Corruption in Albania Survey 2009 by dxu18403

VIEWS: 34 PAGES: 28

									Corruption in Albania
    Perception and Experience
             Survey 2009
         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...................................................13

Trust in Institutions…...........................................................................................................14

Transparency of Institutions.................................................................................................16

Corruption Experience........................................................................................................18

Attitudes towards Corruption...............................................................................................0

Judicial System...................................................................................................................

Economic Evaluation...........................................................................................................5

Impact of Political Orientation on Perceptions....................................................................7

Summary of findings
                                                              Survey 009                                             3




Executive Summary

Corruption Perception                                         •	 Health	 represents	 the	 sector	 most	 quoted	 for	
•	 The	perception	of	corruption	in	Albania	remains	              bribery.	37.1%	of	respondents	said	that	they	had	
   high.	Out	of	20	institutions	rated	by	the	general	            bribed	a	doctor	or	nurse	during	the	last	year.	
   public	in	the	2009	survey,	14	are	considered	to	
   be	more	corrupt	than	honest	and	only	6	fall	be-            Fight against Corruption, Trust and Transpar-
   low	the	midpoint	of	a	scale	where	0	means	“Very	
                                                              ency
   honest”	and	100	means	“Very	corrupt”.	
                                                              •	 Overall,	 the	 Albanian	 public	 reports	 that	 institu-
•	 Religious	 leaders,	 the	 President,	 media,	 military,	
                                                                 tions	are	not	doing	enough	to	fight	corruption.	On	
   public	 school	 teachers	 and	 NGO	 leaders	 are	
                                                                 a	scale	of	0-100	where	0	means	“Does	not	help	
   perceived	 as	 least	 corrupt.	 Custom	 officials,	 tax	
                                                                 at	all”	and	100	means	“Helps	a	lot”,	the	average	
   officials,	ministers,	parliamentarians	and	doctors,	
                                                                 score	of	all	9	institutions	evaluated	is	43.8	points.	
   on	the	other	hand,	are	perceived	as	the	most	cor-
                                                                 Only	 media	 is	 seen	 as	 contributing	 to	 the	 fight	
   rupt.	
                                                                 against	corruption	with	63.6	points,	while	all	other	
•	 About	half	of	the	general	public	sample	(48.5%)	              institutions	are	evaluated	with	less	than	50	points	
   thinks	that	corruption	has	increased	compared	to	             on	the	scale.
   a	year	 ago,	while	 38%	think	it	has	remained	 at	
                                                              •	 Religious	 leaders,	 High	 Inspectorate	 for	 the	 Dec-
   the	same	level.	
                                                                 laration	and	Audit	of	Assets	and	government,	are	
                                                                 seen	as	least	helpful	in	the	fight	against	corruption.	
Corruption Experience                                            Courts	 and	 the	 General	 Prosecutor’s	 office	 show	
•	 In	general,	the	overall	experience	with	corruption	           an	improvement	of	about	5	points	and	6	points,	
   transactions	has	declined	from	2005	to	2009.	Out	             respectively,	 from	 2005	 to	 2009.	 However,	 both	
   of	10	ways	in	which	an	individual	could	be	victim-            still	have	less	than	50	points	on	the	scale.
   ized,	the	average	number	of	ways	of	victimization	         •	 Albanians’	 trust	 in	 institutions	 continues	 to	 be	
   experience	for	2009	is	1.29,	a	decrease	from	1.7	             low.	The	average	score	of	trust	for	all	15	institu-
   in	 2005.	 From	 the	 10	 scenarios	 presented,	 the	         tions	presented	to	respondents	is	44.3	points	on	a	
   percentage	of	people	who	declared	at	least	one	               scale	where	0	means	“Do	not	trust	at	all”	and	100	
   experience	 with	 corruption	 has	 decreased	 from	           means	“Trust	a	lot”.	This	score	is	also	below	mid-
   66.5%	in	2005	to	57.1%	in	2009.                               scale	for	public	sector	employees	(48.8	points).	
Summary of findings
4                                                               Corruption in Albania
                                                                Perception and Experience




•	 The	 public	 perceives	 institutions	 as	 not	 being	        	Judicial System
   transparent.	None	of	the	institutions	evaluated	re-          •	 46.6%	 of	 the	 respondents	 have	 a	 lot	 or	 some	
   ceived	more	than	50	points	on	a	0	to	100	scale,	                trust	in	the	judicial	system.	This	is	a	12	percent-
   where	0	means	“Not	at	all	transparent”	and	100	                 age	point	improvement	from	2005	when	34.6%	
   means	 “Fully	 transparent”.	 The	 most	 transpar-              of	the	respondents	had	the	same	opinion.	
   ent	 institution,	 according	 to	 the	 general	 public,	
                                                                •	 Almost	three-quarters	of	citizens	that	have	dealt	
   is	local	government,	which	still	scores	only	40.3	
                                                                   with	courts	declared	that	the	courts	have	treated	
   points.	 The	 least	 transparent	 institution	 is	 the	
                                                                   them	either	“Very	well”	or	“Well”.	This	represents	
   Property	 Restitution	 and	 Compensation	 Agency	
                                                                   a	notable	improvement	from	2005	by	almost	15	
   with	a	score	of	27.2	points.
                                                                   percentage	points.		

Corruption Phenomenon Understanding
                                                                Economic Evaluation
•	 When	judging	the	two	parties	in	a	corrupt	transac-
                                                                •	 More	 than	 half	 of	 the	 respondents	 (54.4%)	 think	
   tion,	Albanians	show	more	tolerance	towards	“giv-
                                                                   that	the	economic	situation	of	the	country	is	“Bad”	
   ers”	than	towards	“takers”.	For	example,	a	student	
                                                                   or	“Very	bad”.	Economic	optimism,	judged	by	the	
   who	gives	a	shirt	to	the	teacher	with	the	hope	of	
                                                                   opinions	of	respondents	on	how	the	economic	situ-
   receiving	a	better	grade	is	seen	as	either	not	cor-
                                                                   ation	will	be	a	year	from	now,	is	only	slightly	better	
   rupt	(35.4%)	or	justified	(34.7%).	Similarly,	a	moth-
                                                                   than	in	2008,	but	much	less	than	the	levels	of	the	
   er	 who	 pays	 500	 Leks	 for	 the	 certificates	 of	 her	
                                                                   2006	and	2005	surveys.	One	in	four	respondents	
   children	to	avoid	staying	in	a	queue	is	also	seen	as	
                                                                   replied	 that	 they	 are	 pessimistic	 about	 the	 coun-
   not	corrupt	(26.3%)	or	as	largely	justified	(43.4%).
                                                                   try’s	economic	situation	a	year	from	now.	
•	 There	is	a	tendency	from	the	Albanian	public	to	
   include	 under	 the	 term	 “corruption”	 even	 phe-
   nomena	 that	 are	 generally	 not	 considered	 as	
   corruption	related.	Asked	about	a	flower	vendor	
   who	raises	the	prices	of	flowers	during	holidays,	
   almost	half	of	respondents	say	that	the	vendor	is	
   corrupt	and	must	be	punished.	Although	this	mis-
   conception	 has	 an	 impact	 on	 over-inflating	 the	
   corruption	perception,	analyses	show	that	the	im-
   pact	is	rather	low.		

Summary of findings
                                                                      Survey 009                                                    5




Introduction

This	report	presents	the	findings	of	the	2009	general	pub-                 • Judges Survey	
lic,	public	sector	employees,	and	judges	surveys	on	cor-
                                                                                o	 Targeted	-	A	sample	of	300	judges	of	the	Al-
ruption	issues.	This	is	the	fifth	report	following	the	2004,	
                                                                                   banian	courts	in	all	levels.
2005,	 2006,	 and	 2008	 reports.	 The	 main	 objective	 of	
these	surveys	is	to	measure	over	time	the	general	percep-                       o	 Actual	-	172	respondents
tion,	attitude,	and	experiences	of	corruption	in	Albania.		
                                                                      Timing
The	set	of	surveys	consists	of:                                       The	survey	was	conducted	during	the	period	of	January-
    • General Public sample                                           February	2009.

         o	 Targeted	 -	 National	 sample	 of	 1,200	 re-
                                                                      Method
            spondents,	18+	years	old
                                                                      Face-to-face	interviews
         o	 Actual	-	1,194	respondents

    • Public Sector sample	
         o	 Targeted	-	A	sample	of	600	public	sector	em-
            ployees	divided	into	four	strata	each	with	150	
            respondents:
            i)		 Central	Administration	
            ii)		Local	Administration
            iii)		Education	Sector
            iv)		Health	Sector
         o	 Actual	-	596	respondents



                 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
6                                                                          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   Gender of the respondents
ing	 centers	 from	 the	 last	 local	 elections.	 Voting	 centers	                    General Public 2009
for	 sampling	 purposes	 represent	 the	 primary	 sampling	
units.		The	100	primary	sampling	units	were	selected	us-
ing	a	formula	with	a	randomly	generated	number	which	
takes	 into	 account	 the	 Tab.1 Geographic distribu-
number	of	voters	for	each	 tion of the sample                                                 Female        Male
voting	 center	 and	 urban	                                                                    49%          51%
vs.	 rural	 voting	 centers.	
Within	 the	 geographical	           Malësi       Tropojë
                                     e Madhe
area	designated	by	these	
units,	 the	 respondents	                         Pukë
                                                            Kukës
were	 selected	 based	 on	            Shkodër

random-route	 sampling	
(every	third	door	was	se-                Kurbin
                                                          Dibër


lected	 and	 the	 person	                        Mat
                                      Durrës Krujë
with	the	latest	birthday	in	                                                 Fig. 2   Urban vs. Rural respondents
                                                                                      General Public 2009
that	 household	 was	 then	
                                          Tiranë
interviewed).	                      Kavajë

                                                Elbasan

                                                                Pogradec
                                             Kuçovë
                                    Fier
                                                Berat                                          Rural
                                                      Skrapar
                                                                   Korçë                       41%
                                                                                                            Urban
                                                                                                            59%
                                     Vlorë
                                                           Kolonjë
                                                  Gjirokastër


                                                 Delvinë

                                                Sarandë




Summary of findings
                                                                   Survey 009                                            7




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	Department)
      d.	 Budgetary	independent	institutions
   2. Local Administration
                                                                    Fig. 3   Gender of respondents
      a.	 Communes                                                           Public Sector 2009
      b.	 Municipalities
   3. Education Sector
   Geographically	distributed	sample	of	employees	in:
      a.	 Pre-primary	(Kindergartens)                                                             Male
      b.	 Compulsory	(Elementary	Schools	–	9	years)                                               31%
      c.	 Secondary	Schools
      d.	 Universities                                                                Female
                                                                                       69%
   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	pre-
sented	throughout	the	report.

