MOCCA: Multilevel Orders of Corruption in Central Asia

by Nuruipa Mukanova, guest researcher at Charles University, Prague, from the Anti-Corruption Business Council under the President of the Kyrgyz Republic

My first secondment was in Prague, Czech Republic, at the Charles University Institute of International Studies, Faculty of Social Sciences, from February 12th to March 31st this year.

Why did I choose Prague? In the last 2 years, the Czech Republic has shown very good results in combating corruption according to the Transparency International CPI index and has been ranked in the same group of countries with low levels of corruption as Georgia (56 points, 42nd place) and Latvia (58 points, 39th place).

I had planned to start my secondment right after the Istanbul regional workshop at the beginning of the New Year in 2023, but due to the late opening of the financing, I could only start from February 12th. I got a Schengen visa at the beginning of December, and there was no problem getting one with an invitation from the university. However, I experienced some difficulties in renting an apartment. For some reason, I was not able to pay Airbnb using my Visa card from Bishkek, which was quite strange. Thanks to the help of colleagues from Charles University (Professor Slavomir), I was able to book and pay the rent for the entire period of my stay in Prague.

The owner of the apartment, Mr. Marek, kindly booked a taxi from the airport and met us at the apartment. The apartment, a studio with a balcony, was in the center of Prague, in a historical location, which became my home for 1.5 months. The weather in Prague in February and March was cold, with chilling winds but no snowfalls. The sun would come out just for a few hours, and afterward, the sky would get cloudy again. But that didn’t stop me from walking around the city, seeing marvelous sights, meeting with colleagues, and just walking around the city.

On the day of arrival, my husband and I went for a walk, visited the historical center of the city, went to the Charles Bridge, and when it got dark, we decided to go home. However, neither my husband nor I remembered the address of the apartment, and we got lost. The apartment was in Prague 1, but we found ourselves in Prague 2; my cell phone died, and there was no internet connection on my husband’s phone. I got panicked. I would like to mention the very friendly attitude of the people of Prague. Someone showed us the route on their phone, someone called the owner of the apartment to find out the exact address, and a lady of 60 years practically took us to the apartment, although she had to go to the suburban railway station.

I got to know the city by walking all the time. Especially on Saturdays and Sundays, we walked for 4 hours, visiting the city’s sights one by one. We visited the National Gallery, Prague Castle, Old Town Square with the Prague astronomical clock and numerous shops, the Jewish Quarter, Petřín Hill, Petřín funicular and Vyšehrad Castle, Lennon’s wall, the buildings of the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Youth and Culture, Kampa Island with its beautiful plastic penguins, Prague Metronome, beer pubs, and wine pogreboks, the museum of Communism!!! (very unexpected). The city is always overcrowded with tourists, especially on the weekends. There were especially a lot of people on the street on the day of the inauguration of the newly elected president, and I happened to be at a protest demonstration in central Wenceslas Square the other day.

I was especially impressed by the public transportation, trams, and metro lines. You can get to any point in the city in just a few minutes. Public transport is comfortable and runs strictly according to the schedule. And most surprisingly, there were no controllers (unlike in Paris, where you should show tickets at the entrance and exits), everyone consciously paid the fare. I bought a monthly ticket for all available types of transport, and the price was quite reasonable.

On March 8th, we decided to go to Karlovy Vary, a famous spa city with mineral waters, which was especially famous in the Soviet Union, where only communist party bosses and their families could afford it. We took the Flixbus, a rather comfortable double-decker bus, and in a couple of hours, we were in Karlovy Vary. We rented an apartment via Booking.com and paid with the help of Professor Slavomir, as payment is practically cashless everywhere. For some reason, my Visa card did not work in Prague, and I could not open a new card because the short-term visa did not allow for that.

I met former Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan citizens, mainly of German origin, who all spoke Russian. I met Kazakhstani students who were studying for one semester at different European Universities in the frame of European studies.

