Corruption in Albania - UNESCO · 2017. 9. 14. · The average score for the 9 institutions/groups evaluated is 42.4 points, which is below the mid-point scale from 0-100 where 0

Corruption in Albania

Summary of findings

Perception and Experience

Survey 2010

Prepared by IDRA, Albania

Corruption in Albania Perception and Experience

�

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...................................................1�

Trust in Institutions…...........................................................................................................13

Transparency of Institutions.................................................................................................15

Awareness of Anti-corruption Activities...............................................................................17

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

Attitudes Towards Corruption.................................................................................................�1

Judicial System...................................................................................................................�3

Economic Evaluation..........................................................................................................�7

Impact of Political Orientation on Perceptions....................................................................�9

Endnotes ...........................................................................................................................30

Table of ContentsPage

Survey �010 3

Summary of findings

Executive Summary

Corruption Perception• TheperceptionofcorruptioninAlbaniaremains

high.Theaveragecorruptionperceptionof20institutionsandgroupsevaluatedin2010is62.4pointsona0-100scale,where0means“Veryhonest”and100means“Verycorrupt.

• Religiousleaders,thePresident,themilitary,themedia,publicschool teachersandNGOlead-erscontinuetobeperceivedastheleastcorruptinstitutionsandgroupsamongthe20evaluated.Ontheotherhand,customofficials,taxofficialsanddoctorsareperceivedas themostcorruptinstitutions/groupsevaluated.

• According to the general public, corruptionamongpublicofficialsiscommon.91.8%oftherespondentsthinkthatcorruptionamongpublicofficials is either “Widespread” or “Somewhatwidespread”.

Fight against Corruption, Trust and Trans-

parency• Overall,theAlbanianpublichasanegativeper-

ceptionofthecontributionthatdifferentinstitu-tionshavemadeinthefightagainstcorruption.Theaveragescore for the9 institutions/groupsevaluatedis42.4points,whichisbelowthemid-point scale from0-100where0means “Doesnothelpatall”and100means“Helpsa lot”.Asinpreviousyears,mediaistheonlyinstitutionthatisperceivedtohelpinthefightagainstcor-

ruption.Itscores61pointsin2010.Alltheotherinstitutionsandgroupsareevaluatedbelow themid-pointscale.

• HighInspectoratefor theDeclarationandAuditofAssets, religious leadersandcourtsareseenas the least helpful in the fight against corrup-tion.

• Albanian citizens’ trust in institutions continuestobe very low.Onaverage, the trust score forall institutionsevaluated is43.8points,ona0-100 scalewhere0means “Donot trust at all”and100means“Trustalot”.Onlythemilitaryisratedwithascoreabove50points.ThePropertyRestitutionandCompensationAgency(28),tradeunions(32)andpoliticalparties(32)aretheleasttrustedinstitutionsin2010.

• Both the general public and public sector em-ployeesperceivethattransparencyininstitutionsis low overall. The average score of nine insti-tutions considered is below the midpoint in the0-100scalewhere0means“Notatalltranspar-ent” and 100 means “Fully transparent”, 38.7pointsbythegeneralpublicand48.9pointsbypublic sector employees. The most transparentinstitutions in theeyesof thegeneralpublicareconsideredtobelocalgovernmentandMinistryofEducation,bothwith44points,whiletheleasttransparentisconsideredtobethePropertyResti-tutionandCompensationAgency(PRCA)with26points.


�

Summary of findings

Corruption Experience• In2010survey,respondentsreporttohavebeen

victimizedonaverage1.31waysoutof10wayssurveyed. The corruption victimization index hasnot changed from2009.Still, the index is lowerthanin2005wherethereporteddirectexperiencewithcorruptionwas1.7waysoutof10.Inalmostallofscenariosprovidedinthequestionnaire,thepercentage of respondents who declare to havebeenavictimofcorruptionintherespectivesce-nariohasdecreasedfrom2005.

• Thehealthsectorstillremainstheonemostquot-edforbribery.In2010,33.5%ofrespondentsde-clared to haveofferedabribe to adoctor or anurse.

Judicial System• Trusttowardthejudicialsystemhasdeclinedfrom

2009, having increased steadily from 2005. Inthisyear’ssurvey,only35.9%oftherespondentsdeclared that they trust the judicial systemeither“Alot”orto“Some”degree.Thisis10.7percent-agepointslowerthan2009.Thepercentageofre-spondentswhotrustthejudiciary“Alittle”or“Notatall”remainshighat64.1%.

• Treatment by the courts has deteriorated from2009. 38% of respondents who have dealt withthecourtsbelievetheyhavebeentreated“Poorly”or “Very poorly”. This is 11.3 percentage points

worsethan2009.Accordingtothegeneralpub-lic,79.7%ofthemdeclarethatitisdifficulttogetinformation from the courts; a deterioration of10.2pointsfrom2009.

Economic Evaluation• Generalpublicperceptionoftheoveralleconom-

icsituationisthesameaslastyearandhasnotchangedmuchfromthatof2005.Slightlymorethan half of the respondents (53.9%) think thecountry’s economic situation is “Bad” or “Verybad”.Thereare slightly fewer respondentswhothinkthattheeconomywillbebetterinthecom-ingyear.Thosewhoexpectaneconomicstagna-tionhaveincreasedfrom35.3%in2009to39.8%in2010.23.3%oftherespondentsdeclaredthattheyexpect theeconomytoworsen in thecom-ingyear.Thispercentagehasnotchangedfrom2009.

Survey �010 5

Summary of findings

o Actual-600respondents• Judges Survey

o Targeted-Asampleof300judgesoftheAl-baniancourtsinalllevels.

o Actual-254respondents

TimingThesurveywasconductedduringtheperiodofJanuary-February2010.

MethodFace-to-faceinterviews

ThesurveywasproducedforreviewbytheUnitedStatesAgencyforInternationalDevelopment.ItwaspreparedbytheInstituteforDevelopmentandResearchAlternatives(IDRA)undertheframeworkoftheRuleofLawPrograminAlbania.Theauthors’viewsdonotnecessarilyreflecttheviewsoftheUnitedStatesAgencyforInternationalDevel-opmentortheUnitedStatesGovernment.