Summary of findings
8                                                                     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 hon-
est 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.


                                             Very	honest                                            Very	corrupt

      School	teachers


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	a	
0-9	scale.	The	scale	is	then	divided	by	9,	so	that	it	ranges	              • Trust	 -	 A	 scale	 that	 shows	 the	 evaluation	 of	 re-
                                                                             spondents	for	different	institutions	regarding	trust.	
from	 0-1,	 and	 multiplied	 by	 100	
                                                                             In	this	scale	0	means	“Do	not	trust	at	all”	and	100	
to	 obtain	 a	 0-100	 range.	 In	 this	
                                                                             means	“Trust	a	lot”.	
scale,	0	means	“Very	honest”	and	
100	means	“Very	corrupt”.	An	il-                                           • Contribution to the fight against corruption	-	A	
lustrative	 graph	 is	 presented	 on	                                        scale	that	shows	how	respondents	perceive	different	
the	 right	 in	 which	 the	 category	                                        institutions	regarding	their	contribution	to	the	fight	
“School	teachers”	received	a	score	                                          against	corruption.	In	this	scale	0	means	“Does	not	
of	 “48”.	 The	 score	 does	 NOT	                                            help	at	all”	and	100	means	“Helps	a	lot”.	
mean	that	48	percent	of	the	public	                                        • Transparency	-	A	scale	that	shows	the	respond-
reported	 that	 school	 teachers	 are	                                       ents’	perception	about	the	transparency	of	differ-
corrupt;	 it	 represents	 the	 percep-                                       ent	institutions.	In	this	scale	0	means	“Not	at	all	
tion	 of	 how	 corrupt	 an	 institution	                                     transparent”	and	100	means	“Fully	transparent”.	
is	on	a	scale	of	0	to	100.	In	other	
words,	“School	teachers”	received	                                    As	a	norm,	the	graphs	including	yearly	comparisons	only	
an	average	score	of	48	points	on	                                     present	the	institutions	that	have	experienced	statistically	
a	0-100	scale	as	perceived	by	the	                       School
                                                                      significant	 changes.	 Results	 from	 institutions	 that	 do	 not	
public.                                                 teachers      show	considerable	change	are	presented	only	if	deemed	
                                                                      important.	

Summary of findings
                                                                              Survey 009                                                                                                                                                                 9




Perception of Corruption                  1

                                                                                  Fig. 4                 Honesty vs. Corruption
Out	of	20	institutions	and	groups	evaluated	by	the	gen-                                                  General Public 2009
eral	public	in	2009,	only	six	of	them	fall	under	the	mid-                      Very
                                                                               corrupt 100
point	of	a	scale	where	0	means	“Very	honest”	and	100	
means	 “Very	 corrupt”	 (Fig.	 4).	 The	 other	 14	 institutions	                        80


are	 viewed	 as	 more	 corrupt	 than	 honest.	 The	 average	                             60
score	of	all	20	institutions	evaluated	is	61.5	points,	indi-
cating	a	high	level	of	corruption	perception,	overall.	Reli-                             40
                                                                                                                                                                            68.8 69.3 71.7
                                                                                                                                                                                           74.6 75                        77.1 77.7 78.9 80.9
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              84.3

                                                                                                                                                             63.1 63.4 67.2
gious	leaders,	the	President,	the	media,	the	military,	pub-                                    61.5
                                                                                                                                       46.7
                                                                                                                                                     58.1

                                                                                                                             39.2 43.1
lic	school	teachers	and	NGO	leaders	are	still	perceived	
                                                                                         20
                                                                                                               34.1 38
                                                                                                      27.1


as	 the	 least	 corrupt.	 On	 the	 contrary,	 custom	 officials,	              Very       0




                                                                                                          rty O 2
tax	officials,	ministers,	parliamentarians	and	doctors	are	




                                                                                                                        en
                                                                                                                         rs

                                                                                                               es s
                                                                                                                        en




                                                                                                            en ors
                                                                                                               M s

                                                                                                              Pr s
                                                                                                                         ts




                                                                                                               ec s




                                                                                                                         rs

                                                                                                              of s
                                                                                                            Pr ers




                                                                                                                Ju s



                                                                                                              D rs



                                                                                                             M ns




                                                                                                                         ls
                                                                                                                        ia

                                                                                                             te ry
                                                                                                                          t




                                                                                                           sin er
                                                                                                               le E




                                                                                                                         r
                                                                                                                       or




                                                                                                                        e




                                                                                                           m cial
                                                                               honest




                                                                                                                       er
                                                                                                                     en




                                                                                                                     ec




                                                                                                                      ia
                                                                                                         G che




                                                                                                                     so




                                                                                                         Ta iste
                                                                                                                       o
                                                                                                                    ed

                                                                                                          ol ita
                                                                                                        io AG




                                                                                                         Pr dg




                                                                                                                   ria
                                                                                                      ity icem
                                                                                                                   sm
                                                                                                       Bu ead
                                                                                                                  ad




                                                                                                                  ad




                                                                                                       am oct
                                                                                                                  ay




                                                                                                                   tu




                                                                                                                  fic
                                                                                                      Pa IPR
                                                                                                                  id




                                                                                                                  ef
                                                                                                                 es




                                                                                                                   i
                                                                                                                 M

                                                                                                     ho Mil




                                                                                                                ta



                                                                                                    us off
                                                                                                                in
                                                                                                                 a
                                                                                                   lig VER



                                                                                                              es




                                                                                                               le
                                                                                                              of
                                                                                                               l



                                                                                                              l




                                                                                                            os
                                                                                                ve Po
                                                                                                           O
                                                                                                           us




                                                                                                           pr




                                                                                                            x
perceived	as	the	most	corrupt.	




                                                                                                          A




                                                                                                        to
                                                                                                     N




                                                                                                   rli
                                                                                                   rs
                                                                                                  sc




                                                                                                  C
                                                                                                Pa
                                                                                         Re




                                                                                               ic




                                                                                             ni
                                                                                            bl




                                                                                          U
                                                                                         Pu
Compared	to	2008,	the	ranking	of	institutions	based	on	
perceived	corruption	has	remained	almost	the	same.	

From	 2008	 to	 2009,	 the	 military	 shows	 a	 deterioration	                    Fig. 5                 Honesty vs. Corruption - Only those institutions
of	 4	 points.	 However,	 it	 still	 remains	 more	 honest	 than	                                        that show a difference in years
                                                                                                         General Public samples
corrupt	(39.2	points).	Perception	of	policemen	has	slight-                     Very
                                                                               corrupt
ly	 deteriorated	 from	 2006	 (59.5	 points)	 to	 2009	 (63.1	                           100
                                                                                                                            2005                            2006                              2008                             2009
points).	However,	it	is	still	marginally	better	than	the	2005	                           80
survey	result	(66.4	points).	The	ranking	of	ministers	also	
fell	 slightly	 in	 2009,	 with	 6.5	 more	 points	 on	 the	 cor-                        60

ruption	scale,	reaching	the	same	level	as	in	2005	(78.9	                                                                                                                                                                       78.9

points).			
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 77.7
                                                                                         40                                                                                                   77.8 77.7   78.9
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      83.1 81.2
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  78.4 80.9
                                                                                                                                                                                  71.8 72.4                             72.4
                                                                                                                                                     66.4
                                                                                                                                                                   60.8
                                                                                                                                                            59.5          63.1
                                                                                         20
There	 is	 no	 statistically	 significant	 difference	 in	 corrup-
                                                                                                             36.7                             39.2
                                                                                                                                  35.4 35.4
                                                                                                      30.9          34.1   31.5
                                                                                               21.0

tion	 perceptions	 between	 urban	 respondents	 and	 rural	                               0
respondents.                                                                   Very
                                                                               honest
                                                                                                  President                   Military                 Policemen                 Parliamentarians            Ministers                  Tax offcials




 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.	IPRO	is	acronym	for	Immovable	Property	Registration	Office.


