WP 5: Pan European
Survey Measuring
Governance at the SubNational Level
Nicholas Charron, Associate Professor
Quality of Government Institute,
University of Gothenburg
Governance & Corruption in
Europe
• Not just a problem for ’developing countries’
• "The links between corruption and the ongoing financial
and fiscal crisis in these countries can no longer be
ignored,“ (Finn Heinrich, TI, 2012)
• “Corruption in Greece Continues Virtually Unchecked”
(Der Spiegel, 2012)
• The European Commission has described corruption as a
“disease that destroys a country from within” and that
“Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain – the euro zone’s most
financially troubled nations – have deeply rooted problems
in their public administration, namely that officials are not
accountable for their actions” (Irish Times, 2012)
•
1.
2.
3.
Defining & Measuring Governance (QoG) in
General
Key building concepts:
Impartiality (Rothstein and Teorell 2008)
Corruption, Definition: «Public abuse for private gain»
Quality/ effectiveness (Kaufmann, Kraay & Mastruzzi)
• “NON ZELI AD ZELUM, NEC MERITI AD MERITUM, SED
SOLUM NUMERI AD NUMERUM FIAT COLLATIO”
(“comparison should be made not on zeal, nor
merit, but solely of numbers”) Gregorius X (12101276, Papa 1271)
• Although QoG measures still imperfect, improving
in both scope and availability world-wide
• like some measures of’democracy’, most
measures of QoG are mostly SUBJECTIVE, built
mostly on opinions by experts, firms, citizens,
NGO’s, etc.
Measuring Governance in EU
GROUP
Group 1
Group 2
Group 3
Group 4
Group 5
Country
WGI Score World Rank EU Rank
DENMARK
2.42
1
1
SWEDEN
2.22
3
2
FINLAND
2.19
4
3
LUXEMBOURG
2.17
5
4
NETHERLANDS
2.17
6
5
GERMANY
1.69
16
6
BELGIUM
1.58
17
7
UK
1.54
19
8
FRANCE
1.51
20
9
IRELAND
1.50
22
10
AUSTRIA
1.44
23
11
PORTUGAL
1.09
37
12
SPAIN
1.06
41
13
CYPRUS
0.96
44
14
SLOVENIA
0.93
45
15
ESTONIA
0.91
46
16
MALTA
0.91
47
17
POLAND
0.51
61
18
HUNGARY
0.34
70
19
CZECH REP.
0.32
71
20
SLOVAK REP.
0.29
72
21
LITHUANIA
0.29
73
22
LATVIA
0.21
78
23
CROATIA
0.02
87
24
ITALY
-0.01
91
25
GREECE
-0.15
94
26
BULGARIA
-0.17
95
27
ROMANIA
-0.20
96
28
Non-EU Equivilant
NEW ZEALAND
NEW ZEALAND
SWITZERLAND
CANADA
CANADA
BARBADOS
CHILE
JAPAN
JAPAN
JAPAN
Uni ted Sta tes
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
QATAR
BOTSWANA
BOTSWANA
TAIWAN, CHINA
TAIWAN, CHINA
COSTA RICA
CUBA
VANUATU
BAHRAIN
BAHRAIN
BRAZIL
SOUTH AFRICA
JORDAN
GEORGIA
PERU
TUNISIA
Lots of indicators:
1. CPI
2. WGI
3. ICRG
4. Freedom
House
5. Eurobarometer
& more…
What about below the country level?
• EU is a community of regions (ERDF, REGIO,
structural funds, etc.)
• Regional difference in development wider than
states at times:
Ex. 2011 unemployment rates in:
IT: Bolzano (2.7%) vs. Sicilia (14.7%)
ES: Pais Vasco (10.5%) vs. Andalucia(28%)
BE: Flanders (5.1%) vs. Wallonne (11.5%)
SK: Bratislava Kraj (6.2%) vs. Východné Slovensko (18.5%)
Country ex.: Denmark (7.4%) vs. Bulgaria (10.4%)
**So we need to measure corruption/governance at regional
level as well..
