04.2015, REPORT, Survey on Perceptions and Knowledge of Corruption, Strengthening Transparency in Mongolia Project

SURVEY ON PERCEPTIONS AND KNOWLEDGE OF CORRUPTION

Strengthening Transparency in Mongolia Project

April, 2015


4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 7

II. Key Findings ................................................................................................................................ 8

III. Survey Methodology .................................................................................................................. 9

1. Major problems ................................................................................................................. 11

2. Expectations of Fairness and Transparency in Elections ........................................... 13

3. Level of Corruption ............................................................................................................ 16

4. Assessment of Corruption Trends .................................................................................. 19

5. Fighting Corruption ........................................................................................................... 21

6. Anti-corruption Initiatives ............................................................................................... 27

7. Expectations of Fair Treatment ....................................................................................... 29

8. Grand Corruption .............................................................................................................. 30

9. Petty Corruption ................................................................................................................ 35

10. Factors Shaping Public Attitudes ................................................................................... 39

11. Data Demographics ......................................................................................................... 40

IV. Survey Instrument ................................................................................................................ 43


5

LIST OF FIGURES:

Figure 1.1: Major problems (choose one, open question) ........................................................ 11

Figure 1.2: Unemployment .............................................................................................................. 12

Figure 1.3: Corruption ....................................................................................................................... 12

Figure 1.4: Corruption is a common practice in our country ..................................................... 12

Figure 2.1: To what extent do you expect the following aspects of the elections to be fair and transparent? (Valid %) ......................................................................... 13

Figure 2.2: How fair and transparent are the following stages of the election process? ...... 15

Figure 2.3: Mean response values for each election stage (from 1 = “Not at all” to 4 = “To a large extent”) ...................................................... 16

Figure 3.1: Impact of corruption ...................................................................................................... 16

Figure 3.2: Extent of corruption ....................................................................................................... 18

Figure 3.3: Extent of corruption ....................................................................................................... 18

Figure 3.4: Rural vs. UB rankings of corruption ............................................................................ 19

Figure 4.1: In the past three years, how has the level of corruption in Mongolia changed? .................................................................................................. 20

Figure 4.2: How do you expect the level of corruption in the next three years to change? .. 20

Figure 5.1: Factors hindering the fight against corruption (from 1 = “not at all” to 4 = “a lot”) ............................................................................. 21

Figure 5.2: Measures to eliminate corruption ............................................................................. 22

Figure 5.3: In your opinion, who should organize and lead the effort to combat corruption? (Choose one) .............................................................................. 23

Figure 5.4: How do you think the current government will perform compared to its predecessor in fighting corruption? ...................................................................... 23

Figure 5.5: How do you evaluate the IAAC’s performance in fighting corruption? ................. 24

Figure 5.6: How much confidence do you have in the IAAC to fight corruption? ................... 24

Figure 5.7: Are you confident that IAAC is an impartial law enforcement body? ................... 25

Figure 5.8: Since the introduction of the new law on corruption, are you aware of any officials being prosecuted by the justice system? ............................................ 25

Figure 5.9: Are you aware of a telephone hotline to report corruption? .................................. 26

Figure 5.10: Would you report a corruption case if the IAAC would accept anonymous information? ............................................................................................... 26

Figure 6.1: How IMPORTANT is each of the following? ............................................................... 28


6

Figure 6.2: How EFFECTIVE is each of the following? .................................................................. 28

Figure 7.1: Fair treatment in education and health ...................................................................... 29

Figure 7.2: Fair treatment by the judiciary and law enforcement ............................................. 29

Figure 7.3: Fair treatment from local and national government ................................................ 30

Figure 8.1: Definitions of grand corruption ................................................................................... 31

Figure 8.2: Why is there GC in Mongolia? ..................................................................................... 31

Figure 8.3: The level of GC in Mongolia .......................................................................................... 32

Figure 8.4: How frequently do you hear about incidents of grand corruption? ...................... 32

Figure 8.5: If you know of a specific case, how was the bribe given? ..................................... 33

Figure 8.6: Do you think that GC has any negative impact on you and your family? .............. 33

Figure 8.7: In your opinion, who should organize and lead the effort to combat grand corruption? (Choose one) .................................................................................. 34

Figure 8.8: In your opinion, what is the most effective way to combat GC? ............................ 35