Summary of findings
10                                                                              Corruption in Albania
                                                                                Perception and Experience




Public	sector	employees,	in	aggregate,	perceive	the	insti-
tutions/groups	 as	 more	 honest	 than	 the	 general	 public.	                       Fig. 6                     Honesty vs. Corruption
The	average	score	of	21	institutions	was	50.5	points.	This	                                                     Public Sector 2009
                                                                                 Very
is	 11	 points	 less	 than	 the	 average	 score	 of	 the	 general	               corrupt
                                                                                           100
public.	 Nine	 institutions	 out	 of	 the	 21	 are	 evaluated	 as	
more	honest	than	corrupt	on	balance	(Fig.	6)3.                                             80


                                                                                           60
Compared	 to	 the	 general	 public	 sample,	 where	 police-
men	 received	 a	 score	 of	 63.1	 points,	 the	 public	 sector	                           40
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           68.8 71.7
                                                                                                                                                                                   60.8 61.2 62.1 62.2 62.9   63    63.5
employees	 reported	 that	 policemen	 are	 more	 honest,	                                  20
                                                                                                    50.5
                                                                                                                                         40.6 43.9
                                                                                                                                                   47.2 47.7 50.8
                                                                                                                                                                         55.9 57.7

                                                                                                                               32.6 36.6
47.2	points	(Fig.	7).	This	perception	has	improved	consist-                                                19.5
                                                                                                                   25.1 26.1


ently	from	2005	to	2009.	The	public	sector	employees’	                           Very
                                                                                            0




                                                                                                                                 Pr n



                                                                                                                                             n




                                                                                                                                  le s
                                                                                                                                            rs



                                                                                                                               s l ice




                                                                                                                               in cts




                                                                                                                                  ec rs




                                                                                                                                 of ls
                                                                                                                      N il S ia




                                                                                                                               en ers




                                                                                                                                 of s



                                                                                                                                            ls
                                                                                                                                  M s
                                                                                                                                              s


                                                                                                                                M ors




                                                                                                                                             s
                                                                                                                                te rs




                                                                                                                                 lic s




                                                                                                                                 D O
                                                                                                                                           ry
                                                                                                                                             t
                                                                                                    E




                                                                                                                             rty ian




                                                                                                                                           e
                                                                                                                                            r
                                                                                                                                          or




                                                                                                                                         or
                                                                                                           en




                                                                                                                                           e
                                                                                                                              Po der




                                                                                                                             pr me




                                                                                                                                         ia

                                                                                                                                         ia
                                                                                                                                        he




                                                                                                                            Pr ade
                                                                                                                                        so
                                                                                                AG




                                                                                                                                          e



                                                                                                                             iv ed
                                                                                                                                        ta




                                                                                                                            Ta udg
                                                                                                                                         R
                                                                                                                                      em

                                                                                                                ni Bus efe
                                                                                 honest
perception	of	judges	has	also	improved	with	a	decrease	




                                                                                                                                        v




                                                                                                                           am nist
                                                                                                                                     ad




                                                                                                                                      ay



                                                                                                                                        t




                                                                                                                                      ut



                                                                                                                           to fic
                                                                                                                                     fic
                                                                                                                                      IP
                                                                                                        id




                                                                                                                                     oc
                                                                                                                                     er
                                                                                                             ili




                                                                                                                          Pa tar
                                                                                                                                     es
                                                                                                                                    ac




                                                                                                                                      s
                                                                                                                                     M



                                                                                                                                   ea




                                                                                                                                  es
                                                                                            ER

                                                                                                     es

                                                                                                            M

                                                                                                                   le




                                                                                                                                   J
                                                                                                                                 of




                                                                                                                                   i




                                                                                                                              os
                                                                                                    Pr
                                                                                           AV




                                                                                                                  us




                                                                                                                               x
                                                                                                                             m
                                                                                                                       ol




                                                                                                                             O
                                                                                                             io




                                                                                                                           C
                                                                                                                   ho




                                                                                                                         ity
                                                                                                                         G
of	 9.5	 points	 from	 73	 points	 in	 2008	 to	 63.5	 in	 2009.	




                                                                                                                       us
                                                                                                           lig




                                                                                                                       rli
                                                                                                                      of




                                                                                                                      rs
                                                                                                                  sc




                                                                                                                   Pa




                                                                                                                    C
                                                                                                           Re




                                                                                                                   ve
                                                                                                                    n
                                                                                                                ic



                                                                                                                 io
                                                                                                             bl


                                                                                                             iss




                                                                                                              U
                                                                                                           Pu
Unlike	 the	 general	 public	 perception,	 the	 perception	 of	




                                                                                                           m
                                                                                                                       om
                                                                                                                   C
public	sector	employees	for	ministers	shows	improvement	
with	almost	8	points	decrease	from	2008.	However,	with	
a	score	of	62.1	points	on	the	corruption	scale,	ministers	                           Fig. 7                     Honesty vs. Corruption - Selected institutions
are	still	considered	corrupt	even	by	the	public	sector	em-                                                      Public Sector samples
ployees.	                                                                        Very
                                                                                 corrupt 100

                                                                                                                               2005                       2006                    2008                  2009
In	the	view	of	the	public	sector	employees,	the	ranking	of	
                                                                                            80
institutions	based	on	perceived	corruption	is	similar	to	the	
one	generated	by	the	general	public	sample.                                                 60



                                                                                            40                                                                                                                     80
                                                                                                      72          70           71        70                               72 70 73           72 70 72
                                                                                                             65        62.2         63        62.1   66                              63.5                63             65 69
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                61.2
                                                                                                                                                          54 52
                                                                                                                                                                  47.2
                                                                                            20



                                                                                 Very           0
                                                                                 honest             Parliamentarians             Ministers            Policemen               Judges          Prosecutors               Doctors




 3.	Public	sector	employees	were	presented	with	a	list	of	21	institutions	to	evaluate,	one	more	than	the	general	public.	The	additional	institution	is	
 the	Civil	Service	Commission.	


Summary of findings
                                                                               Survey 009                                                                                         11




General	 public	 perception	 that	 corruption	 among	 pub-
lic	officials	is	a	“spread”	phenomenon	has	not	changed	                            Fig. 8       Corruption among public officials
over	the	years.4	It	remains	solidly	high.	However,	there	is	                                    General Public samples
a	decrease	in	the	number	of	respondents	who	said	that	
corruption	among	public	officials	is	“Widespread”	from	                            Widespread       Somewhat widespread               A little widespread            Not widespread

57.1%	in	2008	to	50.5%	in	2009.		Comparing	these	re-                             2009                     50.5                                         43.6                     5.3 0.6

sults	with	the	2005	survey,	there	is	a	16	percentage	point	
decrease.	                                                                       2008                       57.1                                        34.6                   7.4 0.9


Public	 sector	 employees,	 think	 that	 the	 corruption	 phe-                   2006                      53.1                                         40.9                    5.5 0.4
nomenon	among	public	officials	is	also	a	“spread”	phe-
nomenon.	During	the	period	2005	to	2009,	more	than	                              2005                             66.4                                         28.9             4.1 0.6
80%	 of	 the	 public	 sector	 respondents	 said	 that	 corrup-
tion	is	either	“Widespread”	or	“Somewhat	widespread”.	                              0%             20%                   40%              60%                  80%               100%

Compared	 to	 the	 general	 public,	 fewer	 public	 sector	                                                               % of respondents


employees	think	that	the	phenomenon	is	“Widespread”	
(32.7%	vs.	50.5%	of	the	general	public).	
                                                                                   Fig. 9       Corruption among public officials
                                                                                                Public Sector samples

                                                                                   Widespread     Somewhat widespread                A little widespread             Not widespread

                                                                                 2009           32.7                                    50.4                             15.7      1.2



                                                                                 2008             37.5                                       45.9                        15.2      1.4



                                                                                 2006            33.9                                    49.4                             16        0.7



                                                                                 2005              39.8                                         49.1                       10.4     0.7


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

                                                                                                                           % of respondents




 4.	 The	 term	 “spread”	 means	 an	 aggregate	 of	 the	 quantities	 indicated	 	 by	 those	 that	 said	 corruption	 is	 “Widespread”	 and	 “Somewhat	
 widespread”.


Summary of findings
1                                                              Corruption in Albania
                                                                Perception and Experience




According	to	the	general	public	sample,	almost	half	of	the	
respondents	(48.5%)	think	that	corruption	has	increased	         Fig. 10 Corruption among public officials compared
among	public	officials	during	the	last	year	(Fig.	10).	Only	             to the last year
13.5%	of	respondents	think	that	corruption	among	public	                                 Samples 2009
officials	has	decreased.	                                                                     Increased          Remained the same        Decreased
                                                                                       100%
The	situation	is	different,	however,	among	public	sector	                                                 13.5
                                                                                                                                     29.8
employees	where	only	22%	of	the	interviewees	think	that	                               80%

corruption	 during	 the	 last	 year	 has	 increased.	 Almost	                                             38




                                                                    % of respondents
                                                                                       60%
30%	of	public	sector	employees	said	that	corruption	has	
                                                                                                                                     48.2
decreased	during	the	last	year,	while	48.2%	said	it	has	                               40%

remained	the	same.	
                                                                                                          48.5
                                                                                       20%
                                                                                                                                     22
                                                                                        0%
                                                                                                  General Public                Public Sector




Summary of findings
                                                                         Survey 009                                                                                                                                                                           13




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	the	
                                                                            Fig. 11 Extent to which institutions help to fight
fight	against	corruption.	The	average	score	for	the	9	insti-
                                                                                    corruption
tutions/groups	evaluated	is	43.8	points	on	a	0-100	scale,	                                         General Public 2009
where	0	means	“Not	helping	at	all”	and	100	means	“Help-                  Helps
                                                                         a lot
ing	a	lot”	(Fig.	11).	The	only	institution	that	is	evaluated	as	                  100


“helpful	in	fighting	corruption”	is	the	media	which	scored	                           80
63.6	points.	All	other	institutions	scored	less	than	50	points	
on	 this	 scale.	 Civil	 society	 scored	 48.3	 points	 and	 police	                  60

earned	45.5	points.
                                                                                      40
The	institutions	reported	as	least	helpful	in	the	fight	against	                                                 63.6
                                                                                                                                    48.3              45.5
corruption	are:	                                                                      20     43.8                                                                      42.5           42.4               41.6              40.5
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          34.9               34.7

     •	 Religious	leaders	with	34.7	points.	
                                                                                       0
     •	 The	High	Inspectorate	for	the	Declaration	and	Au-                Not at all        AVERAGE              Media               Civil
                                                                                                                                   society
                                                                                                                                                  Police               High    General Courts
                                                                                                                                                                       State Prosecutor’s
                                                                                                                                                                                               Albanian HIDAA
                                                                                                                                                                                              government
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Religious
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         leaders
         dit	of	Assets	(HIDAA)	with	34.9	points.	                                                                                                                     Control    off.


