Nicholas Charron, Associate Professor Quality of Government Institute, University of Gothenburg WP 5: Pan European Survey Measuring Governance at the Sub- National Level
Feb 01, 2016
Nicholas Charron, Associate Professor Quality of Government Institute,
University of Gothenburg
WP 5: Pan European Survey Measuring
Governance at the Sub-National Level
Governance & Corruption in Europe
• Not just a problem for ’developing countries’
• "The links between corruption and the ongoing financial and fiscal crisis in these countries can no longer be ignored,“ (Finn Heinrich, TI, 2012)
• “Corruption in Greece Continues Virtually Unchecked” (Der Spiegel, 2012)
• The European Commission has described corruption as a “disease that destroys a country from within” and that “Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain – the euro zone’s most financially troubled nations – have deeply rooted problems in their public administration, namely that officials are not accountable for their actions” (Irish Times, 2012)
Defining & Measuring Governance (QoG) in General
• Key building concepts: 1. Impartiality (Rothstein and Teorell 2008)2. Corruption, Definition: «Public abuse for private gain»3. Quality/ effectiveness (Kaufmann, Kraay & Mastruzzi)
• “NON ZELI AD ZELUM, NEC MERITI AD MERITUM, SED SOLUM NUMERI AD NUMERUM FIAT COLLATIO” (“comparison should be made not on zeal, nor merit, but solely of numbers”) Gregorius X (1210-1276, Papa 1271)
• Although QoG measures still imperfect, improving in both scope and availability world-wide
• like some measures of’democracy’, most measures of QoG are mostly SUBJECTIVE, built mostly on opinions by experts, firms, citizens, NGO’s, etc.
• Quantitative studies are only a piece of the puzzle
Measuring Governance in EU
Lots of indicators: 1.CPI2.WGI3.ICRG4.Freedom House5.Eurobarometer& more…
GROUP Country WGI Score World Rank EU Rank Non-EU EquivilantDENMARK 2.42 1 1 NEW ZEALAND
SWEDEN 2.22 3 2 NEW ZEALAND
Group 1 FINLAND 2.19 4 3 SWITZERLAND
LUXEMBOURG 2.17 5 4 CANADA
NETHERLANDS 2.17 6 5 CANADA
GERMANY 1.69 16 6 BARBADOS
BELGIUM 1.58 17 7 CHILE
Group 2 UK 1.54 19 8 JAPAN
FRANCE 1.51 20 9 JAPAN
IRELAND 1.50 22 10 JAPAN
AUSTRIA 1.44 23 11 United States
PORTUGAL 1.09 37 12 UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
SPAIN 1.06 41 13 QATAR
CYPRUS 0.96 44 14 BOTSWANA
Group 3 SLOVENIA 0.93 45 15 BOTSWANA
ESTONIA 0.91 46 16 TAIWAN, CHINA
MALTA 0.91 47 17 TAIWAN, CHINA
POLAND 0.51 61 18 COSTA RICA
HUNGARY 0.34 70 19 CUBA
Group 4 CZECH REP. 0.32 71 20 VANUATU
SLOVAK REP. 0.29 72 21 BAHRAIN
LITHUANIA 0.29 73 22 BAHRAIN
LATVIA 0.21 78 23 BRAZIL
CROATIA 0.02 87 24 SOUTH AFRICA
ITALY -0.01 91 25 JORDAN
Group 5 GREECE -0.15 94 26 GEORGIA
BULGARIA -0.17 95 27 PERU
ROMANIA -0.20 96 28 TUNISIA
What about below the country level?
• EU is a community of regions (ERDF, REGIO, structural funds, etc.)