Introduction

This report presents the findings of the 2010 generalpublic,publicsectoremployeesandjudgessurveysoncorruption issues.This is the sixth report following the2004,2005,2006,2008and2009reports.Themainobjectiveofthesesurveysistomeasuretheperception,attitudeandexperiencesofcorruptionovertimeinAl-bania.

Thesetofsurveysconsistsof:

• General Public sample

o Targeted - National sample of 1,200 re-spondents,18+yearsold

o Actual-1,194respondents

• Public Sector sample

o Targeted - A sample of 600 public sectoremployeesdividedintofourstrataeachwith150respondents:i) CentralAdministrationii)LocalAdministrationiii)EducationSectoriv)HealthSector


6

Summary of findings

Malësi e Madhe

Tropojë

Shkodër Kukës

Dibër

Mat

Kurbin

Durrës

Tiranë

Elbasan

Fier Berat

Pogradec

Korçë

Kolonjë

Gjirokastër

Vlorë

Delvinë

Sarandë

Kuçovë

Kavajë

Lushnje

Krujë

Pukë

Sample Structure and Demographics

General Public Sample

Thegeneralpublicsamplewasbasedonamulti-stage,random probability sampling drawn from a list of vot-ing centers from the last local elections. Voting centersfor sampling purposes represent the primary samplingunits.The100primarysamplingunitswereselectedus-ingaformulathatrandomlygeneratednumbers,taking

Fig 1. Sample structure General Public 2010

Male46%Female

54%

Gender

Urban59%

Rural41%

Urban vs. Rural

Tab.1 Geographic distribu-tion of the sample

into account the numberof voters for each votingcenter and urban vs. ru-ralvotingcenters.Withinthe geographical areadesignatedbytheseunits,therespondentswerese-lectedbasedonrandom-route sampling (everythird door was selectedand the person with thelatest birthday in thathouseholdwastheninter-viewed).

Survey �010 7

Summary of findings

Tab. 2 Distribution of sample according to public sector structures:

Public Sector Employees Sample

Aquotasamplingbasedonfourmajorstratawasusedfor thePublicSectorsample.Eachof thesestratacon-tainedaround150respondents.Thestrataofthesamplewere:

1. Central Administration a. Allministriesb. Allothercentralinstitutionsbesidesministriesc. The Fiscal System (Customs and Tax Depart-

ment)d. Budgetaryindependentinstitutions

2. Local Administrationa. Communesb. Municipalities

3. Education SectorGeographicallydistributedsampleofemployeesin:

a. Pre-primary(Kindergartens)b. Compulsory(ElementarySchools–9years)c. SecondarySchoolsd. Universities

4. Health SectorGeographicallydistributedsampleof:

a. Doctorsb. Nursesc. DentistsandPharmacists(publicservice)

Fig. 2 Gender of respondents Public Sector 2010

Male36.3Female

63.6

Gender

Margin of ErrorThemarginoferrorfortheGeneralPublicsampleis±2.8%andforthePublicSectorsampleis±4%,bothwithaconfi-denceintervalof95%.Technicallyspeakingasamplingerrorof±2.8%meansthat,ifrepeatedsamplesofthissizewereconducted,95%ofthemwouldreflecttheviewsofthepopulationwithnogreaterinaccuracythan±2.8%.Thetestingofstatisticalsignificance,whichtakesintoaccountthemarginoferror,isimportantespeciallywhencomparinghistoricaldataorwhenpresentingsubgroupanalysisofresults.Thesestatisticalsignificancetestsareappliedtotheresultspre-sentedthroughoutthereport.


8

Summary of findings

Presentation of Findings

Allofthesurveyfindingsarepresentedona0-100scaleforbetterunderstandingandpresentation.

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

Aconversionisrequiredtofacilitateaccuratestatisticalanalysis.Itisachievedbysubtracting1fromeachpointon the1-10scale so that thequestionsare scoredona0-¬9scale.Thescaleisthendividedby9,sothatitranges from 0-1, and multipliedby100toobtaina0-100range.Inthisscale,0means“Veryhon-est” and 100 means “Very cor-rupt”. An il¬lustrative graph ispresented on the right in whichthecategory“SchoolTeachers”re-ceivedascoreof“48.”ThescoredoesNOTmean that48percentofthepublicreportedthatschoolteachersarecorrupt;itrepresentstheperceptionofhowcorruptaninstitutionisonascaleof0to100.Inotherwords,“Schoolteachers”receivedanaverage score of 48points on a 0-100 scale as per-ceivedbythepublic.

Therearealso threeother0-100scalespresented in thereport.Thosescalesare:

• Trust - A scale that shows the evaluation of re-spondentsfordifferentinstitutionsregardingtrust.Inthisscale0means“Donottrustatall”and100means“Trustalot”.

• Contribution to the fight against corruption-Ascalethatshowshowrespondentsperceivedifferentinstitutions regarding their contribution to the fightagainstcorruption.Inthisscale0means“Doesnothelpatall”and100means“Helpsalot”.

• Transparency -Ascale that shows the respond-ents’perceptionabout the transparencyofdiffer-ent institutions. In this scale0means “Notat alltransparent”and100means“Fullytransparent”.

Asanorm,thegraphsincludingyearlycomparisonsonlypresent the institutions that have experienced statisticallysignificant changes. Results from institutions that do notshowconsiderablechangearepresentedonly ifdeemedimportant.Note:Someofthepercentagespresentedinthegraphmaynotaddup to100.0percent.This isbecauseof round-ing.

Schoolteachers

Survey �010 9

Summary of findings

Perception of Corruption1

General PublicTheaverageperceptionofthe20institutionsandgroupsevaluatedis62.4points2indicatingahighlevelofcor-ruptionperceptionoverall(Fig.3).

