DOCSLIB.ORG

Policy Paper N 10 a Joint Project Conducted By: 2007

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Policy Paper N 10 a Joint Project Conducted By: 2007 Policy Paper N 10 An Assessment of Georgia’s National Integrity System: The GNISA Project A joint project conducted by: Tiri (the Governance – Access - Learning Network), London, UK The Institute of Ethics Governance and Law, Australia Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development Georgia 2007 Funded by the Open Society Institute and the Open Society – Georgia Foundation © The Authors 2007 have asserted their rights under the Copyright Act 1968 to be identified as the authors of this work. An Assessment of Georgia’s National Integrity System: The GNISA Project A project carried out by the Institute for Ethics Governance and Law (IEGL), Tiri (the Governance - Access - Learning Network) and the Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development, as partners in this venture, and funded by the Open Society Institute. Final GNISA Report: July 2007 Lead Authors Dr Arthur Shacklock, Griffith University, Institute for Ethics Governance and Law Mr Malkhaz Saldadze, Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development Ms Carmel Connors, Griffith University, Institute for Ethics Governance and Law Ms Melea Lewis, Griffith University, Institute for Ethics Governance and Law Professor Charles Sampford, Griffith University, Institute for Ethics Governance and Law Management Team Griffith University, Institute for Ethics Governance and Law Professor Charles Sampford Dr Arthur Shacklock Tiri (the Governance - Access - Learning Network): Mr Jeremy Pope Mr Martin Tisne Published by: Institute for Ethics Governance and Law, Griffith University Tiri (the Governance - Access - Learning Network) Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development . ISBN: 978-1-921291-14-2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary vii-xiv A. Introduction A.1 National Integrity Systems Assessment: Towards Public Integrity Reform 1 A.1.1 What is a National Integrity System? 1 A.1.2 Understanding Integrity Systems: from NIS to NISA 3 A 1.3 The Australian application of the NISA methodology 5 A.1.4 The NISA Methodology Explained 7 A.1.5 NISA’s assessment of Capacity, Coherence and Consequences 8 A 1.6 Goals, Aims and Steps in the NISA Process 9 A1.6.1 Initial Meetings of the Research Team 10 A1.6.2 Preliminary Integrity System Mapping 10 A1.6.3 Choice of Integrity Assessment Tools (IATs) 10 A1.6.4 Conduct of Interviews 11 A1.6.5 Assessing the Coherence, Coherence and Consequences of the existing system 11 A1.6.6 Research Findings Workshop and Meetings 11 A1.6.7 Final Report 11 A.2. The Georgian National Integrity Systems Assessment (GNISA) Project 12 A.2.1 Origination and Launching of the GNISA Project 12 A.2.2 Specific Aims of the GNISA Project 13 A.2.3 Steps Taken in the GNISA Project 14 A.3 Summary of GNISA Recommendations 15 B. Historical and Cultural Background B.1 Introduction 17 B.2 Public Space and State Functions: Theoretical-Normative View and Its Relationship to the Georgian Situation in 1990s 18 B.3 State Roles and its Place in Public-Private Relationships: Theoretical- Normative View and its Correspondence to the Georgian Situation in 1990s 22 B.4 State and Society in 1990s Georgia: Interest Fulfilment Mechanisms and its Patterns — Problems of Corruption 27 B.5 Conclusion 31 C. Integrity Institutions C.1 Parliamentary Institutions 33 C.1.1 Roles and Functions in Ensuring Integrity 33 ii C.1.1.1 Grouping of Parliamentary Institutions by Roles and Functions 34 C.1.1.2 Specific Functions of Each Institution 35 C.1.1.3 Scope of Institutional Authority 38 C.1.1.4 Accountability and Reporting Arrangements 39 C.1.2 Assessment