Preventing corruption and promoting public ethics at the local and regional level in Eastern Partnership countries. Study

This study identified the main current vulnerabilities of local and regional authorities (LRAs) in Eastern Partnership (EaP) countries regarding public procurement and public services, and provided a systematic assessment of priority avenues of intervention.

Research methods employed here involved an original expert survey designed to systematically evaluate the main forms of corruption occurring at the subnational level in EaP countries. Targeting relevant experts from the public sector, academia and CSOs, the authors aimed to disentangle the prevalence of specific forms of corruption in each country, as well as the most suitable means to counter it. The original expert survey data was triangulated with existent studies and reports, as well as other primary data sources (e.g. institutional webpages).

Key findings suggested that the lack of transparency was the main vulnerability of LRAs in all case studies. Nepotism and untrained personnel was predominant concerns for public procurement across cases. Abuse of administrative resources in electoral campaigns along with nepotism were predominant concerns in terms of public service delivery.

In depth country analysis showed that the lack of transparency was of primary concern in Azerbaijan and Belarus, ambiguous legislation was the most stringent problem in Armenia and Ukraine (recent progress had been reported here); personnel recruitment and qualification was the core issue in Georgia and, favoritism in public procurement procedures was the main concern in Moldova.

Overall, there was an estimate of average capacity to counter corruption at the level of the LRAs in EaP countries. Georgia stood out as the most willing to engage in anti-corruption efforts, while Azerbaijan had the lowest institutional competence to engage in preventive anti-corruption measures.

Examples provided through the experts’ qualitative assessment illustrated specific corruption manifestations: preferential mechanisms in allocating public contracts for road repairs and transportation (e.g. Kyiv, Kharkiv, Chișinău), construction works (e.g. Minsk) or waste management (e.g. Yerevan, Bila Tservka, Bălți), as well as those referring to access to social services (e.g. Tblisi), public utilities – especially energy (e.g. Shuakhevi Hydropower plant), or construction permits (e.g. Chișinău). Recommendations formulated here are informed by the benchmark practices the authors had identified in each case, as well as the existent challenges.

These included: digitalisation of bureaucratic public services (e.g. permits, certificates), centralised online system for announcing job openings in the public sector, training public sector employees in the implementation of transparency measures and ethical conduct, allowing citizens’ access to the deliberative process of local councils etc.

• Primary Source