• Regional difference in development wider than states at times:
Ex. 2011 unemployment rates in:IT: Bolzano (2.7%) vs. Sicilia (14.7%)ES: Pais Vasco (10.5%) vs. Andalucia(28%)BE: Flanders (5.1%) vs. Wallonne (11.5%)SK: Bratislava Kraj (6.2%) vs. Východné Slovensko (18.5%)
Country ex.: Denmark (7.4%) vs. Bulgaria (10.4%)
**So we need to measure corruption/governance at regional level as well..
The ’European Quality of Government Index’ (EQI)
• Almost all existing corruption/ QoG data (from the mid-1990s) at national-level
• 2010: we present 1st (and only) mulit-country, sub national data on QoG to date. Funded by EU Commission (REGIO)
• We created a QoG Composite Index for 172 E.U. regions• The study is based on a citizen-survey of respondents in EU• 34,000 respondents in 18 countries (+/- 200 per region).
They are the ’consumers’ of QoG
• 16 QoG-focused (all translated into country languages) questions on: – personal experiences & perceptions – of the Quality, Corruption & Impartiality… – …on Education, Health care, and Law Enforcement
– 2013: we build on this past research in WP5
Selected Publications on the EQI data
Article: Charron, Nicholas, Lewis Dijkstra & Victor Lapuente (2013): Regional Governance Matters: Quality of Government within European Union Member States, Regional Studies, Link: DOI:10.1080/00343404.2013.770141
Book: ’Quality of Government and Corruption from a European Perspective’ eds. Charron, Nicholas, Victor Lapuente and Bo Rothstein. 2013. Edward Elgar Publishing
EU Commission Working Paper: ‘Charron, Nicholas, Lewis Dijkstra & Victor Lapuente. 2012. ’Regional Govrnance Matters: A Study on Regional Variation of Quality of Government in the EULink: http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/work/2012_02_governance.pdf
2013 Survey: the sampleSub-national Level of Survey: WP5NUTS 1 NUTS 2 #of regions # of total respondents Politically relevant?GERMANY 16 6400 yesU.K. 12 4800 someSWEDEN 3 1295 noBELGIUM 3 1208 yesHUNGARY 3 1215 noGREECE 4 1613 noTURKEY 12 4800 no
ITALY 21 8415 yesDENMARK 5 2028 yesFINLAND 5 2000 someNETHERLANDS 12 4822 yesAUSTRIA 9 3600 yesCZECH REPUBLIC 8 3236 noSLOVAK REPUBLIC 4 1609 noSPAIN 17 6800 yesPORTUGAL 7 2886 someFRANCE 26 10409 yesPOLAND 16 6400 yesROMANIA 8 3200 noBULGARIA 6 2402 noSERBIA* 5 2015 someUKRAINE 6* 2400 someCROATIA 2 804 noIRELAND 2 800 no
23 Countries 206 85157 135
The Questions• 34 questions total
• 20 Focused primarily on regional level governance in 3 sectors: education, health care & law enforcement, as well as media & elections (16 go to build the’EQI’)
• 7 demographic
• Other 7: social trust, perceptions of ’meritocracy’ in public & private sectors, party support, electoral corruption
Demographics of sampleindicator %
Gender Female 53.9
Male 46.1
Education elementary 10.1
some 2ndary school 17.6
finished 2ndary School 34.2
finished a college degree 27.8
post-graduate degree 9.7
no response 0.3
Age 18-29 17.9
30-49 35.8
50-64 26.9
65+ 19.3
no response 0.2
Income low 26.2
middle 31.6
high 28.9
no response 13.3
Occupation Employed public 18.3
Employed Private 35.4
Student, pensioner, housecare 35.9
Unemployed 8.2
no response 0.7
Population < 10k 34.5
of residence 10k - 100k 35.5
100k - 1 million 20.3
> 1 million 8.4
no response 1.3
Personal Experience with Primary Services in
QuestionSample Mean: 0.387
0 .2 .4 .6Proportion having family member enrolled in area's pub. school in last 12 months
BulgariaHungaryUkraineAustriaFranceKosovo
PortugalCzech Rep.Slovak Rep.