of Capacity 40 C.1.2.1 Adequacy of Institutional Resources 40 C.1.3. Assessment of Coherence 42 C.1.3.1 Interaction between Parliamentary Institutions 42 C.1.3.2 Interaction between Parliamentary and Other State Agencies 42 C.1.3.3 Interaction between Parliamentary and International Organizations, Civil Society Agencies and Media 45 C.1.4. Assessment of Consequences 46 C.1.4.1 The Efficiency of Institutional Functions 46 C.1.4.2 Risks of Corruption within Fields of Competence 47 C.1.4.3 Anticorruption Capacities: Impediments and Assisting Factors 47 C.1.4.4 Impact on the Efficiency of Anticorruption Policies 48 C.1.4.5 Ethical Impact of Parliamentary Institutions 49 C.1.4.6 Specific Contributions of Core and Distributed Institutions 51 C.1.4.7 Emerging Issues 52 C.1.4.8 Main Findings and Recommendations 52 C.2. Executive Institutions 55 C.2.1 Roles and Functions in Ensuring Integrity 55 C.2.1.1 Grouping of Executive Institutions by Roles and Functions 57 C.2.1.2 Specific Functions of each Institution 58 C.2.1.3 Scope of Institutional Authority 65 C.2.1.4 Accountability and Reporting Arrangements 69 C.2.2 Assessment of Capacity 71 C.2.2.1 Adequacy of Institutional Resources 71 C.2.3 Assessment of Coherence 72 C.2.3.1 Administering and/or Coordinating Interactions 72 C.2.3.2 Analytical and/or Supportive Interactions 75 C.2.3.3 Controlling and /or Investigative Interactions 76 C.2.4 Assessment of Consequences 77 C.2.4.1 The Efficiency of Institutional Functions 77 C.2.4.2 Risks of Corruption 78 C.2.4.3 Anti-corruption Capacities: Impediments and Assisting Factors 80 C.2.4.4 Impact on the Efficiency of Anti-corruption Policies 81 C.2.4.5 Ethical Impact of Executive Institutions 82 C.2.4.6 Specific Contributions of Core and Distributed Institutions 84 C.2.4.7 Emerging Issues 84 C.2.4.8 Conclusions and Recommendations 84 C.3. Judiciary and Court Related Institutions 87 C.3.1 Roles and Functions in Ensuring Integrity 87 C.3.1.1 Grouping of Judiciary and Court Related Institutions by Roles and Functions 89 C.3.1.2 Specific Functions of each Institution 89 C.3.1.3 Scope of Institutional Authority 91 C.3.1.4 Accountability and Reporting Arrangements 92 C.3.2. Assessment of Capacity 92 C.3.2.1 Adequacy of Institutional Resources 92 iii C.3.3. Assessment of Coherence 93 C.3.4. Assessment of Consequences 94 C.3.4.1 The Efficiency of Institutional Functions 94 C.3.4.2 Risks of Corruption within Fields of Competence 95 C.3.4.3 Anticorruption Capacities: Impediments and Assisting Factors 95 C.3.4.4 Impact on the Efficiency of Anticorruption Policies 95 C.3.4.5 Ethical Impact of Judiciary and Court Related Institutions 96 C.3.4.6 Specific Contributions of Core and Distributed Institutions 96 C.3.4.7 Emerging Issues 97 C.3.4.8 Main Findings and Recommendations 98 C.4. Special Institutions 99 C4.1 Roles and functions in ensuring integrity 99 C.4.1.1 Grouping of Special Institutions by Roles and Functions 100 C.4.1.2 Specific Functions of Each Institution 101 C.4.1.3 Scope of Institutional Authority 105 C.4.1.4 Accountability and Reporting Arrangements 105 C.4.2 Assessment of Capacity 105 C.4.2.1 Adequacy of Institutional Resources 105 C.4.3 Assessment of Coherence 106 C.4.4 Assessment of Consequences 106 C.4.4.1 The Efficiency of Institutional Functions 106 C.4.4.2 Risks of Corruption within Fields of the Competence 107 C.4.4.3 Impact on the Efficiency of Anticorruption Policies 107 C.4.4.4 Ethical Impact of Special Institutions 108 C.4.4.5 Specific contributions of Core and Distributed Institutions 109 C.4.4.6 Emerging Issues 109 C.4.4.7 Evaluation of the Current Situation and Recommendations Identified 109 C.5. Non Government Organizations 113 C.5.1 Roles and Functions in Ensuring Integrity 113 C.5.2 Assessment of Capacity 113 C.5.3 