DOCSLIB.ORG

Tapee an Analytical Framework for Combating Corruption & Promoting Integrity in the Europe & Eurasia Region

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Tapee an Analytical Framework for Combating Corruption & Promoting Integrity in the Europe & Eurasia Region TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY, PREVENTION, ENFORCEMENT, EDUCATION TAPEE AN ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR COMBATING CORRUPTION & PROMOTING INTEGRITY IN THE EUROPE & EURASIA REGION AUGUST 2005 PN-ADD-630 TAPEE: TRANSPARENCY, ACCOUNTABILITY, PREVENTION, ENFORCEMENT, EDUCATION AN ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK FOR COMBATING CORRUPTION & PROMOTING INTEGRITY IN THE EUROPE & EURASIA REGION USAID Europe and Eurasia Bureau Anti-Corruption Working Group August 2005 PN-ADD-630 ABOUT THE AUTHORS ABSTRACT The Europe and Eurasia Bureau Anti-Corruption This analytic approach presents a framework for Working Group, Co-Chaired by the Bureau’s Office of assessing and strengthening the anticorruption Democracy and Governance and Social Transition environment, beginning with an in-depth sector and its Office of Economic Growth, is solely diagnosis of corrupt practices and corruption responsible for the TAPEE analytical framework as vulnerabilities. Intended to help USAID missions in presented in this paper. the Europe and Eurasia region implement key recommendations of the USAID Anticorruption The overall TAPEE framework represents the work Strategy, TAPEE provides five diagnostic dimensions product of the Europe and Eurasia Bureau Anti- to consider when diagnosing corruption problems and Corruption Working Group. The energy, selecting interventions. A series of annexes gives democratization, health, and education sector reports, technical background and detailed discussion of four and other annexes included in this paper, are the key sectors of the region. work product of individual members of the Anti- Corruption Working Group who assume responsibility for any errors or omissions. KEY WORDS Corruption, anticorruption, institutions, principal-agent ACKNOWLEDGMENTS theory, Europe, Eurasia, USAID, government integrity, governance, survey, assessment, This report is the outcome of wide participation within institutional reform, sector reform, transition and across USAID bureaus, offices, and sectors. In economies. addition to the leadership provided by the two co- chairing offices, contributions were received from representatives of the Bureau’s Office of European Country Affairs, Program Office, and from USAID personnel in the field. The TAPEE framework benefited also from contributions made by representatives of the Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance Bureau, the Economic Growth Agriculture and Trade Bureau, and the Office of General Counsel. To all commentators, authors, and editors who contributed to the development and evolution of TAPEE, the Europe and Eurasia Bureau Anti-Corruption Working Group expresses its deep appreciation. CONTENTS FOREWORD.....................................................................................................................1 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................2 Measuring Corruption....................................................................................................3 CHAPTER 2. DEFINING & DISAGGREGATING CORRUPTION....................................5 Diagnosis of Corrupt Practices......................................................................................5 Systemic Corruption in the Europe & Eurasia Region...................................................6 CHAPTER 3. THE TAPEE APPROACH ..........................................................................8 Identifying Corrupt Practices & Corruption Vulnerabilities.............................................9 TAPEE Diagnosis........................................................................................................10 Sector Examples .........................................................................................................12 CHAPTER 4. THE TRANSPARENCY DIMENSION OF TAPEE ...................................18 The Dual Nature of Transparency: Substantive and Procedural .................................18 Illustrative Transparency-Enhancing Interventions......................................................20 CHAPTER 5. THE ACCOUNTABILITY DIMENSION OF TAPEE .................................22 Dual Accountability: Horizontal and Vertical...............................................................22 Defining Accountability ................................................................................................23 Illustrative Accountability-Enhancing Interventions .....................................................23 CHAPTER 6. THE PREVENTION DIMENSION OF TAPEE..........................................25 Preventive Measures in the UN Convention Against Corruption.................................25 Prevention Approaches ...............................................................................................26 Illustrative Prevention Interventions.............................................................................26 CHAPTER 7. THE ENFORCEMENT DIMENSION OF TAPEE .....................................28 