The ’European Quality of Government
Index’ (EQI)
• Almost all existing corruption/ QoG data (from the mid1990s) at national-level
• 2010: we present 1st (and only) mulit-country, sub national
data on QoG to date. Funded by EU Commission (REGIO)
• We created a QoG Composite Index for 172 E.U. regions
• The study is based on a citizen-survey of respondents in EU
• 34,000 respondents in 18 countries (+/- 200 per region). They
are the ’consumers’ of QoG
• 16 QoG-focused (all translated into country languages)
questions on:
– personal experiences & perceptions
– of the Quality, Corruption & Impartiality…
– …on Education, Health care, and Law Enforcement
– 2013: we build on this past research in WP5
Selected Publications on the
EQI data
Article:
Charron, Nicholas, Lewis Dijkstra & Victor Lapuente (2013):
Regional Governance Matters: Quality of Government within
European Union Member States, Regional Studies,
Link: DOI:10.1080/00343404.2013.770141
Book:
’Quality of Government and Corruption from a European
Perspective’ eds. Charron, Nicholas, Victor Lapuente and Bo
Rothstein. 2013. Edward Elgar Publishing
EU Commission Working Paper:
‘Charron, Nicholas, Lewis Dijkstra & Victor Lapuente. 2012.
’Regional Govrnance Matters: A Study on Regional Variation of
Quality of Government in the EU
Link:
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/work/2012_02_g
overnance.pdf
2013 Survey: the sample
Sub-national Level of Survey: W P5
NUTS 1 NUTS 2
#of regions # of total respondents Politically relevant?
GERMANY
16
6400
yes
U.K.
12
4800
some
SWEDEN
3
1295
no
BELGIUM
3
1208
yes
HUNGARY
3
1215
no
GREECE
4
1613
no
TURKEY
12
4800
no
ITALY
21
8415
yes
DENMARK
5
2028
yes
FINLAND
5
2000
some
NETHERLANDS
12
4822
yes
AUSTRIA
9
3600
yes
CZECH REPUBLIC
8
3236
no
SLOVAK REPUBLIC
4
1609
no
SPAIN
17
6800
yes
PORTUGAL
7
2886
some
FRANCE
26
10409
yes
POLAND
16
6400
yes
ROMANIA
8
3200
no
BULGARIA
6
2402
no
SERBIA*
5
2015
some
UKRAINE
6*
2400
some
CROATIA
2
804
no
IRELAND
2
800
no
23 Countries
206
85157
135
The Questions
• 34 questions total
• 20 Focused primarily on regional level
governance in 3 sectors: education, health care
& law enforcement, as well as media & elections
(16 go to build the’EQI’)
• 7 demographic
• Other 7: social trust, perceptions of ’meritocracy’
in public & private sectors, party support,
electoral corruption
Demographics of sample
Gender
indicator
Female
Male
%
53.9
46.1
Education
elementary
some 2ndary school
finished 2ndary School
finished a college degree
post-graduate degree
no response
10.1
17.6
34.2
27.8
9.7
0.3
Age
18-29
30-49
50-64
65+
no response
17.9
35.8
26.9
19.3
0.2
Income
low
middle
high
no response
26.2
31.6
28.9
13.3
Occupation
Employed public
Employed Private
Student, pensioner, housecare
Unemployed
no response
18.3
35.4
35.9
8.2
0.7
Population
of residence
< 10k
10k - 100k
100k - 1 million
> 1 million
no response
34.5
35.5
20.3
8.4
1.3
Personal Experience with
Primary Services in Question
Direct Experience with Education
Serbia
Greece
Sweden
Spain
Denmark
Romania
Netherlands
Turkey
Italy
Belgium
UK
Finland
Ireland
Croatia
Germany
Poland
Slovak Rep.
Czech Rep.
Portugal
Kosovo
France
Austria
Ukraine
Hungary
Bulgaria
Sample Mean: 0.387
0
.2
.4
.6
Proportion having family member enrolled in area's pub. school in last 12 months
Personal Experience with
Primary Services in Question
Respondents' Experience with Health Care Sector
Kosovo
Greece
Germany
Austria
Romania
Ireland
Belgium
Italy
Ukraine
Hungary
Portugal
Netherlands
Serbia
Turkey
Czech Rep.