Assessment of Coherence 114 C.5.4 Assessment of Consequences 115 C.5.4.1 Recommendations 119 C.6. Donor and International Organizations 121 C.6.1 Roles and Functions in Ensuring Integrity 121 C.6.2 Assessment of Capacity 122 C.6.3 Assessment of Coherence 122 C.6.4 Assessment of Consequences 123 C.6.4.1 Recommendations 125 C.7. The Media 127 C.7.1 Roles and Functions in Ensuring Integrity 127 C.7.2 Assessment of Capacity 128 C.7.2.1 Economic Basis of the Media 128 C.7.2.2 Technical Equipment and infrastructure 128 C.7.2.3 Problem of qualified personnel 129 C.7.2.4 Journalists Unions 130 C.7.3 Assessment of Coherence 130 iv C.7.3.1 The Media and the Authorities 130 C.7.3.2 The Media and Society 131 C.7.4 Assessment of Consequences 131 C.7.4.1 Recommendations 132 C.8. Local Government 133 C.8.1 Roles and Functions in Ensuring Integrity 133 C.8.2 Assessment of Capacity 134 C.8.3 Assessment of Coherence 135 C.8.4 Assessment of Consequences 136 C.8.4.1 Recommendations D. Main Findings of the Study 139 D.1 The Nature of the Interactions between Integrity Institutions 139 D.2 How Systematic is the System? 140 D.3 Balance between Prosecution and Prevention 141 E. Significant Issues Reported by Respondents 145 F. Recommendations 151 F.1. Recommendations from the respondents of parliamentary institutions 151 F.2. Recommendations from the respondents of executive institutions 152 F.3. Recommendations from the respondents of the judiciary and court related institutions 152 F.4. Recommendations from the respondents of ‘Special Institutions’ charged with very specific responsibilities 153 F.5. Recommendations from the respondents of NGOs 154 F.6. Recommendations from the respondents of international and donor Organizations 154 F.7.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Here a Causal Relationship? Contemporary Economics, 9(1), 45–60
    Bibliography on Corruption and Anticorruption Professor Matthew C. Stephenson Harvard Law School http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/mstephenson/ March 2021 Aaken, A., & Voigt, S. (2011). Do individual disclosure rules for parliamentarians improve government effectiveness? Economics of Governance, 12(4), 301–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10101-011-0100-8 Aaronson, S. A. (2011a). Does the WTO Help Member States Clean Up? Available at SSRN 1922190. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1922190 Aaronson, S. A. (2011b). Limited partnership: Business, government, civil society, and the public in the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI). Public Administration and Development, 31(1), 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.588 Aaronson, S. A., & Abouharb, M. R. (2014). Corruption, Conflicts of Interest and the WTO. In J.-B. Auby, E. Breen, & T. Perroud (Eds.), Corruption and conflicts of interest: A comparative law approach (pp. 183–197). Edward Elgar PubLtd. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:hul.ebookbatch.GEN_batch:ELGAR01620140507 Abbas Drebee, H., & Azam Abdul-Razak, N. (2020). The Impact of Corruption on Agriculture Sector in Iraq: Econometrics Approach. IOP Conference Series. Earth and Environmental Science, 553(1), 12019-. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/553/1/012019 Abbink, K., Dasgupta, U., Gangadharan, L., & Jain, T. (2014). Letting the briber go free: An experiment on mitigating harassment bribes. JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ECONOMICS, 111(Journal Article), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2013.12.012 Abbink, Klaus. (2004). Staff rotation as an anti-corruption policy: An experimental study. European Journal of Political Economy, 20(4), 887–906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2003.10.008 Abbink, Klaus.