Religiousleaders,thePresident,themilitary,themedia,publicschoolteachersandNGOleaderscontinuetobeperceivedastheleastcorruptinstitutionsamongthe20evaluated.Theevaluationisbelowthemidpointscaleofthecorruptionperceptionscale,meaningthattheyareperceived by the general public as more honest thancorrupt.

On the other hand, custom officials, tax officials anddoctorsareperceivedas themost corrupt institutions/groupsconsidered.

Public SectorPublicsectoremployees,inaggregate,perceivethein-stitutions/groupsasmorehonestthanthegeneralpublicdoes.Theaveragescoreof21institutions/groups4is51pointsonthe0-100corruptionperceptionscale(Fig.4).

Customofficialsandtaxofficialsarealsoperceivedbypublicsectoremployeesasthemostcorruptinstitutions/groups.

Fig. 3 Honesty vs. Corruption General Public 2010

62.4

30 30 3442 46 47

5663 66 69 71 74 74 75 76 76 76 79 81 84

0

20

40

60

80

100Very corrupt

Very honest

AVER

AGE

Relig

ious l

eade

rs

Pres

ident

Militar

yMed

ia

Publi

c sch

ool te

ache

rs

NGO le

ader

s

Busin

essm

en

Polic

emen

Univer

sity p

rofes

sors

Mayor

s

Prefe

cts

Party

lead

ers

Judg

es

Pros

ectuo

rs

Doctor

s

Parlia

men

tarian

s

IPRO

3

Ministe

rs

Tax o

fficial

s

Custom

offic

ials

Fig. 4 Honesty vs. Corruption Public Sector 2010

51

16 22 27 32 3845 45 49 49 52 56 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65

72 76

0

20

40

60

80

100Very corrupt

Very honest

AVERA

GE

Relig

ious l

eade

rs

Pres

ident

Militar

yMed

ia

Publi

c sch

ool te

ache

rs

Commiss

ion o

f civi

l Ser

vice

NGO le

ader

s

Busin

essm

en

Polic

emen

Univer

sity p

rofes

sors

Mayor

s

Prefe

cts

Partie

s lea

ders

Judg

es

Pros

ectuo

rs

Doctor

s

Parlia

mentar

ians

IPRO

Ministe

rs

Tax o

fficial

s

Custom

offic

ials


10

Summary of findings

21 31 35 42

6069

3238

66 68

37 35 36

6169

34 39 38

63 63

30 3442

66 71

0

20

40

60

80

100 2005 2006 2008 2009 2010Very corrupt

Very hones t President Military Media Policeman University

professors

Comparison in yearsThecorruptionperceptionofthePresidenthasdecreasedfrom34points in2009 to30points in2010.Still, thisperception is higher than that of the base-line year of2005wherethePresidentevaluationwas21points.

Mediain2010isperceivedbythegeneralpublicasmorecorrupt than in 2009 and in 2005. The perception ofcorruptionofmediain2010is42points,meaningthatalthoughhaving increased, it is still perceivedasmorehonestthancorrupt.

Perceptionof corruptionofpolicemenhas increased to66points,3pointsmorethanin2009andthesameas2005.

Perceivedcorruptionofuniversityprofessorsisthehigh-estinfiveyearsat71points,anincreaseof8pointsfrom2009.

Ontheotherhand,prefectsareperceivedaslesscorruptin2010comparedto2009,adecreaseof6pointsonthecorruptionperceptionscale.Thisperceptionisaboutthesameas2005.

Perceptionofcorruptionofprosecutorsis thehighest infiveyearsat76points,a4pointincreasefrom2009.

Thereisadecreaseof4pointsincorruptionperceptionofparliamentariansandministersfrom2009.

Although custom officials are perceived as the mostcorrupt, overall, the trendof corruptionperception hassteadilydeclinedovertheyearsto84points.

Fig. 5 Ndershmëria kundrejt korrupsionit Krahasim në vite - Publiku i gjerë

6275 72

7987

6676 72

7886

6672

7872

85

69 7278 79

84

63

76 74 7584

0

20

40

60

80

100

P refects P rosecutors Parliamentarians Minis ters C ustom officials

2005 2006 2008 2009 2010

Very corrupt

Very hones t

Fig. 5 Ndershmëria kundrejt korrupsionit Krahasim në vite - Publiku i gjerë

6275 72

7987

6676 72

7886

6672

7872

85

69 7278 79

84

63

76 74 7584

0

20

40

60

80

100

P refects P rosecutors Parliamentarians Minis ters C ustom officials

2005 2006 2008 2009 2010

Very corrupt

Very hones t

Survey �010 11

Summary of findings

Accordingtothegeneralpublic,corruptionamongpub-licofficialsiscommon.91.8%oftherespondentsthinkof corruption among public officials as either “Wide-spread”or “Somewhatwidespread” (Fig.6). Thisper-ceptionhaschanged littlesince2005,remainingover90%.However,thepercentageofrespondentswhothinkthis problem is “Widespread” has decreased by 14.8percentagepointssince2005.

Approximatelyfouroutoffiverespondentsfromthepub-licsectoremployees’groupthinkthatcorruptionamongpublic officials is either “widespread” or “somewhatwidespread”.Forallfiveyearsthispercentagehasbeenover80%.Thepercentageofpublic sectoremployeeswhosee“widespread”corruptionamongpublicofficialshasdecreasedby12.0percentagepointssince2005.

