Korupcijos paplitimo įvairiose srityse matavimo rodikliai: ką jie atskleidžia apie situaciją Lietuvoje
LTKintančios laike, erdvėje, įvairiomis formomis pasireiškiančios korupcijos pažinimas ir jos mažinimo bei prevencijos priemonių įgyvendinimas yra neatsiejami nuo pastangų ją matuoti. Atliktu tyrimu pirmiausia ieškoma atsakymo į klausimą, kokiais rodikliais ir duomenų šaltiniais remiantis matuojamas korupcijos paplitimas įvairiose srityse. Be to, dalies šių rodiklių pagrindu pagal 2017 m. regioniniame ir 2019 m. nacionaliniame Lietuvos gyventojų nuomonės tyrime pateikiamus požiūrius bei suvokimą iliustruojama Lietuvoje susiklosčiusi korupcijos paplitimo ne tik viešajame, bet ir privačiame sektoriuje situacija. [Iš leidinio]
ENCognition of corruption, which changes in time, space and occurs in various forms, as well the implementation of measures to reduce and prevent it are inseparable from efforts to measure corruption. This article primarily is aimed to answer the question of what indicators and data sources are used to measure the prevalence of corruption in various fields. An overview of the development of corruption measurement tools shows that indicators for measuring the prevalence of corruption in various fields were created when the measurement of corruption became more specific. These indicators are the response to the need to have context-sensitive measurements of corruption. The analysis of the types of indicators measuring corruption confirms that it is useful to focus on more than one indicator when measuring the prevalence of corruption in different areas, especially in order to have actionable indicators (i. e. focused on reforms to reduce and prevent corruption). The analysis of the main data sources used to create indicators for measuring corruption also confirms that combining corruption perception and corruption experience data as basic indicators for measuring the prevalence of corruption and supplementing them with other context-sensitive data would reveal the situation of corruption in various fields in sufficient detail. Based on regional and national Lithuanian public opinion surveys conducted in 2017 and 2019 respectively, this article in a limited way, i. e. according to respondents‘ atititudes and perceptions, illustrates the prevalence of corruption in Lithuania in the public and private sectors. These surveys show that corruption is a widespread national problem (confirmed by the vast majority of the respondents (93%)). According to the respondents, the extent of corruption in both periods (1 and 3 years, and 5 years respectively) remained unchanged (46% and 42%, and 37% of respondents respectively).Measurements of the prevalence of corruption in different institutions and sectors in Lithuania reveal that the institutions of the health care system according to the prevalence of corruption are those in which corruption is extremely widespread (79% of respondents). Significant prevalence of corruption was also found in private medical institutions in the context of the institutions of the Health Ministry of the Lithuanian Republic (8% and 40% of respondents thought that private medical institutions are highly corrupt or partially corrupt respectively). However, in the context of various private enterprises, bailiffs are the leaders in terms of the prevalence of corruption, not health care institutions (17% and 47% of respondents respectively rated bailiffs as highly corrupt or partially corrupt). In the second place in the context of private companies - pharmaceutical companies (15 and 39% of the respondents respectively), and in the third place - again the representatives of the legal professions - lawyers (14 and 47% of the respondents respectively). It‘s not optimistic that according to the perceptions of the Lithuanian respondents and considering the prospect of the spread of corruption, 40% of respondents thought that the extent of corruption would not change over the next three years. However, it is interesting to what extent these data would coincide with the data on corruption experience of respondents‘ and other data useful for determining the prevalence of corruption in various fields. [From the publication]
