Corruption in Albania Perception and Experience Survey 2010 Summary of Findings

Corruption in Albania Perception and Experience Survey 2010 Summary of findings

Prepared by IDRA, Albania Corruption in Albania Perception and Experience

Table of Contents Page

Executive Summary…………...... …...... ………………...... …………3 Introduction...... …………...... …………5 Sample Structure and Demographics...... …………6 - General Public Sample...... …………6 - Public Sector Employees Sample...... …………7 Margin of Error...... …………7 Presentation of Findings...... 8 Perception of Corruption...... 9 Contribution of Institutions in the Fight Against Corruption...... 12 Trust in Institutions…...... 13 Transparency of Institutions...... 15 Awareness of Anti-corruption Activities...... 17 Corruption Experience...... 18 Attitudes Towards Corruption...... 21 Judicial System...... 23 Economic Evaluation...... 27 Impact of Political Orientation on Perceptions...... 29 Endnotes ...... 30 Survey 2010

Executive Summary

Corruption Perception • The perception of corruption in Albania remains ruption. It scores 61 points in 2010. All the other high. The average corruption perception of 20 institutions and groups are evaluated below the institutions and groups evaluated in 2010 is 62.4 mid-point scale. points on a 0-100 scale, where 0 means “Very • High Inspectorate for the Declaration and Audit honest” and 100 means “Very corrupt. of Assets, religious leaders and courts are seen • Religious leaders, the President, the military, the as the least helpful in the fight against corrup- media, public school teachers and NGO lead- tion. ers continue to be perceived as the least corrupt • Albanian citizens’ trust in institutions continues institutions and groups among the 20 evaluated. to be very low. On average, the trust score for On the other hand, custom officials, tax officials all institutions evaluated is 43.8 points, on a 0- and doctors are perceived as the most corrupt 100 scale where 0 means “Do not trust at all” institutions/groups evaluated. and 100 means “Trust a lot”. Only the military is • According to the general public, corruption rated with a score above 50 points. The Property among public officials is common. 91.8% of the Restitution and Compensation Agency (28), trade respondents think that corruption among public unions (32) and political parties (32) are the least officials is either “Widespread” or “Somewhat trusted institutions in 2010. widespread”. • Both the general public and public sector employees perceive that transparency in institutions Fight against Corruption, Trust and Trans- is low overall. The average score of nine institutions considered is below the midpoint in the parency 0-100 scale where 0 means “Not at all transpar- • Overall, the Albanian public has a negative per- ent” and 100 means “Fully transparent”, 38.7 ception of the contribution that different institu- points by the general public and 48.9 points by tions have made in the fight against corruption. public sector employees. The most transparent The average score for the 9 institutions/groups institutions in the eyes of the general public are evaluated is 42.4 points, which is below the mid- considered to be local government and Ministry point scale from 0-100 where 0 means “Does of Education, both with 44 points, while the least not help at all” and 100 means “Helps a lot”. transparent is considered to be the Property Resti- As in previous years, media is the only institution tution and Compensation Agency (PRCA) with 26 that is perceived to help in the fight against cor- points. Summary of findings Corruption in Albania Perception and Experience

Corruption Experience • In 2010 survey, respondents report to have been worse than 2009. According to the general pub- victimized on average 1.31 ways out of 10 ways lic, 79.7% of them declare that it is difficult to get surveyed. The corruption victimization index has information from the courts; a deterioration of not changed from 2009. Still, the index is lower 10.2 points from 2009. than in 2005 where the reported direct experience with corruption was 1.7 ways out of 10. In almost Economic Evaluation all of scenarios provided in the questionnaire, the • General public perception of the overall econom- percentage of respondents who declare to have ic situation is the same as last year and has not been a victim of corruption in the respective sce- changed much from that of 2005. Slightly more nario has decreased from 2005. than half of the respondents (53.9%) think the • The health sector still remains the one most quot- country’s economic situation is “Bad” or “Very ed for bribery. In 2010, 33.5% of respondents de- bad”. There are slightly fewer respondents who clared to have offered a bribe to a doctor or a think that the economy will be better in the com- nurse. ing year. Those who expect an economic stagnation have increased from 35.3% in 2009 to 39.8% in 2010. 23.3% of the respondents declared that Judicial System they expect the economy to worsen in the com- • Trust toward the judicial system has declined from ing year. This percentage has not changed from 2009, having increased steadily from 2005. In 2009. this year’s survey, only 35.9% of the respondents declared that they trust the judicial system either “A lot” or to “Some” degree. This is 10.7 percentage points lower than 2009. The percentage of respondents who trust the judiciary “A little” or “Not at all” remains high at 64.1%. • Treatment by the courts has deteriorated from 2009. 38% of respondents who have dealt with the courts believe they have been treated “Poorly” or “Very poorly”. This is 11.3 percentage points

Summary of findings Survey 2010

Introduction

This report presents the findings of the 2010 general o Actual - 600 respondents public, public sector employees and judges surveys on • Judges Survey corruption issues. This is the sixth report following the 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008 and 2009 reports. The main o Targeted - A sample of 300 judges of the Al- objective of these surveys is to measure the perception, banian courts in all levels. attitude and experiences of corruption over time in Al- o Actual - 254 respondents bania. Timing The set of surveys consists of: The survey was conducted during the period of January- • General Public sample February 2010. o Targeted - National sample of 1,200 respondents, 18+ years old Method Face-to-face interviews o Actual - 1,194 respondents

• Public Sector sample o Targeted - A sample of 600 public sector employees divided into four strata each with 150 respondents: i) Central Administration ii) Local Administration iii) Education Sector iv) Health Sector

The survey was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by the Institute for Development and Research Alternatives (IDRA) under the framework of the Rule of Law Program in Albania. The authors’ views do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Devel- opment or the United States Government.

