survey on perceptions and knowledge of corruption (jun 2014)

Strengthening Transparency and Governance in Mongolia Program

SURVEY ON PERCEPTIONS AND

KNOWLEDGE

OF CORRUPTION

June 2014

This survey is made possible by the generous support of the American people

through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The Asia

Foundation and the Sant Maral Foundation have implemented the survey, which does

not necessarily reflect the views of USAID and the United States Government.

Сант Марал сан

1SURVEY ON PERCEPTIONS AND KNOWLEDGE OF CORRUPTION

I. INTRODUCTION 2

II. KEY FINDINGS 3

III. METHODOLOGY 4

1. MAJOR PROBLEMS 6

2. TRENDS IN PEOPLE’S ATTITUDES FROM 2006 TO 2014 9

3. CORRUPTION LEVEL 15

4. FAIR TREATMENT 17

5. GENERAL OR PETTY CORRUPTION 19

6. SECTORS OR AGENCIES AFFECTED BY CORRUPTION 22

7. UNDERSTANDING GRAND CORRUPTION 25

8. LEAD AGENCY AGAINST CORRUPTION 28

9. DEALING WITH CORRUPTION 33

10. INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS AGAINST CORRUPTION 36

11. DATA SEGREGATED BY GENDER, AREA, INCOME AND AGE 41

IV. SURVEY INSTRUMENT 58

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2 SURVEY ON PERCEPTIONS AND KNOWLEDGE OF CORRUPTION

I. INTRODUCTION

STAGE, the USAID-funded Strengthening Transparency and Governance in Mongo-

lia project, is back with the fourth installment of the semi-annual Survey on Percep-

tions and Knowledge of Corruption (SPEAK). The Asia Foundation implements the

SPEAK survey in partnership with the Sant Maral Foundation. Building on the earlier,

semi-annual benchmarking survey under the USAID-funded Mongolian Anti-Cor-

ruption Support project, the SPEAK survey captures data on citizens’ perceptions of

corruption, their actual experience of corruption at the household level, and Grand

Corruption.

The SPEAK survey, together with the Study of Private Perceptions of Corruption, or

STOPP, has been a defining feature of the STAGE project that continues to stimulate

anti-corruption programs both in state agencies and in the private and non-profit

sectors—for example, anti-corruption action plans in government agencies and pri-

vate businesses. Thus far, at least 5,000 copies of the SPEAK survey reports have

been distributed. Further dissemination efforts have reached out to tens of thou-

sands more people across Mongolia, shaping public discussion of national policies

and programs. The evidence-based results from these surveys have influenced the

project’s interventions at various stages, bolstering advocacy and monitoring ef-

forts, and expediting the development and implementation of reforms at the state

level.


II. KEY FINDINGS

- As in the three earlier surveys, corruption was named the third most important

problem in the country in 2014, and over 8 percent of respondents believed

corruption to be the most important problem in the country.

- In March 2014, “corruption in law enforcement bodies” was the most commonly

cited obstacle to the fight against corruption. In earlier surveys, “the habit of

solving problems through corrupt practices” was the most commonly cited

obstacle.

- Land utilization, local procurement tenders, and mining continued to be

considered the three most corrupt agencies or sectors. Political parties fell from

the top five.

- The public’s expectation of fair treatment from law enforcement and the judiciary

was significantly low.

- Respondents in general, are not satisfied with the actions against corruption,

but long-term observation since 2006 shows perceptions have improved.

- The incidence of reported cases of corruption significantly decreased.

- Men were consistently found to be more aware of public affairs, while women

were found to be more concerned with household or private affairs.

- Urban respondents had stronger opinions on corruption than rural

respondents.


III. METHODOLOGY

The survey used structured, face-to-face interviews with adults 18 years of age and

above. Multi-stage, random sampling with probability sampling in area clusters was

used in the following stages.

In the first stage, Ulaanbaatar and up to two provinces (aimags) from each of the

four regions were randomly selected, followed by the selection of sub-districts

(khoroos) in Ulaanbaatar and of counties (soums) in aimags.

In the second stage, the Primary Sampling Units (PSU) were randomly selected in

Ulaanbaatar from among the sub-district sections (kheseg). In the aimag centers,

PSUs were randomly selected at the bag level (a bag is the smallest administrative

division of an aimag). In soum centers, the interview supervisor determined a block

of apartments or units, with eight households making up a PSU.

In the third stage, starting points and households were determined. Interviewers

in sub-districts of Ulaanbaatar were provided with apartment addresses (building

and flat numbers), whereas in ger districts, field executives provided interviewers

with street numbers and starting points. From the starting point, the interviewers

used the right hand rule and moved door to door, skipping two houses each time.

In aimags and soums, starting points were determined by supervisors. Interviewers

then followed the right hand rule and again selected every third household. At the

household level, the head of household or the household member who was most

familiar with household matters was selected for the interview.

This report discusses the findings of the SPEAK IV survey, started on March 15,

2014, and completed on March 30, 2014. The enumerators canvassed 170 PSUs,

comprising 1,360 households in seven districts of Ulaanbaatar and in 21 soums of

six aimags.1 The sample distribution is shown in the following table:

1 Results are based on face-to-face interviews with 1,360 adults age 18 and older. For results based on the total national sample of adults, the margin of sampling error is ±1.6 percentage points (if p=10 percent and 1-p=90 percent) to ±2.6 percentage points (if p=40 percent and 1-p=60 percent) at a confidence level of 95 percent. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.