Whenaskedwhethercorruptionamongpublicofficialshasincreased,remainedthesameordecreasedduringthe last year, general public opinion differs from thatofpublicsectoremployees.While45.1%ofthegeneralpublicperceivesincreasedcorruptionamongpublicof-ficials,only19.8%ofthepublicsectoremployeesthinkthe same.Differences exist also on the percentageofthose that perceive a decrease in corruption amongpublicofficialsduringthelasttwelvemonths,12.2%forthegeneralpublicand29.6%forpublicsectoremploy-

Fig. 6 Corruption among public officials General Public

66.4

53.1

57.1

50.5

51.6

28.9

40.9

34.6

43.6

40.2

4.1

5.5

7.4

5.3

7.4

0.6

0.4

0.9

0.6

0.9

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

2005

2006

2008

2009

2010

% of respondents

Widespread Somewhat widespread A little widespread Not widespread

Fig. 7 Corruption among public officials compared to last year 2010

45,1

19,8

42,7

50,5

12,229,6

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

General Public Public Sector

% o

f res

po

nden

ts

Increased Remained the same Decreased


1�

Summary of findings

Contribution of Institutions in the Fight against Corruption

OveralltheAlbanianpublichasanegativeperceptionofthe contribution that different institutions have made inthe fightagainstcorruption.Theaveragescore for the9institutions/groupsevaluatedis42.4points.5Theonlyin-stitution that is evaluated as “helpful in fighting corrup-tion”continuestobethemediawhichscored61points.Allotherinstitutionsscoredlessthan50points.Policescored47pointsandcivilsocietyscored43points(Fig.8).

Theinstitutionsreportedasleasthelpfulinthefightagainstcorruptionare:

• HighInspectoratefortheDeclarationandAuditofAssets(HIDAA)with32points,

• Religiousleaderswith35points,• Courtswith40points.

Civilsociety is thegroupthatscoresthelargestdecreasefrom2009,5points(from48to43points)andin2010scores3pointslessthanin2005(Fig.9).

Media, although evaluated above the midpoint scale,scores3pointslessthanin2009(from64to61points).

HIDAAistheinstitutionthatshowsthelargestdecreaseinscore through the years, from 39 points in 2005 to 32pointsin2010.

In2010,courtsandGeneralProsecutor’sOfficecontinuetoshowimprovementfrom2005with4pointsmorethanin2005.

Fig. 8 Extent to which institutions help fight corruption General Public 2010

42.4

6147

43 42 41 41 40 35 32

0

20

40

60

80

100

Po lice

AVERAGE

Med ia

C ivi l

socie

ty

Centra

l gove

rnm

ent

H igh Sta

te C

o ntrol

Gen era

l Pro

secu

tor 's

off.

Co urts

Religio

us leaders

H IDAA

Helps a lot

Does not help at all

Fig. 9 Extent to which institutions help fight corruption General Public

59

46 43 4236 36 39

62

47

4343

3838 39

63 4844

4141 42

36

64

48

4341

42 4235

61

43 41 42 40 4032

0

20

40

60

80

100

Media Civil society High State Control

Centralgovernment

GeneralProsecutor's off.

Courts HIDAA

2005 2006 2008 2009 2010Helps a lot

Does not help at all

Survey �010 13

Summary of findings

Trust in Institutions

Albanian citizens’ trust in institutions continues to beverylow.Onaverage,thetrustscoreforallinstitutionsevaluated is 43.8 points.6 Only the military is valuedwithascoreabove50points.ThePropertyRestitutionandCompensationAgency(28),tradeunions(32)andpoliticalparties(32)aretheleast trustedinstitutionsin2010(Fig.10).

Publicsectoremployees,ingeneral,havemoretrustinthe evaluated institutions than does the general pub-lic.Theaveragescoreforallinstitutionsis52.7points,which is stillabove themedianscore.Outof15 insti-tutions, public sector employees show a positive leveloftrustin12.Similartothegeneralpublicsample,theleast trusted institutionsare the tradeunions,PropertyRestitutionandCompensationAgency(PRCA)andpo-liticalparties(Fig.11).

Whencomparinggeneralpublicperceptionwithpublicsectorperception,thetwoinstitutionsthatshowthebig-gestdifferenceintheleveloftrust,17pointsrespectively,arethecentralgovernment(44pointsvs.61points)andCentral ElectionCommission (42points vs.59points)(Fig.11).

Fig. 10 Trust in Institutions General Public 2010

43.8

66

49 49 49 47 47 46 44 42 42 42 4232 32 28

0

20

40

60

80

100Trust a lot

Do no trust at all

AVERA

GE

Relig

ious l

eade

rs

Munici

pal C

ounc

il

Militar

y

Gener

al Pr

osec

utor’s

off.

Supr

eme C

ourt

Polic

e

Loca

l gov

ernm

ent

Centra

l gov

ernm

ent

High St

ate C

ontro

l

Politi

cal p

artie

s

Mayor

s

Centra

l Elec

tion

Comm.

Trad

e unio

nsPR

CA

Parlia

ment

Fig. 11 Trust in Institutions Public Sector 2010

52.7

7461 60 59 59 57 56 54 54 52 52 50

37 35 31

0

20

40

60

80

100Trust a lot

Do not trust at all

AVER

AGE

Relig

ious l

eade

rs

Munici

pal C

ounc

il

Militar

y

Gener

al Pr

osec

utor’s

offic

e

Supr

eme C

ourt

Polic

e

Loca

l gov

ernm

ent

Centra

l gov

ernm

ent

High St

ate C

ontro

l

Politi

cal p

artie

s

Mayor

s

Centra

l Elec

tion

Comm

.

Trad

e unio

nsPR

CA

Parlia

men

t


1�

Summary of findings

Comparing the general public perception since 2005,thereisanincreaseofalmost6pointsintrustofthemili-tary.

Trustof theGeneralProsecutor’sOfficehasdecreasedby5pointsfrom2009,butitisstillabovethebaselineof2005.

Also, trustof theSupremeCourthas fallenby4pointssince2009butremainshigherthan2005.

Police,localandcentralgovernmentshownosignificantdifferencefrom2009butarestillevaluatedhigherthanthebaselineof2005with4,4and3pointsmore,re-spectively(Fig.12).

Fig.12 Trust in Institutions General Public

60

45 43 41 40 37

57 5247

41 42 40

64

5045

40 45 42

60

4849

42 46 47

66

49 47 44 42 42

0

20

40

60

80

100

M ilita ry Po lice Loca l governm ent

C en tra l governm ent

Supreme C ourt

Genera l P rosecu to r's

off.