Summary of findings Corruption in Albania Perception and Experience

Sample Structure and Demographics

General Public Sample

The general public sample was based on a multi-stage, random probability sampling drawn from a list of vot- Fig 1. Sample structure ing centers from the last local elections. Voting centers General Public 2010 for sampling purposes represent the primary sampling units. The 100 primary sampling units were selected us- Gender Urban vs. Rural ing a formula that randomly generated numbers, taking into account the number Tab.1 Geographic distribu- of voters for each voting tion of the sample center and urban vs. ru- Male Rural Female 46% 41% ral voting centers. Within 54% Urban 59% the geographical area Malësi Tropojë designated by these units, e Madhe the respondents were se- Pukë lected based on random- Shkodër Kukës route sampling (every third door was selected Kurbin Dibër and the person with the Krujë Mat latest birthday in that Durrës household was then inter- Tiranë viewed). Kavajë

Elbasan Lushnje Pogradec Kuçovë Fier Berat

Korçë

Vlorë Kolonjë

Gjirokastër

Delvinë

Sarandë

Summary of findings Survey 2010

Public Sector Employees Sample

A quota sampling based on four major strata was used Tab. 2 Distribution of sample according to public for the Public Sector sample. Each of these strata con- sector structures: tained around 150 respondents. The strata of the sample were: 1. Central Administration a. All ministries b. All other central institutions besides ministries c. The Fiscal System (Customs and Tax Depart- ment) d. Budgetary independent institutions Fig. 2 Gender of respondents 2. Local Administration Public Sector 2010 a. Communes b. Municipalities Gender 3. Education Sector Geographically distributed sample of employees in: a. Pre-primary (Kindergartens) Male b. Compulsory (Elementary Schools – 9 years) Female 36.3 c. Secondary Schools 63.6 d. Universities 4. Health Sector Geographically distributed sample of: a. Doctors b. Nurses c. Dentists and Pharmacists (public service) Margin of Error The margin of error for the General Public sample is ± 2.8% and for the Public Sector sample is ±4%, both with a confi- dence interval of 95%. Technically speaking a sampling error of ± 2.8% means that, if repeated samples of this size were conducted, 95% of them would reflect the views of the population with no greater inaccuracy than ± 2.8%. The testing of statistical significance, which takes into account the margin of error, is important especially when comparing historical data or when presenting subgroup analysis of results. These statistical significance tests are applied to the results presented throughout the report.

Summary of findings Corruption in Albania Perception and Experience

Presentation of Findings All of the survey findings are presented on a 0-100 scale for better understanding and presentation.

The following is an example of a question included in the questionnaire: [Use card “D”] Now, I will name various public and private institutions. I am interested to know how corrupt or honest do you think the representatives of these institutions are. Please, rate each one of them from 1 to 10, 1 being very honest and 10 very corrupt.

A conversion is required to facilitate accurate statistical There are also three other 0-100 scales presented in the analysis. It is achieved by subtracting 1 from each point report. Those scales are: on the 1-10 scale so that the questions are scored on • Trust - A scale that shows the evaluation of re- a 0-¬9 scale. The scale is then divided by 9, so that it spondents for different institutions regarding trust. ranges from 0-1, and multiplied In this scale 0 means “Do not trust at all” and 100 by 100 to obtain a 0-100 range. means “Trust a lot”. In this scale, 0 means “Very hon- • Contribution to the fight against corruption - A scale that shows how respondents perceive different est” and 100 means “Very cor- institutions regarding their contribution to the fight rupt”. An il¬lustrative graph is against corruption. In this scale 0 means “Does not presented on the right in which help at all” and 100 means “Helps a lot”. the category “School Teachers” re- • Transparency - A scale that shows the respond- ceived a score of “48.” The score ents’ perception about the transparency of differ- does NOT mean that 48 percent ent institutions. In this scale 0 means “Not at all of the public reported that school transparent” and 100 means “Fully transparent”. teachers are corrupt; it represents As a norm, the graphs including yearly comparisons only the perception of how corrupt an present the institutions that have experienced statistically institution is on a scale of 0 to 100. significant changes. Results from institutions that do not In other words, “School teachers” show considerable change are presented only if deemed received an average score of 48 important. points on a 0-100 scale as per- School ceived by the public. teachers Note: Some of the percentages presented in the graph may not add up to 100.0 per cent. This is because of round- ing. Summary of findings Survey 2010

Perception of Corruption1 Fig. 3 Honesty vs. Corruption General Public 2010

Very 100 General Public corrupt The average perception of the 20 institutions and groups 80 evaluated is 62.4 points2 indicating a high level of corruption perception overall (Fig. 3). 60

84 40 79 81 Religious leaders, the President, the military, the media, 74 74 75 76 76 76 69 71 63 66 public school teachers and NGO leaders continue to be 62.4 56 46 47 20 42 perceived as the least corrupt institutions among the 20 30 30 34 evaluated. The evaluation is below the midpoint scale of 0 a s s s s s 3 s s E rs en en Very sor the corruption perception scale, meaning that they are edi ayor honest M Judges IPRO inisters Military leader Prefect M Doctor entarians M AVERAG President Policem m Prosectuor Tax officials perceived by the general public as more honest than NGO Businessm Party leader Religious leaders Parlia Custom officials University profes corrupt. Public school teache