     •	 Central	government	with	40.5	points.	
A	comparison	of	these	perceptions	over	the	period	2005-
2009	 shows	 little	 change.	 The	 media,	 which	 is	 seen	 as	              Fig. 12 Extent to which institutions help to fight
the	 strongest	 “fighter”	 against	 corruption,	 has	 improved	                      corruption
by	an	additional	4.2	points	since	2005	(Fig.	12).	General	                                             General Public samples
                                                                         Helps a lot
Prosecutor’s	 office	 has	 shown	 the	 biggest	 improvement	                     100

from	 2005	 with	 a	 6.1	 point	 increase	 (from	 36.3	 to	 42.4	                                                       2005                                    2006                              2008                                  2009
                                                                                  80
points).	 Courts	 have	 also	 increased	 by	 5.5	 points	 since	
2005,	 although	 in	 2009	 they	 scored	 slightly	 less	 than	 in	                60

2008.	HIDAA	has	decreased	by	almost	4	points	from	38.7	
in	2005,	scoring	34.9	points	in	the	2009	survey.                                  40
                                                                                                  62
                                                                                                       63.3
                                                                                                              63.6

                                                                                                                            46.5          48.3
                                                                                           59.4                                                       42.5          42.5                  41.6          42.7        40.5                      42.4

In	general,	rural	respondents	evaluate	the	contribution	of	
                                                                                                                     45.7          48.4                                        38.4                                               38
                                                                                                                                                             43.7                                                                                                         34.9
                                                                                  20                                                             43
                                                                                                                                                                           36.1
                                                                                                                                                                                   42.3          41.5          41
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           36.3
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       40.5          38.7
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            38.8
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   36.1


these	 9	 institutions	 in	 the	 fight	 against	 corruption	 slightly	
                                                                                      0
more	positively	than	do	urban	respondents.	The	average	                  Not at all               Media              Civil Society               High State                   Courts             Government                  General                    HIDAA
                                                                                                                                                  Control                                                                  Prosecutor’s
score	 from	 rural	 respondents	 is	 45.7	 points	 while	 urban	                                                                                                                                                               off.

respondents	had	an	average	score	of	42.7	points.	
Summary of findings
14                                                                   Corruption in Albania
                                                                     Perception and Experience




Trust in Institutions
Albanian	citizens’	trust	in	institutions	continues	to	be	very	
low.	 On	 average,	 the	 score	 of	 trust	 for	 all	 institutions	      Fig. 13 Trust in institutions
evaluated	is	44.3	points.	Only	the	military,	mayors	and	                                       General Public 2009
religious	leaders	are	valued	with	a	score	of	50	points	and	          Trust
                                                                     a lot
above	on	a	0-100	scale	where	0	means	“No	trust	at	all”	                       100

and	100	means	“Trust	a	lot”.	The	Property	Restitution	and	                    80

Compensation	 Agency	 (28.5),	 trade	 unions	 (33.5)	 and	                    60
political	parties	(33.7),	are	the	least	trusted	institutions	in	
                                                                              40
2009	(Fig.	13).	                                                                              59.7
                                                                                                      51.4       50     49       48.5 47.8 46.9 45.5 45.1 42.7 42.1
                                                                                     44.3                                                                           40.3
                                                                              20                                                                                                                      33.7 33.5 28.5

Rural	 residents	 show	 slightly	 more	 trust	 in	 institutions	                0
than	 urban	 residents.	 The	 average	 calculated	 for	 rural	




                                                                                                                                                                                .
                                                                                                                                                                            m




                                                                                                                                                                                                                  A
                                                                                     E




                                                                                                     or


                                                                                                              s


                                                                                                                        t

                                                                                                                             il


                                                                                                                                          e

                                                                                                                                                   f.

                                                                                                                                                            rt


                                                                                                                                                                      l




                                                                                                                                                                                       t

                                                                                                                                                                                              t

                                                                                                                                                                                                     es

                                                                                                                                                                                                            ns
                                                                                              ry
                                                                     No trust




                                                                                                                                                                  tro
                                                                                                                      en




                                                                                                                                                                                    en

                                                                                                                                                                                           en
                                                                                                              er




                                                                                                                             nc


                                                                                                                                       lic
                                                                                    AG




                                                                                                                                                                                                                 C
                                                                                                                                               of

                                                                                                                                                        ou




                                                                                                                                                                          om
                                                                                            ta

                                                                                                   ay




                                                                                                                                                                                                      ti

                                                                                                                                                                                                           io
                                                                                                            ad




                                                                                                                                                                                                                 PR
                                                                                                                   nm




                                                                                                                                                                                  nm

                                                                                                                                                                                         am
                                                                                                                                                                 on




                                                                                                                                                                                                   ar
                                                                                                                                   Po
                                                                                                                            ou
                                                                                         ili




                                                                                                                                                        C
                                                                                                                                              's




                                                                                                                                                                                                           un
                                                                                                 M
                                                                                ER
                                                                     at all




                                                                                                                                                                        C
                                                                                                                                           or




                                                                                                                                                                                                lp
                                                                                         M




                                                                                                          le
residents	shows	a	score	of	46.1	points,	3.5	points	higher	




                                                                                                                                                             C
                                                                                                                        lC
                                                                                                                 er




                                                                                                                                                                                er
                                                                                                                                                    e




                                                                                                                                                                                       rli
                                                                              AV




                                                                                                                                                                      n




                                                                                                                                                                                                       e
                                                                                                                                         ut

                                                                                                                                                   em




                                                                                                                                                                                              ica
                                                                                                      us




                                                                                                                                                            e




                                                                                                                                                                                    Pa
                                                                                                              ov




                                                                                                                                                                            ov
                                                                                                                                                                   io




                                                                                                                                                                                                     ad
                                                                                                                       pa




                                                                                                                                       ec




                                                                                                                                                            at
                                                                                                     io




                                                                                                                                                                  ct
                                                                                                             lg




                                                                                                                                                                           lg
                                                                                                                                              pr




                                                                                                                                                                                             lit

                                                                                                                                                                                                    Tr
                                                                                                                                                        St
                                                                                                                                      os
                                                                                                                      ici




                                                                                                                                                                 le
                                                                                                   lig




                                                                                                                                                                                           Po
                                                                                                                                              Su
                                                                                                           ca




                                                                                                                                                                          tra
                                                                                                                   un




                                                                                                                                   Pr




                                                                                                                                                              lE
                                                                                                                                                        h
than	for	urban	residents.




                                                                                                 Re




                                                                                                                                                    ig
                                                                                                         Lo




                                                                                                                                                                      en
                                                                                                                                                            tra
                                                                                                                 M




                                                                                                                                  al




                                                                                                                                                   H
                                                                                                                                 er




                                                                                                                                                                      C
                                                                                                                                                         en
                                                                                                                             en




                                                                                                                                                        C
                                                                                                                             G
Public	 sector	 employees,	 in	 general,	 have	 more	 trust	 in	
the	 evaluated	 institutions	 than	 does	 the	 general	 public.	
However,	 the	 average	 score	 for	 all	 institutions	 is	 48.8	
points,	which	still	remains	below	the	median	score.	Out	                 Fig. 14 Trust in institutions
                                                                                                 Public Sector 2009
of	15	institutions,	public	sector	employees	show	a	positive	
level	of	trust	in	10.	Similar	to	the	general	public	sample,	          Trust
                                                                      a lot
                                                                              100
the	least	trusted	institutions	are	the	trade	unions,	politi-
cal	 parties	 and	 Property	 Restitution	 and	 Compensation	                    80

Agency	(PRCA)	(Fig.	14).                                                        60

                                                                                40
Public	sector	employees	trust	the	police	more	(57.5)	than	                                     65.1
                                                                                                         57.5 56.3 55.5 54.8 53.9 51.3 51.3
                                                                                       48.8                                                                           51        50.5 47.9 46.3
the	 general	 public	 (47.8).	 Public	 sector	 employees	 also	                 20
                                                                                                                                                                                                      32.5 30.6 28.8

gave	the	central	government	a	51	point	score	on	the	trust	           No trust
                                                                                0
                                                                                                                              .
                                                                                                                           e




                                                                                                                         m




                                                                                                                            s




                                                                                                                           s

                                                                                                                         ns
scale,	 while	 the	 general	 public	 showed	 less	 trust	 with	 a	



                                                                                                         ica CA
                                                                                                                         ry




                                                                                                                            t

                                                                                                                        or




                                                                                                                         rt

                                                                                                                            t

                                                                                                                          f.




                                                                                                                            t
                                                                                                                           l

                                                                                                                           l
                                                                                                                         E




                                                                                                                       en




                                                                                                                       en




                                                                                                                       en
                                                                                                                        er




                                                                                                                       tie
                                                                                                                       lic




                                                                                                      pa ntro

                                                                                                        em nci




                                                                                                                       of
                                                                                                                     ou
                                                                                                                   om
                                                                                                                   AG

                                                                                                                      ta




                                                                                                                     io
                                                                     at all
                                                                                                                    ay




                                                                                                                  ad
                                                                                                                  Po




                                                                                                                  PR

                                                                                                                   ar
                                                                                                                 nm




                                                                                                                 nm




                                                                                                                 am
                                                                                                                  ili




                                                                                                                   u




                                                                                                                un
                                                                                                                  C




                                                                                                                  's
                                                                                                                M

                                                                                                                C


                                                                                                                 o
                                                                                  ER




                                                                                                Su Co




                                                                                                              lp
                                                                                                               le
                                                                                                              or
                                                                                                              M




                                                                                                             C
                                                                                                             er




                                                                                                             er
                                                                                                              e




                                                                                                             rli




                                                                                                             e
                                                                                                             n
                                                                                AV




                                                                                                           ut


score	of	42.1	points.
                                                                                                          us




                                                                                                        ad
                                                                                                        Pa
                                                                                                        ov




                                                                                                        ov
                                                                                                         io


                                                                                                          e

                                                                                                           l




                                                                                                      ec
                                                                                                      at




                                                                                                      io
                                                                                                      ct




                                                                                                     lit
                                                                                                    lg




                                                                                                    lg
                                                                                                    pr




                                                                                                    Tr
                                                                                                   os
                                                                                                   St




                                                                                                  lig
                                                                                                  ici
                                                                                                   le




