Nowa wersja platformy, zawierająca wyłącznie zasoby pełnotekstowe, jest już dostępna.
Przejdź na
Preferencje help
Widoczny [Schowaj] Abstrakt
Liczba wyników

Znaleziono wyników: 2

Liczba wyników na stronie
first rewind previous Strona / 1 next fast forward last
Wyniki wyszukiwania
w słowach kluczowych:  corrupt practices
help Sortuj według:

help Ogranicz wyniki do:
first rewind previous Strona / 1 next fast forward last
Content available remote Tři generace metod měření korupce v Evropě
This article focuses on methods for measuring corruption, first describing three generations of corruption indicators and then comparing them qualitatively and quantitatively. Corruption is a clandestine activity that is extremely difficult to measure; there are no official statistics on the number of corruption cases. For this reason, corruption can only be measured indirectly, by various proxies, and it is extremely hard to state whether these indicators are reliable and indeed measure the corruption phenomena in a given country. A large number of different indicators have been developed over the years that try to capture and quantify corruption. Some authors measure perceptions of corruption, others try to use “hard data” to explore the level of corruption in a country, and even others combine different measurements, weight them, and then publish composite indicators to capture the overall level of corruption in a country. This article aims to evaluate the quality of the different indicators using quantitative and qualitative methods. Possible uses and value of each individual indicator are discussed in terms of quality and practical considerations. First-generation indicators combine expert evaluations, surveys, and other data on corruption. The article focuses on the two best-known and most frequently used indicators - the Control of Corruption measurement by the World Bank and the Corruption Perception Index by Transparency International. Second-generation indicators are based on opinion surveys that ask respondents about their perceptions of and own experience with corruption. There are two types of such surveys, one focusing on the public and the other one on businesses. The second-generation indicators include surveys such as Eurobarometer, World Values Survey (WVS), European Social Survey (ESS), Global Corruption Barometer (GCB), WB BEEPS, or International Social Survey Programme (ISSP). Finally, the author presents a correlation analysis of different indicators over time and across countries, indicating whether and how strongly these three generations correlate with one another. The article concludes with a discussion on whether the three generations of indicators measure the same type of corruption and whether they can be used interchangeably. As for results, it seems that there are statistically significant associations between different types of indicators; however, this significance is, in most cases, not high enough to allow for interchangeability. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to carefully select the type of indicator used for scientific research, as results and conclusions might differ significantly depending on the indicator used.
An analysis of the research questionnaires shows that most respondents (64%) think corruption is a significant problem of the Prison Service. Twenty-eight respondents (14%) quoted having received a corruption offer from a convict. If we consider the fact that one out of 7 respondents received a corruption offer and every second respondent thinks corruption is a significant issue, such an assessment does not reflect the experience of most people who deemed corruption a significant issue, but rather their feelings of threat or concern. Certainly, such feelings might be influenced by the multitude of such information in the media. In the newspapers, and inthe Penitentiary Forum which reaches every Prison Service member in particular, there are detailed accounts of specific cases of corrupt practices that were uncovered. As concerns corruption offers, we have to underline that they were twice more frequently addressed to warders than to counsellors. As stated in the survey, 19 warders and 9 counsellors admitted having received such offers. The fact that corruption offers were more often addressed at warders than counsellors might be explained to some extent by the fact that prisoners have more contact with the warders than the counsellors (prison yard, baths).
first rewind previous Strona / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.