On the other hand, custom officials, tax officials and Fig. 4 Honesty vs. Corruption doctors are perceived as the most corrupt institutions/ Public Sector 2010 Very groups considered. corrupt 100

80 Public Sector 60 Public sector employees, in aggregate, perceive the institutions/groups as more honest than the general public 40 72 76 64 65 4 58 59 60 61 62 63 does. The average score of 21 institutions/groups is 51 51 52 56 45 45 49 49 20 38 32 points on the 0-100 corruption perception scale (Fig.4). 22 27 16 0 Very rs a s s s s s s s E or Custom officials and tax officials are also perceived by honest IPRO Medi Prefect Mayor inisters Judges Military leader M Doctor officials President O AVERAG Policemen Prosectuor m public sector employees as the most corrupt institutions/ Businessmen Tax officials NG Parties leader Religious leaders Parliamentarians Custo groups. ission of civil Service University profess Public mschool teache

Com

Summary of findings 10 Corruption in Albania Perception and Experience

Comparison in years Fig. 5 Ndershmëria kundrejt korrupsionit The corruption perception of the President has decreased Krahasim në vite - Publiku i gjerë from 34 points in 2009 to 30 points in 2010. Still, this perception is higher than that of the base-line year of Very corrupt Very 100 2005 2006 2008 2009 2010 corrupt 2005 where the President evaluation was 21 points. 100 2005 2006 2008 2009 2010

Media in 2010 is perceived by the general public as more 80 80 corrupt than in 2009 and in 2005. The perception of 60 corruption of media in 2010 is 42 points, meaning that 60 although having increased, it is still perceived as more 87 86 85 84 84 40 76 76 78 78 79 78 79 40 75 72 72 72 72 74 72 75 honest than corrupt. 66 66 69 62 63 66 66 68 69 71 61 63 69 63 60 20 Perception of corruption of policemen has increased to 20 37 39 38 38 42 34 32 35 34 36 31 35 42 66 points, 3 points more than in 2009 and the same as 21 30 0 Very 0 Vehonery s t P refects P rosecutors P arliamentarians Ministers C ustom 2005. hones t President Military Media Policeman University professorsofficials Perceived corruption of university professors is the high- Fig. 5 Ndershmëria kundrejt korrupsionit est in five years at 71 points, an increase of 8 points from Krahasim në vite - Publiku i gjerë 2009.

Very corrupt On the other hand, prefects are perceived as less corrupt 100 2005 2006 2008 2009 2010 in 2010 compared to 2009, a decrease of 6 points on the corruption perception scale. This perception is about the 80 same as 2005. 60 Perception of corruption of prosecutors is the highest in 87 86 85 84 84 40 79 79 five years at 76 points, a 4 point increase from 2009. 75 76 76 78 78 74 78 75 69 72 72 72 72 72 62 66 66 63 There is a decrease of 4 points in corruption perception 20 of parliamentarians and ministers from 2009. 0 Very C ustom Although custom officials are perceived as the most hones t P refects P rosecutors P arliamentarians Ministers officials corrupt, overall, the trend of corruption perception has steadily declined over the years to 84 points.

Summary of findings Survey 2010 11

According to the general public, corruption among public officials is common. 91.8% of the respondents think Fig. 6 Corruption among public officials of corruption among public officials as either “wide- General Public spread” or “somewhat widespread” (Fig. 6). This perception has changed little since 2005, remaining over Widespread Somewhat widespread A little widespread Not widespread

90%. However, the percentage of respondents who think 2010 51.6 40.2 7.4 0.9 this problem is “widespread” has decreased by 14.8 percentage points since 2005. 2009 50.5 43.6 5.3 0.6

57.1 34.6 7.4 Approximately four out of five respondents from the pub- 2008 0.9 lic sector employees’ group think that corruption among 2006 53.1 40.9 5.5 0.4 public officials is either “widespread” or “somewhat 2005 66.4 28.9 4.1 0.6 widespread”. For all five years this percentage has been over 80%. The percentage of public sector employees 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% who see “widespread” corruption among public officials % of respondents has decreased by 12.0 percentage points since 2005.

When asked whether corruption among public officials Fig. 7 Corruption among public officials has increased, remained the same or decreased during compared to last year the last year, general public opinion differs from that 2010 of public sector employees. While 45.1% of the general Increased Remained the same Decreased public perceives increased corruption among public of- 100% 12,2 ficials, only 19.8% of the public sector employees think 29,6 80%

the same. Differences exist also on the percentage of s nt 42,7 those that perceive a decrease in corruption among de 60% on public officials during the last twelve months, 12.2% for sp re

50,5 40% the general public and 29.6% for public sector employ- of %

20% 45,1 19,8 0% General Public Public Sector

Summary of findings 12 Corruption in Albania Perception and Experience

Contribution of Institutions in the Fight against Corruption

Overall the Albanian public has a negative perception of the contribution that different institutions have made in Fig. 8 Extent to which institutions help fight the fight against corruption. The average score for the 9 corruption 5 General Public 2010 institutions/groups evaluated is 42.4 points. The only in- H elps a lot 100 stitution that is evaluated as “helpful in fighting corruption” continues to be the media which scored 61 points. All 80 other institutions scored less than 50 points. Police scored 60 47 points and civil society scored 43 points (Fig. 8). 40 61 47 The institutions reported as least helpful in the fight against 20 42.4 43 42 41 41 40 35 32 corruption are: 0 E l f. s s ia e ty nt t A • High Inspectorate for the Declaration and Audit of lic e e ro o f ur Does not AG ed ci nt s DA o r' M P nm C o eader HI help at all ER so C o to l V l er u s A v i v e c e ou Assets (HIDAA) with 32 points, go at C i l St g i ro s h P li g l a R e • religious leaders with 35 points, Centra H i r n e • courts with 40 points. G e Civil society is the group that scores the largest decrease Fig. 9 Extent to which institutions help fight from 2009, 5 points (from 48 to 43 points) and in 2010 corruption scores 3 points less than in 2005 (Fig. 9). General Public