                                                                                                 Po
                                                                                                ca




                                                                                               tra
                                                                                               lE




                                                                                               Pr
                                                                                              un
                                                                                                h




                                                                                              Re
                                                                                             ig
                                                                                            Lo




                                                                                           en
                                                                                          tra




                                                                                            al
                                                                                           M
                                                                                          H




                                                                                         er
                                                                                         C
                                                                                       en




                                                                                      en
                                                                                      C




                                                                                     G




Summary of findings
                                                                      Survey 009                                                                                                  15




Comparing	the	general	public	results	from	2005,	there	
is	 a	 noticeable	 increase	 of	 almost	 10	 points	 in	 trust	 to-       Fig. 15 Trust in institutions
wards	the	General	Prosecutor’s	Office.	During	the	same	                                       General Public samples
time	period,	there	is	also	an	increase	of	about	5.5	points	           Trust
in	trust	for	the	Supreme	Court.	Trust	towards	the	police	             a lot
                                                                                 100

has	decreased	slightly,	by	4	points	from	2006,	reaching	                                             2005                2006                    2008                       2009
about	the	same	level	as	2005	(Fig.	15).                                          80


                                                                                 60


                                                                                 40

                                                                                            52 50 47.8                                                              46.9 46 49 49 51.4
                                                                                       45                43 47 45
                                                                                                                  49          47 45 48.5            45.5
                                                                                 20                                      41                40 42 45      37 40
                                                                                                                                                               42



                                                                                  0
                                                                      No trust              Police             Local      Municipal          Supreme       General            Mayor
                                                                      at all                                government     Council            Court     Prosecutor's off.




Summary of findings
16                                                                   Corruption in Albania
                                                                     Perception and Experience




Transparency of Institutions
The	 general	 public	 does	 not	 perceive	 institutions	 to	 be	
transparent.	No	institution,	from	those	evaluated,	received	             Fig. 16 Institutional transparency
more	 than	 50	 points	 on	 0-100	 scale,	 where	 0	 means	                                General Public 2009
“Not	at	all	transparent”	and	100	means	“Fully	transpar-               Fully
                                                                      transparent 100
ent”.	On	average,	all	evaluated	institutions	scored	33.9	
points.	The	most	transparent	institution,	according	to	the	                          80

general	public,	is	local	government,	which	still	scores	a	                           60
low	 40.3	 points.	 The	 least	 transparent	 institution	 is	 the	
Property	 Restitution	 and	 Compensation	 Agency	 (PRCA)	                            40


with	27.2	points	(Fig.	16).	                                                         20                40.3       39.1
                                                                                           33.9                             34.5        33.8       33.1       32.9       32.7        31.9    27.2

The	 results	 show	 a	 declining	 trend	 between	 2005	 and	                         0
                                                                      Not at all




                                                                                            E



                                                                                                       t


                                                                                                                  n



                                                                                                                              l


                                                                                                                                        lth



                                                                                                                                                    t


                                                                                                                                                              e


                                                                                                                                                                         rts



                                                                                                                                                                                     t
2009	 for	 three	 institutions.	 Central	 government	 scored	




                                                                                                                                                                                             A
                                                                                                                           tro
                                                                                                     en




                                                                                                                                                   en




                                                                                                                                                                                 en
                                                                                                                                                             nc
                                                                                          AG




                                                                                                                io




                                                                                                                                                                                            C
                                                                                                                                                                     ou
                                                                                                                                     ea
                                                                                                  nm




                                                                                                                                               nm




                                                                                                                                                                                am



                                                                                                                                                                                            PR
                                                                                                              at


                                                                                                                         on




                                                                                                                                                          na
                                                                      transparent




                                                                                      ER




                                                                                                                                                                     C
                                                                                                                                    H
                                                                                                           uc



                                                                                                                       C




                                                                                                                                                         Fi
                                                                                                er




                                                                                                                                              er




                                                                                                                                                                               rli
                                                                                     AV




                                                                                                                                  of
                                                                                                          Ed
33.1	points	in	2009,	11.9	points	less	than	in	2005.	The	




                                                                                                                      e




                                                                                                                                                                            Pa
                                                                                               ov




                                                                                                                                          ov



                                                                                                                                                        of
                                                                                                                    at



                                                                                                                               ry
                                                                                                       of
                                                                                           lg




                                                                                                                                         lg



                                                                                                                                                    ry
                                                                                                                  St


                                                                                                                              ist




                                                                                                                                                   ist
                                                                                          ca




                                                                                                                                        tra
                                                                                                     ry



                                                                                                                 h


                                                                                                                           in
                                                                                                    ist



                                                                                                               ig




                                                                                                                                                in
                                                                                          Lo
Parliament	 scored	 31.9	 points,	 9.1	 points	 less	 than	 in	




                                                                                                                           M


                                                                                                                                    en


                                                                                                                                               M
                                                                                                              H
                                                                                                  in




                                                                                                                                    C
                                                                                                M
2005.	Similarly,	the	High	State	Control	scored	34.5	points	
in	2009,	8.5	points	less	than	in	2005.	Courts	scored	al-
most	the	same	in	all	four	years	demonstrating	that	per-
ception	has	remained	largely	unchanged	(Fig.	17).                      Fig. 17 Institutional transparency - Selected institutions
                                                                                          General Public samples
                                                                     Fully
Rural	citizens	tend	to	perceive	the	institutions/groups	as	          transparent

                                                                            100
more	 transparent	 than	 urban	 citizens,	 rating	 them	 with	
an	average	score	of	36.9	points,	almost	4	points	higher	                     80
                                                                                                2005                             2006                         2008                          2009

than	urban	counterparts.
                                                                             60



                                                                             40


                                                                                    41 44 43 40.3          43 40 39 34.5            45 43                    41 38
                                                                             20                                                               39 33.1                35 31.9         33 33 33 32.7


                                                                                0
                                                                     Not at all   Local government            High State              Central                  Parliament                Courts
                                                                     transparent                               Control              government




Summary of findings
                                                                   Survey 009                                                                                                                     17




Public	 sector	 employees	 perceive	 the	 evaluated	 institu-
tions	as	more	transparent	than	the	general	public.	In	all	
                                                                       Fig. 18 Institutional transparency
institutions,	there	is	a	difference	of	at	least	8	points	in	the	                           Public Sector 2009
perceived	 transparency	 between	 the	 two	 samples.	 The	         Fully
                                                                   transparent 100
only	exception	is	the	PRCA,	which	was	evaluated	as	the	
least	 transparent	 institution	 by	 both	 groups	 with	 an	 al-                  80

most	an	identical	score.
                                                                                  60

The	public	sector	employees	sample	does	not	project	the	                          40
declining	 trend	 of	 perceived	 transparency	 observed	 in	                                             54.7        51        50.5
                                                                                            45.6                                           47.4        47.2        45.7
general	public	sample	(Fig.	19).	                                                 20                                                                                           43.6        40.9
                                                                                                                                                                                                     29.3

                                                                                      0
The	 perception	 of	 the	 High	 State	 Control	 has	 improved	     Not at all




                                                                                            E



                                                                                                         t



                                                                                                                     t



                                                                                                                               l


                                                                                                                                           n



                                                                                                                                                       t


                                                                                                                                                                 e


                                                                                                                                                                              lth



                                                                                                                                                                                          rts



                                                                                                                                                                                                     A
                                                                                                                              tro
                                                                                                     en



                                                                                                                   en




                                                                                                                                                   en


                                                                                                                                                              nc
                                                                                          AG




                                                                                                                                         io




                                                                                                                                                                                                   C
                                                                   transparent




                                                                                                                                                                                      ou
                                                                                                                                                                          ea
                                                                                                    nm



                                                                                                                nm




                                                                                                                                                  am




                                                                                                                                                                                                  PR
                                                                                                                                      at
                                                                                                                          on




                                                                                                                                                              na
since	2008	with	a	5	point	increase.	Courts	have	also	im-




                                                                                      ER




                                                                                                                                                                                      C
                                                                                                                                                                          H
                                                                                                                                     uc
                                                                                                                          C




                                                                                                                                                            Fi
                                                                                                er



                                                                                                              er




                                                                                                                                               rli
                                                                                     AV




                                                                                                                                                                      of
                                                                                                                                    Ed
                                                                                                                         e




                                                                                                                                              Pa
                                                                                               ov



                                                                                                          ov




                                                                                                                                                        of
                                                                                                                     at




                                                                                                                                                                    ry
                                                                                                                                of
                                                                                               lg



                                                                                                         lg




                                                                                                                                                       ry
                                                                                                                     St




                                                                                                                                                                   ist
proved	in	the	eyes	of	public	sector	employees	by	6	points	




                                                                                                                                                     ist
                                                                                           ca


                                                                                                        tra




                                                                                                                              ry
                                                                                                                   h




                                                                                                                                                                 in
                                                                                                                             ist
                                                                                                                ig




                                                                                                                                                   in
                                                                                          Lo




                                                                                                                                                              M
                                                                                                    en




                                                                                                                                                   M
                                                                                                                H



                                                                                                                          in
                                                                                                    C




                                                                                                                          M
from	2008,	and	by	8	points	from	2005	reaching	41	points	
in	the	2009	survey.	The	public	sector	employees’	percep-
tion	of	the	central	government	has	not	changed	over	the	
last	three	years,	remaining	with	a	score	of	51	points.               Fig. 19 Institutional transparency - Selected institutions
                                                                                          Public Sector samples
                                                                   Fully
                                                                   transparent
                                                                             100

                                                                                                    2005                            2006                         2008                             2009
                                                                                 80


                                                                                 60


                                                                                 40

                                                                                          55        56 55       55 51 51 51
                                                                                               49                                        50 49 47 47          49 48 46 51
                                                                                 20                                                                                                                    41
                                                                                                                                                                                      33 33 35


                                                                                 0
                                                                   Not at all                Local                   Central               Parliament              High State               Courts
                                                                   transparent             government              government                                       Control




Summary of findings
18                                                                 Corruption in Albania
                                                                   Perception and Experience