Attention, please! You have to get at least a 6-month visa to open a card and a bank account in Prague. And one more peculiarity. If you pay cashless, all kinds of purchases, including products in the stores, are discounted.  But if you pay in cash, then the discounts are not applied. Cashless payment is a very efficient anti-corruption measure that works 100% in the Czech Republic.

What else surprised and impressed me?  Civil servants (as judged by an interview with a representative of the Ministry of Justice) are required to declare their income regularly: when they enter public service, when they leave public service, mandatory annual declaration, and gifts over 20 euros. And all information is open and accessible. The correctness of the declaration is checked by the Ministry of Justice, a civil service body, not a law enforcement agency. This anti-corruption measure is an international standard applied mandatorily not only by EU countries but all over the world in accordance with the UN Convention, with the exception of those counties where the level of corruption is too high.

Civil society organizations mainly work with the Parliament, they analyze law enforcement practices, draft laws, and actively advocate those laws. For civil society organizations, this is professional work, and they can be financed by the state bodies for some anti-corruption activities. This is perceived as a state order; in fact, the state agencies delegate some of their functions to the civil society organizations, and for the implementation of which the latter is financed from the budget of the state body. In the same way, it works when civil society organizations implement some anticorruption activities and events for the business community, for example, advocacy of the law, and thus financed by the business community.  There is no such practice as the implementation of the project, which is financed by international donors the former CIS countries are used to.  The civil society organizations’ main focus is the use of the state budget by political parties and deputies of the Parliament. Thus, public attention focuses on preventing political corruption or so-called white-collar corruption in the higher echelons of power.

Citizens and the public, in general, are not active in anti-corruption activities; as noted by representatives of Transparency International and the NGO “Reconstruction of the State,” the main reason for the so-called inactivity of citizens is that citizens do not feel the negative influence of corruption in their everyday life. Public services are received electronically, claims are sent electronically, responses are also received electronically within 6 working days, and activities of state bodies are open and transparent.

I tested the above-mentioned statements among the students of the Faculty of International Relations of Charles University. I asked the students whether they ever had a temptation to bribe professors for better marks or to buy a diploma.  What anti-corruption integrity meant for them, and if they ever had encountered corruption in their life.  Students from various countries, not limited to the Czech Republic and Europe, cited examples from Georgia, Kazakhstan, and Russia and explained their position and understanding of corruption. But none of the 15 students who participated in the guest lecture had encountered corruption in their lives. Isn’t it amazing!!! I made a parallel with the students in Kyrgyzstan and thought about what kind of answers I could expect from our University students. At least I might get an answer that every second student (according to the survey of the students in 2022 conducted by the Anticorruption Business Council under the President of the Kyrgyz Republic together with the Ministry of Education) bribed a professor and every first student would name the top 10 corrupt government agencies.

At the research seminar, I tested the hypothesis that “if there is corruption, it is deliberately created by the classical economic model of supply and demand.”  Despite the fact that I gave many corrupt cases and various arguments and reasons why corruption occurred, I was hit by the question – in what way political will of the government, the legislative and executive branches of power could, be articulated? If there was a true political will of the President,  did it relate to the fight against corruption by law enforcement approaches or by applying prevention of corruption approaches either?

My secondment helped me find evidence that every country could considerably reduce the burden of corruption. However, it is worth mentioning that Eastern society and its psychology is a tricky thing. How to deal with the psychology of society, which is used to solve its problems mainly by using corruption and corrupt social relations heavily? It sounds like to be or not to be…

by Vytautas Kuokštis, an Associate Professor at Vilnius University

The question of what determines political trust, or trust in political institutions, is a significant one. It addresses a foundational aspect of governance, and there is considerable scholarship on this matter. There exist two prevalent theories in this domain (Mishler and Rose, 2001). The first posits that institutional performance underlies trust. If a society experiences economic growth, low levels of corruption and crime, citizens are more likely to trust their political institutions (Wang, 2016). The second theory attributes political trust to cultural and sociological factors, primarily interpersonal trust. This perspective argues that increased trust amongst individuals leads to heightened trust in the government.