H elps a lot Media, although evaluated above the midpoint scale, 100 2005 2006 2008 2009 2010 scores 3 points less than in 2009 (from 64 to 61 points). 80 HIDAA is the institution that shows the largest decrease in 60 score through the years, from 39 points in 2005 to 32 points in 2010. 40 62 64 63 59 61 48 48 47 44 43 41 41 46 42 39 43 43 43 43 41 42 42 41 40 38 42 42 40 In 2010, courts and General Prosecutor’s Office continue 20 36 38 36 39 36 35 32 to show improvement from 2005 with 4 points more than in 2005. 0 Does not Media Civil society High State Central General Courts HIDAA help at all Control government Prosecutor's off.

Summary of findings Survey 2010 13

Trust in Institutions Albanian citizens’ trust in institutions continues to be very low. On average, the trust score for all institutions Fig. 10 Trust in Institutions evaluated is 43.8 points.6 Only the military is valued General Public 2010 with a score above 50 points. The Property Restitution Trust a lot100 and Compensation Agency (28), trade unions (32) and political parties (32) are the least trusted institutions in 80

2010 (Fig.10). 60

Public sector employees, in general, have more trust in 40 the evaluated institutions than does the general pub- 66 49 49 49 47 47 20 43.8 46 44 42 42 42 42 lic. The average score for all institutions is 52.7 points, 32 32 28 which is still above the median score. Out of 15 insti- 0 Do no trust s s e l l t s at all ent ent ilitary ayor Polic PRCA tutions, public sector employees show a positive level M M e Cour AVERAGE Parliament Trade unions of trust in 12. Similar to the general public sample, the Suprem Political partie Religious leader unicipal Counci Local governmHigh StateM Contro Central governm least trusted institutions are the trade unions, Property eneral Prosecutor’s off. G Central Election Comm. Restitution and Compensation Agency (PRCA) and political parties (Fig. 11). Fig. 11 Trust in Institutions When comparing general public perception with public Public Sector 2010 sector perception, the two institutions that show the big- Trust a lot gest difference in the level of trust, 17 points respectively, 100 are the central government (44 points vs. 61 points) and 80 Central Election Commission (42 points vs. 59 points) (Fig. 11). 60

40 74 61 60 59 59 57 56 52.7 54 54 52 52 50 20 37 35 31

0 l s t l s e s Do not trust e at all ilitary Polic offic PRCA M Mayor AVERAGE Parliament Trade unions Supreme Cour Political partie unicipal ReligiousCounci leader Local government High State Contro M Central government Central Election Comm. General Prosecutor’s

Summary of findings 14 Corruption in Albania Perception and Experience

Comparing the general public perception since 2005, there is an increase of almost 6 points in trust of the military. Fig.12 Trust in Institutions General Public

Trust of the General Prosecutor’s Office has decreased Trust a lot 100 2005 2006 2008 2009 2010 by 5 points from 2009, but it is still above the base line of 2005. 80

Also, trust of the Supreme Court has fallen by 4 points 60 since 2009 but remains higher than 2005. 40 64 66 6057 60 52 50 49 49 Police, local and central government show no significant 45 47 45 47 4546 47 20 48 43 41414042 44 42 42 40 42 42 difference from 2009 but are still evaluated higher than 40 37 the base line of 2005 with 4, 4 and 3 points more, re- 0 Do not trust Supreme at all M ilitary Police Local C entral General spectively (Fig.12). governm ent governm ent C ourt Prosecutor's off.

Summary of findings Survey 2010 15

Transparency of Institutions Both the general public and public sector employees perceive that overall transparency in institutions is low. Fig. 13 Institutional transparency The average score of nine institutions considered is be- General Public 2010 7 low the midpoint; 38.7 points for the general public Fully transparent 100 and 48.9 points for public sector employees. (Fig. 13 & Fig. 15). 80

The most transparent institutions in the eyes of the gen- 60 eral public are considered to be local government and 40 Ministry of Education with 44 points each, while the least 44 44 41 41 transparent is considered to be the Property Restitution 20 38.7 40 39 38 35 26 and Compensation Agency (PRCA) with 26 points. 0 n l ent m Courts PRCA

Local government, the High State Control, central gov- AVERAGE Parlia N ot at all ernment, and parliament are perceived as more trans- transparent Local governmentinistry of EducatioHigh State Contro Ministry of Health Ministry of Finance M Central government parent by the general public compared to 2009. There is an increase of 4, 6, 8, and 7 points, respectively, from last year’s evaluation by the general public. Only local government and courts have scored higher in 2010 than Fig 14. Institutional transparency any previous year (Fig. 14). General Public Fully transparent100 2005 2006 2008 2009 2010

44 43 44 43 45 43 20 41 40 40 39 41 39 41 41 38 39 35 33 35 32 33 33 33 33 35

N ot at all 0 transparent Local High State Central Parliament Courts government Control government

Summary of findings 16 Corruption in Albania Perception and Experience

Public sector employees’ views of institutional transparency are better than those of the general public. Central Fig. 15 Institutional transparency and local government scored 58 and 54 points, respec- Public Sector 2010 tively, meaning that they are seen as slightly more trans- Fully 100 parent. PRCA is considered as the least transparent insti- transparent tution (32 points) by public sector employees (Fig. 15). 80

When comparing the perceptions of public sector em- 60 ployees on institutional transparency through the years, it 40 can be observed that perceptions about central govern- 58 54 48.9 52 52 51 51 48 20 42 ment have improved by 7 points from 2009, scoring 58 32 points in 2010. Perceptions of transparency of Parliament 0 N ot at all n l t transparent ent ent have also improved from 2009 by 5 points, reaching 52 m PRCA Cour points in 2010. On the other hand, perceptions of the AVERAGE Parlia inistry of Health inistry of FinanceM Local governministry of Educatio High State ControM other evaluated institutions show no significant change Central government M from 2009 (Fig.16).