Corruption Experience
The	surveys,	besides	measuring	perceptions,	also	explore	
personal	experiences	with	corruption.	Respondents	were	                               Fig. 20 Corruption victimization - During last year did
asked	whether	they	paid	bribes	to	obtain	public	services	                                                        any of the following happen? Those that answered yes.
during	their	interaction	with	public	institutions.	They	were	                                                    General Public samples
also	asked	whether	they	have	ever	been	asked	by	public	
officials	to	pay	bribes.	Ten	such	questions	were	used	to	                                  50
                                                                                                                   2005                         2006                        2008                               2009

create	 an	 index	 entitled	 “Corruption	 victimization”.	 This	                                                                                                                         39.7
                                                                                                                                                                                                38.6
is	a	count	index	used	to	measure	the	number	of	ways	a	                                     40




                                                                   % of respondents
                                                                                                                                                                                                       37.1


person	 has	 been	 victimized	 by	 corruption.	 The	 score	 is	                            30                                                 29.6
                                                                                                                                                      25.7
                                                                                                                                                                   29


based	on	the	average	number	of	ways	in	which	respond-                                                                                             19.4       19
                                                                                                                                                                        20.7
                                                                                           20                                                                               17.9
ents	claim	to	have	been	victimized.		                                                               12.3                  12.2
                                                                                                               10.4                 10.8
                                                                                                           9                                                                    9.6
                                                                                           10                      7.8           8.5                                                                            7.7 6.7 7.7
                                                                                                                                        6.1
Reported	victimization	declined	in	2009	from	2005.	Out	                                                                                                                                                                       5.4

                                                                                           0
of	 10	 ways	 in	 which	 an	 individual	 could	 be	 victimized,	                                     Police asked
                                                                                                      for a bribe
                                                                                                                           Public official
                                                                                                                          asked for a bribe
                                                                                                                                                Paid a bribe to
                                                                                                                                              process documents
                                                                                                                                                                  Paid a bribe for the
                                                                                                                                                                   children at school
                                                                                                                                                                                         Paid a bribe to a
                                                                                                                                                                                         doctor or a nurse
                                                                                                                                                                                                              Someone asked for
                                                                                                                                                                                                               a bribe to avoid
                                                                                                                                                                                                              payment for utilities
the	average	number	of	experiences	for	2009	is	1.29,	a	
decrease	from	1.7	in	2005	(Fig.	21).	

In	general,	experience	with	corruption	is	declining.	In	al-
most	all	scenarios	provided	in	the	questionnaire,	there	is	                                Fig. 21 Corruption victimization index
a	decline	in	the	percentage	of	people	reporting	paying	                                                             General Public samples
a	bribe	or	being	asked	for	a	bribe.	The	only	exception	is	                                  2.5
corruption	in	the	health	sector	which	shows	no	change.
                                                                                                2
Similar	to	previous	years,	in	the	2009	survey	respondents	
                                                                          Number of ways




declare	that	the	most	common	instances	of	victimization	       	                            1.5

from	corruption	are:
                                                                                                1
     i) Visiting a doctor/nurse	(37.1%	of	the	total	general	                                                        1.7                                                            1.61
                                                                                                                                                     1.39
         public	sample	said	that	they	had	paid	a	bribe	to	a	                                0.5
                                                                                                                                                                                                                      1.29


         doctor	or	a	nurse	during	the	last	year,	Fig.	20).	
     ii) Processing of documents	 like	 a	 business	 li-                                        0
                                                                                                                  2005                            2006                             2008                             2009
         cense,	 certificates	 etc.	 (19%	 of	 the	 respondents	
         said	that	they	gave	a	bribe	to	process	documents	
         during	the	last	year).

Summary of findings
                                                                               Survey 009                                                                                     19




After	an	analysis	of	all	corruption	victimization	scenarios,	
the	survey	shows	that	57.1%	of	the	citizens	reported	at	least	
                                                                                   Fig. 22 Direct experience with corruption
one	experience	with	corruption	during	the	last	12	months.	                                           General Public samples
This	number	is	approximately	5	percentage	points	lower	
than	in	2008,	and	about	9	percentage	points	lower	than	                                                  No direct experience            At least one direct experience

in	2005	(Fig.	22).	It	should	be	noted	that	the	largest	im-
                                                                                  2009                      42.9                                          57.1
pact	is	from	those	people	who	acknowledged	having	to	
pay	a	bribe	to	a	doctor	or	a	nurse.	Excluding	this	sector	                        2008                    38.3                                          61.7
from	 the	 calculation,	 then	 only	 35%	 of	 respondents	 re-
ported	at	least	one	experience	with	corruption.	                                  2006                      41.7                                          58.3



In	order	to	determine	differences	in	perceptions	based	on	                        2005                   33.5                                         66.5

direct	experience	with	corruption,	the	respondents	were	
                                                                                         0%                20%                 40%             60%                80%         100%
divided	into	two	groups.
                                                                                                                                 % of respondents
     1.	 Respondents	who	did	not	have	any	direct	experi-
         ence	with	corruption	during	the	last	year
     2.	 Respondents	who	had	at	least	one	direct	experi-
         ence	with	corruption	during	the	last	year                                Fig. 23 Honesty vs. Corruption
                                                                                                   Experience vs. non experience with corruption
An	 average	 score	 of	 their	 corruption	 perception	 on	 in-                                     General Public 2009
                                                                                         Very
stitutions	was	calculated.	It	is	interesting	to	note	that	the	                           corrupt

overall	perception	of	both	of	these	groups	was	similar.5	                                          100

                                                                                                    90
Respondents	that	had	no	experience	with	corruption	re-                                              80
ported	an	average	 score	of	61.4	 points	 on	 the	 scale	of	                                        70

0	to	100	where	0	means	“Very	honest”	and	100	means	                                                 60

“Very	corrupt”	(Fig.	23).	Similarly,	respondents	who	have	                                          50

had	at	least	one	experience	with	corrupt	transactions	re-                                           40
                                                                                                    30                  61.4                             62.6
ported	62.6	points	on	average.	                                                                     20
                                                                                                    10

                                                                                                     0
                                                                                         Very                    No direct experience        At least one direct experience
                                                                                         honest



 5.	Direct	experience	is	defined	as	being	a	part	of	the	corrupt	transactions-either	personally	paid	a	bribe	or	was	asked	to	pay	a	bribe.


Summary of findings
0                                                                 Corruption in Albania
                                                                   Perception and Experience




Attitudes towards Corruption
The	survey	continues	to	explore	the	attitudes	of	the	Alba-
nian	 public	 towards	 different	 dimensions	 of	 corruption.	                         Fig. 24 Attitudes toward corruption
Several	scenarios	of	corrupt	transactions	were	presented	                                                General Public 2009
to	respondents	for	their	judgment	of	the	different	parties	                                Corrupt and must be punished                     Corrupt but justified                   Not corrupt
involved.	                                                                               The student who gave
                                                                                                                          29.9                    34.7                            35.4
                                                                                        the shirt to the teacher

The	following	scenarios	were	presented:                                         The teacher who accepted
                                                                                 the shirt from the student
                                                                                                                                    63.2                                  20.3             16.5

    •	 A	student	who	gives	a	shirt	to	the	teacher	with	the	          The mother of children who                           30.3                       43.4                            26.3
                                                                    paid the bribe for certificates
        hope	of	receiving	a	better	grade
                                                                                   The official who accepted
                                                                                                                                           80.4                                      12         7.6
    •	 A	mother	who	gives	500	Leks	to	avoid	a	queue	                              the bribe from the mother


        for	birth	certificates	for	her	children
                                                                                           The businessman
                                                                                                                                           81.7                                          16.6      1.8
                                                                                        who paid the minister

                                                                                                                                                                                                      0.7
    •	 A	businessman	who	pays	a	bribe	of	$10,000	to	a	                           Minister accepting
                                                                       the bribe from businessman
                                                                                                                                                  95.7                                          3.6

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

The	 tolerance	 of	 the	 Albanian	 public	 toward	 “givers”	 is	
persistent	throughout	the	four	years.	

Excluding	 the	 obvious	 scenario	 of	 a	 minister	 taking	 a	
                                                                                       Fig. 25 Attitudes toward corruption
bribe	from	a	businessman,	where	more	than	80%	of	the	                                                    General Public samples
respondents	thought	both	parties	involved	in	the	transac-
tion	 to	 be	 “Corrupt	 and	 must	 be	 punished”,	 the	 public	                                   Corrupt and must be punished                Corrupt but justified                 Not corrupt
                                                                                       100%
opinion	was	generally	different	in	the	other	two	scenar-                                          19.1             15.3
                                                                                                                            21.4     26.3           27.6           25.8
ios.	The	student	who	gave	a	shirt	to	the	teacher	with	the	                             80%
                                                                                                                                                                                  29.9            35.4

hope	of	receiving	a	better	grade	was	seen	as	not	corrupt	
                                                                    % of respondents




                                                                                       60%
by	35.4%	and	rather	justified	by	34.7%	of	the	respond-                                            57.6             61
                                                                                                                            56.1     43.4           40.3           43.1
                                                                                                                                                                                  41.9            34.7
ents.	The	mother	who	pays	500	Leks	for	the	certificates	                               40%

of	her	children	to	avoid	staying	in	a	queue	is	also	seen	
                                                                                       20%
as	not	corrupt	by	26.3%	and	is	justified	by	43.4%.	These	                                         23.3             23.7     22.5
                                                                                                                                     30.3           32.2           31.2           28.2            29.9

opinions	are	very	similar	over	the	years	(Fig.	25).                                     0%
                                                                                                 Mother        Mother      Mother    Mother        Student     Student           Student        Student
                                                                                                 2005          2006        2008      2009           2005        2006              2008           2009




Summary of findings
                                                                       Survey 009                                                                                                                                         1