Table A. Sample Distribution

Region City/Aimag District/Soum Interviewed households

1. Ulaanbaatar 560

Ulaanbaatar

Khan-Uul 64

Bayanzurkh 120

Sukhbaatar 64

Chingeltei 80

Bayangol 80

Songinokhairkhan 128

Nalaikh 24

Aimags 800

Western Region

2. Zavkhan 199

Uliastai (central soum) 80

Aldarkhaan 24

Durvuljin 24

Tosontsengel 40

Telmen 31

Khangai Region

3. Bulgan 120

Bulgan (central soum) 56

Burenkhangai 32

Orkhon 32

4. Bayankhongor 160

Bayankhongor (central soum) 57

Galuut 40

Bayan-Ovoo 32

Buutsagaan 31

Central Region

5. Umnugobi 105

Dalanzadgad (central soum) 48

Tsogttsetsii 32

Bayan-Ovoo 25

6. Selenge 120

Sukhbaatar (central soum) 56

Zuunburen 32

Javkhlant 32

Eastern Region

7. Sukhbaatar 96

Baruun-Urt (central soum) 40

Uulbayan 32

Asgat 24

Total 1,360


1. MAJOR PROBLEMS

In order to present a more comprehensive picture of the corruption situation, these

analyses use some of the results from Sant Maral Foundation’s Politbarometer (PB)

surveys.

According to the PBs, “dealing with corruption” was identified as the “biggest suc-

cess” for the last two successive governments since 2012 (Table 1.2). During that

same period, the SPEAK survey also found growing approval of the state’s handling

of corruption.

The STOPP survey of December 2013 found that the recent economic crisis in Mon-

golia did not affect the general population as much as it did the private sector

(businesses). While the private sector’s confidence in the business environment was

not encouraging (STOPP, Dec. 2013), monthly household incomes had steadily risen

since March 2013, as reported in the last few SPEAK surveys (Table 1.1). This growth

was outpaced by inflation, however, and real incomes fell below 2012 levels.

Tellingly, “inflation” as a major problem rose significantly, from 7.5 percent in March

2013 to 21.5 percent in September 2013. Although it fell in March 2014 to 17.2

percent, it was still twice as high as in March 2013 (Figure 1.1). The ranking of “pov-

erty” showed a significant decline from 2012, while “corruption” held steady in

third place. Since 2006, concern about both “corruption” and “unemployment” has

decreased. “Unemployment” decreased from 35.6 percent in March 2006 to 26.5

percent in March 2014, and “corruption” decreased from 28.8 percent in March

2006 to 8.3 percent in March 2014 (Figures 1.2 and 1.3).

Table 1.1: Monthly income as reported by the SPEAK survey

SurveyMean (average of incomes

reported in MNT)N (number of respondents)

Std. Deviation (variation from the mean)2

November 2012 565159 1270 527378

March 2013 556815 1304 452935

September 2013 660370 1344 607425

March 2014 643978 1300 473821

2 The standard deviation shows how much variation or dispersion from the average exists. A low standard devia-tion indicates that the data points tend to be very close to the mean; a high standard deviation indicates that the data points are spread out over a large range of values.


Figure 1.1: Major problems, comparisons from 2012 - 2014

Nov-12 30,1% 8,7% 8,0% 9,3% 9,0% 1,3% 2,7% 3,0% 3,5% 0,7%

Mar-13 33,8% 7,5% 7,4% 7,2% 6,0% 0,5% 4,5% 4,3% 3,9% 0,8%

Sep-13 24,4% 21,5% 7,0% 4,3% 3,7% 4,0% 2,6% 3,4% 3,8% 2,5%

Mar-14 26,5% 17,2% 8,3% 5,6% 4,6% 4,0% 3,5% 3,4% 3,3% 2,4%

0,0%

5,0%

10,0%

15,0%

20,0%

25,0%

30,0%

35,0%

40,0%

Unem-ployment

Inflation Corruption Poverty EcologyNational Economy

Living Standard

Bureau-cracy

Alcoho- lism

Low income

Bureaucracy Alcoholism

Table 1.2: Government biggest success (Source: the SMF’s Politbarometer survey)

April 2012 April 2013 March 2014

Agriculture 25.1Dealing with

Corruption14.0

Dealing with

Corruption10.9

Economy \manufacturing\

mining10.5 Agriculture 7.2 Agriculture 10.3

Education 8.1

Economy\

manufacturing\

mining

6.3

Economy\

manufacturing\

mining

7.4

Reduction of

unemployment3.2 Education 5.5 Education 6.1

Improving of standard of

living\poverty\income2.6

Reduction of

unemployment4.0

Reduction of

unemployment5.8


Figure 1.2: 2006-2013 Attitudes toward unemployment as the greatest concern (trends over time)

Mar-06

Sep-06

Mar-07

Sep-07

Mar-08

Sep-08

Mar-09

Sep-09

Mar-10

Sep-10

Apr-11

Nov-12

Mar-13

Sep-13

Mar-14

Unempl. 35.6% 39.0% 35.2% 29.4% 24.3% 24.6% 33.2% 35.2% 33.1% 36.0% 39.5% 30.1% 33.8% 24.4% 26.5%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

Figure 1.3: 2006-2013 Attitudes toward corruption as the greatest concern (trends over time)

Mar-06

Sep-06

Mar-07

Sep-07

Mar-08

Sep-08

Mar-09

Sep-09

Mar-10

Sep-10

Apr-11

Nov-12

Mar-13

Sep-13

Mar-14

Corruption 28.8%27.6%16.3%22.2%18.2%12.5% 8.5% 14.3%10.1% 7.4% 4.5% 8.0% 7.4% 7.0% 8.3%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%


2. TRENDS IN PEOPLE’S ATTITUDES FROM 2006 TO 2014

Although a single survey chosen from the last eight years might paint a different

picture, the trend over time suggests that people’s attitude towards corruption is

improving, or in other words, that they believe that corruption in general is being

tackled satisfactorily.