    [Show full text]
  • Annexation of Georgia in Russian Empire
    1 George Anchabadze HISTORY OF GEORGIA SHORT SKETCH Caucasian House TBILISI 2005 2 George Anchabadze. History of Georgia. Short sketch Above-mentioned work is a research-popular sketch. There are key moments of the history of country since ancient times until the present moment. While working on the sketch the author based on the historical sources of Georgia and the research works of Georgian scientists (including himself). The work is focused on a wide circle of the readers. გიორგი ანჩაბაძე. საქართველოს ისტორია. მოკლე ნარკვევი წინამდებარე ნაშრომი წარმოადგენს საქართველოს ისტორიის სამეცნიერ-პოპულარულ ნარკვევს. მასში მოკლედაა გადმოცემული ქვეყნის ისტორიის ძირითადი მომენტები უძველესი ხანიდან ჩვენს დრომდე. ნარკვევზე მუშაობისას ავტორი ეყრდნობოდა საქართველოს ისტორიის წყაროებსა და ქართველ მეცნიერთა (მათ შორის საკუთარ) გამოკვლევებს. ნაშრომი განკუთვნილია მკითხველთა ფართო წრისათვის. ISBN99928-71-59-8 © George Anchabadze, 2005 © გიორგი ანჩაბაძე, 2005 3 Early Ancient Georgia (till the end of the IV cen. B.C.) Existence of ancient human being on Georgian territory is confirmed from the early stages of anthropogenesis. Nearby Dmanisi valley (80 km south-west of Tbilisi) the remnants of homo erectus are found, age of them is about 1,8 million years old. At present it is the oldest trace in Euro-Asia. Later on the Stone Age a man took the whole territory of Georgia. Former settlements of Ashel period (400–100 thousand years ago) are discovered as on the coast of the Black Sea as in the regions within highland Georgia. Approximately 6–7 thousands years ago people on the territory of Georgia began to use as the instruments not only the stone but the metals as well.
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring Report
    ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT ANTI-CORRUPTION NETWORK FOR EASTERN EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA ISTANBUL ANTI-CORRUPTION ACTION PLAN Third Round of Monitoring GEORGIA Monitoring Report The report was adopted at the Istanbul Anti-Corruption Action Plan plenary meeting on 25 September 2013 at the OECD Headquarters in Paris. Contents Executive summary .......................................................................................................................... 3 Anti-corruption policy .................................................................................................................................... 3 Criminalisation of corruption ....................................................................................................................... 3 Prevention of corruption ............................................................................................................................... 4 Third round of monitoring ............................................................................................................ 6 Country background information ............................................................................................... 8 Economic and social situation ...................................................................................................................... 8 Political system ............................................................................................................................................... 8 Trends in corruption
    [Show full text]
  • Development Perspectives of the XXI Century
    Caucasus University Friedrich Ebert Foundation International Students’ Scientific Conference Development perspectives of the XXI century Georgia, 8-11 May, 2009 UDC 330/34(479) (063) s-249 D-49 krebulSi ganTavsebulia samecniero naSromebi, SerCeuli meore saerTaSoriso studenturi samecniero konferenciisaTvis `21-e saukune _ ganviTarebis perspeq- tivebi~, romlis umTavresi mizania studentTa dasabuTebuli Tvalsazrisis warmoCena TavianTi qveynebis ganviTarebis perspeqtivaze. agreTve erTiani xedvis SemuSaveba msoflios winaSe mdgari problemebis gadawyvetis Taobaze. The collection contains works of the Second International Student’s Scientific Conference “Development Perspectives of the XXI century”. The major goal of the conference is to present reasonable arguments from the students of the countries of Europe and South Caucasus on European integration opportunities. Here also one can find the initiative on forming entire vision for solving key problems, facing Europe and South Caucasus. gamomcemeli: kavkasiis universiteti _ fridrix ebertis fondis mxardaWeriT Published by Caucasus University, with the support of Friedrich Ebert Foundation saredaqcio kolegia: Salva maWavariani (Tavmjdomare), indrek iakobsoni, giorgi RaRaniZe, londa esaZe, lia CaxunaSvili, naTia amilaxvari, dina oniani, naTia narsaviZe. Ed. board: Shalva Machavariani (head), Indrek Jakobson, Giorgi Gaganidze, Londa Esadze, Lia Chakhunashvili, Natia Amilakhvari, Dina Oniani, Natia Narsavidze. ISSN 1987-5703 Tbilisi, 2008 Contents 1. Ana Kostava The self-determination principle and
