市
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
0 1 2
![Page 17: Transparency at Work: Monitoring Corruption with the Government Integrity Index System](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/56815966550346895dc6a398/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
, 57.2高雄市
, 60臺北縣, 61.1臺南市
, 62.4南投縣
, 63.9雲林縣
, 65.4臺南縣
, 66.8新竹縣
, 69.6宜蘭縣, 70.3臺東縣
, 71.9苗栗縣, 72.7彰化縣, 73.6高雄縣, 74.3桃園縣
, 77.2臺中市
, 79.8花蓮縣
, 81.2屏東縣
, 84.5新竹市
, 85.7嘉義市
, 67.1臺中縣
, 70.1臺北市
, 73.2嘉義縣
, 81.4澎湖縣
55
65
75
85
0 1 2
Final Scores in GII Beta Version
![Page 18: Transparency at Work: Monitoring Corruption with the Government Integrity Index System](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/56815966550346895dc6a398/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
Why grouping?
Think about this…
If the score difference between the Last No.4 city/country and the Last No.3 is 50, while the difference between the Last No.2 and the Last No.1 is 0.5…
Can we say this ranking is fair??
![Page 19: Transparency at Work: Monitoring Corruption with the Government Integrity Index System](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/56815966550346895dc6a398/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
Conclusions
We believe that• Using grouping technique rather than ranking
method has some advantages:
• taking the concept of “variation” into account,
• making the assessment results are fairer and more acceptable,
• minimizing the emotional overreaction or critique from the evaluated objects.
![Page 20: Transparency at Work: Monitoring Corruption with the Government Integrity Index System](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/56815966550346895dc6a398/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
Conclusions
Who has been involved in the GII measurement?Directly involved:
• Citizens
• Public employees
Indirectly involved:
• The media (by news reports/coverage)
• Governments themselves (by official statistics input)
![Page 21: Transparency at Work: Monitoring Corruption with the Government Integrity Index System](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/56815966550346895dc6a398/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
Conclusions
Impacts:
• Educating public officials that corruption/integrity can be measured.
• Requesting agencies to collect needed data regularly.
• Promoting the idea of “indicator management” to government-wide Department of Government Ethics.
Challenges:
• Responding rate of staff survey is quite low, probably due to the sensitivity of the issue.
• Need to prevent from the systematic bias occurring from specific departments/local governments.
![Page 22: Transparency at Work: Monitoring Corruption with the Government Integrity Index System](https://reader036.fdocuments.in/reader036/viewer/2022062520/56815966550346895dc6a398/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22