2005 2006 2008 2009 2010Trust a lot

Do not trust at all

Survey �010 15

Summary of findings

Transparency of Institutions

Both the general public and public sector employeesperceivethatoverall transparencyin institutions is low.Theaveragescoreofnineinstitutionsconsideredisbe-low themidpoint;38.7points7 for thegeneralpublicand48.9pointsforpublicsectoremployees.(Fig.13&Fig.15).

Themosttransparentinstitutionsintheeyesofthegen-eralpublicareconsideredtobelocalgovernmentandMinistryofEducationwith44pointseach,whiletheleasttransparentisconsideredtobethePropertyRestitutionandCompensationAgency(PRCA)with26points.

Localgovernment,theHighStateControl,centralgov-ernment,andparliamentareperceivedasmoretrans-parentbythegeneralpubliccomparedto2009.Thereisanincreaseof4,6,8,and7points,respectively,fromlastyear’sevaluationbythegeneralpublic.Onlylocalgovernmentandcourtshavescoredhigherin2010thananypreviousyear(Fig.14).

Fig. 13 Institutional transparency General Public 2010

38.744 44 41 41 40 39 38 35

26

0

20

40

60

80

100Fully transparent

Not at all transparent

AVER

AGE

Courts

Loca

l gov

ernm

ent

Ministr

y of F

inanc

e

Ministr

y of H

ealth

Ministr

y of E

duca

tion

Centra

l gov

ernm

ent

High St

ate C

ontro

lPR

CA

Parlia

men

t

Fig 14. Institutional transparency General Public

41 43 45 4133

4440

4338 33

43 39 39 35 334035 33 32 33

44 41 41 39 35

0

20

40

60

80

100

Local government

High State Control

Central government

Parliament Courts

2005 2006 2008 2009 2010

Fully transparent



16

Summary of findings

Public sectoremployees’ viewsof institutional transpar-encyarebetterthanthoseofthegeneralpublic.Centralandlocalgovernmentscored58and54points,respec-tively,meaningthattheyareseenasslightlymoretrans-parent.PRCAisconsideredastheleasttransparentinsti-tution(32points)bypublicsectoremployees(Fig.15).

When comparing the perceptions of public sector em-ployeesoninstitutionaltransparencythroughtheyears,itcanbeobservedthatperceptionsaboutcentralgovern-menthaveimprovedby7pointsfrom2009,scoring58pointsin2010.PerceptionsoftransparencyofParliamenthavealsoimprovedfrom2009by5points,reaching52points in 2010.On the other hand, perceptions of theother evaluated institutions showno significant changefrom2009(Fig.16).

Fig. 15 Institutional transparency Public Sector 2010

48.958 54 52 52 51 51 48 42

32

0

20

40

60

80

100Fully transparent


AVERA

GE

Cou

rt

Loca

l gov

ernmen

t

Ministr

y of E

duca

tion

Ministr

y of F

inanc

e

Ministr

y of H

ealth

Centra

l gov

ernmen

t

High St

ate C

ontro

lPR

CA

Parlia

ment

Fig. 16 Institutional transparency Public Sector

55 55 50 49

33

49 51 49 48

33

5651 47 46

35

55 51 47 5141

54 5852 51

42

0

20

40

60

80

100

Lo cal g o vernmen t

Cen tral g o vern ment

Parl iamen t H ig h State Co n tro l

Co urts

2005 2006 2008 2009 2010Fully transparent


Survey �010 17

Summary of findings

Awareness of Anti-corruption Activities

Generalpublicawarenessofanti-corruption initiativesinAlbania isvery low.Only15.7%of therespondentswereawareofat leastoneanti-corruption initiative inthecountry.Thispercentage is the lowest in fiveyearsandthereisadecreasingtrendofgeneralpublicaware-nesssince2008(Fig.17).

Publicsectoremployeesaremoreawareofanti-corrup-tionactivities than thegeneralpublic.42.8%ofpublicsector employees have heard of such initiatives. Still,thispercentageisthelowestinfiveyears,adecreaseof14.9percentagepointsfrom2009and25.0percentagepointsfrom2005(Fig.18).

Fig. 17 Awareness of any anti-corruption initiatives General Public

43 39.6 42.529.6

15.7

57 60.4 57.570.4

84.3

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2005 2006 2008 2009 2010

% o

f re

spon

den

ts

Yes No

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

67.861.5

70.357.7

42.8

32.238.5

29.742.3

57.2

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2005 2006 2008 2009 2010

% o

f re

spon

den

ts

Yes No


18

Summary of findings

1.701.39

1.611.29 1.31

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

2005 2006 2008 2009 2010

Num

ber o

f w

ays

Fig. 19 Corruption victimization index General Public

Corruption Experience The surveysalso exploredirect and indirect experienceswith corruption. Respondents were asked whether theypaidbribestoobtainpublicservicesduringtheirinterac-tionwithpublicinstitutionsinthelasttwelvemonths.Theywerealsoaskedwhether theyhaveeverbeenaskedbypublicofficialstopaybribes.Indirectexperienceswereob-tainedbyaskingtherespondentsiftheywerewitnesstoacorrupttransaction.8Inaddition,tendirectexperiencequestions9wereusedtocreateanindexentitled“CorruptionVictimization.”Thisisacountindexusedtomeasurethenumberofwaysaper-sonhasbeenvictimizedbycorruption.Thescoreisbasedon the average number of ways in which respondentsclaimtohavebeenvictimized.In2010, respondents report tohavebeenvictimizedonaverage1.31waysoutof10wayssurveyed.Thecorrup-tionvictimizationindexhasremainedaboutthesameas2009.Still,theindexislessthanthatof2005,wherethereporteddirectexperiencewithcorruptionwas1.70waysoutof10(Fig.19).

Compared to the2005 survey, there isadecline in thecorruptionexperience.Inmostofthescenariosprovidedin thequestionnaire (fiveofwhicharepresented in Fig.20),thepercentageoftherespondentswhodeclaredtheywereavictimofcorruptionintherespectivescenariohasdecreasedwhencomparedtothatofthe2005survey.