My research aligns more closely with the first theory but with a key modification. It is indisputable that the performance of government institutions plays a crucial role. Yet, this explanation faces two significant challenges. The empirical issue relates to the ambiguous relationship between indicators of good performance and political trust. The global landscape doesn’t clearly display patterns of correlation between these indicators and trust in political institutions. Neither is there a clear relationship over time. The United States, for instance, has witnessed considerable economic growth since the 1960s, yet trust in government has notably decreased.

The theoretical challenge centers on the concept of limited information. Consider a country experiencing economic growth and a decline in corruption. These indicators might be interpreted as positive, but it raises questions. Would another government have yielded better results? And to what extent can these improvements be attributed to government actions versus factors outside its control? Even expert analysts find themselves in disagreement over these matters, let alone the average layperson.

I propose that not merely the absolute performance matters, but also the relative performance. This proposition draws from the substantial body of research exploring the relationship between income and happiness. Studies indicate that as countries become wealthier, they do not necessarily become happier. However, there exists a relationship between income and happiness within a country on an individual level (Clark et al., 2008). One strong explanation is that people base their happiness not on absolute income but on their income relative to others – their reference group. An individual earning 50,000 euros per year may feel content if the national average income is 10,000 euros. However, the same individual could experience frustration in a scenario where the average income escalates to 100,000 euros, even if their purchasing power remains objectively the same.

Turning back to the connection between government performance and trust, I hypothesize that a country’s performance relative to a reference group of countries can be significant. For instance, in Lithuania, a comparison with Estonia is commonly drawn. Since the early 1990s, Estonia has been further along in implementing reforms, promoting economic growth, and reducing corruption. The relative performance gap between the two countries might explain why trust in political institutions in Lithuania has consistently been lower than in Estonia (although recently Lithuania has actually surpassed Estonia in terms of real GDP per capita, and it is curious to see whether that will have an impact on political trust).

My argument implies that the correlation between government performance measures and trust in political institutions should be stronger for countries that commonly compare themselves. Hypothetically, this relationship should be weaker globally but stronger within specific geographical regions. This is because people are likely to compare their situation with geographically closer countries.

The figures below present a preliminary test of this hypothesis, showing the relationship between corruption perception and government trust globally and within various regions. These are rudimentary illustrations and should be taken as such but provide some supporting evidence. The relationship within most regions is stronger than at a global level. Regression coefficient sizes are larger in all regions but one. The correlation is particularly robust in the European Union, likely due to its high level of integration and various forms of exchange. The only exception is the Europe & Central Asia region, where there is virtually no relationship. However, if we exclude Uzbekistan, a deviant case with high corruption perception but also high trust, the relationship becomes positive and stronger than the global pattern.

Figure 1. Global relationship between corruption (Corruption perception index from Transparency International) and trust in the national government, represented on the X and Y axes, respectively. Data was sourced from World Bank, Transparency International, and Wellcome Global Monitor for 2020.

Figure 2. Relationship between corruption (Corruption perception index from Transparency International) and trust in the national government in the European Union, represented on the X and Y axes, respectively. Data sourced from World Bank, Transparency International, and Wellcome Global Monitor for the year 2020.

Figure 3. Relationship between corruption (Corruption perception index from Transparency International) and trust in the national government in selected African countries, represented on the X and Y axes, respectively. Data was sourced from World Bank, Transparency International, and Wellcome Global Monitor for 2020.

Figure 4. Relationship between corruption (Corruption perception index from Transparency International) and trust in the national government in selected MENA countries, represented on the X and Y axes, respectively. Data sourced from World Bank, Transparency International, and Wellcome Global Monitor for the year 2020.

Figure 5. Relationship between corruption (Corruption perception index from Transparency International) and trust in the national government in selected countries of Europe & Central Asia region, represented on the X and Y axes, respectively. Data sourced from World Bank, Transparency International, and Wellcome Global Monitor for the year 2020.

References

Clark, A.E., Frijters, P. and Shields, M.A., 2008. Relative income, happiness, and utility: An explanation for the Easterlin paradox and other puzzles. Journal of Economic Literature, 46(1), pp.95-144.