In March 2014, for example, 81.3 percent of respondents believed “corruption is a

common practice in our country.” This is more than four fifths of respondents, but

it is still 10 percent fewer than the 91.1 percent respondents who agreed to this

proposition in the first survey in March 2006 (Figure 2.1). Although unemployment

still ranks as the most important problem, its importance has also gradually declined

over time (Figure 1.2).

In 2006, new anti-corruption legislation was introduced. Since then, the public’s

assessment of corruption has been rather volatile. A large number of respondents

believe that the existing anti-corruption legislation cannot curb corruption satisfac-

torily.

With the recent surge of anti-corruption activities, there has been a decline since

2006 in the number who believe there is no political will to tackle corruption, yet

opinion remains predominantly negative, with 76.6 percent of respondents in March

2014 still believing that political will is lacking (Figure 2.3).

A small variation is noted in “a bribe is the only way to overcome bureaucratic red

tape.” 54.8 percent of respondents in March 2014 agreed, compared to 59.9 per-

cent in 2006 (Figure 2.4). In contrast, “giving a bribe helps to overcome unjust regu-

lations” showed substantial progress, dropping about 12 points from 66.8 percent

in 2006 to 54.3 percent in 2014 (Figure 2.7).

Respondents continued to believe that small and medium businesses are more neg-

atively affected by corruption than large businesses. There has been a change of

less than one percentage point since 2006, with 76.4 percent agreeing in 2014 that

large businesses are less affected (Figure 2.5).

Similarly, despite growing public debate, nearly three fourths of Mongolians still

believe that givers and takers of bribes are equally culpable—74.1 percent in 2006,

and 74.8 percent in 2014 (Figure 2.10).

The good news is that the number of respondents who believe some level of cor-

ruption “is acceptable” has dropped slightly, from 36.8 percent in 2006 to 33.9 per-

cent in 2014 (Figure 2.6), but the current figure is still much worse than September

2009, when it was at a low of 22.8 percent.

One of the more positive observations is a steady improvement in the assessment of

local administrative officials. 53.4 percent of respondents now believe they can rely

on the performance of administrative officials, compared to 38.2 percent in 2006


(Figure 2.8). Also, the number of respondents who believe some level of corruption

“is expected” (i.e., petty corruption) has declined from 68.8 percent in 2006 to 56.9

percent in 2014, a drop of nearly 12 percentage points. (Figure 2.9).

Figure 2.1: Corruption is a common practice in our country

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Mar-06 Sep-06 Mar-07 Sep-07 Mar-08 Sep-08 Mar-09 Sep-09 Nov-12 Mar-14DK/NA 1.4% 3.0% 3.0% 1.5% 4.3% 3.9% 3.3% 3.3% 4.7% 6.4%

Disagree 2.7% 3.3% 4.0% 4.0% 4.3% 5.2% 3.9% 4.2% 4.5% 6.0%

Somehow disagree 4.8% 4.2% 4.2% 5.2% 6.6% 7.5% 5.4% 6.5% 6.2% 6.3%

Somehow agree 13.1% 15.8% 18.2% 14.5% 22.4% 19.8% 17.6% 19.2% 20.2% 18.6%

Agree 78.0% 73.7% 70.7% 74.7% 62.5% 63.7% 69.8% 66.8% 64.4% 62.7%

Figure 2.2: The existing legislation on corruption is not working effectively

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Disagree 3.3% 4.2% 2.2% 3.9% 7.1% 4.5% 4.5% 6.5% 4.5% 3.8%


Somehow agree 15.2% 21.8% 17.5% 17.1% 15.2% 15.1% 14.2% 17.3% 16.5% 19.5%

Agree 73.5% 58.4% 62.5% 65.4% 60.2% 59.9% 64.4% 53.0% 62.6% 59.9%


Figure 2.3: Politicians have no real will to fight corruption as they may benefit from it

0%20%40%60%80%

100%

y


Disagree 3.2% 2.3% 2.3% 3.0% 5.4% 7.2% 2.6% 4.3% 4.3% 7.2%


Somehow agree 17.4% 24.6% 22.9% 22.3% 18.9% 19.7% 18.5% 21.0% 17.3% 18.5%

Agree 67.7% 56.4% 58.0% 63.0% 52.5% 55.2% 65.8% 58.2% 65.6% 58.1%

Figure 2.4: Do you agree that the only way to overcome bureaucracy is to pay bribes


Disagree 22.2% 15.6% 15.1% 15.4% 21.1% 16.4% 21.3% 22.5% 17.3% 20.1%


Somehow agree 17.8% 20.3% 19.5% 20.6% 21.0% 17.9% 18.4% 18.3% 21.5% 22.0%

Agree 42.1% 39.5% 41.3% 43.8% 32.6% 40.9% 36.0% 30.5% 38.2% 32.8%

0%20%40%60%80%

100%


Figure 2.5: Small and medium business are more negatively affected by corruption than are the large businesses