UK
Slovak Rep.
Denmark
Sweden
France
Finland
Spain
Croatia
Bulgaria
Poland
sample mean: 0.817
0
.2
.4
.6
.8
1
Proportion of Respondents having used health services in last 12 months
Personal Experience with
Primary Services in Question
Personal Experience with Law Enforcement
Kosovo
Hungary
Ukraine
Portugal
Ireland
Serbia
UK
Romania
Spain
Denmark
France
Czech Rep.
Italy
Netherlands
Bulgaria
Slovak Rep.
Poland
Greece
Turkey
Germany
Sweden
Finland
Belgium
Croatia
Austria
0
Sample mean: 0.221
.1
.2
.3
.4
Proportion of Respondents with personal/family contact (pos or neg) with law enforcement in last 12 months
Other info on respondents
40
Respondent left-right political Self Placement
20
10
0
Percent
30
obs: 77,293
far left
2
4
6
left - right political scale (self placement)
far right
Other info on respondents
20
10
0
Percent
30
40
Opinion of the current state of the economy in home country
very good
somewhat good
somewhat bad
opinion of the current state of the economy in home country
very bad
Satisfaction with the Economy in Respondent's Home Country
Portugal
Italy
Greece
Spain
Ukraine
Bulgaria
France
Serbia
Croatia
Slovakia
Ireland
UK
Romania
Czech Republic
Belgium
Hungary
Poland
Netherlands
Kosovo
Turkey
Danmark
Finland
Sweden
Germany
Austria
0
.2
.4
.6
.8
economy (very good + somewhat good)/ (somewhat bad + very bad)
Other info on respondents
Level of Aggregate Social Trust
Serbia
Slovakia
Czech Republic
Kosovo
Hungary
France
Greece
Ukraine
Bulgaria
Poland
Belgium
Croatia
Portugal
Romania
Spain
Germany
Italy
Netherlands
Ireland
Austria
Turkey
Finland
UK
Denmark
Sweden
0
.2
.4
.6
% respondend 'most people can be trusted'
.8
Perception of what it takes for sucess in public
sector
Perceived Meritocracy in Public Sector
Turkey
Austria
UK
Germany
Denmark
Finland
Sweden
France
Ireland
Netherlands
Kosovo
Belgium
Spain
Hungary
Czech Rep.
Italy
Poland
Portugal
Ukraine
Romania
Slovak Rep.
Croatia
Greece
Bulgaria
Serbia
Hard Work
2
4
country mean
6
Luck & Connections
Perception of what it takes
for sucess in private sector
Level of Perceived Meritocracy: Sucess in Private Sector
Turkey
Austria
Ireland
UK
Germany
Finland
Denmark
Netherlands
Belgium
Italy
France
Czech Rep.
Sweden
Portugal
Slovak Rep.