    [Show full text]
  • Georgia RISK & COMPLIANCE REPORT DATE: March 2018
    Georgia RISK & COMPLIANCE REPORT DATE: March 2018 KNOWYOURCOUNTRY.COM Executive Summary - Georgia Sanctions: None FAFT list of AML No Deficient Countries US Dept of State Money Laundering Assessment Higher Risk Areas: Not on EU White list equivalent jurisdictions Failed States Index (Political Issues)(Average Score) Non - Compliance with FATF 40 + 9 Recommendations Medium Risk Areas: Corruption Index (Transparency International & W.G.I.) World Governance Indicators (Average Score) Major Investment Areas: Agriculture - products: citrus, grapes, tea, hazelnuts, vegetables; livestock Industries: steel, machine tools, electrical appliances, mining (manganese, copper, and gold), chemicals, wood products, wine Exports - commodities: vehicles, ferro-alloys, fertilizers, nuts, scrap metal, gold, copper ores Exports - partners: Azerbaijan 13.8%, US 8.5%, Germany 8.3%, Bulgaria 7.4%, Kazakhstan 7%, Turkey 6.4%, Ukraine 6.3%, Lebanon 5.7%, Canada 4.2% (2012) Imports - commodities: fuels, vehicles, machinery and parts, grain and other foods, pharmaceuticals Imports - partners: Turkey 13.9%, China 8.2%, Ukraine 8.2%, Russia 7.4%, Azerbaijan 7.1%, US 6%, Germany 5.6%, Bulgaria 4% (2012) 1 Investment Restrictions: Georgia is open to foreign investment, and the Georgia National Investment Agency is implementing an aggressive marketing campaign to encourage more foreign investors to come to Georgia. Exceptions to national treatment may be made by Georgia for investments in maritime fisheries; air and maritime transport and related activities; ownership of broadcast, common carrier, or aeronautical radio stations; communications satellites Foreign individuals and companies are restricted from holding agricultural land in Georgia. However, according to the US Department of State 2012, there is a loophole in which agricultural land can be purchased by non-nationals and then transferred under the name of a Georgian entity; thus, land can be up to 100% foreign-owned.
    [Show full text]
  • Georgia's Anti-Corruption Policy in the Context of Eu Association Process
    SMALL STEPS TOWARDS BIG GOALS: GEORGIA’S ANTI-CORRUPTION POLICY IN THE CONTEXT OF EU ASSOCIATION PROCESS JUNE 2019 The publication was prepared with the financial support of Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA). Transparency International Georgia is responsible for the content of the publication. It might not necessarily reflect the views of SIDA. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Association Agreement between the European Union and Georgia, as well as the Association Agenda for 2017-2020 approved by the parties to facilitate the implementation of the Association Agreement, provide for cooperation between the parties in combating corruption, while highlighting Georgia’s commitment to address corruption, in particular complex corruption. Over the year and a half since the adoption of the current Association Agenda, Georgia has attained positive results in terms of maintaining previous achievements in terms of eradicating petty corruption. However, Georgia’s progress in tackling high-level corruption remains weak. According to public opinion surveys, citizens have a negative view of both the overall situation in the country in terms of corruption and the dynamics of this situation. They believe that the government does not effectively investigate the cases of corruption involving high-ranking officials or influential individuals with ties to the ruling party. Such public attitudes evidently stem from the ineffective response of the law enforcement agencies to recent high-profile cases of alleged corruption related to a variety
    [Show full text]
  • Georgian Opposition to Soviet Rule (1956-1989) and the Causes of Resentment
    Georgian Opposition to Soviet Rule (1956-1989) and the Causes of Resentment between Georgia and Russia Master‘s Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Lisa Anne Goddard Graduate Program in Slavic and East European Studies The Ohio State University 2011 Master‘s Thesis Committee: Nicholas Breyfogle, Advisor Theodora Dragostinova Irma Murvanishvili Copyright by Lisa Anne Goddard 2011 Abstract This Master‘s thesis seeks to examine the question of strained relations between Georgia and the Russian Federation, paying particular attention to the Georgian revolts of 1956, 1978 and 1989 during the Soviet era. By examining the results of these historical conflicts, one can discern a pattern of three major causes of the tensions between