Establishing Standards................................................................................................28 Aligning Incentives.......................................................................................................29 Illustrative Enforcement Interventions .........................................................................29 CHAPTER 8. THE EDUCATION DIMENSION OF TAPEE............................................31 Awareness, Advocacy, and Values .............................................................................31 Illustrative Education Interventions..............................................................................32 CHAPTER 9. CONCLUSION..........................................................................................34 Key Attributes of the TAPEE Framework ....................................................................34 Next Steps in Using TAPEE to Help Implement the USAID Anticorruption Strategy ..35 ANNEX A. ENERGY SECTOR CORRUPTION..............................................................39 Introduction: The Problem ..........................................................................................39 Who Benefits? Who Suffers? ......................................................................................41 Remedies ....................................................................................................................41 What Are the Implications for Sector Corruption Strategy?.........................................42 ANNEX B. CORRUPTION IN DEMOCRATIZATION .....................................................44 Introduction..................................................................................................................44 Subsector Overview ....................................................................................................45 ANNEX C. CORRUPTION IN THE HEALTH SECTOR .................................................51 The Problem................................................................................................................51 Who Benefits? Who Suffers? .....................................................................................52 Incentives for Corruption .............................................................................................53 Remedies ....................................................................................................................53 ANNEX D. CORRUPTION IN EDUCATION...................................................................59 Introduction..................................................................................................................59 Forms of Corruption.....................................................................................................62 Consequences of Corruption.......................................................................................66 Obstacles to Fighting Corruption.................................................................................67 Measures to Mitigate Corruption .................................................................................68 Works Cited.................................................................................................................73 ANNEX E. COUNTRY-LEVEL MEASUREMENTS OF CORRUPTION.........................75 A Multi-Dimensional Phenomenon ..............................................................................75 Three Country Level Measurements of Corruption .....................................................76 Other Indicators: Disaggregating Indices of Corruption..............................................93 ANNEX F. OVERVIEW OF THE EVOLUTION OF CORRUPTION IN THE EUROPE & EURASIA REGION.........................................................................................................95 The Legacy of Communism.........................................................................................95 The Evolution of Perverse Public-Private Relationships .............................................98 Systemic Corruption in the Europe & Eurasia Region.................................................99 Implications for Successful USAID Programming .....................................................103 Conclusion.................................................................................................................108 ANNEX G. CORRUPTION PREVENTION ...................................................................109 FOREWORD Corruption in its varied forms flourishes
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Far Right in Slovenia