Hungary
Romania
Spain
Greece
Poland
Kosovo
Bulgaria
Croatia
Ukraine
Serbia
hard work
2
4
country average
6
Luck & Connections
Other info on respondents
Perceived Meritocracy of Private Sector in Italian Regions
ITD2 - Provincia Autonoma Trento
ITD1 - Provincia Autonoma Bolzano/Bozen
ITC4 - Lombardia
ITD3 - Veneto
ITC2 - Valle d'Aosta/Vallée d'Aoste
ITD4 - Friuli-Venezia Giulia
ITD5 - Emilia-Romagna
ITE1 - Toscana
ITC3 - Liguria
ITC1 - Piemonte
ITF4 - Puglia
ITF3 - Campania
ITE3 - Marche
ITE2 - Umbria
ITE4 - Lazio
ITF2 - Molise
ITF5 - Basilicata
ITG1 - Sicilia
ITF6 - Calabria
ITF1 - Abruzzo
ITG2 - Sardegna
0
1
2
3
4
mean regional response
5
6
EQI data, 2010 & 2013
3 ’Pillars’ of EQI
• Corruption, Impartialtiy & quality
• For ex. , for corruption, We combine perceptions
and experiences of citizens (as opposed to ’experts’
– less risk of ’feedback loop’)
Two types of questions:
A. general perceptions questions (0-10, higher =
more perceived corruption)
B. Experiences with ’petty corruption’
*Let’s look at the aggregated regional scores
Perceived Corruption in Education Sector
fi20 - ala
DK03 - Syd
DK01 - Hov
DK04 - Mid
DK05 - Nor
DK02 - Sjæ
PL61 - Kuj
ie01 - bor
PL63 - Pom
fi13 - eas
MEAN
UA13-Kharkov
UA21-Odessa
UA25-Crimea
UA15-Zakarpatt
RS22 - Sou
rs11 - bel
RS21 - Šum
RS23 - Kos
UA7-Lviv
UA4-Kiev
Low
2
4
regional mean
6
High
Perceived Corruption in Health Care
FI20 - ala
DK01 - Hov
DK04 - Mid
DK05 - Nor
DK02 - Sjæ
IE02 - sou
DK03 - Syd
IE01 - bor
NL21 - ove
FI18 - sou
SAMPLE MEAN
RS23 - Kos
UA13-Kharkov
UA25-Crimea
GR2 - kent
RS21 - Šum
RS11 - bel
UA15-Zakarpatt
BG41 - Yug
UA7-Lviv
UA4-Kiev
low
2
4
regional mean
6
high
Perception of Corruption in Law Enforcement
FI20 - Åla
DK04 - Mid
DK03 - Syd
DK01 - Hov
DK02 - Sjæ
DK05 - Nor
FI1a - nor
FI18 - sou
FI19 - wes
FI13 - eas
SAMPLE MEAN
RS21 - Šum
BG31 - Sev
RS11 - bel
BG41 - Yug
UA21-Odessa
UA25-Crimea
UA15-Zakarpatt
UA13-Kharkov
UA7-Lviv
UA4-Kiev
Low
2
4
Regional mean
6
High
'Perception of Others in my Area Engaging in Bribery'
FI13 - eas
FI20 - Åla
FI18 - sou
FI19 - wes
IE01 - bor
NL12 - fri
FI1a - nor
NL13 - dre
NL11 - gro
DK05 - Nor
SAMPLE MEAN
HR03 - Jad
RS22 - Sou
UA21-Odessa
GR1 - vore
GR3 - Athens
GR2 - kent
RS21 - Šum
UA15-Zakarpatt
UA7-Lviv
UA4-Kiev
never
2
4
regional mean
6
frequently
0
.02
.04
.06
Personal Experience with Bribery by Sector
Eudcation
Law Enforcement
Health Care
Other Public Sector
Regions with most reported bribery in health care sector
all regions with 15% or greater
RO32 - Bucharest
UA21-Odessa
RO22- Sud East
BG41-Yugo(Sofia)
UA13-Kharkov
RO41-Sudvest
RO21-Nord East
RO11-Nord Vest
RO42-Vest
HU1-Budapest
RO12-Center
RO31-Sud-Muntenia
HU3 - Transdanubia
UA4-Kiev
UA25-Crimea
RS23 - Kosovo
BG33-Severoiztochen
HU2-Dunántúl
UA15-Zakarpatt
ITF3-Campania
ITF2-Molise
ITF6-Calabria
GR2-Kentriki Ellada
ITF5-Basilicata
UA7-Lviv
Sample Mean
0
.1
.2
.3
propotion of respondetns paying a bribe in last 12 months
.4
2.6
E.U. 15 - no IT or GR
5
15.4
N.M.S.
E.U. 15
E.U. Ave.