0%

50%

100%


Disagree 4.6% 3.5% 5.4% 4.7% 6.8% 8.0% 4.5% 6.8% 3.5% 3.5%


Somehow agree 22.6% 21.5% 23.9% 22.6% 18.7% 19.2% 22.6% 25.8% 19.1% 17.4%

Agree 54.4% 49.7% 44.5% 44.4% 42.1% 48.8% 49.2% 38.2% 59.7% 59.0%

Figure 2.6: Some level of corruption is acceptable

0%

50%

100%

Mar-06

Sep-06Mar-

07Sep-07

Mar-08

Sep-08Mar-

09Sep-09

Mar-10

Sep-10Nov-

12Mar-

14DK/NA 5.9% 7.7% 8.7% 7.1% 11.4% 12.4% 10.2% 11.2% 5.9% 5.8% 8.1% 7.5%

Disagree 41.8% 38.8% 34.2% 34.6% 44.4% 32.8% 44.1% 44.0% 43.5% 41.9% 38.0% 42.6%

Somehow disagree 15.4% 16.8% 19.4% 14.3% 16.4% 17.3% 14.9% 22.0% 17.6% 16.6% 17.4% 16.0%

Somehow agree 22.5% 18.8% 17.9% 19.3% 16.4% 15.3% 17.3% 15.5% 18.2% 21.5% 20.4% 17.9%

Agree 14.3% 18.0% 19.9% 24.7% 11.3% 22.2% 13.5% 7.3% 14.8% 14.2% 16.2% 16.0%


Figure 2.7: Giving a bribe helps to overcome unjust regulations

0%20%40%60%80%

100%


Disagree 13.5% 8.9% 12.5% 9.2% 14.1% 13.0% 15.2% 16.2% 13.6% 14.3%


Somehow agree 24.6% 25.8% 27.3% 25.3% 22.3% 21.3% 19.9% 24.0% 24.9% 24.7%

Agree 42.2% 39.6% 38.7% 41.2% 31.0% 38.5% 35.8% 28.8% 36.2% 29.6%

Figure 2.8: Local administration in general are reliable and responsible people

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Disagree 25.4% 24.6% 21.1% 21.6% 23.4% 22.2% 23.2% 18.8% 22.3% 17.2%


Somehow agree 19.4% 21.7% 22.5% 26.1% 23.2% 24.9% 23.6% 25.8% 22.2% 24.3%

Agree 18.8% 19.9% 21.1% 18.8% 19.6% 23.5% 20.9% 20.0% 23.8% 29.1%


Figure 2.9: Some level of corruption is expected

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Disagree 13.2% 10.1% 11.4% 14.8% 14.9% 10.2% 15.7% 11.0% 14.8% 15.7%


Somehow agree 26.8% 28.9% 29.5% 22.4% 21.6% 21.2% 20.2% 26.2% 27.1% 23.9%

Agree 42.0% 39.1% 38.4% 45.2% 32.7% 43.1% 41.9% 36.7% 32.1% 33.0%

Figure 2.10: The person who gives a bribe is equally responsible as the one who accepts it

0%20%40%60%80%

100%

Mar-06

Sep-06Mar-

07Sep-07

Mar-08

Sep-08Mar-

09Sep-09

Mar-10

Sep-10Nov-

12Mar-

14DK/NA 7.4% 9.9% 9.8% 7.6% 12.5% 11.5% 7.9% 10.2% 9.6% 6.1% 8.0% 8.2%

Disagree 9.8% 12.6% 12.8% 11.7% 8.1% 9.5% 8.2% 11.5% 15.5% 16.1% 8.3% 8.1%

Somehow disagree 8.7% 7.6% 11.4% 9.4% 9.4% 10.7% 8.3% 7.0% 11.9% 11.1% 9.6% 8.9%

Somehow agree 13.5% 14.8% 14.1% 17.1% 12.9% 14.5% 11.2% 17.5% 13.3% 17.1% 22.1% 17.9%

Agree 60.6% 55.2% 51.9% 54.2% 57.2% 53.8% 64.4% 53.8% 49.7% 49.6% 52.1% 56.9%


3. CORRUPTION LEVEL

In the most recent survey, fewer respondents than in the earlier surveys believed

that corruption had increased in the last three years (Figure 3.1). Compared to 41

percent of respondents in September 2013, slightly less 39.9 percent in March 2014

believed that corruption had increased. 26.3 percent believed that corruption had

decreased.

On the other hand, expectations regarding levels of corruption in the next 3 years

showed more variation. The 2014 survey had more respondents (23.4 percent) who

believed there would be more corruption cases in the next three years than in Sep-

tember 2013 (20.3 percent). When compared with the data from 2006, however,

the scenario is still very positive, since 38.9 percent of respondents in that survey

expected corruption would increase. So there is a declining trend over time in the

number of respondents who believe corruption will increase in the future. (Figure

3.2).

Another positive trend noted over time has been in perceptions of the impact of

corruption on personal life, the business environment, and politics. (Figure 3.3).

Compared to September 2013, respondents now believe corruption will have a

smaller impact. Although this change can be observed since 2006, there are in-

tervening variations to be accounted for. To some extent, the fluctuations can be

linked to parliamentary elections, but more observations will be necessary to make

a definitive claim. It is possible that the nature and intensity of media coverage of

corruption during that period may have played a role. In March 2014, respondents

reported the lowest perceived impact of corruption on personal life, the business

environment, and politics since 2006. This represents an overall positive trend in

public perceptions, but one noticeable only over time.