PolandGermany
CroatiaIrelandFinland
UKBelgium
ItalyTurkey
NetherlandsRomaniaDenmark
SpainSwedenGreeceSerbia
Direct Experience with Education
Personal Experience with Primary Services in
Questionsample mean: 0.817
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1Proportion of Respondents having used health services in last 12 months
PolandBulgariaCroatia
SpainFinlandFrance
SwedenDenmark
Slovak Rep.UK
Czech Rep.TurkeySerbia
NetherlandsPortugalHungaryUkraine
ItalyBelgium
IrelandRomania
AustriaGermany
GreeceKosovo
Respondents' Experience with Health Care Sector
Personal Experience with Primary Services in
QuestionSample mean: 0.221
0 .1 .2 .3 .4Proportion of Respondents with personal/family contact (pos or neg) with law enforcement in last 12 months
AustriaCroatia
BelgiumFinland
SwedenGermany
TurkeyGreecePoland
Slovak Rep.Bulgaria
NetherlandsItaly
Czech Rep.France
DenmarkSpain
RomaniaUK
SerbiaIreland
PortugalUkraine
HungaryKosovo
Personal Experience with Law Enforcement
Other info on respondents
obs: 77,293
010
2030
40P
erce
nt
2 4 6far left far rightleft - right political scale (self placement)
Respondent left-right political Self Placement
Other info on respondents
010
2030
40P
erce
nt
very good somewhat good somewhat bad very bad
opinion of the current state of the economy in home country
Opinion of the current state of the economy in home country
0 .2 .4 .6 .8economy (very good + somewhat good)/ (somewhat bad + very bad)
AustriaGermanySwedenFinland
DanmarkTurkeyKosovo
NetherlandsPoland
HungaryBelgium
Czech RepublicRomania
UKIreland
SlovakiaCroatiaSerbiaFrance
BulgariaUkraine
SpainGreece
ItalyPortugal
Satisfaction with the Economy in Respondent's Home Country
Other info on respondents
0 .2 .4 .6 .8% respondend 'most people can be trusted'
SwedenDenmark
UKFinlandTurkeyAustriaIreland
NetherlandsItaly
GermanySpain
RomaniaPortugalCroatia
BelgiumPoland
BulgariaUkraineGreeceFrance
HungaryKosovo
Czech RepublicSlovakia
Serbia
Level of Aggregate Social Trust
Perception of what it takes for sucess in public sector
2 4 6Hard Work Luck & Connections
country mean
SerbiaBulgariaGreeceCroatia
Slovak Rep.RomaniaUkrainePortugal
PolandItaly
Czech Rep.Hungary
SpainBelgiumKosovo
NetherlandsIrelandFrance
SwedenFinland
DenmarkGermany
UKAustriaTurkey
Perceived Meritocracy in Public Sector
Perception of what it takes for sucess in
private sector
2 4 6hard work Luck & Connections
country average
SerbiaUkraineCroatia
BulgariaKosovoPolandGreece
SpainRomaniaHungary
Slovak Rep.PortugalSweden
Czech Rep.France
ItalyBelgium
NetherlandsDenmark
FinlandGermany
UKIrelandAustriaTurkey
Level of Perceived Meritocracy: Sucess in Private Sector
Other info on respondents
0 1 2 3 4 5 6mean regional response
ITG2 - Sardegna
ITF1 - Abruzzo
ITF6 - Calabria
ITG1 - Sicilia
ITF5 - Basilicata
ITF2 - Molise
ITE4 - Lazio
ITE2 - Umbria
ITE3 - Marche
ITF3 - Campania