Figure 9.1: If you face a situation in which you are directly asked for a bribe by a public or private official, what are you most likely to do? (Choose one) ........... 35

Figure 9.2: Where would you report corruption, if anywhere? ................................................... 36

Figure 9.3: In the past three months, have you or anyone in your household paid a bribe in any form? ........................................................................................................ 37

Figure 9.4: Which of the following applies to the bribes you paid in the past three months? 37

Figure 9.5: Percent of households whose budget was “seriously damaged” ......................... 38

Figure 10.1: Leading variables in shaping attitudes ...................................................................... 40

Figure 11.1: If you face a situation in which you are directly asked for a bribe by a public or private official, what are you most likely to do? (By area) .................. 41

Figure 11.2: If you face a situation in which you are directly asked for a bribe by a public or private official, what are you most likely to do? (By gender) ............. 41

Figure 11.3: If you face a situation in which you are directly asked for a bribe by a public or private official, what are you most likely to do? (By income) ............ 42

Figure 11.4: If you face a situation in which you are directly asked for a bribe by a public or private official, what are you most likely to do? (By age) ................... 42

LIST OF TABLES:

Table 1: Sample Distribution ...................................................................................................... 10Table 3.1: Top five corrupt institutions ......................................................................................... 17Table 10.1 Factors shaping public attitudes ................................................................................. 39


7

I. INTRODUCTION

In April 2015, The Asia Foundation, in collaboration with Sant-Maral Foundation, conducted its sixteenth Survey on Perceptions and Knowledge of Corruption (SPEAK) in Mongolia, a nationwide survey of citizens in rural soums, aimags, and the capital city Ulaanbaatar, generously supported by Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Known from 2006 to 2011 as the Mongolia Corruption Benchmarking Survey, it was renamed SPEAK in 2012.

SPEAK is one of just a few regular, nationwide surveys in Mongolia, and it’s results are widely cited and used by civil society and government organizations. It provides a unique and robust tool for government policymakers and civil society groups to raise awareness and educate the public. The survey measures public perceptions and understanding of corruption, grand corruption, government institutions, and the impact of petty corruption on the day-to-day life of Mongolian households. The longitudinal design of the survey helps to track long-term changes and trends in perceptions and attitudes.

In 2012, The Asia Foundation also introduced a complementary report, the Study of Private Perceptions of Corruption (STOPP), under the USAID-funded Strengthening Transparency and Governance project (STAGE), to better gauge over time the perceptions of Mongolian private sector actors. Currently, The Asia Foundation has commissioned a number of detailed, in-depth studies focusing on health, mining, and construction, which will be released later in 2015.


8

II. KEY FINDINGS

l Since the second half of 2013, the trend in combating corruption has reversed.

l In March 2013, slightly over a third of respondents (35.1 percent) thought that the government of PM Altankhuyag would do better with corruption than its predecessor. In April 2015, less than a tenth (7.2 percent) thought that the government of PM Saikhanbileg would do better than its predecessor.

l If, in September 2013, more than a third of respondents (41 percent) thought that corruption had increased in the last three years, in April 2015, more than half (59 percent) thought that corruption had increased.

l If, in September 2013, slightly over half of respondents (52.5 percent) were optimistic that corruption would decrease in the next three years, in April 2015, just more than a quarter of respondents (27.4 percent) were so optimistic.

l Positive evaluations of the Independent Authority Against Corruption’s (IAAC) performance have been decreasing, from 29.4 percent in September 2013 to 22.6 percent in March 2014, and to 16.6 percent in April 2015. A decrease is also observed in respondents’ confidence in the IAAC, with 46.5 percent confident in 2013, 45.7 percent in 2014, and just 39.2 percent in 2015. In addition, confidence in the IAAC’s impartiality has dropped significantly, from 34.7 percent in March 2014 to 21.7 percent in April 2015.

l A majority of respondents continue to “strongly” or “somewhat” agree with the statement, “Corruption is a common practice in our country” – more than 80 percent since 2006, rising to 85.3 percent in April 2015.

l Campaign finance at various stages of the electoral process is expected to be one of the biggest concerns in the upcoming 2016 Elections. Slightly over half (53 percent) expect that campaign finance will be “not at all” fair and transparent.