these neighboring peoples: disagreement with Russia over national identity characteristics such as language, disputes over territory, and degradation of symbols of national legacy. It is through conflicts and revolts on the basis of these three factors that Georgian anti- Russian sentiment and Russian anti-Georgian sentiment developed. This thesis is divided into four chapters that will explore the origins and results of each uprising, as well as the evolving conceptions of national identity that served as a backdrop to the conflicts. Following an introduction that lays out the primary questions and findings of the thesis, the second chapter gives a brief history of Georgia and its relationship with Russia, as well as outlines the history and dynamic nature of Georgian national identity. Chapter three, the core chapter, presents the Georgian rebellions during the Soviet era, their causes, and their relevance to this thesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Causes of War Prospects for Peace
    Georgian Orthodox Church Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung CAUSES OF WAR PROS P E C TS FOR PEA C E Tbilisi, 2009 1 On December 2-3, 2008 the Holy Synod of the Georgian Orthodox Church and the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung held a scientific conference on the theme: Causes of War - Prospects for Peace. The main purpose of the conference was to show the essence of the existing conflicts in Georgia and to prepare objective scientific and information basis. This book is a collection of conference reports and discussion materials that on the request of the editorial board has been presented in article format. Publishers: Metropolitan Ananya Japaridze Katia Christina Plate Bidzina Lebanidze Nato Asatiani Editorial board: Archimandrite Adam (Akhaladze), Tamaz Beradze, Rozeta Gujejiani, Roland Topchishvili, Mariam Lordkipanidze, Lela Margiani, Tariel Putkaradze, Bezhan Khorava Reviewers: Zurab Tvalchrelidze Revaz Sherozia Giorgi Cheishvili Otar Janelidze Editorial board wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Irina Bibileishvili, Merab Gvazava, Nia Gogokhia, Ekaterine Dadiani, Zviad Kvilitaia, Giorgi Cheishvili, Kakhaber Tsulaia. ISBN 2345632456 Printed by CGS ltd 2 Preface by His Holiness and Beatitude Catholicos-Patriarch of All Georgia ILIA II; Opening Words to the Conference 5 Preface by Katja Christina Plate, Head of the Regional Office for Political Dialogue in the South Caucasus of the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung; Opening Words to the Conference 8 Abkhazia: Historical-Political and Ethnic Processes Tamaz Beradze, Konstantine Topuria, Bezhan Khorava - A
    [Show full text]
  • A Historical Review of Drug Related Affairs in Georgia
    April 2014 GENDER EQUALITY PROGRAMME A Historical Review of Drug Related Affairs in Georgia Working Paper Elene Japaridze Research Fellow Introduction When thinking and working on the issues of drug addiction, I realized that I could not escape the necessity of describing the local situation in Georgia, as the current situation in Georgia regarding drug policy is radically different from that of the European countries, and, accordingly, it is necessary to give a detailed review of what is happening in Georgia today and, more generally, what has happened in the recent period. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to present an overview analysis of the drug situation in Georgia, in order to describe today’s situation in clearer and more understandable terms. First, I decided to dwell on the most important factors, such as: a) a historical review since the time Georgia gained independence; b) drug legislation and its weaknesses; c) drug market and artificial scarcity of drugs of the opioid group and d) society’s attitude to drug addiction and to drug users; A review of these factors and the description of the situation will help me shed more light on the specific problems regarding drug use in Georgia and will help me to find some answers and solutions how to improve the existing situation. Georgia and drug use in the recent past After Georgia gained independence in 1991, it became embroiled in a number of social, political, and economic problems, among these, a dramatic increase in the inflow of drugs on the black market as a result of which the country and its population found themselves facing one of the most severe problems.1 A survey conducted on Georgia’s population in 2005 shows that respondents name drug addiction as the fourth most severe problem after unemployment.2 Legal Analysis of Georgian Drug Policy (2012) shows that drug use has been regarded more as an offence than a health care problem for a very long time, and the law imposed both punishment and compulsory treatment on drug users.
