DIAL module on governance attached to household surveys

To exploit the potential of household surveys carried out by National Statistical Offices as a statistical tool for constructing and monitoring governance and anti-corruption indicators.

 Both objectivedata (the governance part of the survey asks experience-based questions about actual incidence of petty corruption, type of transactions and services involved, amount actually paid, etc.) and subjective data (e.g. perceptions about the extent of petty corruption, on public confidence in various institutions, on satisfaction levels about how institutions are run, etc.)

 By appending a governance module to the official household survey, a national statistical office can carry out the governance survey on a regular basis and policymakers can access timely and methodologically reliable governance data to inform public policies.

A key advantage of collecting governance data through household surveys is that it comes at a low marginal cost if the survey has already been planned by the national statistical office, thus facilitating the sustainability of the exercise. Other advantages include the representativeness of collected information allowing for easy quantification of governance phenomena, and the ability to compare indicators across time and measure progress in a more systematic fashion, since statistical household surveys are conducted at regular intervals.   

Strong. Since the governance module is attached to household surveys, survey results are easily disaggregated by income groups, gender, regions (rural/urban), ethnicity, etc. This allows for anti-corruption and governance reform policies to be targeted to specific groups.

•  Do you have confidence in the following institutions (using a scale from 1 to 4): administration, judiciary, police, army, public heath system, parliament, etc.?
• Have you been victim of corruption in your interactions with public servants in the past year? What was the occasion? Which institution was involved?
• What is the total amount your household had to pay over the past year due to corruption?
• In your opinion, has corruption increased or decreased over the past year? (petty corruption vs. grand corruption)
• Do you think that the following measures could improve public service quality / efficiency? 1. Performance-based wages or 2. Sanctions (e.g. dismissal of civil servants for misconduct)

http://www.dial.prd.fr/dial_enquetes/dial_enquetes_modulegouvernance.htm

Very actionable. In addition to evaluating the most corrupt institutions and the groups who are most vulnerable to corruption, questions can be asked to assess the extent of the population’s resistance to corruption (refusal to pay), whether they file a complaint with the authorities if they encounter corruption, and the reasons for not reporting corruption (e.g. fear of reprisals, inaction by public authorities, lack of information as to how and where to file a complaint, etc.) This information is useful to inform policymaking around anti-corruption mechanisms.

Questions mainly about corruption “outputs” (asking citizens about their perceptions of and experiences with corruption), and assessing the de facto effectiveness of anti-corruption measures (e.g. asking citizens what are the main problems of the administration: absenteeism, corruption, politicisation, incompetence, inadequate regulations, etc.)