EBEN Research Conference Key Factors Contributing to a Low Effectiveness of Anti-corruption Measures in the Czech Republic Marie Bohata EBEN Research Conference Vienna 6-8 September 2018

Structure Anti-corruption policy of the Czech government. Factors hampering the effectiveness of anti-corruption measures. Findings of empirical research on public administration (disbursement of ESI funds, state-owned enterprises). Conclusions.

Anti-corruption policy of the Czech government Four priority areas: Efficient and independent civil service. Transparency and free access to information. Efficient management of state property. Development of civil society.

Implementation of anti-corruption policy Corruption risk assessment of legislative acts (an analysis of systemic corruption risks of new acts and a critical evaluation of the already adopted measures). Annual action plans (decentralized). Coordination bodies (Intergovernmental Council, unit in the Office of Government).

Legislative measures Adopted legislation: Civil Service Act (2014); Conflict of Interest Act (amendment 2015); Act on Register of Contracts (2016); Tightening of the system of political parties funding; New rules for public procurement. Legislation under preparation: whistleblower protection and regulation of lobbying.

Non –legislative measures The Code of Practice of Civil Servants in the form of regulation issued by the head of the civil service. Financial support to NGOs fighting corruption.

Factors hampering the effectiveness of anti-corruption measures and practical examples.

Key factors – political, social, organisational and personal nature Too many strategies, a low political will to implement them. Unclear/missing implementation plans. Dominating role of law, poor law enforcement. Underestimated role of ethics, lack of ethics training. Ineffective tools. Low awareness of and familiarity with the existing tools, lack of experience and good practice sharing. Weak/missing monitoring and reporting, inadequate compliance and relevant control function. Personal attitudes.

Findings from the area of ESI funds 2016 survey of 362 respondents (public admin., business, NGOs, consultants) The highest occurrence of corruption affects political positions in the government, regional governments and state-owned enterprises. Corruption is the most prone to occur among external evaluators and the least prone among auditors and inspectors. The probability of uncovering corruption is low, penalties for demonstrable corruption are currently too low. The most efficient means of combating corruption: measures aimed at improving transparency, reducing bureaucracy and improving individual morals. The fewest respondents see efficiency in improving the expertise of public administration employees and in strengthening the non-profit sector.

Findings from the area of ESI funds cont. Interviews with stakeholders in 2017 - feedback on the anti-fraud and anti- corruption tools. 11 anti-fraud and anti-corruption tools evaluated whether effective in reducing risks, enhancing transparency and not increasing administrative burden (publication of criteria and justification of evaluation, codes of conduct, checklists, esp. for public procurement, database of evaluators, procedures in case of suspicion of unfair behaviour/maladministration by the recipient and by the managing authority, uncovering of the ownership structure). The creation perceived positively, implementation varying within the manag. authorities considered problematic, at least one half perceived as serving primarily other purposes. Problems – frequent changes of tools, unclear guidelines, growing administrative burden, user unfriendly monitoring.

Preliminary findings from a 2018 survey on ethics in public administration 40 % of 300 respondents understands ethics as adhering to the letter and spirit of law, 56 % as complementary to law and stricter than law. Major ethical problems: formal fulfilment of tasks, corruption and clientelism, meeting expectations of the superior without respecting what is right, pursuit of personal interest at the expense of public interest. Only one half considers the internal situation develops in the right direction, (12 % in the wrong direction). 88 % is aware their organization has a code of ethics, 65 % is able to interpret and implement the Code in concrete situations, only 12 % is aware of the monitoring, 61% does not know whether it exists. Implementation could be boosted by an open debate on ethical issues, personal example of the superior and ethics training.

Preliminary findings from a 2018 survey on ethics in public administration cont. Ranking of values: professionality, integrity and responsibility, transparency, politeness, impartiality, justice, efficiency, quality, equality. Although debates on values are rare, 71 % would like to participate. 70 % would like to participate in debates on ethics. According to 38 % of respondents ethical issues are not discussed in the organization, 38 % does not know. 62% does not know, whether there is a person in charge of ethics,18 % thinks there is no such person. 37% is convinced that the direct superior should play this role. 12 % has a direct experience with a corruption situation, 24 % is aware of such an experience of colleagues, 57 % has no experience at all, 7 % does not want to respond.

Preliminary findings from a 2018 survey on ethics in public administration cont. The guidance in resolving ethical problems is taken from previous own experience, experience from somebody else in a similar situation, the code of ethics, consultation of a lawyer. The majority of colleagues acts according to the established rules in the organization (53 %), according to their own judgement what is right (26 %), according to expectations of the external environment (12 %). 54 % does not know whether courses on ethics in public administration are available. 68 % would consider attending such courses.

State-owned enterprises (SOEs) State ownership strategy is one of major anti-corruption measures (corruption - the antithesis of good governance, direct threat to the purpose of SOEs). State ownership strategy elaborated in 2016, not yet approved by the government. Corporate governance of SOEs does not meet the OECD principles of good governance. Major weaknesses: Nomination and appointment of Board members – lack of transparency. Remuneration of Board members- lack of transparency. Evaluation of Board members – only ad hoc. Skills of Board members - problematic. Efficiency of Boards – evaluated rarely.

Conclusions: What is needed? The existing legislation needs to be rigorously enforced. High standards of organizational culture should be established (including ethics leadership, tone at the top). Processes for implementation of the existing tools should be clearly defined and supporting structures created. Adequate compliance function should be established. Education and training in ethics and integrity should be made obligatory (formalistic/legalistic approaches abolished).

Thank you for your attention marie.bohata@cerge-ei.cz