ITF4 - Puglia
ITC1 - Piemonte
ITC3 - Liguria
ITE1 - Toscana
ITD5 - Emilia-Romagna
ITD4 - Friuli-Venezia Giulia
ITC2 - Valle d'Aosta/Vallée d'Aoste
ITD3 - Veneto
ITC4 - Lombardia
ITD1 - Provincia Autonoma Bolzano/Bozen
ITD2 - Provincia Autonoma Trento
Perceived Meritocracy of Private Sector in Italian Regions
EQI data, 2010 & 2013
3 ’Pillars’ of EQI• Corruption, Impartialtiy & quality • For ex. , for corruption, We combine
perceptions and experiences of citizens (as opposed to ’experts’ – less risk of ’feedback loop’)
Two types of questions:A.general perceptions questions (0-10, higher
= more perceived corruption)B.Experiences with ’petty corruption’
*Let’s look at the aggregated regional scores
2 4 6Low Highregional mean
UA4-KievUA7-Lviv
RS23 - KosRS21 - Šum
rs11 - belRS22 - Sou
UA15-ZakarpattUA25-CrimeaUA21-OdessaUA13-Kharkov
MEANfi13 - eas
PL63 - Pomie01 - bor
PL61 - KujDK02 - SjæDK05 - NorDK04 - MidDK01 - HovDK03 - Syd
fi20 - ala
Perceived Corruption in Education Sector
2 4 6low highregional mean
UA4-KievUA7-Lviv
BG41 - YugUA15-Zakarpatt
RS11 - belRS21 - Šum
GR2 - kentUA25-Crimea
UA13-KharkovRS23 - Kos
SAMPLE MEANFI18 - sou
NL21 - oveIE01 - bor
DK03 - SydIE02 - sou
DK02 - SjæDK05 - NorDK04 - MidDK01 - Hov
FI20 - ala
Perceived Corruption in Health Care
2 4 6Low HighRegional mean
UA4-KievUA7-Lviv
UA13-KharkovUA15-Zakarpatt
UA25-CrimeaUA21-Odessa
BG41 - YugRS11 - bel
BG31 - SevRS21 - Šum
SAMPLE MEANFI13 - easFI19 - wesFI18 - souFI1a - nor
DK05 - NorDK02 - SjæDK01 - HovDK03 - SydDK04 - Mid
FI20 - Åla
Perception of Corruption in Law Enforcement
2 4 6never frequently
regional mean
UA4-KievUA7-Lviv
UA15-ZakarpattRS21 - Šum
GR2 - kentGR3 - Athens
GR1 - voreUA21-Odessa
RS22 - SouHR03 - Jad
SAMPLE MEANDK05 - NorNL11 - groNL13 - dreFI1a - norNL12 - friIE01 - borFI19 - wesFI18 - souFI20 - ÅlaFI13 - eas
'Perception of Others in my Area Engaging in Bribery'
0.0
2.0
4.0
6p
rop
ortio
n o
f re
spon
dent
s pa
ying
a b
ribe
in la
st 1
2 m
ont
hs
Personal Experience with Bribery by Sector
Eudcation Health CareLaw Enforcement Other Public Sector
0 .1 .2 .3 .4
propotion of respondetns paying a bribe in last 12 months
Sample MeanUA7-Lviv
ITF5-BasilicataGR2-Kentriki Ellada
ITF6-CalabriaITF2-Molise
ITF3-CampaniaUA15-Zakarpatt
HU2-DunántúlBG33-Severoiztochen
RS23 - KosovoUA25-Crimea
UA4-KievHU3 - TransdanubiaRO31-Sud-Muntenia
RO12-CenterHU1-Budapest
RO42-VestRO11-Nord VestRO21-Nord East
RO41-SudvestUA13-Kharkov
BG41-Yugo(Sofia)RO22- Sud East
UA21-OdessaRO32 - Bucharest
all regions with 15% or greater
Regions with most reported bribery in health care sector
Results from 2010
1.5
12.7
2.65.1
33.2
15.4
05
10
15
20
25
30
35
% o
f re
port
ed
ca
ses
Bu
cure
sti(R
O)
Bu
da
pe
st(H
U)
Ve
st(R
O)
Su
d-M
un
ten
ia(R
O)
No
rd-E
st(R
O)
Ce
ntr
u(R
O)
Su
d-E
st(R
O)
Su
d-V
est
(RO
)
Pra
ha
(CZ
)
Du
ná
ntú
l(H
U)
Ész
ak
és
Alfö
ld(H
U)
Ca
mp
an
ia(I
T) -
E.U
. A
ve.