Mishler, W. and Rose, R., 2001. What are the origins of political trust? Testing institutional and cultural theories in post-communist societies. Comparative political studies, 34(1), pp.30-62.

Wang, C.H., 2016. Government performance, corruption, and political trust in East Asia. Social science quarterly, 97(2), pp.211-231.

by Diyorbek Ibragimov, guest researcher from the Law Enforcement Academy of Uzbekistan

It is worth saying that nowadays, it is impossible to imagine social life without information technologies. Information technologies have penetrated into every sphere of social life. In particular, in anti-corruption programs developed by the world community, in scientific and applied research, information technologies are considered one of the important positive advancements in preventing corruption.

However, to effectively use the existing opportunities of information technology in the fight against corruption, it is necessary to thoroughly analyze the causes of corruption in each field, the conditions that create opportunities for it, and the dangers of its possible occurrence in the future. Also, introducing the best practices of foreign countries in this regard in fighting against national corruption may not constantly have a positive effect.  After all, corruption has taken root in different forms and conditions in every country and society.

Scientific and practical studies show that there are two different views on the important aspects of the introduction of information technologies in the fight against corruption in the world. First, through ICT opportunities, the entire population has access to open information about state agencies’ activities and active public control over their activities. The impact of ICT against corruption is influenced by the reduction of information asymmetries, the automation of processes, the limitation of public officials’ discretion, and the reduction of intermediaries and red tape (Grönlund et al., 2010). The second is to prevent corruption factors by digitizing the activities of state bodies. In this case, the most important thing is to prevent corruption by reducing the human factor in the implementation of some areas of activity of state bodies.

In today’s world, the introduction of modern information technologies in the fight against corruption plays a significant role in promoting transparency and accountability, and preventing various forms of misconduct in the activities of all government institutions. When specialists describe it, they refer to “creating accountability by exposing misconduct about situations that occur within the government” (Roberts, 2002). In fact, creating accountability is considered one of the most important methods to reduce corruption. Therefore, one of the most important and effective methods in combating corruption within government institutions is the establishment of transparent accountability platforms. Through such platforms, citizens have direct access to familiarize themselves with the activities of the government, particularly the utilization of the main budgetary funds, obtaining and analyzing real financial information about financial operations, and having the opportunity to assess them. However, despite the advantages of modern information technologies in ensuring the transparency of government leadership and the activities of government institutions, there are challenges in fully utilizing their capabilities. Online platforms that have been emphasized as effective tools are not sufficiently developed, and the availability of up-to-date information is often restricted, limiting access to essential data. Additionally, the unreliability of internet resources and other factors undermine their direct impact.

Therefore, the principle of transparency in the functioning of government institutions plays a crucial role in combating corruption and determining its effectiveness. In particular, a study conducted by the research group Oxford Insights in 2019 analyzed the transparency of information and the level of corruption risks within government institutions (Petheram, Pasquarell & Stirling, 2019). The study results suggest that there is no direct and strict relationship between the level of transparency and the level of corruption. Exactly, in countries like Switzerland, where the level of information transparency in government institutions is low, the level of corruption is also low. Conversely, in countries like Brazil, where information transparency is high, the level of corruption is also high.

Therefore, in Uzbekistan, it is necessary to ensure the transparency of the activities of the state agencies so that they do not become symbolic in the prevention of corruption. For this, it is necessary to implement the transparency of the state management system and the activities of state agencies through artificial intelligence that excludes the human factor. Otherwise, there is a high possibility that this system will be used as an informational tool rather than a fight against corruption.

Additionally, crowdsourcing platforms are playing an important role in the fight against corruption nowadays. According to the opinions of field experts, modern technologies like these are effectively contributing to tackling corruption. Particularly, citizens are actively providing positive outcomes by sharing information about corruption through mobile communications and the Internet, which helps in proactively addressing corruption issues. Moreover, according to the Telecommunication Development Sector (ITU-D) 2022, a staggering 8 billion people worldwide, which accounts for 66% of the global population, currently use the Internet. This indicates the significant potential to shape and enhance citizens’ ability to engage in the fight against corruption, including reporting and combating it. The widespread utilization of the internet not only facilitates awareness but also promotes advancement and acceleration in the efforts to combat corruption.

