Presented by Gillian Smith. Research Question To assess the effectiveness of the ethics legislation since its introduction in 1995. To compare the attitudes.

Presented by Gillian Smith

Research QuestionTo assess the effectiveness of the ethics

legislation since its introduction in 1995.To compare the attitudes of Oireachtas

members to corrupt acts to those of Westminster MPs before and after the Nolan Reforms.

Previous StudiesUSA – Beard and Horn, Peters and WelshCanada – Atkinson and MancusoUK – Mancuso, NolanAustralia – Rodney Smith

The fifteen hypothetical scenarios presented to Oireachtas Members

1. Ticket: A TD is issued a first class airline ticket as part of a parliamentary delegation. She exchanges the ticket for an economy fare and pockets the difference.

2. Envelopes: A Senator brings pre-stamped Oireachtas envelopes to his Party’s County Councillors for them to use.

3. Retainer: A TD on retainer to a PR company representing the Construction Industry raises the abolition of stamp duty during Order of Business.

4. Contract: A Cabinet Minister uses his influence to obtain a large contract for a firm in his constituency.

5. Hospital: A TD uses his/her position to get a friend or relative moved up on a hospital waiting list.

6. Position: A Cabinet Minister promises an appointed position in exchange for campaign contributions to her Party.

7. License: A Cabinet Minister gives out State Broadcasting licences to individuals who donated large amounts to his Party prior to an election.

8. Secretary General: A Minister brings the Secretary General of his department to a Party meeting to inform the Minister’s Party Colleagues of an upcoming complex policy debate.

9. Parliamentary Secretary: A TD hires a family member as his/her Parliamentary Secretary.

10. Meeting: The head of a large Irish company goes to Leinster House to meet with the Minister for Finance to discuss the implications of upcoming tax legislation.

11. Paris: The head of a large Irish company flies the Minister for Finance to Paris to attend a rugby match.

12. Garda: A Garda receives fifty euro from the owner of a lorry to pass his logbook inspection

13. Pass: A TD requests and receives an Oireachtas pass for a lobbyist to act as a research assistant, although her services are being paid for by an outside source.

14. Committee: An All Party Committee on the disabled secures the services of a full time research assistant at the expense of the Irish Wheelchair Association

15. Wine: A TD accepts a case of wine from a constituent as a Christmas gift.Source: Smith, (2008)

Scenario Responses and StatisticsItem Rating Total Corrupt % Not Corrupt % Mean Std Dev

Garda 105 91 4 1.5 1.2

Position 121 88 6 1.8 1.3

Licences 128 88 7 1.8 1.5

Pass 171 81 9 2.5 1.5

Ticket 153 79 10 2.2 1.5

Retainer 212 68 19 3.1 1.9

Committee 263 50 21 3.9 1.8

Paris 256 49 37 3.8 2

Contract 259 46 43 3.8 2.1

Envelopes 313 35 53 4.6 2

Secretary General 316 28 53 4.6 1.9

Hospital 303 25 46 4.4 1.8

Parliamentary Secretary

426 7 88 6.2 1.5

Meeting 399 7 79 5.9 1.4

Wine 399 6 78 5.9 1.4

Overview of the resultsWomen more intolerant of corruptionThose serving longer than 10 years most

intolerant, those serving between 5-10 years most tolerant of corruption – no ‘collegiate effect’.

Dáil members more intolerant than Senators.

Examining the ResultsConstituency service:

Hospital, Contract, Envelopes.Conflict of Interest:

License, Pass, Ticket, Retainer, Paris, Parliamentary Secretary, Wine, Position.

Bar graph showing responses to ‘Contract’ question

Contract: A Cabinet Minister uses his influence to obtain a large contract for a firm in his constituency.

Bar graph showing responses to ‘Hospital’ question

Hospital: A TD uses his/her position to get a friend or relative moved up on a hospital waiting list.

Bar graph showing response rate for ‘Position’ question

Position: A Cabinet Minister promises an appointed position in exchange for campaign contributions to her Party.

Bar graph showing responses to ‘Wine’ question

Wine: A TD accepts a case of wine from a constituent as a Christmas gift.

Service and Conflict scores for Mancuso, Allen and Smith studies

Study Conflict Score

Std Dev Service Score Std Dev

Mancuso* 4.7 1.1 3.7 2.0

Allen** 3.8 0.9 2.3 1.1

Smith 3.4 0.88 4.3 1.37

Source: *Mancuso (1995); ** Allen (2006); Smith (2008).

Ethical Locations of the Sample of Oireachtas Members

Breakdown of respondents relative to mean scores

Servants16% (M)22% (A)21% (S)

Entrepreneurs35% (M)30% (A)34% (S)

Puritans28% (M)23% (A)24% (S)

Muddlers21% (M)25% (A)22% (S)

Service

ConflictLow Tolerance

High Tolerance

Low Tolerance

High Tolerance

Key: M indicates Mancuso’s (1995) data, A indicates Allen’s (2006) data and S indicates data from this study completed by Smith (2008).

Breakdown of respondents relative to the Mancuso mean scores

Servants16% (M)50% (S)

Entrepreneurs35% (M)7% (S)

Puritans28% (M)43% (S)

Muddlers21% (M)0% (S)

Service

ConflictLow Tolerance

High Tolerance

Low Tolerance

High Tolerance

Key: M indicates Mancuso’s (1995) data, S indicates data from this study completed by Smith (2008).

Explanations for differencesPolitical System -PR/STV

- CoalitionCulture/Religion

-Catholicism-Personalism

ConclusionLimited effect of legislationMonitoring requiredImportance of constituency service to voters

- improving the responsiveness of the public service

- increasing constituency size