E.U
. 1
5
N.M
.S.
E.U
. 1
5 -
no IT
or
GR
12 Regions with over 15%, & E.U. Averages
Reported Bribery in the Health Care Sector
% of respondents paying any bribe in last 12 months
Building the Index 1. AggregationAggregate 400 respondents by region for each of 16 questions•Using PCA, 3 groups (’pillars’) identified: corruption, impartialtiy and quality – 16 indicators aggreated to 3 pillars •3 pillars aggregated to Regional QoG Index2. Normalization of Data•Standardized indicators (z-distribution)3. Weights•Equal Weighting
Individual Level Data Regional Level Data
QoG Survey Question QoG Indicator
QoG Survey Question QoG Indicator QoG Pillar
QoG Survey Question QoG IndicatorQoG Regional Index
QoG Survey Question QoG Indicator
QoG Survey Question QoG Indicator QoG Pillar
QoG Survey Question QoG Indicator
Regional and National QoG• Combine regional data with
national level WGI data• Set each country’s EQI mean
to WGI average of 4 QoG pillars
• Aggregate regional scores (population weighted), around which regional scores show within-country variation
Why?• Regional QoG embedded in
National Context• Include countries with no
NUTS 2 regions• Can retroactively adjust when
new regions/countries added in future
The EQI: 2010• A composite
index based on 16 QoG survey questions from 2009-2010.
• Round 2 in 2013
EQI 2013, w/ cluster groups
Robustness of Data• 2010: Extensive sensitivity
testing (both WGI data and regional data),
• Alternative aggregation, weighting, normalization method, exluding certain individual charactoristics by gender, income, education and age.
• Constructed 95% confidence intervals around each regional estimate
-4
-2
0
2
EQ
I
0 50 100 150 200
Rank order of regions and countries by EQI
EQI Estimates and Margins of Error
EQI 2010 -3
-2-1
01
2
0 50 100 150 200 250EQI by Rank order
EQI 2010 95% c.i.
EQI 2010 and Margins of Error
Åland(FI)
Kiev (UA)
-4-3
-2-1
01
23
0 50 100 150 200 250
EQI by Rank Order (2013)
EQI 2013 95% c.i.
EQI 2013 and Margins of Error
AT11AT12
AT13
AT21AT22AT31AT32
AT33
AT34
BE1
BE2
BE3
BG31
BG32
BG33
BG34
BG41
BG42
CZ01 CZ02CZ03
CZ04
CZ05CZ06
CZ07CZ08
DE1DE2
DE3DE4
DE5DE6DE7 DE8DE9
DEA
DEBDECDED
DEE
DEF
DEG
DK01DK02DK03DK04DK05
ES11
ES12ES13 ES21ES22ES23
ES24ES30ES41
ES42
ES43
ES51ES52
ES53ES61
ES62
ES70
FR10FR21FR22FR23
FR24FR25
FR26FR30
FR41FR42FR43FR51
FR52
FR53FR61FR62FR63FR71FR72
FR81
FR82FR83
FR91
FR92
FR93
FR94
GR1 GR2GR3
GR4HU1
HU2HU3 ITC1
ITC2
ITC3
ITC4
ITD1ITD2
ITD3
ITD4
ITD5
ITE1 ITE2ITE3
ITE4
ITF1
ITF2
ITF3
ITF4ITF5
ITF6 ITG1
ITG2
NL11NL12NL13
NL21
NL22NL23NL31NL32NL33NL34NL41NL42
PL11PL12
PL21
PL22PL31PL32PL33
PL34PL41
PL42PL43
PL51
PL52PL61PL62PL63 PT11
PT15
PT16PT17
PT18
PT20
PT30
RO11
RO12
RO21RO22
RO31
RO32
RO41RO42
SE1SE2SE3
SK01SK02SK03
SK04
UKCUKDUKE
UKFUKGUKHUKI UKJ
UKKUKL
UKMUKN
Beta: 0.89
p-value: 0.000
Rsq: 0.88
Obs: 180
-2-1
01
2E
QI (
201
3)
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2EQI (2010)
Comparison of EQI scores for Regions in both Surveys
-3-2
-10
12
0 50 100 150 200 250
EQI 2010 95% c.i. 2010EQI 2013 95% c.i. 2013
2013 EQI Changes from 2010
Thuringia Wien
Galicia
Piemonte
Attica
-2-1
01
2
20 40 60 80 100 120
EQI rank order 2010
EQI 2010 95% c.i. 2010EQI 2013 95% c.i. 2013
Regions with Significant Negative Changes since 2010
London
Kujawsko-Pomorskie(PL61)
-1-.