l For the first time, political corruption is emerging as a strong concern. Three of the five institutions deemed most corrupt are political: political parties, national government, and Parliament. National government ranked at the top for the first time since 2006.

l Among factors hindering the anti-corruption fight, a cultural factor, “the habit of solving problems through corrupt practices,” has fallen from first to second place in the rankings (from a mean value of 3.45 in November 2012 to 3.12 in April 2015). Instead, imperfect legislation and sanctions has moved into first place.

l Since 2012, the most popular way to fight corruption has been strong enforcement measures.

l Among recent initiatives by state institutions to reduce corruption, respondents ranked “introduction of new technology” highest in both importance and effectiveness. Almost


9

two thirds of respondents (71.6 percent) rated it as “significantly” or “extremely” important, and over half of respondents (62.2 percent) rated it as “significantly” or “extremely” effective.

l The most widely cited reasons for Grand Corruption in Mongolia were lack of transparency at high levels of government (19.5 percent) and merger of business and

political interests (19.1 percent).

III. SURVEY METHODOLOGY

Structured, face-to-face interviews were conducted with adults 18 years of age and above. A multi-stage, random sampling procedure was used with probability sampling in an area cluster.

In the first stage, Ulaanbaatar and up to two aimags (provinces) from each of the four regions were selected randomly, followed by the random selection of soums (counties) within those aimags and khoroos (subdistricts) in Ulaanbaatar. Aimag centers and soum centers (administrative centers) were always included in the sample.

In the second stage, the primary sample units (PSUs) were selected. In Ulaanbaatar, the PSUs were randomly selected khesegs (subdistricts). In the aimag centers, the PSUs were randomly selected bags (the smallest political subdivision of an aimag). In soum centers, a block of households was designated by the interview supervisor. The size of PSUs was kept at eight households.

In the third stage, the starting point and included households were established. In apartment areas of Ulaanbaatar, interviewers were provided with addresses (building and flat number). In ger districts, the field executive provided interviewers with street numbers and starting points. Working from the starting point, the interviewers in ger districts would skip the first household, interview the second household, then use the right-hand rule and interview every third household. In aimag centers and soums centers, starting points were determined by supervisors, and interviewers then followed the right-hand rule and selected every third household. At the household level, the head of household or the household member who was most familiar with household matters was selected for the interview.

This report highlights the findings of the SPEAK V survey, which was started on March 30, 2015, and completed on April 16, 2015. The enumerators surveyed 170 PSUs consisting of 1,360 households in eight districts of Ulaanbaatar and in 22 soums of six aimags.1 The sample distribution is shown in the following table:

1 Results are based on face-to-face interviews with 1,360 adults aged 18 and older. For results based on the total national sample of adults, the margin of sampling error is ±1.6 percentage points (if p=10 percent and 1-p=90 percent) to ±2.6 percentage points (if p=40 percent and 1-p=60 percent) at the 95% confidence level. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.


11

1. MAJOR PROBLEMS

As identified by respondents, the major problems facing the country appear to reflect the volatile economic situation. Among the seven top-ranked problems, six are related to the national or household economies, which usually are closely correlated. The “national economy” category ranks third, showing a significant increase from 0.5 percent in March 2013 to 10.2 percent in April 2015. In comparison, the ranking of ecology has decreased in surveys that are more recent. Inflation’s rating reached a high in September 2013, but is now on the decline.

Figure 1.1: Major problems (choose one, open question)

After falling from November 2012 to September 2013, unemployment has risen in the rankings of major problems (Figure 1.2). This can be linked to decreasing employment offers due to shrinking economic activity. The government sector also experienced substantial cuts in the number of state employees.

The ranking of corruption as a problem has been more or less stable in recent surveys, but over the longer term it has fallen significantly, from 28.8 percent in 2006 to just under 8 percent in the latest survey (Figure 1.3). On the other hand, more than 80 percent of respondents continue to agree “strongly” or “somewhat” that “corruption is a common practice in our country,” as they have consistently since 2006 (Figure 1.4). This discrepancy may reflect a growing sense of resignation that some forms of corruption have become integral parts of everyday life that cannot be easily eliminated.


12

Figure 1.2: Unemployment

Figure 1.3: Corruption

Figure 1.4: Corruption is a common practice in our country.