Figure 3.1: Corruption in the last three years

Mar-06

Mar-07

Mar-08

Mar-09

Mar-10

Nov-12

Sep-13

Mar-06

Sep-06

Mar-07

Sep-07

Mar-08

Sep-08

Mar-09

Sep-09

Mar-10

Sep-10

Nov-12

Mar-13

Sep-13

Mar-14

Increased a lot 63.1%50.7%54.0%52.1%48.9%54.9%34.0%38.6%48.8%43.3%38.9%22.7%18.2%17.4%

Increased a little 18.2%23.9%22.6%24.3%19.9%17.4%25.3%21.4%22.0%26.9%21.5%25.6%22.8%22.5%

Is the same 15.1%21.1%20.7%20.8%23.2%21.9%28.0%29.5%22.5%21.0%25.8%34.1%31.5%33.8%

Decreased a little 3.4% 4.3% 2.6% 2.6% 7.1% 5.4% 11.7% 9.8% 6.1% 8.5% 12.9%16.7%25.7%25.0%

Decreased a lot 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2% 1.0% 0.4% 1.0% 0.8% 0.6% 0.3% 0.9% 0.9% 1.8% 1.3%

Figure 3.2: What will be the situation of corruption in the next three years

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Mar-06

Sep-06

Mar-07

Sep-07

Mar-08

Sep-08

Mar-09

Sep-09

Mar-10

Sep-10

Nov-12

Mar-13

Sep-13

Mar-14

Mar-06

Sep-06

Mar-07

Sep-07

Mar-08

Sep-08

Mar-09

Sep-09

Mar-10

Sep-10

Nov-12

Mar-13

Sep-13

Mar-14

Increase a lot 26.0%27.6%21.1%24.3%18.8%30.4%22.2%20.3%26.8%22.1%12.5% 9.1% 8.5% 9.4%

Increase a little 12.9%16.4%14.3%17.7%15.4%15.3%17.8%11.6%15.2%18.0%14.0%11.0%11.8%14.0%

Remain the same 35.3%27.8%29.8%27.4%32.8%25.5%27.2%32.9%32.7%31.7%28.9%31.1%27.1%30.8%

Decrease a little 23.9%25.1%29.3%26.7%29.1%23.0%26.2%27.4%21.5%24.5%38.5%42.9%43.6%38.6%

Decrease a lot 1.9% 3.2% 5.5% 3.9% 3.9% 5.9% 6.5% 7.9% 3.8% 3.7% 6.1% 5.9% 8.9% 7.2%


Figure 3.3: Impact of corruption on personal life, business environment, and politics

4. FAIR TREATMENT

After 2010,3 there is a visible trend in expectations of fair treatment in the educa-

tion and healthcare sectors (fig 3.4). A majority continues to believe the education

sector is the fairest. The healthcare sector has shown gradual improvement since

2010, but a majority still does not expect fair treatment from the healthcare sector.

This may be related to the perception that healthcare workers are more frequent

bribe-takers.

The expectation of fair treatment from local and national administrations has con-

siderably improved. It is possible that the delivery of public services and the behavior

of service providers have improved in recent times.

In contrast to these improvements, public expectations of fair treatment from law

enforcement and the judiciary are much worse than from other agencies. It is pos-

sible that respondents have not seen any improvement in service from these insti-

tutions. In all the surveys, for example, respondents were least likely to pick “po-

lice” to report bribery. Although the reported number of bribes given to police and

judges is low, the amounts reported are noticeably high. This contributes to a fear

of the weakening of the rule of law. With regard to the judiciary, there was some

improvement in respondents’ expectations of fair treatment from March 2010 to

March 2013, but this improvement was uneven, and the trend since then has been

negative.

3 The block of questions on “fairness” was introduced in 2010.


Fig: 3.4 Expectation of fair treatment from different government agencies

67.4%

63.5%

61.4%

54.2%

63.2%

59.1%

32.6%

36.5%

38.6%

45.8%

36.8%

40.9%

Mar-10

Sep-10

Nov-12

Mar-13

Sep-13

Mar-14

Healthcare system Not Fair Fair

76.7%

74.2%

74.5%

68.8%

69.9%

70.1%

23.3%

25.8%

25.5%

31.2%

30.1%

29.9%

Mar-10

Sep-10

Nov-12

Mar-13

Sep-13

Mar-14

Judiciary Not Fair Fair

64.2%

52.9%

58.7%

51.2%

35.8%

47.1%

41.3%

48.8%

Nov-12

Mar-13

Sep-13

Mar-14

Local Government Not Fair Fair

60.1%

55.8%

54.6%

44.7%

55.6%

48.3%

39.9%

44.2%

45.4%

55.3%

44.4%

51.7%

Mar-10

Sep-10

Nov-12

Mar-13

Sep-13

Mar-14

Educational system Not Fair Fair

74.3%

73.2%

75.9%

67.1%

69.8%

69.9%

25.7%

26.8%

24.1%

32.9%

30.2%

30.1%

Mar-10

Sep-10

Nov-12

Mar-13

Sep-13

Mar-14

Law enforcement Not Fair Fair

63.9%

54.7%

60.5%

52.6%

36.1%

45.3%

39.5%

47.4%

Nov-12

Mar-13

Sep-13

Mar-14

National Government Not Fair Fair


5. GENERAL OR PETTY CORRUPTION4

A majority of respondents consider it corruption to use a public position for per-

sonal gain, including to help friends and relatives (Figures 5.1 and 5.2). This view

has been stable and largely unanimous. Respondents have shown a similarly stable

consensus that it is corruption to give presents or money to civil servants to obtain

services one is entitled to. (Figure 5.5).

The consensus is weaker for other cases, however. Giving a gift in an election cam-

paign, and diverting state funds to one’s own electorate are considered corruption

by a smaller (though still substantial) number of respondents (Figures 5.3 and 5.4).