Fig. 16 Institutional transparency Public Sector

Fully 100 2005 2006 2008 2009 2010 transparent

55 56 55 55 58 54 51 51 51 50 52 51 51 49 49 47 47 49 48 46 20 41 42 33 33 35

0 N ot at all Lo c al C en tral Parliam en t H ig h State C o urts transparent g o v ernm en t g o v ern m ent C o n tro l

Summary of findings Survey 2010 17

Awareness of Anti-corruption Activities General public awareness of anti-corruption initiatives in Albania is very low. Only 15.7% of the respondents Fig. 17 Awareness of any anti-corruption initiatives were aware of at least one anti-corruption initiative in General Public the country. This percentage is the lowest in five years Yes No and there is a decreasing trend of general public aware- 100% ness since 2008 (Fig. 17). 80%

s 57 60.4 57.5 Public sector employees are more aware of anti-corrup- nt 70.4 de 60% 84.3 tion activities than the general public. 42.8% of public on sp re sector employees have heard of such initiatives. Still,

of 40% this percentage is the lowest in five years, a decrease of %

14.9 percentage points from 2009 and 25.0 percentage 20% 43 39.6 42.5 29.6 points from 2005 (Fig. 18). 15.7 0% 2005 2006 2008 2009 2010

Fig. 18 Awareness of any anti-corruption initiatives Public Sector

Yes No 100%

32.2 29.7 80% 38.5 42.3

s 57.2 nt

de 60% on sp re

of 40%

% 67.8 70.3 61.5 57.7 20% 42.8

0% 2005 2006 2008 2009 2010

Summary of findings 18 Corruption in Albania Perception and Experience

Corruption Experience of 3.5 percentage points of respondents who have paid The surveys also explore direct and indirect experiences a bribe to a doctor or nurse. 20.4% of the general pub- with corruption. Respondents were asked whether they lic declared to have paid a bribe in order to speed up paid bribes to obtain public services during their interac- processing procedures or receive documents such as tion with public institutions in the last twelve months. They certificates, business licenses, etc. were also asked whether they have ever been asked by public officials to pay bribes. Indirect experiences were ob- tained by asking the respondents if they were witness to a Fig. 19 Corruption victimization index corrupt transaction.8 General Public In addition, ten direct experience questions9 were used to 2.5 create an index entitled “Corruption Victimization.” This is a count index used to measure the number of ways a per- 2.0 son has been victimized by corruption. The score is based ys on the average number of ways in which respondents 1.5 wa

of claim to have been victimized. er

mb 1.0 In 2010, respondents report to have been victimized on 1.70 Nu 1.61 average 1.31 ways out of 10 ways surveyed. The corrup- 1.39 1.29 1.31 0.5 tion victimization index has remained about the same as

2009. Still, the index is less than that of 2005, where the 0.0 reported direct experience with corruption was 1.70 ways 2005 2006 2008 2009 2010 out of 10 (Fig.19).

Compared to the 2005 survey, there is a decline in the Fig.20 Corruption victimization – those who corruption experience. In most of the scenarios provided answered yes in the questionnaire (five of which are presented in Fig. General Public 20), the percentage of the respondents who declared they were a victim of corruption in the respective scenario has decreased when compared to that of the 2005 survey.

Visiting a doctor/nurse and processing of documents remain the two instances where the general public has been most victimized. 33.5% of the general public declared to have paid a bribe to a doctor or nurse during the last year (Fig. 20). This percentage is the lowest in five Police asked Public official Gave a bribe to Paid a bribe to a Someone asked for for a bribe asked for a bribe process documents doctor or a nurse a bribe to avoid years. Compared to the 2009 survey, there is a decrease payment for utilities Summary of findings Survey 2010 19

Indirect corruption experience is higher than direct experience. 28.4% of the general public declared to have Fig. 21 Indirect corruption experience General Public been a witness to a corrupt transaction involving a policeman (e.g., have seen someone pay a bribe to a po- Yes No liceman) during the last year, compared to 8.2% of the 100% general public who has been asked by a policeman to 80%

66.8 pay a bribe. As well, 14.8% of the respondents have 72.7 75.1 71.6 60% 76.8 81.3 87 85.3 87.8 had an indirect corruption experience involving a public respondents 85.2 40% official during the last twelve months (e.g., have seen % of 20% someone paying a bribe to a public official), compared 33.2 27.3 24.9 28.4 23.2 18.7 13 14.7 12.2 14.8 to 8.7% of the general public who have been victimized 0% by corruption involving a public official (Fig.21). 2005 2006 2008 2009 2010 2005 2006 2008 2009 2010 Saw someone paying a bribe Saw someone paying a bribe Indirect experience is lower compared to the 2005 to a policeman to a public official survey. There is a decrease of 4.8 and 3.9 percentage points, respectively, with indirect corruption experiences involving a policeman or a public official compared to the 2005 survey. Fig. 22 Direct experience with corruption General Public Further analysis of the corruption victimization scenarios shows that of the interviewed respondents, 56.6% re- No direct experience At least one direct experience ported at least one direct experience with corruption in 2010 43.4 56.6 the past 12 months. There is no decrease in the percent- 2009 42.9 57.1 age of respondents who have been victimized by corrup- 2008 38.3 61.7 tion compared to the 2009 survey. Compared to 2005 there is a decrease of 9.9 percentage points (Fig.22). 2006 41.7 58.3 2005 33.5 66.5