50
.51
105 120 135 150 165 180 195
EQI rank from 2010
EQI2010Final eqilow10/eqihi10eqi13final eqilow13/eqihi13
Regions with Significant Positive Changes since 2010
Within country variation: 2010
Group 1: High QoG
Group 2: Moderate QoG
Group 3: Low QoG
-3-2
-10
12
EQ
I Sco
re
DK
SE FI
NL
LU
AT
UK IE DE
FR
BE
MT
ES
PT
CY
EE SI
CZ
HU
SK
LV
GR LT
PL IT
BG
RO
EQI Region score Country Score (WGI)
EQI: National Averages and Regional Variation
-4-2
02
EQ
I (20
13)
DK FI
SE
NL
LU AT
DE
BE
UK IE FR
CY
MT
ES
EE
PT SI
CZ
PL
SK
HU LT LV IT
GR
HR
TR
BG
RO
RS
UA
EQI (regions) EQI (country level)
EQI by Country and Sub-National Variation
0 .025 .05 .075 .1 .125 .15 .175 .2
Gini Index of EQI Regional Inequality (pop. weighted)
TRBGIT
UARORSBEESPLFRATCZPTHUUKDEGRSKNLHRDKIE
SEFI
Sub-National Variation of EQI by Country
How closely do perceptions match experiences?
Perceptions vs. Experiences 2013 by
sector and total
Pearson's: 0.67***Obs: 212
02
46
8M
ean
Per
cept
ion
of C
orr
uptio
n in
Edu
catio
n
0 .05 .1 .15 .2Proportion of respondent who paid bribe in Education
Experiences and Perceptions of Corruption in Education
Pearson's = 0.77Obs = 212
02
46
8M
ean
Per
cept
ion
Re
spon
se
0 .1 .2 .3 .4Proportion of respondents who paid a bribe in health care
Experiences and Perception of Corruption in Health Care
Pearson's = 0.58
Obs = 212
02
46
8
Mea
n P
erce
ptio
n R
esp
onse
0 .05 .1Proportion of Respondents who paid a bribe in law enforcement
Experiences and Perceptions of Corruption in Law Enforcement
Beta: 0.09p-value: 0.000Rsq. = 0.53obs: 212
02
46
8co
mb
ined
per
ceiv
ed
corr
uptio
n
0 10 20 30 40
% of respondents paying a bribe in last 12 months
Perceptions vs. Experience with Corruption by Region
FR10 - Île de France
FR21 - Champagne-ArdenneFR22 - Picardie
FR23 - Haute-NormandieFR24 - Centre
FR25 - Basse-Normandie
FR26 - Bourgogne
FR30 - Nord - Pas-de-Calais
FR41 - Lorraine
FR42 - AlsaceFR43 - Franche-ComtéFR51 - Pays de la Loire
FR52 - BretagneFR53 - Poitou-CharentesFR61 - Aquitaine
FR62 - Midi-Pyrénées
FR63 - LimousinFR71 - Rhône-Alpes
FR72 - AuvergneFR81 - Languedoc-RoussillonFR82 - Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur
FR83 - Corse
FR91 - GuadeloupeFR92 - Martinique
FR93 - GuyaneFR94 - Réunion
BG31 - Severozapaden
BG32 - Severen tsentralen
BG33 - Severoiztochen
BG34 - Yugoiztochen
BG41 - YugozapadenBG42 - Yuzhen tsentralen
PT11 - Norte
PT15 - Algarve
PT16 - Centro (P)PT17 - Lisboa
PT18 - Alentejo
PT20 - Região Autónoma dos Açores
PT30 - Região Autónoma da Madeira
DK01 - HovedstadenDK02 - SjællandDK03 - SyddanmarkDK04 - MidtjyllandDK05 - Nordjylland