    MASARYK UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF SOCIAL STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE The Far Right in Slovenia Master‟s thesis Bc. Lucie Chládková Supervisor: doc. JUDr. PhDr. Miroslav Mareš, Ph.D. UČO: 333105 Field of Study: Security and Strategic Studies Matriculation Year: 2012 Brno 2014 Declaration of authorship of the thesis Hereby I confirm that this master‟s thesis “The Far Right in Slovenia” is an outcome of my own elaboration and work and I used only sources here mentioned. Brno, 10 May 2014 ……………………………………… Lucie Chládková 2 Acknowledgments I would like to express my gratitude to doc. JUDr. PhDr. Miroslav Mareš, Ph.D., who supervised this thesis and contributed with a lot of valuable remarks and advice. I would like to also thank to all respondents from interviews for their help and information they shared with me. 3 Annotation This master‟s thesis deals with the far right in Slovenia after 1991 until today. The main aim of this case study is the description and analysis of far-right political parties, informal and formal organisations and subcultures. Special emphasis is put on the organisational structure of the far-right scene and on the ideological affiliation of individual far-right organisations. Keywords far right, Slovenia, political party, organisation, ideology, nationalism, extremism, Blood and Honour, patriotic, neo-Nazi, populism. 4 Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 7 2. Methodology .........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Educational Booklet for High School Teachers
    Youth in Action The project is supported by the European Commission. The content of the Project does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Commission or the Hungarian National Agency. These institutions shall not be held responsible for the Project. Contents 1. What’s corruption? 7 2. What can we do against corruption? 13 3. Corruption and public procurement 15 4. Elections and democracy 18 5. Party and campaign financing 21 6. Ideas of the winning groups 24 7. Games 26 8. Infographics 41 3 4 Dear Teachers, The young generation of Hungary considers integrity to be an important but unrewarding attitude. This is the conclusion of the report published by Transparency International Hungary. The study reveals that youngsters are united in their view that honesty does not pay, and people ready to lie, cheat and steal can get along much better in Hungary today than those who are uncorrupted. Although young people mostly reject corruption, economic hopelessness often overrides their moral principles; getting admitted to a good university or the hope of a well-paying job can be more attractive than preserving integrity. The striking results of this survey as well as the latest findings of TI’s questionnaire on the corruption risks of higher education (e.g. that ’nearly a quarter of students cheat or crib in exams) made it clear to us that immediate actions need to be taken in order to shake up the young generation. What better way is there to reach out to the youth than asking them directly about their opinions? Well, in the form of a joint, EC-funded project called ‘Youth in Action’ we conducted a parallel dialogue with young people in Hungary and Slovenia in order to find out how they would raise awareness in their communities on the topic of corruption.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report, Rucola 2
    EUROPEAN UNION POLICY ADVICE PROGRAMME AND THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE Council of Europe European Union Conseil de l’Europe Union européenne Project: “Russian Federation – Development of legislative and other measures for the prevention of corruption” (RUCOLA 2) FINAL REPORT Appendices Volume 1: Reports made by international and national experts in the framework of the project Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs Council of Europe EUROPEAN UNION POLICY ADVICE PROGRAMME AND THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE Project: “Russian Federation – Development of legislative and other measures for the prevention of corruption” (RUCOLA 2) FINAL REPORT Appendices Volume 1: Reports made by international and national experts in the framework of the project Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs Council of Europe For further information on this report and the Project please contact: Economic Crime Division Technical Co-operation Department Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs Council of Europe F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex, France Tel. +33 3 90 21 4506 • Fax +33 3 88 41 2052 E-mail [email protected] Views expressed in this report do not represent the official opinions of the European Commission or the Council of Europe. © Council of Europe, 2008 Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs Council of Europe F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex First printing: September 2008 (this version, with some small corrections, October 2008) Printed at the Council of Europe Contents Experience of European countries in the sphere of development and functioning of national anti-corruption strategies . 7 Drago Kos, Chairman of the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption in the Republic of Slovenia and Chairman of the Group of States against Corruption – GRECO Russia’s experience in developing and implementing national anti-corruption strategies.
    [Show full text]
  • Higher Education, Corruption and Whistleblowers