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% % of respondents

Summary of findings 20 Corruption in Albania Perception and Experience

The impact of the health sector on corruption experience is very significant. If the dimension of the health sector Fig. 23 Impact of health sector on corruption is excluded from the calculations, the percentage of re- General Public spondents declaring to have been a victim of corruption at least once in the past twelve months drops to 38.3% No direct experience At least one direct experience

(Fig.23). Health sector 61.7 38.3 exluded Corruption experience affects perception of corruption.

Respondents who have had at least one direct experi- All dimensions 43.4 56.6 ence in the last twelve months tend to perceive institutions/groups as slightly more corrupt than respondents 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% who have not been victimized. However, the gap between % of respondents these perceptions is not so large as to change the overall perception of corruption (Fig.24). Fig. 24 Honest vs. Corrupt Experience vs. non experience with corruption General Public 2010

Very corrupt No direct experience At least one direct experience 100

40 77 77 76 77 77 81 71 72 72 68 69 73 71 74 67 61 65 64 20 33 26 0 s s s s Very rs honest Mayor Prefect Doctors Minister Policeman Party leader Prosecutors President Parliamentarians University professo

Summary of findings Survey 2010 21

Attitudes Towards Corruption The survey also explores the attitudes of the Albanian public towards different dimensions of corruption. Several scenarios of corrupt transactions were presented to re- Fig 25. Attitudes towards corruption spondents for their judgment of the different parties in- General Public 2010 volved. Corrupt and must be punished Corrupt but justified Not corrupt

A student who gave the shirt to the 32.2 48.0 19.8 The following scenarios were presented: teacher A teacher who accepted the shirt from 72.9 19.8 7.2 • A student who gives a shirt to a teacher with the the student A mother of children who paid the bribe 27.9 60.4 11.7 hope of receiving a better grade. for certificates An official who accepted the bribe from 84.7 14.1 1.2 • A mother who gives 500 Lek to avoid a queue for the mother A business who paid the minister 83.8 15.1 1.1

birth certificates for her children. A minister who accepted the bribe from 95.6 3.9 .4 business

Politician who used his/her influence to 74.0 21.7 4.3 • A businessman who pays a bribe of USD 10,000 get his/her relative a public sector job

Public official who used government's 80.0 15.5 4.5 to a minister. vehicle for personal use • A politician who uses his/her influence to get his/ 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% % of respondents her relative a public sector job. • A public official who uses a government vehicle for personal use. In the case of a mother who gives 500 Lek to avoid a Fig 26. Attitudes towards corruption queue for birth certificates for her children and of a stu- A student who gives a shirt to the teacher dent who gives a shirt to a teacher hoping to improve his General Public 2010 grading, the respondents tend to be benevolent toward these “givers” and opinion on whether they are taking Corrupt and must be punished Corrupt but justified Not corrupt part in a corrupt transaction is divided. In all other cases, 2010 32.2 48.0 19.8 opinion shifts toward punishing both parties to the trans- 2009 29.9 34.7 35.4 action; more than 70% of the general public judged both 2008 28.2 41.9 29.9 parties as “Corrupt and must be punished” (Fig. 25). 2006 31.2 43.1 25.8 Attitudes toward corruption over the years show little change. In the scenario where a student gives a shirt to 2005 32.2 40.3 27.6 a teacher hoping to receive a better grade, empathy for 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% the ‘giver’ is less strong than for the mother’s scenario. % of respondents The percentage of respondents who think of the student as “Corrupt and must be punished” has not differed significantly over the years. In 2010, there is a significant increase in those who justify corruption as well as a sig- Summary of findings 22 Corruption in Albania Perception and Experience

The Albanian public perceives businesses that inflate prices during periods of higher demand as engaging in Fig. 27 Attitudes toward corruption corrupt practices. Flower vendor General Public When asked about a flower vendor who increases prices during holidays, approximately one in two respondents Corrupt and must be punished Corrupt but justified Not corrupt 2010 48.7 33.8 17.5 judged the flower vendor as “Corrupt and must be punished”. 33.8% of the respondents said the vendor was 2009 51 23.3 25.7 “corrupt but justified” while only 17.5% said the vendor 2008 52.2 27.6 20.2 was “Not corrupt”. From 2009 to 2010, more respondents consider the vendor corrupt but also more consider 2006 51.4 25.4 23.2 the vendor justified (Fig. 27). 2005 42.3 32.3 25.4

Also, in the case of a lawyer who charges too high a fee 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% % of respondents for the services provided, the general public (71.5%) con- siders that the lawyer is engaging in a corrupt practice (Fig. 28).

