Anda di halaman 1dari 11

ROMANIA IN EU at TEN

The Governance Story

Alina Mungiu-Pippidi
Hertie School of Governance
and
Romanian Academic Society
pippidi@hertie-school.org

www.againstcorruption.eu
This project is co-funded by the
Seventh Framework Programme for
Research and Technological
Development of the European Union

www.romaniacurata.ro
Catch up based on what?
Vicious circle of innovation and corruption
5
SWE
NLD FIN DNK
GBR
DEU LUX
BEL IRL
FRA AUT
Global Innovation index

4 EST
CZE SVN
MLT ESP
HUN CYP
(0-5 best)

ITA LTU SVK PRT


BGR
LVA POL
ROM GRC
3

1
0 2 4 6 8 10
27/10/2017
WGI Control of Corruption (0-10 best) 2
Consequences of failure of merit based
society – Brain drain and corruption
7

SWE
GBR LUX NLD
5 BEL IRL FIN DNK
AUT
DEU
Brain drain
(1-7 lowest)

CYP
MLT SVN FRA
4
ESP
CZE EST
PRT
POL
3 LVA
ITA HUN
GRC SVK
LTU
BGR
2 ROM

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
WGI Control of Corruption
27/10/2017
(recoded 1-10 best) 3
Correlation integrity (IPI)-
Government effectiveness (World Bank)
2.5

2 FIN
WGI Government effectiveness

SWENLD
DEU LUX IRL DNK
GBR
1.5 AUT
(-2.5 to 2.5 best)

BEL FRA
SVN CYP ESP LTU
1 CZE MLT EST
PRT LVA
POL SVK
HRV
0.5 HUN
ITA GRC

BGR
0 ROM

-0.5
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00

IPI score 2014


(1-10 best)

27/10/2017
4
9
Evolution of Judiciary Independence
8

7
Judicial Independence Score (1-10)

4
2007 - 208

2017 - 2018
3

* 2008 - 2009 data used for earlier data


^ 2010 - 2011 data used for earlier data
Countries
2017 - Top 30 performers
Index of Public Integrity, www.integrity-index.org
PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS EVOLUTION
DURING ANTICORRUPTION CRACKDOWN
2007-2013
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
change
VALOARE
Unic competitor 30,8% 24,1% 21,6% 26,4% 22,4% 12,9% 8,4% ↓↓
Conexiune politică2 23,4% 31,3% 20,3% 16,4% 19,7% 16,5% 13,6% ↓
Captură3 18,5% 11,8% 17,3% 20,9% 21,7% 9,3% 18,6% ↔
Total particularism 52 52,9% 43,9% 53,0% 49,1% 34,0% 40 ↓

NUMĂR CONTRACTE 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


Unic competitor 30,1% 27,6% 20,3% 24,0% 24,2% 17,6% 12,2% ↓↓
Conexiune politică2 22,7% 21,5% 19,9% 19,3% 19,7% 17,7% 17,3% ↓
Captură3 9,4% 8,5% 8,3% 7,4% 8,1% 7,5% 5,9% ↓
Total particularism 48 45,3% 41,1% 42,7% 43,5% 37,2% 33 ↓
Legend: Time series of particularism indicators in Romanian public procurement during intensive judicial anticorruption, 2007-2013, resulting in a decrease by a fifth of problematic transactions; ↓
indicates small change; ↓↓ indicates change over 10%; ↔ indicates no significant change.
Source: Romanian Academic Society, www.sar.org.ro.
[1] Single bidding. i.e. only one bid is submitted to a tender on a competitive market.
[2] Political connection. Allocation to a company with political connections (politician shareholder, board member or party donor company, according to digital interest disclosures or donation reports)
[3] Agency capture. Public agency awards 51% contracts or value of total contracts to one bidder.
Public integrity and political connections in the
EU
Political connections are the only way to succeed in
90% BGR
CYP
HRV SVK
ROM ITA
SVN LTU
GRC PRT
(% of respondents who agree)

CZE ESP HUN


70% POL
EST
FRA IRL
LVA
business

BEL
LUX AUT
50% MLT
DEU GBR
R² = 0.63044

30% FIN
SWE
NLD

DNK

10%
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Index of Public Integrity
(1-10 best)
Romania sau Bulgaria still paired,
but Romania does it at higher roads and political costs
3,5 7

3
Investment in overall inland infrastructure 6

Quality of overall infrastructure


2,5

(dotted lines, 1-7 best)


5
(columns, % of GDP)

2
4
1,5

3
1

2
0,5

0 1
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Romania EU28 Average Bulgaria


What can be done? Breaking the vicious circle

Persistent
poverty and
divergence on
 The only element which can be made
income and
productivity
exogenous is EU funding
 We need EU funds which change
patterns of poor governance, not
Sub-optimal Poor
investment of EU governance (lack reinforce them, as in Greece or Sicily
funds and of meritocracy,
national clientelism,  Flexible funds for skills enhancement,
resources corruption)
open competition, attracting of
research and innovation leaders
 Funds with impact, not just
‘absorption’
Brain drain and  Funds planned and audited by
Administrative poor educational
capture with outcomes communities and civil societies
resulting poor subverting
capacity critical mass for through social accountability
good governance
 Test case for Romania as well as EU
Link between cohesion and governance already made
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/cohesion-report/

See also

Mungiu-Pippidi, A., Dadašov, R. (2016)


Measuring Control of Corruption by a New Index of Public Integrity
in European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research http://rdcu.be/uwfM
Mungiu-Pippidi, A., Dadašov, R. (2017).
When do anticorruption laws matter? The evidence on public integrity
enabling
contexts , In Crime, Law and Social Change
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318736513_When_do_anticorrupti
on_
laws_matter_The_evidence_on_public_integrity_enabling_contexts

27/10/2017 11

Anda mungkin juga menyukai