Corruption Survey: No Improvement

Volume 73, No. 39, September 29, 2007
Armenian Weekly, MA

YEREVAN (Combined Sources)—Endemic government corruption in Armenia has not decreased in the past year despite Armenian leaders’ assurances they are addressing the problem in earnest, according to an annual global survey released this month by Transparency International, a global NGO committed to fighting corruption.

The Berlin-based Transparency International again rated countries of the world on a 10-point scale, with zero indicating an extremely high degree of corruption as perceived by experts, entrepreneurs and ordinary citizens.

Armenia and five other states ranked 99th out of 180 nations covered by the Index. It was assigned a score of 3.0, faring slightly worse than it did in the previous CPI released one year ago. The score is based on seven corruption-related surveys conducted in Armenia by other organizations, including the World Bank.

Armenia was again judged to be less corrupt that most other ex-Soviet states, including Russia and Azerbaijan. The latter occupies 150th in the rankings. By contrast, Armenia’s other former Soviet neighbor, Georgia, jumped to 79th place, having seen its CPI score rise from 2.9 to 3.4.

Armenia’s score was taken from a combination of six surveys carried out by experts from the Asian Development Bank, Bertelsmann Transitional Index, the World Bank, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, the Freedom House, the Global Insight, the International Union of Merchants and the World Economic Forum.

The survey focuses on corruption in the public sector and among politicians. The organization defines corruption as “the misuse of entrusted power for private gain.”

More than half of the 180 states that were examined received scores of three or less, which indicates that funds needed for education, medicine and infrastructure are being pocketed by politicians.

Amalia Kostanyan, head of Transparency’s Armenian affiliate, the Center for Regional Development, said the findings of the latest survey are further indication of a lack of progress in the Armenian government’s stated anti-corruption efforts. She said those efforts have proved ineffectual because of their heavy emphasis on legal amendments and what she called a lack of government commitment to rule of law.

Kostanyan argued that prosecution of senior government officials on corruption charges remain extremely rare. “Risks involved in corrupt practices remain very low,” she said.

The government claims to have successfully implemented a three-year plan of actions aimed at tackling bribery and other corrupt practices. However, there is little evidence that the set of mainly legislative measures, unveiled in late 2003, has had a major impact on the situation on the ground.

Earlier this year, Kostanyan resigned from a government body monitoring the program’s implementation in protest against its perceived inactivity. The resignation followed the publication of a CRD opinion poll, which found that nearly two-thirds of Armenians believe that corruption has increased in recent years.

In a Dec. 2006 interview with RFE/RL, the late Prime Minister Andranik Margaryan admitted that his government’s anti-corruption drive has not been “as effective as we hoped.” He said Yerevan would ask Western donors to help it draw up a new strategy that “ascertain[s] mechanisms for putting the [anti-graft] legislative framework into practice.” It is not clear if his successor, Serge Sargsyan, intends to do that.

Note: Above are excerpts from the article. The full article appears here. Clarifications and comments by me are contained in {}. Deletions are marked by [...]. The bold emphasis is mine.