Fig. 28 Do you think that a lawyer is corrupt when s/he charges too high a fee? General Public 2010

Yes No

2010 71.5 28.5

2009 64.3 35.7

2008 60.4 39.6

2006 69.6 30.4

2005 71.4 28.6

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% % of respondents

Summary of findings Survey 2010 23

Judicial System Trust toward the judicial system has declined from 2009, having increased steadily from 2005. In this year’s sur- Fig. 29 Trust in judicial system vey, only 35.9% of the respondents declared that they General Public trust the judicial system either “A lot” or to “Some” de- A lot Some A little Not at all gree. This is 10.7 percentage points lower than 2009. The percentage of respondents who trust the judiciary “A 2010 5.4 30.5 39.2 24.9 little” or “Not at all” remains high, at 64.1% (Fig. 29). 2009 6.7 39.9 32.5 20.8

Treatment by the courts has deteriorated from 2009. 2008 5.9 34.5 37.4 22.2 38% of respondents who have dealt with the courts be- 2006 4.7 32.6 37.7 25 lieve they have been treated “Poorly” or “Very poorly”. This is 11.3 percentage points higher than 2009. In 2010, 2005 6.4 28.2 37.3 28.2 the percentage of respondents who have been treated 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% “Very well” or “Well” by the courts has decreased from % of respondents 2009 (Fig. 30).

Fig. 30 Attitudes toward corruption Only those who have dealt with the courts during the last twelve months General Public

Very well Well Poorly Very poorly

2010 8.0 54.0 20.0 18.0

2009 8.5 64.8 20.6 6.1

2008 11.9 57.5 20.2 10.4

2006 11.1 50 22.8 16

2005 8.3 50.4 22.7 18.6

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% % of respondents

Summary of findings 24 Corruption in Albania Perception and Experience

According to the general public (79.7%), it is difficult to get information from the courts. The percentage of re- Fig. 31 Ease of obtaining information from the courts spondents who think that obtaining information from the General Public courts is either “Very difficult” or “Difficult” has deterio- Very easy Easy Difficult Very Difficult rated by 10.2 points from 2009 (Fig. 31). 1.6 2010 18.7 49.9 29.8 Treatment by the police has not changed from 2009 ac- 1.2 cording to general public experience. Of those who have 2009 29.3 52.1 17.4 dealt with the police, 71.9% declared they were treated 1.5 either “Very well” or “Well”. According to general public 2008 23.7 52.2 22.6 experience, the improving trend in treatment by the police from 2005 to 2009 stopped in 2010 (Fig. 32). 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% % of respondents

Note: This question was introduced in the 2008 survey

Fig. 32 Treatment by the police Only those respondents who have dealt with police during the last twelve months General Public

Very well Well Poorly Very poorly 2010 12.3 59.6 14.4 13.7

2009 9.6 63.8 18.4 8.2

2008 12.8 54.6 21.1 11.5

2006 13.5 51.7 22.8 12

2005 11.4 51.1 23.1 14.4

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% % of respondents

Summary of findings Survey 2010 25

Reversing the trend from 2005 to 2009, the percentage of those who have dealt with prosecutors’ offices and who Fig. 33 Treatment by prosecutors’ offices have been treated well has decreased from 2009. 61.9% Only those respondents who have dealt with of the respondents who have interacted with the prosecu- prosecutors’ offices during the last twelve months tors’ offices declared that they received good treatment General Public (Fig. 33). Very well Well Poorly Very poorly 2010 9.5 52.4 17.1 21.0 Approximately half of the judges (48.8%) confirmed that 2009 7 63.4 22.5 7.1 they were approached by lawyers outside the court in an attempt to influence their decision. This percentage is 11.6 2008 14.7 53.2 22.4 9.6 percentage points higher than 2009. However, the per- 2006 14.4 50.5 18.6 16.5 centage of judges being approached by the litigants with bribes has not changed from 2009 and is significantly 2005 8.7 52.7 27.1 11.6 lower than 2008 (Fig. 34). 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% % of respondents

Fig. 34 Approach of lawyers and litigants to judges Judges surveys

Summary of findings 26 Corruption in Albania Perception and Experience

According to 33.9% of the interviewed judges, corruption in the Albanian court system is a serious problem. This per- Fig. 35 Corruption in the Albanian court system centage is 6.6 percentage points higher than the 2009 sur- is a serious problem vey but still significantly lower than the 2008 survey when Judges surveys 50.5% of the interviewed judges shared the same opinion Yes No Do not know (Fig. 35). 74.4 2010 33.9 59.1 68 7.1 In 2010 only 21.7% of the general public think that judges are impartial when conducting trials. Although there is a 2009 27.3 64.5 8.1 5.7 percentage points increase from 2009, still this propor- tion is small. Public sector employees’ opinion on judges 2008 50.5 40.5 9 impartiality in conducting trials remains the same as the previous year while 87.9% of the interviewed judges think 0 % 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% % of interviews of themselves or their colleagues as impartial. (Fig.36).

Fig 36. Judges are impartial in conducting trials 2009, 2010

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

General Public 2010 4.0 17.7 28.4 37.9 12.0

General Public 2009 2.2 13.8 33.7 39 11.3

Public Sector 2010 4.1 16.2 39.1 30.5 10.2

Public Sector 2009 2.4 17.2 38.3 34.3 7.8

Judges 2010 35.3 52.6 11.2 0.8

Judges 2009 40,1 41.9 16.8 1,2

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% % of respondents

Summary of findings Survey 2010 27

Economic Evaluation

General public perception of the overall economic situation is the same as last year and has not changed much Fig. 37 General economic situation in Albania from that of 2005. Slightly more than half of the respond- General Public ents (53.9%) think the country’s economic situation is Good or Very good Fair Bad or Very bad

“Bad” or “Very Bad”. 34.3% of the general public per- 2010 11.8 34.3 53.9 ceives a ‘Fair’ economy and only 11.8% think that the economy is “Good” or “Very Good” (Fig. 37). 2009 12.3 33.3 54.4

Public sector employees perceive the economy more posi- 2008 10 29.6 60.4 tively than the general public. 29.2% of public sector em- 2006 13.8 38.4 47.8 ployees see the country’s economy as either “Very good” or “Good”. This percentage is 10.5 percentage points 2005 11.2 34.1 54.7 higher than 2009 and 14.8 percentage points higher 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% than 2005. Also, the percentage of public sector employ- % of respondents ees who perceive the economy as “Bad” or “Very bad” has decreased from 2005 (Fig. 38).