EXPECTATIONS OF FAIRNESS AND TRANSPARENCY IN ELECTIONS


13

2. EXPECTATIONS OF FAIRNESS AND TRANSPARENCY IN ELECTIONS

With parliamentary elections coming in 2016, there has already been a surge of political activity. Much public debate has focused on vote-counting systems, electoral districts and constituencies, and voter participation. It has been observed that the public views these matters with caution due to many past electoral irregularities.

Based on valid answers,2 respondents had the lowest expectation of fairness and transparency in campaign finance (Figure 2.1b). Slightly over half of respondents (53 percent) considered campaign finance to be “not at all” fair and transparent.

Over half of respondents (60 percent) considered the preparatory stage of elections – voter registration, assembling teams of observers, etc. – to be fair and transparent “to a small extent” or “not at all” (Figure 2.1a). Close to 57 percent had a negative view of the fairness and transparency of vote counting at the polling station (Figure 2.1d), and slightly more than half (51 percent) considered the final stage of elections – aggregation and reporting of results by the General Election Commitee – to be fair and transparent “to a small extent” or “not at all” (Figure 2.1e).

Election campaigns fared better when rated for fairness and transparency, but still, a quarter of respondents saw this process as not transparent at all (Figure 2.1c). This relatively positive assessment can mainly be linked to the public’s higher exposure to election campaign process in comparison to other stages.

Figure 2.1: To what extent do you expect the following aspects of the elections to be fair and transparent? (Valid %)

a)

2 Valid %: calculations excluding “don’t know” and “no answer” options.


14

b)

c)

d)


15

e)

Nevertheless, when we include non-valid responses in the results,3 the highest percentage of respondents with no opinion was in the category of campaign finance (Figure 2.2). Nearly a quarter of respondents (23.1 percent) could not answer the question. A notable percentage of respondents had no opinion or expressed uncertainty about the preparatory stage and the vote-counting stages of the election process. Moreover, if we look at mean values, campaign finance and the preparatory stage of elections are rated the least fair and transparent (Figure 2.3).

Figure 2.2: How fair and transparent are the following stages of the election process?

3 Non-valid responses: “don’t know” and “no answer”


16

Figure 2.3: Mean response values for each election stage (from 1 = “Not at all” to 4 = “To a large extent”)

3. LEVEL OF CORRUPTION

In April 2015, the public’s opinion of the impact of corruption on personal life and the business environment remained more or less unchanged from March 2014. The mean value of personal life responses is around two: corruption has a “small” impact. Since 2006, this assessment has shown some improvement, which can be connected to the decreasing reports of bribes or instances of corruption in previous surveys.

The mean value for the impact of corruption on the business environment is around three, which is “moderate.” The highest reported impact was on political life. Starting from 2006 the assessment of corruption’s impact on business and politics fluctuated slightly with the election cycle.

Figure 3.1: Impact of corruption


18

Closer examination of mean levels of assessment of corruption in various institutions shows that most have an average score of three (Figure 3.2). Respondents consider the banking sector to be affected by corruption to some extent. While land utilization is at the top, as a majority of respondents consider it to be significantly affected by corruption.

Figure 3.2: Extent of corruption

4

4 Respondents are asked to evaluate corruption levels of various institutions. Numerical value scaling from 1 to 5 represents an institution as not corrupt at all to extremely corrupt. Mean values are the average of points from 1 to 5.

Broken down it can be seen that a significant number of respondents believe that most of these institutions are moderately, significantly, or extremely corrupt (Figure 3.3). This assessment of extent of corruption ranges from the highest of 81.4 percent of respondents evaluation of land utilization to the lowest of 39.6 percent of respondents evaluation of banking and financial institutions.

Figure 3.3: Extent of corruption


19

When we segregate rural respondents from Ulaanbaatar respondents, some significant differences can be observed. UB respondents rated corruption much higher in the listed institutions than did rural respondents. Among the institutions with the greatest difference was the tax office, with a difference of 0.44 (Figure 3.4). Four other institutions with a notable rural-UB divide are the Professional Inspection Agency, political parties, the Registry and Permit Service, and local procurement tenders, with differences ranging from 0.39 to 0.43. UB residents’ greater exposure to media and access to services could be among the reasons for their higher assessments of corruption levels.