-
Campania(IT)
Észak és Alföld(HU)
Dunántúl(HU)
Praha(CZ)
Sud-Vest(RO)
Sud-Est(RO)
Centru(RO)
Nord-Est(RO)
Sud-Muntenia(RO)
Vest(RO)
Budapest(HU)
Bucuresti(RO)
0
10 15 20 25 30 35
Results from 2010
Reported Bribery in the Health Care Sector
12 Regions with over 15%, & E.U. Averages
33.2
12.7
5.1
1.5
% of respondents paying any bribe
in last 12 months
Building the Index
1. Aggregation
Aggregate 400 respondents by region for each of 16
questions
• Using PCA, 3 groups (’pillars’) identified: corruption,
impartialtiy and quality – 16 indicators aggreated to 3
pillars
• 3 pillars aggregated to Regional QoG Index
2. Normalization of Data
• Standardized indicators (z-distribution)
3. Weights
• Equal Weighting
Individual Level Data
Regional Level Data
QoG Survey Question
QoG Indicator
QoG Survey Question
QoG Indicator
QoG Survey Question
QoG Indicator
QoG Survey Question
QoG Indicator
QoG Survey Question
QoG Indicator
QoG Survey Question
QoG Indicator
QoG Pillar
QoG Regional Index
QoG Pillar
Regional and National QoG
• Combine regional data with
national level WGI data
• Set each country’s EQI mean
to WGI average of 4 QoG
pillars
• Aggregate regional scores
(population weighted), around
which regional scores show
within-country variation
Why?
• Regional QoG embedded in
National Context
• Include countries with no NUTS
2 regions
• Can retroactively adjust when
new regions/countries added
in future
The EQI: 2010
• A composite
index based
on 16 QoG
survey
questions
from 20092010.
• Round 2 in
2013
EQI 2013, w/ cluster groups
Robustness of Data
• 2010: Extensive sensitivity testing
(both WGI data and regional
data),
• Alternative aggregation,
weighting, normalization
method, exluding certain
individual charactoristics by
gender, income, education
and age.
EQI Estimates and Margins of Error
2
EQI
0
-2
-4
0
50
100
150
Rank order of regions and countries by EQI
200
• Constructed 95% confidence
intervals around each regional
estimate
EQI 2010 and Margins of Error
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
EQI 2010
0
50
100
150
EQI by Rank order
EQI 2010
95% c.i.
200
250
3
EQI 2013 and Margins of Error
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Åland(FI)
-4
Kiev (UA)
0
50
100
150
EQI by Rank Order (2013)
EQI 2013
95% c.i.
200
250
2
Comparison of EQI scores for Regions in both Surveys
Beta: 0.89
Rsq: 0.88
Obs: 180
-1
0
1
p-value: 0.000
DK04
DK05
DK03
DK01
NL21
SE1
SE2
DK02
NL12
NL31
NL11
NL33
SE3
AT33
NL22
BE2
NL42
NL23
NL34
NL41
NL32
NL13
FR52
AT22
AT12
DEF
DE9
UKJ
DE2
AT11
DEB
ITD2
DEC
UKIUKE
AT31
DE1
PT18
ITD1
FR24
FR61
UKH
FR53
FR62
AT21
FR72
FR25
AT32
DE7
UKD
DE8
DE5
DED
FR71
DE6
FR51
UKN
FR42
UKC
FR63
DEA
UKF
FR43
UKG
ITC2
UKM
PT20
ES12
DE4
ES13
FR10
ES23
UKK
FR41
DEG
FR81
AT34
ES62
DE3
FR23
AT13
ES21
ES22
FR26
FR21FR22