When	asked	about	a	flower	vendor	who	increases	prices	
during	 holidays,	 more	 than	 half	 of	 the	 respondents	 re-
                                                                                Fig. 26 Attitudes toward corruption
plied	 he	 is	 “Corrupt	 and	 must	 be	 punished”	 (Fig.	 26).	                                                 Flower vendor
Approximately	 a	 quarter	 of	 the	 respondents	 said	 he	 is	                                                  General Public samples
“Corrupt	 but	 justified”	 and	 only	 25.7%	 said	 he	 is	 “Not	                                    Corrupt and must be punished                                Corrupt but justified                         Not corrupt
corrupt”.	 These	 proportions	 have	 remained	 the	 same	
                                                                                               100%
throughout	the	past	four	years.	                                                                                                                     23.2                           20.2
                                                                                                                    25.4                                                                                         25.7
                                                                                                   80%
This	result	shows	that	the	Albanian	public	perceives	busi-                                                                                                                          27.6
                                                                                                                                                     25.4




                                                                           % of respondents
nesses	 that	 inflate	 prices	 during	 periods	 of	 higher	 de-                                    60%              32.3
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 23.3


mand	as	engaging	in	corrupt	practices.	                                                            40%


The	 above	 result	 also	 suggests	 that	 perceived	 corrup-                                       20%              42.3
                                                                                                                                                     51.4                           52.2                          51

tion	 might	 be,	 to	 a	 certain	 extent,	 over-inflated	 since	 it	
                                                                                                    0%
includes	 phenomena	 other	 than	 clear	 corruption	 cases.	                                                       2005                              2006                           2008                         2009
In	fact,	when	analyzing	corruption	opinions	of	those	who	
think	the	flower	vendor	is	“Not	corrupt”	and	those	who	
think	 he	 is	 “Corrupt	 and	 must	 be	 punished”,	 there	 are	
statistically	significant	differences.	Respondents	who	con-                Fig. 27 Honesty vs. Corruption
sider	the	flower	vendor	corrupt	tend	to	rate	the	different	                                                 Based on opinions towards the flower vendor
institutions,	 except	 for	 custom	 officials,	 as	 more	 corrupt	                                          General Public 2009
                                                                       Very
than	 respondents	 who	 consider	 the	 vendor	 not	 corrupt	           corrupt
                                                                                                                    Corrupt and must be punished                                       Not corrupt
                                                                                              100
(Fig.	 27).	 However,	 the	 opinions	 are	 never	 so	 divergent	                              90

as	to	change	the	overall	status	of	the	institution	(i.e.	one	                                 80

institution	that	is	considered	corrupt	by	the	group	of	re-                                    70


spondents	who	think	the	flower	vendor	is	corrupt,	is	not	                                     60

                                                                                              50
considered	honest	by	the	other	group	and	vice	versa).	It	                                     40     79.1
                                                                                                                                             74
                                                                                                                                                                                           88.4
                                                                                                                                                                                                               78.9
                                                                                                                                                                                                                          71.5
shows	that	although	the	perception	might	differ,	it	does	
                                                                                                                 66.5                                                               83.7
                                                                                                         75.4
                                                                                              30                                                  68.6                                            60               72.3
                                                                                                                        59.3                                          44.2                                                   66.2
                                                                                                                                                         49                                            55.3
not	change	the	overall	tendency.	                                                             20
                                                                                                                               30.2
                                                                                                                                                              41.5           38.7

                                                                                              10                                      20.8

                                                                       Very 0
                                                                              Parliamentarians University Religious                          Political    NGO        Public school Custom Businessmen           Doctors    IPRO
                                                                       honest                  professors leaders                            parties     leaders       teachers    officials




Summary of findings
                                                                      Corruption in Albania
                                                                        Perception and Experience




Judicial System
Although	trust	in	the	judicial	system	has	improved	signifi-
cantly	since	2005,	still	half	of	Albanian	citizens	(53.3%)	               Fig. 28 Trust in judicial system
have	 little	 or	 no	 trust	 in	 it.	 But,	 compared	 to	 2005,	 the	                             General Public samples
number	 of	 people	 who	 trust	 the	 Judicial	 System	 “A	 lot”	
                                                                                                 A lot                  Some                      A litlle                  Not at all
or	 “To	 some	 degree”	 has	 increased	 by	 12	 percentage	
points,	from	34.6%	in	2005	to	46.6%	in	2009	(Fig.	28).                  2009        6.7                         39.9                                32.5                       20.8



Another	 observed	 improvement	 is	 the	 overall	 treatment	            2008    5.9                        34.5                                 37.4                           22.2

by	 the	 courts.	 In	 2009,	 73.3%	 of	 those	 who	 dealt	 with	
courts	declared	they	were	treated	“Well”	or	“Very	well”.	               2006    4.7                      32.6                               37.7                               25

This	result	represents	almost	a	15	percentage	point	im-
provement	from	2005	(Fig.	29).		                                        2005        6.4                  28.2                            37.3                               28.2



There	is	continuous	improvement	in	treatment	by	the	fol-                       0%                        20%                  40%                 60%                 80%                   100%

lowing	institutions:                                                                                                           % of respondents


    •	 Police
    •	 Prosecutors’	office

When	 asked	 how	 they	 were	 treated	 by	 the	 police,	 the	             Fig. 29 Treatment by the courts
                                                                                                  Only those who have dealt with courts
proportion	of	respondents	that	replied	“Poorly”	or	“Very	                                         General Public samples
poorly”	was	26.6%,	a	decrease	of	10.9	percentage	points	
                                                                                                         Very well              Well            Poorly               Very poorly
from	 37.5%	 in	 2005	 (Fig.	 30).	 Similarly,	 the	 number	 of	
those	who	reported	poor	treatment	by	Prosecutors’	office	                2009         8.5                                     64.8                                      20.6             6.1

decreased	from	38.7%	in	2005,	to	29.6%	in	2009	(Fig.	
30).                                                                     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
                                                                                               Survey 009                                                                                                  3




However,	the	general	public	still	reports	that	the	factors	
that	influence	the	outcome	of	trials	are	more	related	to	
                                                                                               Fig. 31 Treatment by the prosecutors’ office
corruption	than	to	justice.	“Facts	and	applicable	law”	con-                                                       Only those respondents who have dealt with
tinues	to	be	the	least	influential	factor.	On	a	scale	from	                                                       prosecutors’ offices
1	to	10,	where	1	means	“No	influence”	and	10	means	                                                               General Public samples
“Influence	a	lot”,	“Facts	and	applicable	law”	scores	only	                                                            Very well                Well              Poorly            Very poorly

6.8	points.	The	factor	that	Albanians	continue	to	believe	                                     2009        7                              63.4                                      22.5               7.1

is	most	likely	to	affect	the	outcome	of	a	trial	is	“Monetary	
considerations”	 with	 8.6	 points	 followed	 by	 “Business	                                   2008            14.7                            53.2                               22.4                9.6

connections	of	the	judges”	and	“Personal	connections	of	
                                                                                               2006            14.4                        50.5                             18.6                16.5
the	judges”	with	8	and	7.9	points,	respectively	(Fig.	32).
                                                                                               2005        8.7                          52.7                                27.1                   11.6


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




 Fig. 30 Treatment by the police                                                                Fig. 32 Factors that influence the outcome of trials
                    Only those respondents who have dealt with police                                                 General public 2009
                    General Public samples
                                                                                                Monetary consideration
                                                                                                    (payment of money                                                                          8.6
                                                                                                 to affect the outcome)
                       Very well      Well             Poorly     Very poorly
                                                                                                  Business connections
2009        9.6                       63.8                               18.4      8.2                   of the judges                                                                    8


                                                                                                   Personal connection
2008        12.8                     54.6                          21.1          11.5                    of the judges                                                                   7.9



2006         13.5                    51.7                         22.8           12             Political considerations                                                           7.43



2005                                                                                           The facts and applicable                                                     6.8
            11.4                   51.1                         23.1            14.4                   law in each case

                                                                                                                           1      2        3          4      5          6   7            8        9          10
       0%               20%          40%                 60%           80%              100%
                                                                                                                         No influence                                                          Influence a lot
                                          % of respondents




Summary of findings
4                                                                                                  Corruption in Albania
                                                                                                    Perception and Experience




Overall,	82%	of	judges	surveyed	agree	with	the	general	                                             of	 the	 judges	 agreed	 that	 litigants	 approached	 them	
statement	 that	 “judges	 in	 Albania	 are	 impartial	 in	 con-                                     with	 bribes;	 a	 decrease	 of	 17.7	 percentage	 points	 from	
ducting	trials”.	This	is	an	increase	of	7.2	percentage	points	                                      2008.
from	the	2008	survey.	This	result	differs	greatly	from	the	
perceptions	 of	 the	 general	 public	 and	 the	 public	 sector	                                     Fig. 34 Judges are impartial in conducting trials
employees	 samples	 (Fig.	 34).	 Only	 16%	 of	 the	 general	                                                          Samples 2009
public	sample	think	that	judges	are	impartial.	Similarly,	                                             Strongly agree                 Agree         Neutral        Disagree         Strongly disagree
approximately	only	20%	of	the	public	sector	employees	                                                                 2.2
sample	think	the	same.	                                                                              General Public           13.8               33.7                          39               11.3


When	 asked	 whether	 corruption	 in	 the	 Albanian	 court	                                                            2.4

system	 is	 a	 serious	 problem,	 only	 27.3%	 of	 the	 judges	                                        Public Sector           17.2                     38.3                        34.3             7.8

responded	affirmatively,	a	decrease	of	23.2	percentage	
points	from	2008	(Fig.	33).	37.2%	of	judges	agreed	that	                                                                                                                                              0.6
                                                                                                            Judges                    40.1                              41.9                  16.8         0.6
lawyers	approaching	judges	outside	the	court	is	a	com-
mon	practice,	a	decrease	of	18.3	percentage	points	from	                                                            0%                 20%              40%            60%              80%           100%
2008.	A	significant	decrease	is	also	observed	in	the	liti-
                                                                                                                                                          % of respondents
gants	approaching	judges	with	bribe	offers.	Only	23.3%	