Figure 3.4: Rural vs. UB rankings of corruption

4. ASSESSMENT OF CORRUPTION TRENDS

Respondents’ evaluation of trends in levels of corruption showed more or less continuous improvement from 2006 through 2014. The belief that corruption levels were declining reached an all-time high in September 2013 and March 2014, but the April 2015 survey showed a significant turnaround in that belief (Figure 4.1). In March 2014, just 39.9 percent of respondents believed that levels of corruption had increased a little or a lot, but in April 2015 this number had grown to 59 percent.


20

Figure 4.1: In the past three years, how has the level of corruption in Mongolia changed?

Correspondingly, expectations of levels of corruption in the next three years have become more pessimistic (Figure 4.2). About a fifth of respondents in September 2013 and March 2014 believed that corruption would increase (20.4 percent and 23.4 percent respectively). In April 2015, about a third of respondents expected it to increase (35.2 percent).

About half of respondents in September 2013 and in March 2014 expected corruption to decrease (52.5 percent and 45.8 percent respectively), but only about a quarter were that optimistic in April

2015 (27.4 percent).

Figure 4.2: How do you expect the level of corruption in the next three years to change? Will it:


21

5. FIGHTING CORRUPTION

In exploring perceptions of the factors hindering the fight against corruption, we can find both negative and positive trends (Figure 5.1). On the positive side, in November 2012, the top factor was “the habit of solving problems through corrupt practices.” It retained its lead until March 2014, but its mean value has steadily decreased over the years of the survey, from 3.45 to 3.12. This trend is probably attributable to the gradual decrease in reports of petty corruption cases.

Other factors have fluctuated. “Imperfect legislation or sanctions against corruption” fell in the rankings from a mean value of 3.28 in November 2012 to 3.05 in September 2013, but in April 2015 it bounced back to 3.13 to become the highest-ranked factor hindering the fight against corruption. “Lack of will to control corruption from national political leadership” has also increased and now stands in third place. “Lack of will to control corruption from local political leadership” stands slightly lower, in fifth place.

Among the positive trends we have observed is the continuing decline of “corruption in law enforcement bodies,” from 3.41 in November 2012 to 3.04 in April 2015.

Figure 5.1: Factors hindering the fight against corruption (from 1 = “not at all” to 4 = “a lot”)


22

Since November 2012, respondents have consistently ranked “strong enforcement measures and punishment” as the most effective way to eliminate corruption (Figure 5.2). This is followed by “consistent implementation of the rule of law.” This can be tied to the inconsistency of much legislation and its implementation.

“Strengthening civil control over public administration” has declined over the years, to 11.9 percent in April 2015. In contrast, “strengthening state control over public administration” has gained support and now stands at 15.4 percent. “Building public awareness” fell substantially in the last year, to 9.9 percent.

The general lack of support for civic and public initiatives can be attributed to respondents’ lack of belief in their efficacy.

“Increasing public employees’ salaries” had shown a consistent rising trend since November 2012, but it declined abruptly to 8.3 percent in April 2015. The previous increase was tied to public concern about inflation (Figure 1.1), which was creating demand for salary increases. The decline of “inflation” and the rise of “national economy” in the latest rankings of major problems appear to have affected respondents’ priorities.

Figure 5.2: Measures to eliminate corruption


23

Despite minor shifts, the institution that respondents would prefer to lead the fight against corruption remains substantially unchanged since November 2012. The top choice by a large margin is the IAAC, selected by more than a third of respondents (37.8 percent) in April 2015. “National government” fell

by a few points from March 2014, and stands in second place with 14.2 percent. “Civil society” is third.

Figure 5.3: In your opinion, who should organize and lead the effort to combat corruption? (Choose one)

Is the current government fighting corruption more effectively than its predecessor? Public opinion on this question began to turn negative in September 2013 (Figure 5.4), and the current government of PM Saikhanbileg saw a decisive drop in the latest poll, amid general discontent with the state of the national economy and related governance issues. In September 2013, over a third of respondents (39.6 percent) believed that PM Altankhuyag’s government was doing better than the previous government of PM Batbold. However, in April 2015, less than a tenth of respondents (7.2 percent) believed the current government of PM Saikhanbileg was doing better than its predecessor.

Figure 5.4: How do you think the current government will perform compared to its predecessor in fighting corruption?