Fig. 38 General economic situation in Albania Public Sector

Good or Very good Fair Bad or Very bad

2010 29.2 42.8 28

2009 18.7 52.4 29

2008 15 44.9 40.1

2006 15.2 50.5 34.3

2005 14.4 48.6 37

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

% of respondents

Summary of findings 28 Corruption in Albania Perception and Experience

Opinion on how the country’s economy has changed over the years is divided. 46.0% of the general public Fig. 39 General economic situation in Albania think that the economy is worse than a year ago, 42.5% compared to a year ago think it is the same and only 11.6% think it has improved. General Public

These percentages are almost the same as those in 2009 Better Same Worse

(Fig. 39). 2010 11.6 42.5 46.0

Expectations of the economy have changed little since 2009 13.5 41.4 45

2009. There are slightly fewer respondents who think 2008 9.1 36.9 54 that the economy will be better in the coming year. Those who expect an economic stagnation have increased from 2006 21.4 54.6 24 35.3% in 2009 to 39.8% in 2010. 23.3% of the respond- 2005 10.6 55.6 33.8 ents declared that they expect the economy to worsen in 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% the coming year (Fig. 40). % of respondents

Fig. 40 General economic situation in Albania a year from now General Public

Better Same Worse

2010 36.9 39.8 23.3

2009 39.3 35.3 25.4

2008 35.8 36.3 27.9

2006 50.8 37.9 11.3

2005 51.7 33.5 14.8

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

% of respondents

Summary of findings Survey 2010 29

Impact of Political Orientation on Percep- tions

This survey, as in previous years, indicates that percep- Fig. 41 Honesty vs. Corruption - Average tions of corruption, trust, transparency and the extent to By political orientation which institutions fight corruption are highly correlated General Public 2010

Very with the political orientation of respondents. corrupt 100 In general, right-leaning respondents evaluate institutions 80 more positively than left-leaning respondents. The average perception of corruption of the institutions and groups 60 evaluated is 67 points for left-leaning respondents, 11 40 points higher than the average perception of right-lean- 67 63 56 ing respondents. Consistently, corruption perceptions of 20 different institutions are higher for respondents who iden- Very 0 tify themselves as left-leaning. Despite these differences, honest Left leaning C enter R ight leaning however, even right-leaning respondents think that institutions are, on average, “more corrupt than honest” with a score of 56 points (Fig. 41). Also, right-leaning respondents trust institutions more than left-leaning ones. The average score for right-lean- Fig. 42 Trust in institutions ing respondents is 56 points, above the mid-point of the By political orientation General Public 2010 scale. The average score for the left-leaning respondents Trust a is only 34 points, meaning that these respondents have lot 100 little trust in institutions (Fig. 42). 80 Perceptions and evaluations of respondents in the center of the political scale are between those of the left-oriented 60 respondents and those of the right-oriented respondents. 40

56 20 44 34

N o trust 0 at all Left leaning C enter R ight leaning

Summary of findings 30 Corruption in Albania Perception and Experience

Endnotes

1. No definition of corruption was provided to respondents. They were asked to evaluate each of the institutions based on their own perception of corruption.

2. On a 0-100 corruption perception scale where 0 means “Very honest” and 100 means “Very corrupt”

3. IPRO is acronym for Immovable Property Registration Office

4. Public sector employees were presented with a list of 21 institutions and groups for evaluation, one more than the general public. The additional institution is Civil Service Commission.

5. On a 0-100 scale, where 0 means “Does not help at all” and 100 means “Helps a lot”.

6. On a 0-100 scale, where 0 means “Do not trust at all” and 100 means “Trust a lot”.

7. On a 0-100 scale, where 0 means “Not at all transparent” and 100 means “Fully transparent”.

8. Seligson, M. A. (2005). The Measurement and Impact of Corruption Victimization: Survey Evidence from Latin America. Elsvier Ltd

9. 1) Did any police official ask you to pay a bribe during the last year? 2) During the last year, did any public official ask you for a bribe? 3) During the last year, to process any kind of document (like a business license), did you have to pay any money higher than prescribed by the law? 4) Are you currently employed? If yes, at your workplace, did someone ask you for an inappropriate payment during the last year? 5) In order to obtain your current job, did you have to pay a bribe? 6) During the last year, did you deal with the courts? If yes, did you have to pay any bribe at the courts during the last year? 7) Did you use the public State Health Services during the last year? If yes, to be served at the State Health Service during the last year, did you have to pay any money aside of what was indicated in the receipt? 8) Did you have to pay the doctor or nurse any additional monies beyond those specified in the bill or receipt? 9) Did any of your children go to school during the last year? If yes, at the school, did they ask for any payment besides the established fees? 10) Did someone ask you for a bribe to avoid or reduce the payment of electricity, telephone, or water?

10. Respondents were asked to place their own political orientation on a scale of 1-10 where 1 is far left and 10 is far right. Left-leaning respondents are defined as those who answered 1-4; center are those who answered 5-6; right-leaning are those who answered 7-10

Summary of findings