Responses in these categories also show more variability over time, and are prob-

ably influenced by elections. In particular, diverting state funds to one’s own elec-

torate shows the widest variability of all indicators since the beginning of the survey

in 2006. Perhaps because it involves complex assessments of costs and benefits, this

question may be the most difficult for respondents to decide.

After falling from November 2012 to March 2013, the number of respondents be-

lieving that private financing of political parties is corrupt has again increased. This

category is also unstable, since it is also more likely to be influenced by elections

(Figure 5.6).

Figure 5.1: Using public position to collect gifts, money

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Mar

-06

Jul-0

6

Nov

-06

Mar

-07

Jul-0

7

Nov

-07

Mar

-08

Jul-0

8

Nov

-08

Mar

-09

Jul-0

9

Nov

-09

Mar

-10

Jul-1

0

Nov

-10

Mar

-11

Jul-1

1

Nov

-11

Mar

-12

Jul-1

2

Nov

-12

Mar

-13

Jul-1

3

Nov

-13

Mar

-14

Mar-06 Sep-06 Mar-07 Sep-07 Mar-08 Sep-08 Mar-09 Sep-09 Nov-12 Mar-13 Mar-14Yes 98.5 96.5 97.7 96.3 97.3 98.1 96.4 98.8 97.9 98.1 95.8%

4 In the December 2013 report, it was noted that September 2013 results showed no change from earlier surveys, but that this may have been due to changes in question design. In analysis, for example, only “yes” responses were considered. In the later measurement, in March 2014, it was determined that methodological changes had indeed had an effect. Therefore, the September 2013 results for this block of questions were deemed methodologically incompatible with the rest of the results and were excluded from the trend lines.


Figure 5.2: Using a public position to help friends, relatives (such as giving jobs, licenses)

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Mar

-06

Jul-0

6

Nov

-06

Mar

-07

Jul-0

7

Nov

-07

Mar

-08

Jul-0

8

Nov

-08

Mar

-09

Jul-0

9

Nov

-09

Mar

-10

Jul-1

0

Nov

-10

Mar

-11

Jul-1

1

Nov

-11

Mar

-12

Jul-1

2

Nov

-12

Mar

-13

Jul-1

3

Nov

-13

Mar

-14

Mar-06 Sep-06 Mar-07 Sep-07 Mar-08 Sep-08 Mar-09 Sep-09 Nov-12 Mar-13 Mar-14Yes 96.7 96.4 96.3 96.9 98.0 97.9 97.3 99.1 97.8 97.4 96.0%

Figure 5.3: Distributing gifts in an election campaign

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Mar

-06

Aug

-06

Jan-

07

Jun-

07

Nov

-07

Apr

-08

Sep-

08

Feb-

09

Jul-0

9

Dec

-09

May

-10

Oct

-10

Mar

-11

Aug

-11

Jan-

12

Jun-

12

Nov

-12

Apr

-13

Sep-

13

Feb-

14

Mar-06 Sep-06 Mar-07 Sep-07 Mar-08 Sep-08 Mar-09 Sep-09 Nov-12 Mar-13 Mar-14Yes 94.2 88.7 86.0 92.8 91.8 91.6 90.6 94.3 81.1 87.7 85.5

Figure 5.4: Politicians diverting state funds to their own electorate

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

Mar

-06

Aug-

06

Jan-

07

Jun-

07

Nov

-07

Apr-

08

Sep-

08

Feb-

09

Jul-0

9

Dec

-09

May

-10

Oct

-10

Mar

-11

Aug-

11

Jan-

12

Jun-

12

Nov

-12

Apr-

13

Sep-

13

Feb-

14

Mar-06 Sep-06 Mar-07 Sep-07 Mar-08 Sep-08 Mar-09 Sep-09 Nov-12 Mar-13 Mar-14Yes 80.4 73.4 72.8 78.4 84.8 87.0 84.4 89.9 78.0 69.9 71.9


Figure 5.5: Giving presents or money to civil servants to obtain services entitled to

96.0% 95.9% 94.4%

Nov 12 Mar 13 Mar-14

Yes

Figure 5.6: For private people to finance political party activity

91.2%86.9% 89.4%

Nov 12 Mar 13 Mar-14

Yes


Figure 5.7: Respondents agreement whether the given scenario is a case of corruption ‘to a large extent’

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%

Mar

-06

Jul-0

6N

ov-0

6M

ar-0

7Ju

l-07

Nov

-07

Mar

-08

Jul-0

8N

ov-0

8M

ar-0

9Ju

l-09

Nov

-09

Mar

-10

Jul-1

0N

ov-1

0M

ar-1

1Ju

l-11

Nov

-11

Mar

-12

Jul-1

2N

ov-1

2M

ar-1

3Ju

l-13

Nov

-13

Mar

-14

Mar-06

Sep-06

Mar-07

Sep-07

Mar-08

Sep-08

Mar-09

Sep-09

Nov-12

Mar-13

Mar-14

Using public position to collectmoney

49.8% 45.1% 50.5% 53.7% 47.7% 44.0% 46.9% 43.7% 55.0% 42.1% 39.1%

Using public position to helpfriends

56.3% 49.1% 58.8% 57.3% 54.4% 51.2% 56.4% 57.0% 62.8% 53.8% 46.5%

Distributing gifts in Electioncampaign

36.1% 34.0% 31.3% 36.5% 36.9% 34.3% 42.9% 38.1% 36.7% 31.0% 25.6%

To divert state funds to ownElectorate

20.6% 15.8% 17.9% 23.5% 26.4% 25.9% 29.6% 26.8% 28.5% 18.5% 20.1%

6. SECTORS OR AGENCIES AFFECTED BY CORRUPTION

Since November 2012, land utilization, state mining, and local procurement offices

have consistently been ranked as the three most corrupt agencies or sectors. In

March 2013, the mining sector was divided into two categories, private and state-

owned, to see whether respondents distinguished between the two. Respondents

identified the public sector as more corrupt, which agrees with findings from the

STOPP survey (Table 6.1).