ES30
UKL
ES41
DEE
ITD4
FR83
PT15
ES43
FR30
ES24
BE1 BE3 FR82
PT30
ES53
PT16
FR94
FR92
ES61
PL52
PL61ES51
PT17
CZ06
ES42
PT11CZ05
CZ03
ES52
BG33
PL34
PL63
ITD3
PL43
ES70
ITD5
CZ07
FR91
PL62
CZ02
PL42 HU2
PL21
CZ01
ES11
PL41
SK02
SK03
PL31
CZ08ITE2
PL33
FR93
ITC4
ITE1
ITE3
PL11
PL32
HU3
PL12
GR4
SK01 ITC1
SK04
PL22
PL51
HU1
CZ04
ITC3
GR1 BG42
GR2
GR3
RO12 ITF1
ITG2
BG32
ITF5
RO31
ITE4
ITF4
RO42
ITG1
BG34
ITF2
RO41 RO11
RO21
ITF6
RO22
BG31
-2
RO32 ITF3
BG41
-3
-2
-1
0
EQI (2010)
1
2
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
2013 EQI Changes from 2010
0
50
100
EQI 2010
EQI 2013
150
95% c.i. 2010
95% c.i. 2013
200
250
1
2
Regions with Significant Negative Changes since 2010
Thuringia
0
Wien
Galicia
Piemonte
-2
-1
Attica
20
40
60
80
EQI rank order 2010
EQI 2010
EQI 2013
100
95% c.i. 2010
95% c.i. 2013
120
1
Regions with Significant Positive Changes since 2010
0
.5
London
-1
-.5
Kujawsko-Pomorskie
(PL61)
105
120
135
150
165
EQI rank from 2010
EQI2010Final
eqi13final
eqilow10/eqihi10
eqilow13/eqihi13
180
195
Within country variation: 2010
0
-1
Group 1: High QoG
-2
Group 2: Moderate QoG
Group 3: Low QoG
DK
SE
FI
NL
LU
AT
UK
IE
DE
FR
BE
MT
ES
PT
CY
EE
SI
CZ
HU
SK
LV
GR
LT
PL
IT
BG
RO
-3
EQI Score
1
2
EQI: National Averages and Regional Variation
EQI Region score
Country Score (WGI)
DK
FI
SE
NL
LU
AT
DE
BE
UK
IE
FR
CY
MT
ES
EE
PT
SI
CZ
PL
SK
HU
LT
LV
IT
GR
HR
TR
BG
RO
RS
UA
-4
-2
0
2
EQI by Country and Sub-National Variation
EQI (regions)
EQI (country level)
Sub-National Variation of EQI by Country
FI
SE
IE
DK
HR
NL
SK
GR
DE
UK
HU
PT
CZ
AT
FR
PL
ES
BE
RS
RO
UA
IT
BG
TR
0
.025
.05
.075
.1
.125
.15
Gini Index of EQI Regional Inequality (pop. weighted)
.175
.2
How closely do perceptions
match experiences?
Perceptions vs. Experiences
2013 by sector and total
2
4
6
8
Experiences and Perceptions of Corruption in Education
0
Pearson's: 0.67***
Obs: 212
0
.05
.1
.15
Proportion of respondent who paid bribe in Education
.2
2
4
6
8
Experiences and Perception of Corruption in Health Care
0
Pearson's = 0.77
Obs = 212
0
.1
.2
.3
Proportion of respondents who paid a bribe in health care
.4
2
4
6
8
Experiences and Perceptions of Corruption in Law Enforcement
0
Pearson's = 0.58
Obs = 212
0
.05
.1
Proportion of Respondents who paid a bribe in law enforcement
2
4
6
8
Perceptions vs. Experience with Corruption by Region
0
Beta: 0.09
p-value: 0.000
Rsq. = 0.53
obs: 212
0
10
20
30
% of respondents paying a bribe in last 12 months
40
Perceptions vs. Experiences: Residuals
2
RS21 - Šumadija and Western Serbia
RS22 - Southern and Eastern Serbia
- Jadranska
Hrvatska
- vojvodina
PT11 - Norte HR03rs12
rs11 - belgrade
PT16 - Centro (P) HR04 - Kontinentalna Hrvatska
PT30
Number 25 - Crimea
PT17- -Região
Lisboa Autónoma da Madeira
'over-perceive' corruption
-1
0