SE1 - Östra SverigeSE2 - Södra SverigeSE3 - Norra Sverige
be1 - région de bruxelles-capitale / brussels hoofdstedelijk gewest
be2 - vlaams gewest
be3 - région wallonne
HR04 - Kontinentalna Hrvatska
HR03 - Jadranska Hrvatska
gr1 - voreia ellada
gr2 - kentriki ellada
gr3 - attikigr4 - nisia aigaiou, kriti
de1 - baden-württembergde2 - bayern
de3 - berlin
de4 - brandenburgde5 - bremende6 - hamburgde7 - hessen
de8 - mecklenburg-vorpommernde9 - niedersachsendea - nordrhein-westfalen
deb - rheinland-pfalzdec - saarlandded - sachsen
dee - sachsen-anhalt
def - schleswig-holstein
deg - thüringen
ITC1 - Piemonte
ITC2 - Valle d'Aosta/Vallée d'Aoste
ITC3 - Liguria
ITC4 - Lombardia
ITD1 - Provincia Autonoma Bolzano/BozenITD2 - Provincia Autonoma Trento
ITD3 - Veneto
ITD4 - Friuli-Venezia Giulia
ITD5 - Emilia-Romagna
ITE1 - Toscana
ITE2 - UmbriaITE3 - Marche
ITE4 - Lazio
ITF1 - Abruzzo
ITF2 - Molise
ITF3 - Campania
ITF4 - Puglia
ITF5 - Basilicata
ITF6 - CalabriaITG1 - Sicilia
ITG2 - Sardegna
ES11 - GaliciaES12 - Principado de Asturias
ES13 - Cantabria
ES21 - País VascoES22 - Comunidad Foral de Navarra
ES23 - La Rioja
ES24 - AragónES30 - Comunidad de MadridES41 - Castilla y LeónES42 - Castilla-La ManchaES43 - Extremadura
ES51 - CataluñaES52 - Comunidad ValencianaES53 - Illes BalearsES61 - Andalucía
ES62 - Región de Murcia
ES70 - Canarias
ukc - north east (england)ukd - north west (england)uke - yorkshire and the humber
ukf - east midlands (england)ukg - west midlands (england)
ukh - east of englanduki - londonukj - south east (england)
ukk - south west (england)ukl - wales
ukm - scotlandukn - northern ireland
hu1 - kozep-magyarorszag
hu2 - dunantulhu3 - alfold es eszak
CZ01 - PrahaCZ02 - Stredni Cechy
CZ03 - Jihozapad
CZ04 - Severozapad
CZ05 - Severovychod
CZ06 - Jihovychod
CZ07 - Stredni MoravaCZ08 - Moravskoslezsko
SK01 - Bratislavsky krajSK02 - Zapadne Slovensko
SK03 - Stredne SlovenskoSK04 - Vychodne Slovensko
RO11 - Nord-Vest
RO12 - CentruRO21 - Nord-Est
RO22 - Sud-Est
RO31 - Sud - Muntenia
RO32 - Bucuresti - Ilfov
RO41 - Sud-Vest Oltenia
RO42 - VestAT11 - Burgenland (A)
AT12 - Niederösterreich
AT13 - Wien
AT21 - KärntenAT22 - Steiermark
AT31 - Oberösterreich
AT32 - SalzburgAT33 - Tirol
AT34 - Vorarlberg
nl11 - groningennl12 - frieslandnl13 - drenthe
nl21 - overijssel
nl22 - gelderland
nl23 - flevolandnl31 - utrecht
nl32 - north hollandnl33 - south holland
nl34 - zeelandnl41 - north brabant
nl42 - limburg
PL11 - Lodzkie
PL12 - MazowieckiePL21 - Malopolskie
PL22 - SlaskiePL31 - Lubelskie
PL32 - PodkarpackiePL33 - Swietokrzyskie