In 2014 customs appeared among the top five most corrupt agencies climbing to

3.62 from 3.53 in September 2013. Political parties fell in the corruption rankings

from 3.69 to 3.49, down from fourth to eighth place, possibly because elections

were over. They were replaced by the judiciary, which moved into fourth position

from seventh with a rating increase from 3.59 to 3.63 (Figure 6.1).


Tab 6.1: Top five corrupt agencies or sectors

Survey 1 rank 2 rank 3 rank 4 rank 5 rank

Mar-06 Land

Utilization

Customs Mining Judges Police

Sep-06 Land

Utilization

Customs Mining Judges Police

Mar-07 Land

Utilization

Customs Mining Judges Registry and

Permit Service

Sep-07 Land

Utilization

Mining Customs Registry

and Permit

Service

Judges

Mar-08 Land

Utilization

Mining Customs Registry

and Permit

Service

Judges

Sep-08 Land

Utilization

Mining Customs Judges Prosecutors

Mar-09 Land

Utilization

Mining Judges Customs Prosecutors

Sep-09 Land

Utilization

Judges Police Prosecutors Mining

Mar-10 Land

Utilization

Mining Political Parties Customs Parliament/

Legislature

Sep-10 Land

Utilization

Mining Judges Customs Political Parties

Apr-11 Land

Utilization

Mining Judges Customs Political Parties

Nov-12 Land

Utilization

Mining Local

Procurement

Tenders

Professional

Inspection

Agency

Political Parties

Mar-13 Land

Utilization

State-owned

Mining

Local

Procurement

Tenders

Political

Parties

Customs

Sep-13 Land

Utilization

State-owned

Mining

Local

Procurement

Tenders

Political

Parties

Private

companies in

Mining Sector

Mar-14 Land

Utilization

State-owned

Mining

Local

Procurement

Tenders

Judges Customs


Figure 6.1: Extent of Corruption (from 1: “not at all” to 5: “extreme”)

State regulated mining sectorLocal Procurement Tenders

Private companies in Mining SectorParliament / Legislature

Judicial SystemCustoms

Health SystemRegistry and Permit Service

Banking System

September 2013

4.05

3.93

3.75

3.69

3.62

3.61

3.59

3.53

3.51

3.51

3.47

3.45

3.33

3.31

3.21

3.15

2.54

State regulated mining sectorLocal Procurement Tenders

Judicial SystemCustoms

Private companies in Mining Sector

Health System

Parliament / Legislature

Registry and Permit Service

Banking System

March 2014

4.05

3.90

3.78

3.63

3.62

3.57

3.51

3.49

3.49

3.48

3.35

3.22

3.19

3.16

3.09

2.99

2.59


7. UNDERSTANDING GRAND CORRUPTION

After two years of observing attitudes toward Grand Corruption (GC), some trends

are apparent (Figure 7.1). The definition respondents most commonly associated

with GC in March 2014 was “cases involving high-level public officials.” From the

earliest to the most recent surveys, the number of respondents with this conception

of GC has been the most preferred one barring September 2013. GC was defined

as “cases where the bribe amount is very large” by 16.7 percent in 2014, closely fol-

lowed by the “cases with strong political interests” (16.3 percent). “Cases where big

local and foreign businesses are involved” has steadily declined from 14.9 percent in

November 2012 to 11.3 percent in March 2014.

Additionally, since the beginning in 2012, respondents have perceived a decline in

GC in Mongolia (Figure 7.2). About 53 percent of respondents in November 2012

believed that there was a significant level of GC in Mongolia, while in March 2014,

46 percent believed so. The good news is that more respondents than before are

paying attention and are familiar with the term “Grand Corruption” (Figure 7.3).

Compared to the 16 percent of respondents who said they “often” heard about GC

cases in November 2012, 22 percent said so in March 2014. Similarly, more respon-

dents are saying that GC has an impact on household economy (Figure 7.4). While

32 percent said that GC had no impact on their households in November 2012, just

22 percent held that view in March 2014.

Figure 7.1: Understanding Grand Corruption

26.9%

24.8%

16.7%

26.9%

21.8%

17.6%

24.2%

16.3%

14.9%

14.5%

12.0%

11.3%

12.4%

16.1%

16.9%

14.2%

12.0%

11.9%

15.2%

16.7%

11.4%

14.6%

14.3%

14.1%

0.5%

0.4%

0.6%

0.5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Nov-12

Mar-13

Sep-13

Mar-14

Cases with involvement of high level public o cials Cases with strong poli cal interest

Cases where big local and foreign businesses are involved Cases with high level damage to the country

Bribe amount is a very big one Cases which organized crime is involved in

Other


Figure 7.2: What do you think about the level of Grand Corruption in Mongolia?

There is no GC in Mongolia

There are only few cases of GC

There are some cases of GC

There is a significant amount of GC

53%30%

16%1%

Nov-12

47%

36%

16%1%

Mar-13


There are only few cases of GC




48%

37%

14% 1%

Sep-13There are only few cases of GC



46%

40%

13% 1%

Mar-14


Figure 7.3: How frequently do you hear about Grand Corruption incidences?