1
SK04 ellada
- Vychodne Slovensko
gr1 -- voreia
Number 15 - Zakarpattia oblast (region)
SK03
Stredne
BG31 Slovensko
- Severozapaden
FR91 - Guadeloupe
PT15 - Algarve
gr3 - attiki
SK02
Zapadne
Slovensko
FR92 - Martinique
gr4 -- nisia
aigaiou,
kriti
ES70 - Canarias
CZ04 - Severozapad
SK01
-kentriki
Bratislavsky
gr2
elladakraj
ES61
Andalucía
Number 7 - Lviv oblast
(region)
BG32
Severen
tsentralen
tr3
ege
Number
4 - Kiev ob
ES52
- FR30
Comunidad
- Nord
Valenciana
-Cechy
Pas-de-Calais
ES53
ES51
-- Illes
-be3
Cataluña
Balears
Réunion
CZ02
Stredni
- FR94
région
wallonne
PT20
--Galicia
Região
Autónoma
dos
Açores
ES12
Principado
FR22
Picardie
CZ01
de
Asturias
Praha
ES11
FR93
Guyane
Number
13
Kharkov
oblast
(region)
Number
21
Odessa
oblast
(region)
ES24
Aragón
- Champagne-Ardenne
ES41
--FR21
Castilla
y- León
CZ07
Stredni
Morava
tr1 - istanbul
ES21
-ES42
País
Vasco
ES30
Comunidad
deForal
Madrid
- Castilla-La
Mancha
CZ08
- Moravskoslezsko
ES22
- Comunidad
de
Navarra
CZ05
Severovychod
be1
région
CZ03
de
Jihozapad
bruxelles-capitale
/ brussels hoofdstedelijk
gewest
ES43
Extremadura
FR82
d'Azur
ES62
Región
Murcia- Provence-Alpes-Côte
PT18
-La
Alentejo
ES13
---Cantabria
ES23
Rioja
FR41
Lorraine
FR26
Bourgogne
- Languedoc-Roussillon
- FR81
Auvergne
deeFR72
-FR63
sachsen-anhalt
tr5 - bati anadolu
- Limousin
RS23 - Kosovo and Metohija
FR83
- Corse
CZ06
-Haute-Normandie
Jihovychod
AT13
- Wien
be2 -- Oberösterreich
vlaams
gewest
AT31
FR23
FR25
Basse-Normandie
trb
ortadogu
anadolu
ITF4
Puglia
BG34
Yugoiztochen
FR71
Rhône-Alpes
deg FR24
- thüringen
AT34
Vorarlberg
tr4
- dogu
marmara
-- Centre
tr7
orta
anadolu
FR42
- Alsace
Poitou-Charentes
FR61
- Aquitaine
FR51
- -Pays
de
FR10
-Franche-Comté
Île la
deLoire
France
de4
--FR53
brandenburg
de2
bayern
FR43
ITF3 - Campania
ded
sachsen
FR62
Midi-Pyrénées
de9
niedersachsen
de8
mecklenburg-vorpommern
FR52
- -Bretagne
AT12
Niederösterreich
deb
---rheinland-pfalz
- kuzeydogu
anadolu
AT21
-tra
Kärnten
RO42 - Vest
PL33
PL51
Swietokrzyskie
Dolnoslaskie
PL11
Lodzkie
de5
bremen
ITF6
Calabria
dec
saarland
hessen
ITE2
Umbria
de1de7
de6
baden-württemberg
hamburg
deaAT33
--de3
nordrhein-westfalen
- -Tirol
AT22
Steiermark
RO31
- Sud
- Muntenia
PL32
Podkarpackie
tr6
akdeniz
berlin
ITE3
Marche
RO11
- Nord-Vest
AT11
PL43
Burgenland
Lubuskie
(A)
ITC4
Lombardia
PL42
-Salzburg
Zachodniopomorskie
- Podlaskie
AT32
-PL34
ITG1 -ITF2
Sicilia
def- west
- schleswig-holstein
ukg
midlands
(england)
- Molise RO21
PL12 - Wielkopolskie
Mazowieckie
ITC1 - Piemonte
PL41
- Nord-Est
ukf-- Södra
- east Sverige
midlands
(england)
RO41
- Sud-Vest Oltenia
SE2
SE3
Norra
PL62
- Warminsko-Mazurskie
ITF5
ITE4--Basilicata
Lazio
nl32
- north
holland
PL21
Malopolskie
PL63
Pomorskie
ukk
south
west
(england)
RO12
Centru
PL31
Lubelskie
ukn
northern
ireland
PL52