PL34 - PodlaskiePL41 - Wielkopolskie
PL42 - ZachodniopomorskiePL43 - LubuskiePL51 - Dolnoslaskie
PL52 - OpolskiePL61 - Kujawsko-Pomorskie
PL62 - Warminsko-MazurskiePL63 - Pomorskie
fi13 - east finlandfi18 - south finlandfi19 - west finlandfi1a - north finland
fi20 - aland
ie01 - border midland and westernie02 - southern and eastern
tr1 - istanbul
tr2 - bati marmara
tr3 - ege
tr4 - dogu marmara
tr5 - bati anadolu
tr6 - akdeniz
tr7 - orta anadolu
tr8 - bati karadeniztr9 - dogu karadeniz
tra - kuzeydogu anadolu
trb - ortadogu anadolu
trc - guneydogu anadolu
rs11 - belgraders12 - vojvodina
RS21 - Šumadija and Western Serbia
RS22 - Southern and Eastern Serbia
RS23 - Kosovo and Metohija
Number 7 - Lviv oblast (region)
Number 15 - Zakarpattia oblast (region)
Number 4 - Kiev oblast (region)Number 21 - Odessa oblast (region)Number 13 - Kharkov oblast (region)
Number 25 - Crimea
'over-perceive' corruption
'under-perceive' corruption
-2-1
01
2
0 10 20 30 40
% of respondents paying a bribe in the last 12 months
Perceptions vs. Experiences: Residuals
Pearson's = 0.76Obs = 25
0 2 4 6 8
UARS
KosHRGRSKROBGPTCZHUIT
FRESBETRPLATDESEUKNLIEFI
DK
Experiences and Percpetions with Corrupiton: Country Level
Perceived Corruption Experienced Corruption
FR
BGPT
DK
SE
BE
HR GR
DE
ITES
UK
HUCZ
SKRO
AT
NL
PL
FIIE
TR
RS
UA
Kos
Beta: 0.11p-value: 0.000
23
45
67
0 10 20 30% of respondents paying any bribe in last 12 months
Experiences and Perceptions with Corruption by Country
FR
BG
PT
DK
SE
BE
HR
GR
DE
IT
ES
UK
HU
CZ
SK
RO
AT
NL
PL
FI
IE
TR
RS
UA
Kos
'over-perceive' corruption ?
'under-perceive' corruption?
-2-1
01
2R
esi
dua
ls: P
erc
eptio
ns=
Exp
erie
nce
s
0 10 20 30
% of respondetns who paid a bribe in last 12 months
Perceptions vs. Experiences: Country Residuals
Perception vs. Experience: country & regional level: 2010
Very Clean
Highly Corrupt
24
68
10Co
rrupt
ion
perc
eptio
n in
hea
lth c
are
sect
or0 .1 .2 .3 .4
Proportion of respondents paying a bribe
Perception and Experience with Corruption in Health Care in EU Regions
More perceived corruptionLess Perceived Corruption
Spearman Coefficient: 0.78
0 .2 .4 .6
DKSENLUKESBEATDEFRCZPTIT
PLHUROBGGRSK
Perceptions and Experience with Corruption in Health Care by Country
Perceived Corruption Proportion Paid a Bribe
Examples of other plans with WP5 data
• Continue to build EQI/ undergo extensive robustness checks
• Explore reasons why within country variation of QoG varies
• Explore relationship between entreprenuership and quality of regional institutions
• Explore relationship between gender equality and regional QoG