    HIGHER EDUCATION, CORRUPTION AND WHISTLEBLOWERS INSTITUTE FOR STRATEGIC RESEARCH AND EDUCATION HIGHER EDUCATION, CORRUPTION AND WHISTLEBLOWERS Proceedings of the International conference on Corruption in Higher Education held on September 11, 2018 at South East European University, Skopje, Macedonia Skopje, 2018 INSTITUTE FOR STRATEGIC RESEARCH AND EDUCATION HIGHER EDUCATION, CORRUPTION AND WHISTLEBLOWERS Proceedings of the International conference on Corruption in Higher Education held on September 11, 2018 at South East European University, Skopje, Macedonia INSTITUTE FOR STRATEGIC RESEARCH AND EDUCATION www.isie.org.mk www.univerzitetbezkorupcija.mk For the publisher: EditorialMišo Dokmanović board: Prof. Patrick Schmidt, Macalester Colledge (USA) Prof. Thomas H. Speedy Rice – Washington and Lee University (USA) Prof. Uglijesa Zvekic – Universita Roma Tre (Italy) Asst. Prof. Suncana Roksantic Vidilicka – Sveuciliste u Zagrebu (Croatia) Prof. Aleksandra Jordanoska – University of Manchester, School of law (United Kingdom) Assoc. Prof. Besa Arifi – South East European University (Macedonia) – Skopje (Macedonia)Asst. Prof. Sandra Radenović, University of Belgrade (Serbia) Assoc. Prof. dr. iur. Mišo Dokmanović, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University Printed by: Pan Computers&Print www.pan.mk The publication has been prepared within ISIE Corruption Free University project implemented in the period from October 2017 – September 2018. Corruption Free University was a 12-month project aimed at preventing corruption in higher education through strengthening the capacities of universities and student bodies in MK to implement the Whistleblower's Act. This publication was funded in part through a U.S. Embassy grant. The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Download (2162Kb)
    A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of Warwick Permanent WRAP URL: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/90325 Copyright and reuse: This thesis is made available online and is protected by original copyright. Please scroll down to view the document itself. Please refer to the repository record for this item for information to help you to cite it. Our policy information is available from the repository home page. For more information, please contact the WRAP Team at: [email protected] warwick.ac.uk/lib-publications Anti-Corruption Policy in the EU and Reflexive Governance by Andi Hoxhaj Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) Degree in Law University of Warwick School of Law Supervisor: Ralf Rogowski March 2017 I Table of Contents Dedication VI Acknowledgments VII Declaration VIII Abstract IX Introduction 1 1. History of the EU Anti-Corruption Policy 5 1.1 The first phase 6 1.2 The second phase 11 1.3 The third phase 17 1.4 Fourth phase 26 2. The EU Anti-Corruption Report 38 2.1 The objectives of the EU Anti-Corruption Report 40 2.2 Perceptions of corruption and experience of corruption in the EU 43 2.3 Public Procurement 48 2.4 Country chapter recommendations 54 2.4.1 Austria 54 2.4.2 Belgium 55 2.4.3 Bulgaria 55 2.4.4 Croatia 56 2.4.5 Cyprus 57 2.4.6 Czech Republic 57 2.4.7 Denmark 58 2.4.8 Estonia 59 2.4.9 Finland 59 2.4.10 France 60 2.4.11 Germany 61 2.4.12 Greece 61 2.4.13 Hungary 62 2.4.14 Ireland 63 II 2.4.15 Italy 64 2.4.16 Latvia 65 2.4.17 Lithuania 66 2.4.18 Luxembourg 67 2.4.19 Malta 67 2.4.20 Netherlands 68 2.4.21 Poland 69 2.4.22 Portugal 70 2.4.23 Romania 71 2.4.24 Slovakia 72 2.4.25 Slovenia 73 2.4.26 Spain 74 2.4.27 Sweden 75 2.4.28 The United Kingdom 75 3.
    [Show full text]
  • GRECO Evaluation Report on Slovenia
    DIRECTORATE GENERAL I – LEGAL AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT OF CRIME PROBLEMS Strasbourg, 15 December 2000 Public Greco Eval I Rep (2000) 3E Final First Evaluation Round Evaluation Report on Slovenia adopted by the GRECO at its 4th Plenary Meeting (12-15 December 2000) Secrétariat du GRECO www.greco.coe.int GRECO Secretariat Conseil de l’Europe Council of Europe F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex ( +33 (0)3 88 41 20 00 Fax +33 (0)3 88 41 39 55 I. INTRODUCTION 1. Slovenia was the first GRECO member to be examined in the first Evaluation round. The GRECO evaluation team (hereafter referred to as the “GET”) was composed of Captain Peter GARAJ, Senior Specialised Officer, Office of organised crime, Department of fight against corruption (Slovakia, police expert), Mr. Antonio VERCHER NOGUERA, Public Prosecutor in the Supreme Court (Spain, prosecution expert) and Mr. Jacek GARSTKA, Judge, Department of International Co-operation and European Law, Ministry of Justice (Poland, policy expert). This GET, accompanied by Mr. Manuel LEZERTUA, Executive Secretary of GRECO, visited Ljubljana from 12 to 15 September 2000. Prior to the visit the GET experts were provided with a very comprehensive reply to the Evaluation questionnaire (document GRECO Eval I (2000) 12) as well as with copies of the relevant legislation. 2. The GET met with officials from the following Slovenian Governmental organisations: Office for European Affairs and International Co-operation, Criminal Police Directorate, Bureau for the Organisation and Development of Administration, Bureau for the Direction
    [Show full text]
  • 779-GEPAC-FINAL REPORT-IY-10May10