- Opolskie
nl22
- gelderland
ITC3 - Liguria
ukm
scotland
nl33
---south
holland
ukc
north
east
(england)
PL22 - Slaskie
SE1
Östra
Sverige
ITG2 - Sardegna
ukl
wales
trc
-the
guneydogu
anadolu
uke
yorkshire
and
PL61
-humber
Kujawsko-Pomorskie
ukd
nl42
--north
--limburg
west
(england)
tr8
- bati
karadeniz
ITD5
Emilia-Romagna
ukh
east
of
england
tr9
dogu
karadeniz
RO22 - Sud-Est
nl23
flevoland
ITF1 - Abruzzo
ukj -nl34
south
east
(england)
ITC2 - Valle d'Aosta/Vallée
d'Aoste
--zeeland
- bati marmara
-tr2
london
nl13
drenthe
ITD3 - Veneto
nl31
- uki
utrecht
BG41 - Yugozapaden
nl11
groningen
nl21-nl41
-nl12
overijssel
friesland
ie02
southern
and
eastern
BG42 - Yuzhen tsentralen
- -north
brabant
ITE1 - Toscana
fi19 - west finland
hu2 - dunantul
ie01
fi1a
border
north
finland
midland
and
western
ITD1
- -Provincia
Bolzano/Bozen
ITD4 Autonoma
- Autonoma
Friuli-Venezia
Giulia hu3 - alfold es eszak
fi18- ---east
south
finland
fi13
finland
ITD2
Provincia
Trento
DK02
Sjælland
DK05---Midtjylland
Nordjylland
hu1 - kozep-magyarorszag
DK03
Syddanmark
DK04
DK01 - Hovedstaden
RO32 - Bucuresti - Ilf
'under-perceive' corruption
-2
fi20 - aland
BG33 - Severoiztochen
0
10
20
30
40
% of respondents paying a bribe in the last 12 months
Experiences and Percpetions with Corrupiton: Country Level
Pearson's = 0.76
Obs = 25
DK
FI
IE
NL
UK
SE
DE
AT
PL
TR
BE
ES
FR
IT
HU
CZ
PT
BG
RO
SK
GR
HR
Kos
RS
UA
0
2
Perceived Corruption
4
6
Experienced Corruption
8
7
Experiences and Perceptions with Corruption by Country
6
UA
RS
Kos
SK GR
RO
5
HR
BG
PT
4
CZ
ES BE
IT
FR
TR
AT
HU
PL
3
DE
SEUK
NL
2
IE
FI
DK
0
Beta: 0.11
p-value: 0.000
10
20
% of respondents paying any bribe in last 12 months
30
2
Perceptions vs. Experiences: Country Residuals
HR
'over-perceive' corruption ?
RS
1
PT
SK
ES
GR
CZ
BE
UA
0
FR
DE
-1
SE
UK
NL
IE
DK
FI
AT
Kos
TR
PL
BG
IT
RO
HU
-2
'under-perceive' corruption?
0
10
20
% of respondetns who paid a bribe in last 12 months
30
Perception vs. Experience: country &
regional level: 2010
6
4
Spearman Coefficient: 0.78
More perceived corruption
.2
.4
.6
Highly Corrupt
2
Less Perceived Corruption
0
Very Clean
8
Corruption perception in health care sector
SK
GR
BG
RO
HU
PL
IT
PT
CZ
FR
DE
AT
BE
ES
UK
NL
SE
DK
10
Perceptions and Experience with Corruption in Health Care by Country Perception and Experience with Corruption in Health Care in EU Regions
0
Perceived Corruption
Proportion Paid a Bribe
.1
.2
.3
Proportion of respondents paying a bribe
.4
Examples of other plans
with WP5 data
• Continue to build EQI/ undergo
extensive robustness checks
• Explore reasons why within country
variation of QoG varies
• Explore relationship between
entreprenuership and quality of
regional institutions
• Explore relationship between gender
equality and regional QoG
Descargar

Bild 1