    [Show full text]
  • Addressing High-Level Corruption in Georgia: Progress Toward Meeting the EU-Georgia Association Agenda Commitments
    Addressing High-Level Corruption in Georgia: Progress Toward Meeting the EU-Georgia Association Agenda Commitments Tbilisi, DECEMBER 2017 Open Society Georgia Foundation This policy brief covers period of January-November, 2017 Author: * Erekle Urushadze On behalf of Transparency International Georgia Peer review by: Dr. Tobias Schumacher This policy brief is prepared within the framework of the Open Society Georgia Foundation’s in- house project Monitoring Implementation of the EU-Georgia Association Agreement by Coalition of Civil Society Organizations. The views, opinions and statements expressed by the author and those providing comments are theirs only and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Foundation. Therefore, the Open Society Georgia Foundation is not responsible for the content of the material. * Erekle Urushadze is a project manager at Transparency International Georgia and oversees the organisation’s research and advocacy work in the area of anti-corruption policy and reforms. Since joining TI Georgia in 2009, he has played the lead role in producing the organisation’s National Integrity System assessments, which review the performance of Georgia’s key institutions. Mr. Urushadze worked for the US National Democratic Institute, the BBC Monitoring Service and the Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development before joining TI Georgia. He holds a MA in International Relations Addressing High-Level Corruption in Georgia Background Since 2004, Georgia has implemented a number of successful anti-corruption reforms resulting in a significant decrease in the frequency of certain types of corruption, most notably bribery within public service. At the same time, while petty corruption is nowadays a rare phenomenon in a country that was once plagued by endemic corruption, other manifestations of corruption are yet to be addressed effectively.
    [Show full text]
  • D3.3.4 Georgia: Breaking out of a Vicious Cycle?
    This project is co-funded by the Seventh Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development of the European Union D3.3.4 Georgia: breaking out of a vicious cycle? Author: Alexander Kupatadze St. Andrew’s University University College London 28 May 2015 KEYWORDS Georgia, Georgian Dream, United National Movement, Corruption, Anti-Corruption Alexander Kupatadze St. Andrew’s University University College London ([email protected]) \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ © 2015 University College London Introduction In the literature on political transitions it has been argued that some post-transition countries may become trapped in a ‘gray zone’ when ‘transitions get stuck’ (Przeworski 1991, Carothers 2002). Similarly, empirical evidence suggests that countries often get stuck in vicious cycles of malfeasance and corruption despite economic transformations or political developments. Strikingly, besides a few notable exceptions cases of highly corrupt countries becoming less corrupt are rarely observed (Damania, Fredriksson and Mani, 2004). Georgia demonstrates transition from neo-patrimonialism that is a particularistic governance regime with a hierarchical monopoly of central power, a state captured by private interests and a distribution of resources that benefits privileged individuals, to ethical universalism that is an impartial governance regime based on the norms of fairness and citizen equality with the state autonomous from private interests (Mungiu-Pippidi 2011a, 2013). This transition is especially remarkable for a country previously infamous for its corruption levels. Even in Soviet times Georgia was especially notorious for its levels of graft, corruption and bribery (Clark 1993). Between 1958 and 1972, 180,000 people were tried for abuse of office and looting of state-owned property in Georgia (Gerber 1997, quoted in Christophe 2003, p.
    [Show full text]
  • Corruption and Anti-Corruption in Sudan
    OVERVIEW OF CORRUPTION AND ANTI-CORRUPTION IN GEORGIA QUERY SUMMARY Can you provide an overview of corruption and anti- Georgia has repeatedly achieved impressive results corruption in Georgia? in most governance indicators since 2004. Lately the country has often been depicted as a “good CONTENT student” of the fight against corruption. 1. Overview of corruption in Georgia After the “Rose Revolution”, the newly elected 2. Anti-corruption efforts in Georgia government placed anti-corruption at the top of its 3. References political agenda and strived to eradicate petty corruption through massive reforms in the public sector. Despite the success of these measures, corruption, in its other forms, remains widespread in Georgia. The concentration of power within the executive branch, coupled with the weakness of the key state institutions (for example the judiciary) and external watchdogs (for example the media), create serious opportunities for abuse of power at the highest levels of government. This lack of checks and balances provides \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ opportunities for the country’s most influential officials to operate with low levels of transparency Author(s) Erekle Urushadze, Transparency International Georgia, and accountability, and to fraudulently use [email protected] resources for their maintenance in power. Entrenched corruption, strong patronage networks, Reviewer(s) Marie Chêne, Tinatin Ninua, Sofia Wickberg, Transparency and a lack of clear separation between private International enterprise and public office significantly challenge Date democracy and good governance in Georgia. 20 November 2013 © 2013 Transparency International. All rights reserved. This document should not be considered as representative of the European Commission or Transparency International’s official position. Neither the commission, Transparency International nor any person acting on behalf of the commission is responsible for the use which might be made of the following information.
    [Show full text]