Visiting a doctor/nurse and processing of documentsremain the two instanceswhere thegeneralpublichasbeenmost victimized.33.5%of thegeneralpublicde-claredtohavepaidabribetoadoctorornurseduringthelastyear(Fig.20).Thispercentageisthelowestinfiveyears.Comparedtothe2009survey,thereisadecrease

Fig.20 Corruption victimization – those who answered yes General Public

Police asked for a bribe

Public official asked for a bribe

Gave a bribe to process documents

Paid a bribe to a doctor or a nurse

Someone asked for a bribe to avoid

payment for utilities

of3.5percentagepointsofrespondentswhohavepaidabribetoadoctorornurse.20.4%ofthegeneralpub-licdeclaredtohavepaidabribeinordertospeedupprocessing procedures or receive documents such ascertificates,businesslicenses,etc.

Survey �010 19

Summary of findings

Indirectcorruptionexperience ishigher thandirectex-perience.28.4%ofthegeneralpublicdeclaredtohavebeenawitnesstoacorrupttransactioninvolvingapo-liceman(e.g.,haveseensomeonepayabribetoapo-liceman)duringthelastyear,comparedto8.2%ofthegeneralpublicwhohasbeenaskedbyapolicemantopay a bribe. As well, 14.8% of the respondents havehadanindirectcorruptionexperienceinvolvingapublicofficial during the last twelvemonths (e.g., have seensomeonepayingabribetoapublicofficial),comparedto8.7%ofthegeneralpublicwhohavebeenvictimizedbycorruptioninvolvingapublicofficial(Fig.21).

Indirect experience is lower compared to the 2005survey.Thereisadecreaseof4.8and3.9percentagepoints,respectively,withindirectcorruptionexperiencesinvolvingapolicemanorapublicofficialcomparedtothe2005survey.

Furtheranalysisofthecorruptionvictimizationscenariosshows that of the interviewed respondents, 56.6% re-portedatleastonedirectexperiencewithcorruptioninthepast12months.Thereisnodecreaseinthepercent-ageofrespondentswhohavebeenvictimizedbycorrup-tioncomparedtothe2009survey.Comparedto2005thereisadecreaseof9.9percentagepoints(Fig.22).

Fig. 21 Indirect corruption experience General Public

33.223.2 27.3 24.9 28.4

18.7 13 14.7 12.2 14.8

66.876.8 72.7 75.1 71.6

81.3 87 85.3 87.885.2

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

2005 2006 2008 2009 2010 2005 2006 2008 2009 2010

% o

f re

spond

ents

Yes No

Saw someone paying a bribe to a policeman

Saw someone paying a bribe to a public official

Fig. 22 Direct experience with corruption General Public

33.5

41.7

38.3

42.9

43.4

66.5

58.3

61.7

57.1

56.6

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

2005

2006

2008

2009

2010

% of respondents

No direct experience At least one direct experience


�0

Summary of findings

Theimpactofthehealthsectoroncorruptionexperienceisvery significant. If thedimensionof thehealth sectorisexcludedfromthecalculations, thepercentageofre-spondentsdeclaringtohavebeenavictimofcorruptionatleastonceinthepasttwelvemonthsdropsto38.3%(Fig.23).

Corruptionexperienceaffectsperceptionof corruption.Respondents who have had at least one direct experi-ence in the last twelvemonths tend toperceive institu-tions/groups as slightly more corrupt than respondentswhohavenotbeenvictimized.However,thegapbetweentheseperceptionsisnotsolargeastochangetheoverallperceptionofcorruption(Fig.24).

Fig. 23 Impact of health sector on corruption General Public

43.4

61.7

56.6

38.3

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

All dimensions

Health sector exluded

% of respondents

No direct experience At least one direct experience

Fig. 24 Honest vs. Corrupt Experience vs. non experience with corruption General Public 2010

71 67 7261 64 69 71 74 77

26

77 72 7765 68 73 76 77 81

330

20

40

60

80

100No direct experience At least one direct experience

Very corrupt

Very honest

Ministe

rs

Prefe

cts

Party

lead

ers

Univer

sity p

rofes

sors

Pros

ecuto

rs

Doctor

s

Polic

eman

Pres

identMay

ors

Parlia

mentar

ians

Survey �010 �1

Summary of findings

Attitudes Towards CorruptionThe survey also explores the attitudes of the Albanianpublictowardsdifferentdimensionsofcorruption.Severalscenarios of corrupt transactions were presented to re-spondents for their judgmentof thedifferentparties in-volved.Thefollowingscenarioswerepresented:

• Astudentwhogivesashirttoateacherwiththehopeofreceivingabettergrade.

• Amotherwhogives500LEKtoavoidaqueueforbirthcertificatesforherchildren.

• AbusinessmanwhopaysabribeofUSD10,000toaminister.

• Apoliticianwhouseshis/herinfluencetogethis/herrelativeapublicsectorjob.

• Apublicofficialwhousesagovernmentvehicleforpersonaluse.

In the caseof amotherwhogives500 LEK toavoidaqueueforbirthcertificatesforherchildrenandofastu-dentwhogivesashirttoateacherhopingtoimprovehisgrading, the respondents tend tobebenevolent towardthese “givers” and opinion on whether they are takingpartinacorrupttransactionisdivided.Inallothercases,opinionshiftstowardpunishingbothpartiestothetrans-action;morethan70%ofthegeneralpublicjudgedbothpartiesas“Corruptandmustbepunished”(Fig.25).Attitudes toward corruption over the years show littlechange.Inthescenariowhereastudentgivesashirt toateacherhopingtoreceiveabettergrade,empathyforthe ‘giver’ is less strong than for themother’s scenario.Thepercentageofrespondentswhothinkofthestudentas“Corruptandmustbepunished”hasnotdifferedsig-nificantly over the years. In 2010, there is a significantincreaseinthosewhojustifycorruptionaswellasasig-

Fig 25. Attitudes towards corruption General Public 2010

80.0

74.0

95.6

83.8

84.7

27.9

72.9

32.2

15.5

21.7

3.9

15.1

14.1

60.4

19.8

48.0

4.5

4.3

.4

1.1

1.2

11.7

7.2

19.8

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

Public official who used government's vehicle for personal use

Politician who used his/her influence to get his/her relative a public sector job

A minister who accepted the bribe from business

A business who paid the minister

An official who accepted the bribe from the mother

A mother of children who paid the bribe for certificates

A teacher who accepted the shirt from the student

A student who gave the shirt to the teacher

% of respondents

Corrupt and must be punished Corrupt but justified Not corrupt

Fig 26. Attitudes towards corruption A student who gives a shirt to the teacher General Public 2010

32.2

31.2

28.2

29.9

32.2

40.3

43.1

41.9

34.7

48.0

27.6

25.8

29.9

35.4

19.8

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

2005

2006

2008

2009

2010

% of respondents



��

Summary of findings

The Albanian public perceives businesses that inflatepricesduringperiodsofhigherdemandasengagingincorruptpractices.