“Undoubtedly, combating corruption in such a system is considered an important step in shaping the ability to work against it in society as a whole. However, it should also be noted that, in our opinion, such a system is primarily designed to share, that is, to report, cases of petty corruption in the public sector.

Furthermore, worldwide, including in Uzbekistan, digitizing government services has been one of the important steps in tackling corruption. Digitizing government services reduces direct interactions between citizens and officials, streamlining the process of service delivery. This automation of service provision also allows for the identification of any monetary transactions that may be required for the completion of a specific service between citizens and officials. Therefore, it is crucial to prioritize the implementation of any necessary financial mechanisms that enable citizens to carry out government services electronically, including electronic payments for citizenship and other services, in order to create a range of possibilities in this area. This indicates that in the fight against government corruption, the extent to which modern information technologies are introduced is crucial. If these technologies are not actively and effectively implemented within the government administration system and if citizens are not provided with the opportunity to utilize them actively and efficiently, it hinders the anticipated benefits and outcomes.

Indeed, for example, according to the highest ratings in terms of internet penetration and usage among countries, Uzbekistan is not among them (Statista, 2023). In the highest indicators of this rating, we can see countries such as Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, which are recognized as countries with a low corruption factor in the rating of Transparency International, where service sectors and the public administration system are digitized.

Additionally, the advancement of the usage of digital payment systems by citizens also reduces the need for cash transactions, which in itself serves as an important indicator for combating corruption within society. Furthermore, if we consider the experience of countries that consistently rank highest in the corruption index, we can observe that these countries often have highly digitized payment systems in place. For example, although it was the first country to issue banknotes, Sweden is the most cashless society in the world today, with just 32 ATMs in operation per 100,000 people, and with more than 98% of its citizens owning a debit/credit card and some studies suggest that physical cash could be eradicated from its economy by 2024. According to the World Bank, with 98% of its citizens having embraced the debit/credit card system, Norway could be the first country in Europe to declare itself cashless. Furthermore, data shows that in 2021, only between 2 and 3% of transactions at the point of sale in Norway were carried out using cash (FinTech, 2022). It is necessary to emphasize that a high prevalence of cash transactions within society can facilitate corrupt practices by making them easier to carry out. Therefore, reducing the reliance on cash transactions can be considered as one of the factors that make it more difficult for individuals to engage in corrupt activities.

In addition to that, one of the main reasons for the occurrence of corrupt acts in society is the abuse of authority by responsible individuals, who exploit their powers in violation of the law by making arbitrary administrative decisions. Consequently, there is a growing trend globally towards automating the decision-making process. The automation of decision-making involves gathering legally relevant information and making legal decisions based on it. Within the framework of the proposed model, the official is excluded from traditional corruption schemes as a voluntary decision-making subject, so there is no need to pay bribes (Rakhimov & Turdiboev, 2021).

Indeed, combating corruption is crucial in ensuring the protection of human rights, and one of the key objectives is the effective implementation of fair and impartial justice (UNODC, 2017). In reality, courts serve as the sole institution responsible for safeguarding and guaranteeing human rights through the implementation of fair justice. Therefore, ensuring the legality of decisions made by courts and enhancing the integrity of their activities are among the most important tasks in combating corruption in the judicial system. In this regard, numerous international investigations, projects, and extensive studies have been conducted. Particularly, the automation of the court decision-making process contributes to transparency, accountability, independence, equal treatment before the law, and the delivery of fair justice (Matacic, 2018; Zalnieriute and Bell, 2019; Morison and Harkens, 2019; Wang, 2020; English et al., 2021). These efforts aim to eliminate the possibility of corrupt practices in the court decision-making process and ensure integrity.

Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) is swiftly becoming a relevant component in judicial decision-making processes around the globe (Reiling, 2020). In summary, in some investigations, opinions exist regarding the necessity of using artificial intelligence algorithms in the 4 stages of information processing: 1) information acquisition; 2) information analysis; 3) decision-making; 4) ensuring the implementation of decisions (D.Barysė; R.Sarel, 2023).