24

The same negative trends emerged in respondents’ evaluations of the main anticorruption institution, the IAAC (Figures 5.5 and 5.6). Negative evaluations of IAAC performance increased from 32.1 percent in September 2013 to 37.3 percent in March 2014, and to 45.5 percent in April 2015. Correspondingly, confidence in IAAC decreased from 46.5 percent in September 2013 to 45.7 percent in March 2014, and to 39.2 percent in April 2015.

Figure 5.5: How do you evaluate the IAAC’s performance in fighting corruption?

Figure 5.6: How much confidence do you have in the IAAC to fight corruption?


25

From March 2010 to March 2014, the number of respondents that considered IAAC to be an impartial law enforcement body was increasing, from a fifth of respondents (21.7 percent) in March 2010 to a third of respondents (34.7 percent) in March 2014 (Figure 5.7). Due to general discontent with the political system, this situation changed significantly in April 2015, as opinion reverted to the levels of March 2010.

Figure 5.7: Are you confident that IAAC is an impartial law enforcement body?

Another factor that can be tied to the IAAC evaluation is prosecutions of public officials. The public’s awareness of such prosecutions has decreased from 51.6 percent in September 2013 to 40.4 percent in April 2015 (Figure 5.8).

Figure 5.8: Since the introduction of the new law on corruption, are you aware of any officials being prosecuted by the justice system?


26

From March 2010 to April 2011, nearly half of respondents reported being aware of a telephone hotline to report corruption. Over time, that number has fallen to about a quarter or respondents, and it remains at that level in the latest survey (Figure 5.9).

Figure 5.9: Are you aware of a telephone hotline to report corruption?

Since November 2012, over half of respondents have been willing to report corruption if the IAAC would accept anonymous information (Figure 5.10). Although that number has only slightly decreased in the latest survey, there has been a notable increase in the number would not be willing to report, from less than a fifth to nearly a third, as respondents with no opinion have been replaced by more mistrustful ones.

Figure 5.10: Would you report a corruption case if the IAAC would accept anonymous information?


27

6. ANTI-CORRUPTION INITIATIVES

Among recent initiatives by state institutions to reduce corruption, “introduction of new technology” was ranked highest by respondents in both importance and effectiveness (Figures 6.1 and 6.2). About two thirds of respondents (71.6 percent) rated it “significantly” or “extremely” important, and over half of respondents (62.2 percent) called it “significantly” or “extremely” effective.

As new technology generally means computerization, respondents’ attitudes suggest a pragmatic outlook. Most can imagine benefits from public service automation5, such as eliminating human service providers with their potential for corrupt practices.

Next in the rankings by importance and effectiveness is the introduction of a transparent accounting law. Clear, formal procedures can also eliminate human interference. Well over half of respondents (62.2 percent) considered this measure “significantly” or “extremely” important. Somewhat less than half (41.8 percent) thought it would be “significantly” or “extremely” effective.

Among other initiatives, about half of respondents (51.7 percent) considered regular income disclosure by state employees to be “significantly” or “extremely” important, but only a quarter (26.3 percent) thought this measure would be “significantly” or “extremely” effective.

The lesser importance and effectiveness ascribed to civic participation seems to reflect the public’s skepticism about the capabilities of civil society. Although this attitude is changing, it is a rather slow process.

As for the election law initiative: while over a third of respondents (41.7 percent) considered it “significantly” or “extremely” important, less than a fifth (19 percent) considered it “significantly” or “extremely” effective. Such public skepticism may be tied to the constant changes in election laws.

5 Government Services Kiosks (Mongolian term “TUTS machine“)


28

Figure 6.1: How IMPORTANT is each of the following?

Figure 6.2: How EFFECTIVE is each of the following?


29

7. EXPECTATIONS OF FAIR TREATMENT

When it comes to respondents’ expectations of fair treatment when using government services, the trends are consistently more positive than anti-corruption trends.

Despite some fluctuations, half of the respondents in recent surveys consider the educational system to be fair (April 2015, 51.9 percent). Moreover, this perception has improved substantially over time. The healthcare system also showed some improvement over time, with well over a third of respondents expecting fair treatment (April 2015, 43.2 percent). After a steady rise from March 2010, similar approval levels were seen in these categories in March 2013. Approval levels subsequently fell, but they are now improving again (Figure 7.1).