Whenaskedaboutaflowervendorwhoincreasespricesduringholidays,approximatelyone in two respondentsjudgedtheflowervendoras“Corruptandmustbepun-ished”. 33.8% of the respondents said the vendor was“Corruptbutjustified”whileonly17.5%saidthevendorwas“Notcorrupt”.From2009to2010,morerespond-entsconsiderthevendorcorruptbutalsomoreconsiderthevendorjustified(Fig.27).

Also,inthecaseofalawyerwhochargestoohighafeefortheservicesprovided,thegeneralpublic(71.5%)con-siders that the lawyer isengaging inacorruptpractice(Fig.28).

Fig. 27 Attitudes toward corruption Flower vendor General Public

42.3

51.4

52.2

51

48.7

32.3

25.4

27.6

23.3

33.8

25.4

23.2

20.2

25.7

17.5

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

2005

2006

2008

2009

2010

% of respondents


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

71.4

69.6

60.4

64.3

71.5

28.6

30.4

39.6

35.7

28.5

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

2005

2006

2008

2009

2010

% of respondents

Yes No

Survey �010 �3

Summary of findings

Judicial System

Trusttowardthejudicialsystemhasdeclinedfrom2009,havingincreasedsteadilyfrom2005.Inthisyear’ssur-vey,only35.9%of the respondentsdeclared that theytrustthejudicialsystemeither“Alot”orto“Some”de-gree.This is10.7percentagepoints lower than2009.Thepercentageofrespondentswhotrustthejudiciary“Alittle”or“Notatall”remainshigh,at64.1%(Fig.29).

Treatment by the courts has deteriorated from 2009.38%ofrespondentswhohavedealtwiththecourtsbe-lievetheyhavebeentreated“Poorly”or“Verypoorly”.Thisis11.3percentagepointshigherthan2009.In2010,thepercentageofrespondentswhohavebeentreated“Verywell”or“Well”bythecourtshasdecreasedfrom2009(Fig.30).

Fig. 29 Trust in judicial system General Public

6.4

4.7

5.9

6.7

5.4

28.2

32.6

34.5

39.9

30.5

37.3

37.7

37.4

32.5

39.2

28.2

25

22.2

20.8

24.9

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

2005

2006

2008

2009

2010

% of respondents

A lot Some A little Not at all

8.3

11.1

11.9

8.5

8.0

50.4

50

57.5

64.8

54.0

22.7

22.8

20.2

20.6

20.0

18.6

16

10.4

6.1

18.0

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

2005

2006

2008

2009

2010

% of respondents

Very well Well Poorly Very poorly

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


��

Summary of findings

Fig. 31 Ease of obtaining information from the courts General Public

Note: This question was introduced in the 2008 survey

1.5

1.2

1.6

23.7

29.3

18.7

52.2

52.1

49.9

22.6

17.4

29.8

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

2008

2009

2010

% of respondents

Very easy Easy Difficult Very Difficult

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

11.4

13.5

12.8

9.6

12.3

51.1

51.7

54.6

63.8

59.6

23.1

22.8

21.1

18.4

14.4

14.4

12

11.5

8.2

13.7

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

2005

2006

2008

2009

2010

% of respondents


Accordingto thegeneralpublic (79.7%), it isdifficult toget information from the courts. Thepercentageof re-spondentswhothinkthatobtaininginformationfromthecourtsiseither“Verydifficult”or“Difficult”hasdeterio-ratedby10.2pointsfrom2009(Fig.31).

Treatmentbythepolicehasnotchangedfrom2009ac-cordingtogeneralpublicexperience.Ofthosewhohavedealtwith thepolice,71.9%declared theywere treatedeither“Verywell”or“Well”.Accordingtogeneralpublicexperience,theimprovingtrendintreatmentbythepo-licefrom2005to2009stoppedin2010(Fig.32).

Survey �010 �5

Summary of findings

Reversingthe trendfrom2005to2009, thepercentageofthosewhohavedealtwithprosecutors’officesandwhohavebeentreatedwellhasdecreasedfrom2009.61.9%oftherespondentswhohaveinteractedwiththeprosecu-tors’officesdeclared that they receivedgood treatment(Fig.33).

Approximatelyhalfofthejudges(48.8%)confirmedthattheywereapproachedbylawyersoutsidethecourtinanattempttoinfluencetheirdecision.Thispercentageis11.6percentagepointshigher than2009.However, theper-centageofjudgesbeingapproachedbythelitigantswithbribes has not changed from 2009 and is significantlylowerthan2008(Fig.34).

Fig. 33 Treatment by prosecutors’ offices Only those respondents who have dealt with prosecutors’ offices during the last twelve months General Public

8.7

14.4

14.7

7

9.5

52.7

50.5

53.2

63.4

52.4

27.1

18.6

22.4

22.5

17.1

11.6

16.5

9.6

7.1

21.0

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

2005

2006

2008

2009

2010

% of respondents


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


�6

Summary of findings

Accordingto33.9%oftheinterviewedjudges,corruptionintheAlbaniancourtsystemisaseriousproblem.Thisper-centageis6.6percentagepointshigherthanthe2009sur-veybutstillsignificantlylowerthanthe2008surveywhen50.5%oftheinterviewedjudgessharedthesameopinion(Fig.35).