    Support to the anti-corruption strategy of Georgia (GEPAC) CoE project No. 2007/DGI/VC/779 Activity Report 10 May 2010 Project title Support to the Anti-corruption Strategy of Georgia (GEPAC) Project area Georgia Budget EURO 700,000 Funding The Kingdom of the Netherlands (Ministry for Development Co- operation) Implementation Council of Europe (Economic Crime Division / Directorate of Co- operation / DG-HL) Duration 31 months (30 September 2007 – 31 March 2010) Reporting period 30 September 2007 – 31 March 2010 Support to the Anti-corruption Strategy of Georgia (GEPAC) A project supported by the Netherlands and implemented by Council of Europe. For more information, please contact: Department of Information Society and Action This document has been produced with the against Crime financial support of the Kingdom of the Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Netherlands. The views expressed herein can Affairs in no way be taken to reflect the official Council of Europe opinions of the Council of Europe or of the F- 67075 Strasbourg CEDEX donor funding this project. Tel: + 33 3 90 21 55 16 Fax: + 33 3 90 21 56 50 Email: [email protected] and/or [email protected] 2 TABLE OF CONTENT 1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ......................................................... 4 1.1 Beneficiary Country and Institution(s) .............................................................4 1.2 Contracting Authority ................................................................................4 1.3 Implementing Organisation .........................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Moneyval) Committee of Experts on the Evaluation of Anti-Money Laundering Measures and the Financing of Terrorism (Moneyval) Moneyval(2017)2
    COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS ON THE EVALUATION OF ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING MEASURES AND THE FINANCING OF TERRORISM (MONEYVAL) COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS ON THE EVALUATION OF ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING MEASURES AND THE FINANCING OF TERRORISM (MONEYVAL) MONEYVAL(2017)2 Anti-money laundering and counter -terrorist financing measures Slovenia Fifth Round Mutual Evaluation Report June 2017 1 The Committee of Experts on the Evaluation of Anti-Money Laundering Measures and the Financing of Terrorism - MONEYVAL is a permanent monitoring body of the Council of Europe entrusted with the task of assessing compliance with the principal international standards to counter money laundering and the financing of terrorism and the effectiveness of their implementation, as well as with the task of making recommendations to national authorities in respect of necessary improvements to their systems. Through a dynamic process of mutual evaluations, peer review and regular follow-up of its reports, MONEYVAL aims to improve the capacities of national authorities to fight money laundering and the financing of terrorism more effectively. All rights reserved. Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, save where otherwise stated. For any use for commercial purposes, no part of this publication may be translated, reproduced or The fifth round mutual transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic (CD-Rom, Internet, evaluation report on Slovenia etc.) or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information was adopted by the storage or retrieval system without prior permission in writing from the MONEYVAL Committee MONEYVAL Secretariat, Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of at its 53rd Plenary Session Law, Council of Europe (F-67075 Strasbourg or [email protected]) (Strasbourg, 1 June 2017).
    [Show full text]
  • The Influence of Demographic Indicators on Corruption Perception in Slovenia Matic Borošak, MBA, MD
    The influence of demographic indicators on corruption perception in Slovenia Matic Borošak, MBA, MD. PhD Candidate, Ostria llc, Ljubljana , Slovenia DCT-Qlin Life Clinic, Begunje, Slovenia Štefan Šumah, PhD, M.Econ., B.Eng. OMCO llc, Žalec, Slovenia Abstract The attitude to corruption and the perception of it (as well as the acceptance or rejection of corruption) depends largely on the customs and traditions in a particular country, with the causes of corruption deriving from the political, economic, social conditions of a particular country and from the historical development, customs and culture. However, the demographic indicators must not be ignored. The existing researches thus show that the perception of corruption, at least to some extent, depends on gender (women are supposedly less corrupt and perceive corruption more; age and education). For the purpose of this article, the influence of demographic indicators (gender, age) on the perception of corruption in Slovenia was researched. The results were compared with the already known researches and it was determined that there are no statistically significant differences in the perception of corruption with regard to gender and age, which shows that Slovenia, in view of the specifics of the corruption perception (although the corruption perception is high in Slovenia), differs from other countries in which researches took place. Keywords: corruption; perception; gender; age; Slovenia. Introduction The attitude to corruption, i.e. the acceptance or denial of it, differs from country to country, which is why the perception of corruption also differs. The two diametrically opposed extremes of corruption acceptance can be traced back to Europe, from the North, which is completely intolerant of corruption (in all its forms), to the warm South, where corruption (at least in some forms) is an almost normal, socially acceptable phenomenon.