Figure 7.1: Fair treatment in education and health

Respondents had a lower opinion of the judiciary and law enforcement, although here too there have been improvements over time. Barely a quarter of respondents in March 2010 considered these institutions to be fair, compared to roughly a third in more recent surveys (Figure 7.2). The highest fairness ratings for these institutions appeared in April 2015.

Figure 7.2: Fair treatment by the judiciary and law enforcement


30

When it comes to local and national government, the latest survey found considerable differences in respondents’ perceptions. Expectations of fair treatment from local government increased from a low of 41.3 percent in September 2013 to 48.8 percent in March 2014, and to a high of 52 percent in April 2015. But expectations of fairness from the national government fell in the latest survey. Respondents’ expectations of fair treatment increased from 39.5 percent in September 2013 to 47.4 percent in March 2014, but then fell to 43.8 percent in April 2015.

Figure 7.3: Fair treatment from local and national government

8. GRAND CORRUPTION

Since the introduction of the concept in November 2012, the population’s perception of grand corruption (GC) has begun to take shape. Of six definitions offered to respondents, “cases involving high-level public officials” and “cases involving strong political interests” received the strongest preference (Figure 8.1). They are followed by “cases causing a high level of damage to the country.” (In fact, this third alternative might be the most useful formal definition of GC, because it leaves room for quantification of “damage to the country.” In earlier surveys, attempts to get respondents to estimate the scale of bribes involved in GC elicited a very wide range of inconclusive responses).

Based on these observations, it is possible to formulate the popular concept of GC. For most respondents, “high-level public officials” are politicians, and “strong political interest” is linked to the pursuit of political and personal gain. As a result, GC can be defined as “cases involving political interests that cause a high level of damage to the country.”


31

Figure 8.1: Definitions of grand corruption

Turning to the causes of GC, nearly a fifth of respondents (19.5 percent) cited lack of transparency at high levels of government, followed closely by “the merger of political and business interests” (19.1 percent). Another widely cited reason was that “large foreign companies operating in Mongolia frequently use corrupt practices” (18.2 percent).

This attitude partly explains why major International projects get a hostile reception from part of the Mongolian population. In the public perception, these projects are conducted in ways that combine the top three most-cited reasons for GC: lack of government transparency, the merger of politics and business, and the corrupt influence of large foreign investors.

Figure 8.2: Why is there GC in Mongolia?


32

There were no significant changes from previous surveys in the population’s perception of GC. Over two years of measurements, approximately half of respondents have said that there is a “significant amount” of GC (Figure 8.3). Awareness of actual incidents of GC has also been stable (Figure 8.4). On average, about a fifth of respondents report “often” hearing about incidents of GC.

Figure 8.3: The level of GC in Mongolia

Figure 8.4: How frequently do you hear about incidents of grand corruption?


33

When asked to describe the nature of a bribe of which they were aware, over a third of respondents answered “cash” (37.6 percent), while slightly over a quarter (26.8 percent) reported that the bribe was a “position in administration” (Figure 8.5). The second situation is the most damaging of the two, as it lays the foundation for a network of corruption.

Figure 8.5: If you know of a specific case of GC, how was the bribe given?

Slightly more than a tenth of respondents (13.1 percent) believe that GC has a “very strong” negative impact on their families, but almost a third (29.2 percent) believe there is no impact at all (Figure 8.6). This shows that, for many Mongolians, the damage from GC remains an abstract issue, unconnected to the reality of their own lives, and impossible to observe directly.

Figure 8.6: Do you think that GC has any negative impact on you and your family?


34

Another sign that GC is “abstract” for much of the population can be seen in the preferences for leadership to fight GC. The no-response or no-opinion rate was much higher for grand corruption than it was for general corruption (43.2 percent for grand corruption and 0.7 percent for general corruption respectively). Thus, although respondents preferred the leadership of the IAAC in both cases, the totals are 37.8 percent for general corruption, but just 17.7 percent for grand corruption (Figure 8.7 and Figure 5.3). This shows that the population as a whole has less clarity of opinion about which institution is most suitable to deal with grand corruption.

Figure 8.7: In your opinion, who should organize and lead the effort to combat grand corruption? (Choose one)

Among ways to combat GC, most respondents preferred legislative tuning, increasing the authority of law enforcement organizations, and a stronger role for civil society. Notably, the fewest respondents believed in the effectiveness of independent media outlets or political parties with a strong anticorruption agenda.