In2010only21.7%ofthegeneralpublicthinkthatjudgesare impartialwhenconducting trials.Although there isa5.7percentagepointsincreasefrom2009,stillthispropor-tion issmall.Publicsectoremployees’opinionon judgesimpartiality in conducting trials remains the sameas thepreviousyearwhile87.9%oftheinterviewedjudgesthinkofthemselvesortheircolleaguesasimpartial.(Fig.36).

Fig. 35 Corruption in the Albanian court system is a serious problem Judges surveys

6874.4

50.5

27.3

33.9

40.5

64.5

59.1

9

8.1

7.1

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

2008

2009

2010

% of interviews

Yes No Do not know

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

40,1

35.3

2.4

4.1

2.2

4.0

41.9

52.6

17.2

16.2

13.8

17.7

16.8

11.2

38.3

39.1

33.7

28.4

0.8

34.3

30.5

39

37.9

1,2

7.8

10.2

11.3

12.0

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

Judges 2009

Judges 2010

Public Sector 2009

Public Sector 2010

General Public 2009

General Public 2010

% of respondents

Strongly agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly disagree

Survey �010 �7

Summary of findings

Economic Evaluation

Generalpublicperceptionoftheoveralleconomicsitua-tionisthesameaslastyearandhasnotchangedmuchfromthatof2005.Slightlymorethanhalfoftherespond-ents (53.9%) think the country’s economic situation is“Bad”or “Very Bad”. 34.3%of the general public per-ceives a ‘Fair’ economy and only 11.8% think that theeconomyis“Good”or“VeryGood”(Fig.37).

Publicsectoremployeesperceivetheeconomymoreposi-tivelythanthegeneralpublic.29.2%ofpublicsectorem-ployeesseethecountry’seconomyaseither“Verygood”or “Good”. This percentage is 10.5 percentage pointshigher than 2009 and 14.8 percentage points higherthan2005.Also,thepercentageofpublicsectoremploy-eeswhoperceive theeconomyas “Bad”or “Verybad”hasdecreasedfrom2005(Fig.38).

Fig. 37 General economic situation in Albania General Public

11.2

13.8

10

12.3

11.8

34.1

38.4

29.6

33.3

34.3

54.7

47.8

60.4

54.4

53.9

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

2005

2006

2008

2009

2010

% of respondents

Good or Very good Fair Bad or Very bad

Fig. 38 General economic situation in Albania Public Sector

14.4

15.2

15

18.7

29.2

48.6

50.5

44.9

52.4

42.8

37

34.3

40.1

29

28

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

2005

2006

2008

2009

2010

% of respondents

Good or Very good Fair Bad or Very bad


�8

Summary of findings

Fig. 39 General economic situation in Albania compared to a year ago General Public

10.6

21.4

9.1

13.5

11.6

55.6

54.6

36.9

41.4

42.5

33.8

24

54

45

46.0

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

2005

2006

2008

2009

2010

% of respondents

Better Same Worse

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

51.7

50.8

35.8

39.3

36.9

33.5

37.9

36.3

35.3

39.8

14.8

11.3

27.9

25.4

23.3

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

2005

2006

2008

2009

2010

% of respondents

Better Same Worse

Opinion on how the country’s economy has changedover the years is divided. 46.0% of the general publicthinkthattheeconomyisworsethanayearago,42.5%thinkitisthesameandonly11.6%thinkithasimproved.Thesepercentagesarealmostthesameasthosein2009(Fig.39).

Expectations of the economy have changed little since2009. There are slightly fewer respondents who thinkthattheeconomywillbebetterinthecomingyear.Thosewhoexpectaneconomicstagnationhaveincreasedfrom35.3%in2009to39.8%in2010.23.3%oftherespond-entsdeclaredthattheyexpecttheeconomytoworseninthecomingyear(Fig.40).

Survey �010 �9

Summary of findings

Impact of Political Orientation on Percep-tions

This survey,as inprevious years, indicates thatpercep-tionsofcorruption, trust, transparencyandtheextent towhich institutions fight corruption are highly correlatedwiththepoliticalorientationofrespondents.

Ingeneral,right-leaningrespondentsevaluateinstitutionsmorepositively than left-leaning respondents.Theaver-ageperceptionofcorruptionoftheinstitutionsandgroupsevaluated is 67 points for left-leaning respondents, 11pointshigherthantheaverageperceptionofright-lean-ing respondents. Consistently, corruption perceptions ofdifferentinstitutionsarehigherforrespondentswhoiden-tifythemselvesasleft-leaning.Despitethesedifferences,however,evenright-leaningrespondentsthinkthatinstitu-tionsare,onaverage,“morecorruptthanhonest”withascoreof56points(Fig.41).

Also, right-leaning respondents trust institutions morethanleft-leaningones.Theaveragescoreforright-lean-ingrespondentsis56points,abovethemid-pointofthescale.Theaveragescorefortheleft-leaningrespondentsisonly34points,meaning that theserespondentshavelittletrustininstitutions(Fig.42).

Perceptionsandevaluationsofrespondentsinthecenterofthepoliticalscalearebetweenthoseoftheleft-orientedrespondentsandthoseoftheright-orientedrespondents.

Fig. 41 Honesty vs. Corruption - Average By political orientation General Public 2010

67 6356

0

20

40

60

80

100

Lef t leaning Center R ight leaning

Very corrupt

Very honest

Fig. 42 Trust in institutions By political orientation General Public 2010

3444

56

0

20

40

60

80

100

Lef t leaning Center R ight leaning

Trust a lot

No trust at all


30

Summary of findings

Endnotes1. No definition of corruption was provided to respondents. They were asked to evaluate each of the institutions based on their own perception of

corruption.

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

3. IPRO is acronym for Immovable Property Registration Office

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Documents

Corruption in Albania - UNESCO · 2017. 9. 14. · The average score for the 9 institutions/groups evaluated is 42.4 points, which is below the mid-point scale from 0-100 where 0