In summary, the fight against corruption and the direct connection between corruption and information technologies are comprised of the following aspects. According to analyses provided by Transparency International (Transparency International, 2022), Corruption can take many forms and can include behaviors like:

– public servants demanding or taking money or favours in exchange for services,

– politicians misusing public money or granting public jobs or contracts to their sponsors, friends, and families,

– corporations bribing officials to get lucrative deals.

In situations like these, it is possible to observe the effectiveness of modern information technologies in combating them and taking preventive measures based on the aforementioned analyses. In short, modern information technologies empower responsible individuals to monitor authorities’ actions, reduce instances of misappropriation of state funds by them, and create opportunities to oversee every financial operation. Additionally, it enables simplifying cash transactions within society or providing other valuable assets.

In general, information technologies are not the primary means of combating corruption, but they are considered one of the effective methods in the fight against corruption. Its positive capabilities, in conjunction with other methods and institutions, contribute to combating corruption in accordance with the intended purpose. This implies that utilizing information technologies against corruption should be implemented comprehensively, considering political, legal, socioeconomic, and infrastructural factors.

REFERENCES

А.Grоnlund, R.Heacock & D.Sasaki, J.Hellstrоm, W.Al-Saqaf. (2010) Increasing Transparency and Fighting Corruption Through ICT Empowering People and Communities SPIDER ICT4D Series no. 3. [online resource] URL: https://spider1.blogs.dsv.su.se/wpcontent/blogs.dir/362/files/2016/11/SpiderICT4D-series-3-Increasing-transparency-and-fighting-corruption-through-ICT.pdf.

Roberts, 2002. Keeping public officials accountable through dialogue: Resolving the accountability paradox. Public Administration Review, 62(6), 658–669. doi:10.1111/1540-6210.00248

Petheram, Pasquarelli, Stirling, 2019. The Next Generation of Anti-Corruption Tools: Big Data, Open Data & Artificial Intelligence, available at: https://www.oxfordinsights.com/ai-for-anticorruption (accessed 10 June 2021).

The Telecommunication Development Sector (ITU-D) 2022 [online resource] https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-D/Pages/About.aspx).

Statista, 2023. [online resource] https://www.statista.com/statistics/227082/countries-with-the-highest-internet-penetration-rate/

FinTech, 2022. Top SIX Digital Payments Countries About to go Cashless. [online resource] https://fintechmagazine.com/digital payments/top-six-digital-payments-countries-about-to-go-cashless

С.Рахимов, Х.Турдибоев, 2021. Коррупцияга қарши курашишда янги рақамли технологияларни қўллаш. “Iqtisodiyot va innovatsion texnologiyalar” ilmiy elektron jurnali. № 3, may-iyun, 2021 yil, 333-338.

UNODC, 2017. [online resource] https://www.unodc.org/dohadeclaration/en/news/2018/04/corruption–human-rights–and-judicial-independence.htm   

Matacic, (2018) Are algorithms good judges? Science 359:263–263. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.359.6373.263

Morison J, Harkens A (2019) Re-engineering justice? Robot judges, computerized courts, and (semi)automated legal decision-making. Leg Stud 39:618–635. https://doi.org/10.1017/lst.2019.5

Wang N (2020) “Black Box Justice”: robot judges and AI-based Judgment processes in China’s Court system. In: 2020 IEEE international symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS). IEEE, Tempe, AZ, USA, pp 58–65

English S, Denison S, Friedman O (2021) The computer judge: expectations about algorithmic decisionmaking. In: Proceedings of the annual meeting of the cognitive science society, pp 1991–1996

Reiling AD (2020) Courts and artificial intelligence. Int J Court Adm 11:1

D.Barysė, R.Sarel, 2023. Algorithms in the court: does it matter which part of the judicial decision-making is automated? Artif Intell Law (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-022-09343-6

Transparency International, 2022. What is corruption? https://www.transparency.org/en/what-is-corruption