35

Figure 8.8: In your opinion, what is the most effective way to combat GC?

9. PETTY CORRUPTION

Overall, the public’s attitudes toward petty corruption remained roughly the same from March 2014 to April 2015 (Figure 9.1). Over a third of respondents said they would not pay a bribe if asked. The number who would report the incident increased slightly, from 12.9 percent in March 2014 to 15.3 percent in April 2015. The other categories remained more or less unchanged.

Figure 9.1: If you face a situation in which you are directly asked for a bribe by a public or private official, what are you most likely to do? (Choose one)


36

Due to changes in response options6, we cannot directly compare where respondents said they would report corruption. Nevertheless, in the surveys prior to April 2015, about half of all respondents said they would report to the IAAC (Figure 9.2a). Slightly over a fifth of respondents in April 2015 (22 percent) said they would report corruption to management, while 14 percent said they would report corruption to the newly introduced Government Hotline 11-11 (Figure 9.2b).

Figure 9.2: Where would you report corruption, if anywhere?

a) Before April 2015

b) April 2015

6 In April 2015, the new category “Government 11-11 hotline” was added to response options (Figure 9.2b).


37

Involvement in petty corruption declined slightly from eight percent in March 2014 to seven percent in April 2015 (Figure 9.3). The pattern of bribery remained broadly the same as in November 2012 (Figure 9.4). The majority of respondents (67.4 percent) said that they paid a bribe to obtain a service to which they were entitled. The number of cases in which a bribe was demanded increased slightly from 13.6 percent in March 2014 to 15.2 percent in April 2015. The number of cases in which bribes were paid to avoid a problem with the authorities remained the same in the last couple of surveys (16.3 percent in April 2015).

Figure 9.3: In the past three months, have you or anyone in your household paid a bribe in any form?

Figure 9.4: Which of the following applies to the bribes you paid in the past three months?


41


At first glance, although some gender differences can be found in separate variables, this is mostly the effect of women expressing no opinion or being undecided. Once such cases are excluded, the differences between men and women fall below the margin of error and are no longer significant. We may also note that men exhibit a preference for extreme response options such as “totally,” “very,” and “a lot.” In contrast, women prefer milder responses such as “rather,” “some,” and “a little.” Concerning the main aspect of what respondents will do if directly asked for a bribe, however, gender differences are minimal.



42

Regarding the effects of income, the classic situation of income being tied to education plays a role in the differences that emerge among respondents. Respondents with higher incomes tend to be better educated, and to offer more opinions on the matters in question. It is noteworthy that higher incomes make respondents more willing to pay a bribe, “if I have the money.”


The effects of respondents’ ages are tied to their levels of activity. The middle-age category is most active and tends to report more negative opinions about corruption. The younger age-group is more inclined to have no opinion and is more likely to use social media as their information channel. The oldest group is least willing to pay when confronted with corrupt practices.



43

IV. SURVEY ON CORRUPTION PERCEPTION AND KNOWLEDGE

SURVEY INSTRUMENT

The goal of this survey, the Survey on Perception and Knowledge of Corruption, is to study the perceived levels of corruption in Mongolia. We will ask more than 1300 citizens nationwide to respond to this survey. We would like to learn what your opinions are about different types of corruption and what situation you may face in your everyday life related to corruption.

Please be assured that your individual answers and comments will be kept in strictest confidence – nothing that you say will be identified to you in any way.

Thanks for your time to work to respond to our survey. If you have any question related to the survey, please contact us by the phone number 70116373. The results of this survey are going to be widely presented to the public.

Part A. General

1. In your opinion what is the most important social, economic, or political problem in the country today?

2. Some people believe that corruption affects different spheres of life in Mongolia. In your view, does corruption affect … not at all, to a small extent, to a moderate extent or to a large extent?

Spheres not at all to a small extent

to a moderate extent

to a large extent

Don’t know/No answer

2.1 Your personal and family life

1 2 3 4 9

2.2 Business environment 1 2 3 4 9

2.3 Political life 1 2 3 4 9

3. In 2016-2017 Mongolia is facing Parliamentary and Presidential Elections. In your opinion, how much transparency and fairness there is in a following stages of Election process?