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
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
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
3
ImpactImpact
Structure of Government Integrity Index (GII)
OutputOutputProcessProcessInputInput
4 Dimensions
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
5
Structure of Government Integrity Index (GII)
Output Complaints
Disclosure
Misconduct
Law Breaking
Impact Media Report
Staff Perception
Public Opinion
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
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)
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
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
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)
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)
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
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
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
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
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
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
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??
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.
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)
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.
22