    [Show full text]
  • Slovenia by Damjan Lajh
    Slovenia by Damjan Lajh Capital: Ljubljana Population: 2.0 million GNI/capita, PPP: US$26,530 Source: The data above were provided by The World Bank, World Development Indicators 2012. Nations in Transit Ratings and Averaged Scores 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Electoral Process 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 Civil Society 1.50 1.50 1.75 1.75 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Independent Media 1.75 1.75 1.50 1.75 2.00 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.25 Governance* 2.25 2.00 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a National Democratic Governance n/a n/a 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Local Democratic Governance n/a n/a 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 Judicial Framework and Independence 1.75 1.75 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 Corruption 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.25 2.25 2.25 2.50 2.50 2.50 2.25 Democracy Score 1.79 1.75 1.68 1.75 1.82 1.86 1.93 1.93 1.93 1.89 * Starting with the 2005 edition, Freedom House introduced separate analysis and ratings for national democratic governance and local democratic governance to provide readers with more detailed and nuanced analysis of these two important subjects.
    [Show full text]
  • NGO BRIEFING DAY UN Convention Against Corruption
    NGO BRIEFING DAY UN Convention Against Corruption Thursday 22 June, 10.00 - 18.00 UN Vienna Convention Centre Building C, Conference Room 3C Including speakers from: UNCAC Civil Society Coalition Asset Recovery OECD Working Group on Bribery Open Government Partnership Money Laundering Transparency International UN Office on Drugs & Crime Monitoring UNCAC Governments of Nigeria, Switzerland, Peru, United Kingdom The UNCAC Coalition is the sole global movement uniting civil society actors from all backgrounds for action against corruption at international, regional and national levels. It involves 350 civil society organisations and individuals in 111 countries on all continents and is committed to promoting the ratification, implementation and monitoring of the UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC). For more, see www.uncaccoalition.org AGENDA 10.00 - 11.00 Opening UNODC presentation and NGO questions Chair: Andres Lamoliatte, Vice President, COSP 11.00 - 11.30 NGO statements and plenary questions Chair: Andres Lamoliatte, Vice President, COSP 11:30 - 13.00 Panel 1 - Realising potential: Taking the Review Mechanism to the next level Transparency, inclusivity and effective follow up on recommendations are among the key hallmarks of a successful review mechanism. This session will draw on country- level experiences, a study on international standards, as well as lessons learnt from other international review mechanisms, to explore how the UNCAC IRM can realise its full potential, particularly through openness and civil society participation.
    [Show full text]
  • Slovenia: Phase 2
    Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs SLOVENIA: PHASE 2 REPORT ON THE APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON COMBATING BRIBERY OF FOREIGN PUBLIC OFFICIALS IN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS AND THE 1997 REVISED RECOMMENDATION ON COMBATING BRIBERY IN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS This report was approved and adopted by the Working Group on Bribery in International Business Transactions on 21 June 2007. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 4 A. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 5 1. On-Site Visit ........................................................................................................................................ 5 2. General Observations ........................................................................................................................... 6 a. Economic system .............................................................................................................................. 6 b. Political and legal framework ........................................................................................................... 6 c. Implementation of the Convention and Revised Recommendation ................................................. 7 d. Corruption overview ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]