  Fig. 33 Corruption in Albanian courts and approach                                                 Fig. 35 Own assessment of how judges and lawyers
          of lawyers and litigants to judges                                                                 are viewed by the public
                   Judges Surveys                                                                                      Judges Survey 2009
                                                                                                         Very good
                                                                                                                             100
                                        Yes                  No                        DK
                                                                                                                             90
      Corruption in the 2009      27.3                            64.5                      8.1                              80
Albanian court system
  is a serious problem 2008                    50.5                         40.5            9                                70

                                                                                                                             60

                         2009           37.2                             57.6                5.2                             50
    Lawyers appoach
 you outside the court                                                                                                       40
                         2008                   55.5                            40.5            4
                                                                                                                             30
                                                                                                                                                                                49.1
                                                                                                                             20                 42.9
                         2009    23.3                             68                        8.7
   Litigants approach
 you with bribe offers                                                                                                       10
                         2008            41.0                             53                 6
                                                                                                                              0
                            0%           20%           40%        60%              80%       100%        Very bad
                                                                                                                                              Lawyers                          Judges




Summary of findings
                                                                 Survey 009                                                                                      5




Economic Evaluation
Regarding	the	economic	situation	of	Albania	in	general,	
more	than	half	of	respondents	(54.4%)	considered	it	as	           Fig. 36 General economic situation in Albania
“Bad”	 or	 “Very	 bad”	 (Fig.	 36),	 a	 percentage	 not	 much	                      General Public samples
different	 when	 compared	 with	 the	 2005	 results,	 and	 a	                       Good or Very Good                    Fair            Bad or Very Bad
decrease	of	6	percentage	points	from	2008.	Only	12.3%	
categorized	 the	 situation	 as	 “Good”	 or	 “Very	 good”,	      2009      12.3                  33.3                                      54.4


which	represents	no	statistically	significant	change	from	
                                                                 2008     10                  29.6                                       60.4
the	2008	survey.	33.3%	of	the	respondents	consider	the	
economic	situation	to	be	“Fair”.                                 2006      13.8                      38.4                                       47.8


Public	 sector	 employees	 tend	 to	 perceive	 the	 economic	
                                                                 2005     11.2                  34.1                                       54.7
situation	 more	 favorably	 than	 the	 general	 public.	 Only	
29%	of	them	consider	it	as	“Bad”	or	“Very	bad”	(Fig.	37).	           0%                 20%                 40%                 60%                80%            100%

The	economic	situation	is	considered	“Fair”	by	52.4%	of	                                                       % of respondents

the	public	sector	employees,	while	only	18.7%	consider	it	
as	“Good”	or	“Very	good”.	


                                                                  Fig. 37 General economic situation in Albania
                                                                                    Samples 2009

                                                                                     Good or Very Good                          Fair            Bad or Very Bad


                                                                 General Public      12.3               33.3                                    54.4




                                                                  Public Sector        18.7                             52.4                                 29



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

                                                                                                                   % of respondents




Summary of findings
6                                                                   Corruption in Albania
                                                                     Perception and Experience




The	 percentage	 of	 Albanians	 who	 declare	 an	 improve-
ment	of	the	general	economic	situation	compared	to	last	              Fig. 38 General economic situation compared
year	 is	 still	 very	 low	 on	 average	 (Fig.	 38).	 Only	 13.5%	            to a year ago
of	 the	 respondents	 said	 that	 the	 economic	 situation	 is	                           General Public samples
“Better”	than	last	year,	a	4.4	percentage	point	increase	
                                                                                                Better                         Same                        Worse
from	2008.	The	situation	remains	the	“Same”	for	41.5%	               2009         13.5                         41.5                                        45
of	the	respondents,	while	45%	report	that	the	situation	is	
“Worse”	than	the	last	year.	                                         2008        9.1                    36.9                                          54


Economic	optimism,	judged	by	opinions	on	how	the	eco-                2006               21.4                                 54.6                                       24
nomic	situation	will	be	a	year	from	now,	is	only	slightly	
better	than	in	2008	and	is	still	far	down	from	the	levels	of	        2005        10.6                             55.6                                           33.8

the	2006	and	2005	surveys.	About	39%	of	the	respond-                        0%                  20%                   40%               60%                 80%                     100%
ents	think	that	the	economic	situation	will	be	“Better”	a	                                                               % of respondents
year	from	now,	while	35%	think	it	will	be	the	“Same”	(Fig.	
39).	Similarly,	25.4%	of	the	respondents	are	pessimistic	
about	the	country’s	economic	situation	a	year	from	now,	
a	 2.5	 percentage	 point	 reduction	 from	 2008	 but	 10.6	
                                                                      Fig. 39 General economic situation a year from now
percentage	points	higher	than	in	2005.		                                                 General Public samples

                                                                                                Better                        Same                         Worse

                                                                      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 009                                                                                       7




Impact of Political Orientation on Percep-
tions
This	 survey	 indicates	 that	 perceptions	 about	 corruption,	
trust,	transparency	and	the	extent	to	which	institutions	fight	                     Fig. 40 Honesty vs. Corruption - Average
corruption	are	highly	correlated	with	the	political	orienta-                                                   By political orientation
                                                                                                               General Public 2009
tion	of	respondents.6		
                                                                                               Very corrupt
                                                                                                                 100
In	general,	right-leaning	respondents	evaluate	institutions	
more	positively	than	left-leaning	respondents.	The	general	                                                        80
corruption	perception	of	20	evaluated	institutions	is	about	
10	points	higher	on	average	for	left-leaning	than	for	right	                                                       60
leaning	respondents	(Fig.	40).	Consistently,	corruption	per-
ceptions	of	different	institutions	are	higher	for	respondents	                                                     40

who	identify	themselves	as	left-leaning.		Despite	these	dif-                                                                       64.8                 63.5
                                                                                                                                                                      54.7
ferences,	 however,	 even	 right-leaning	 respondents	 think	                                                      20

that	institutions	are	on	average	“more	corrupt	than	honest”	
with	a	score	of	54.7	points.	                                                               Very honest
                                                                                                                    0
                                                                                                                                Left leaning            Center     Right leaning


While	 only	 4%	 of	 left-leaning	 respondents	 think	 that	 cor-
                                                                                   Fig. 41 Corruption among public officials compared
ruption	among	public	officials	has	decreased	compared	to	
                                                                                           to the last year
a	year	ago,	37.2%	of	right-leaning	respondents	believe	the	                                                   By political orientation
same.	 While	 60.4%	 of	 the	 left-leaning	 respondents	 con-                                                 General Public 2009
sider	that	corruption	among	public	officials	has	increased	                                                      Increased                 Remained the same        Decreased
compared	 to	 a	 year	 ago,	 only	 22%	 of	 the	 right-leaning	                                        100%             4
                                                                                                                                                8.5

respondents	believe	the	same.	Among	those	whose	politi-                                                80%                                                           37.2

cal	orientations	fall	in	the	center,	more	than	half	(53.4%)	
                                                                                                                     35.6
                                                                                                                                                38.2
                                                                                    % of respondents




reported	that	corruption	has	increased	from	last	year.                                                 60%


                                                                                                                                                                     40.8
                                                                                                       40%
                                                                                                                     60.4
                                                                                                                                                53.4
                                                                                                       20%
                                                                                                                                                                      22

                                                                                                        0%
                                                                                                                 Left leaning                  Center            Right leaning



 6.	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	that	answered	1-4;	center	those	that	answer	5-6;	right-leaning	those	that	answered	7-10.


Summary of findings
8                                                                       Corruption in Albania
                                                                         Perception and Experience




Political	 orientation	 also	 plays	 a	 role	 in	 influencing	 the	      government’s	contribution	in	the	fight	against	corruption	
level	of	citizens’	trust	towards	different	institutions.	Right-          with	 30.3	 points,	 while	 right-leaning	 respondents	 have	
leaning	respondents	tend	to	show	more	trust	in	state	in-                 given	a	score	of	62.1	points	(Fig.	44).
stitutions,	 than	 left-leaning	 respondents.	 There	 is	 a	 dif-
ference	 of	 as	 much	 as	 13	 points,	 between	 left-leaning	
respondents	and	right-leaning	ones.	                                        Fig. 43 Trust in Parliament
                                                                                               By political orientation
                                                                                               General Public 2009
Illustratively,	left-leaning	respondents	show	low	trust	to-                   Trust a lot
wards	 the	 central	 government	 with	 32.3	 points	 on	 the	                                    100


trust	 scale	 (Fig.	 42).	 Right-leaning	 respondents,	 on	 the	
other	 hand,	 trust	 considerably	 more	 the	 government	                                         80


with	 almost	 double	 the	 number	 of	 points	 (65.8).	 Simi-
                                                                                                  60
larly,	right-leaning	respondents	trust	Parliament	with	57.6	
points,	while	left-leaning	respondents	show	their	distrust	                                       40
with	34.3	points	(Fig.	43).	
                                                                                                                                       57.6
                                                                                                  20
Overall,	 right-leaning	 respondents	 tend	 to	 view	 more	                                                  34.3          36.9


positively	the	government’s	role	in	the	fight	against	cor-                                         0
ruption.	 Left-leaning	 respondents	 have	 evaluated	 the	                   No trust at all              Left leaning    Middle    Right Leaning




     Fig. 42 Trust in central government                                    Fig. 44 Extent to which government helps
                     By political orientation                                       to fight corruption
                     General Public 2009                                                       By political orientation
     Trust a lot
                      100                                                                      General Public 2009
                                                                              Helps a lot
                                                                                                 100
                       80

                                                                                                 80

                       60
                                                                                                 60

                       40
                                                                                                 40
                                                             65.8
                                                                                                                                        62.1
                       20                       37.4
                                    32.3                                                         20                         37.7
                                                                                                              30.3


                        0                                                                         0
   No trust at all              Left leaning    Middle   Right Leaning         Not at all                 Left leaning     Center   Right leaning




Summary of findings

								
To top