16%

Rarely53%

Never12%

DK19%

Nov-12

22%

Rarely53%

Never13%

DK12%

Mar-13

26%

Rarely51%

Never9%

DK14%

Sep-13

22%

Rarely52%

Never11%

DK15%

Mar-14

Figure 7.4: Do you think that GC has any negative impact on you and your family?

Very strong12%

Some42%

Small14%

Not at all

32%

Nov-12

Very strong15%

Some45%

Small20%

Not at all

20%

Mar-13

Very strong10%

Some45%Small

21%

Not at all

24%

Sep-13

Very strong15%

Some42%

Small21%

Not at all

22%

Mar-14


8. LEAD AGENCY AGAINST CORRUPTION

In 2006, when a special unit to combat corruption was being discussed, the Corrup-

tion Benchmarking Survey showed that almost half of respondents (46.6 percent)

preferred the government as the lead agency to combat corruption (Figure 8.1). But

apparently because of the ineffectiveness of existing measures, a still non-existent

“Special Elite Unit” received almost the same support (40.7 percent). This suggested

a high demand for such a unit, which later figured in the creation of the Indepen-

dent Authority Against Corruption or IAAC.

Come 2007, however, the newly founded IAAC had problems gaining public confi-

dence as the scope of work far outgrew its capacity. The 2010 assessment showed

that 69.6 percent of respondents were not confident in the IAAC. Lack of confi-

dence reached an all-time high of 73 percent in 2011. Nonetheless, public percep-

tions significantly shifted to IAAC’s favor in November 2012, and lack of confidence

gradually declined to 61.6 percent in 2013, and then 54.3 percent in March 2014

(Figures 8.6 and 8.7).

These results are supported by additional data. In March 2010, only 7.8 percent of

respondents evaluated the IAAC positively (either “good” or “very good”), but in

November 2012, that number had nearly doubled to 15.6 percent. In March 2014,

favorable evaluations of the IAAC had reached 22.6 percent, a nearly threefold in-

crease over March 2010 (Figure 8.5).

One of the major challenges for the IAAC over the years has been to overcome the

public perception that it is politically motivated, a view held by slightly more than

three fourths of respondents in March 2010 (78.3 percent). The IAAC, however,

through its educational and public outreach programs, has gradually managed to

improve public perception. The number of respondents who believe the IAAC is

politically motivated declined to 74 percent in November 2012, and reached a new

low of 65.3 percent in March 2014 (Figure 8.8).5

A plurality of Mongolians now believe the IAAC should take the lead in combating

corruption (Figure 8.6). Public confidence in civil society is low and has shown no

signs of improvement. Expectations of the president have risen slightly, but he has

no real means to deal with the problem. The scenario is somewhat different, how-

ever, in the case of Grand Corruption.

The number of respondents who prefer the IAAC to lead in cases of GC is about half

the number that prefer the IAAC in cases of general corruption, with nearly 52 per-

cent still unable to form an opinion on GC (Figure 8.4). With a majority of respon-

dents linking GC to the public sector and high-level public officials, it is clear that the

IAAC needs to do something meaningful about GC to gain more public trust.

5 The recent debate between the IAAC and Prime Minister Altanhuyag, who said that IAAC is disrupting the government’s constructive activity, happened after the data were collected, and so did not affect the findings.


Figure 8.1: In your opinion, who should organize and lead the effort to combat corruption (2 choices)

46.6%

13.5%

26.4%

11.1%

28.2%

8.8% 8.6%

40.7%

2.5%

(2006, 2 choices)

Figure 8.2: In your opinion, who should organize and lead the effort to combat corruption (1 choice)

Nov

Ma

Sep

Ma

IAA

v-12 44.

r-13 39.

p-13 42.

r-14 40.

ACG

.4%

.4%

.2%

.4%

NationalGovernment

13.1%

13.2%

14.5%

18.5%

Civil Socie

9.5%

16.0%

9.5%

10.1%

Top 5

ety Pre

%

%

esident L

2.6%

3.7%

6.8%

7.6%

Law Enforceme

9.0%

6.8%

6.5%

6.3%

ent


Figure 8.3: In your opinion, who should organize and lead the effort to combat corruption (1 choice)

40,4%

18,5%

10,1%7,6% 6,3%

4,0% 2,8% 2,7% 2,6% 1,6% 1,2% 0,3% 0,1% 1,6%

(March 2014)

IAA

C

Na

tion

al G

ove

rnm

en

t

Civ

il S

oci

ety

Pre

sid

en

t’s O

ffic

e

La

w E

nfo

rce

me

nt

Min

istr

y o

f Ju

stic

e

Pa

rlia

me

nt

Lo

cal G

ove

rnm

en

t

Co

urt

s

NG

Os

All

ab

ove

me

ntio

ne

d

Oth

er

Th

e P

riva

te S

ect

or

DK

/NA

Figure 8.4: In your opinion, who should organize and lead the effort to combat grand corruption (1 choice)

IAACGovernment

Civil Society President Law Enforcement

Mar-13 20,7% 13,8% 8,2% 3,3% 4,2%

Sep-13 22,7% 12,2% 4,0% 3,5% 3,3%

Mar-14 21,0% 15,4% 3,1% 5,3% 3,2%


Figure 8.5: Evaluation of IAAC performance

Very

Good

Not g

Bad

Very

Mar-10

Sep-10

Apr-11

Nov-12

Mar-13

Sep-13

Mar-14

good

d

good, not bad

bad

Mar-101.0%

6.8%

29.8%

39.3%

23.1%

Sep-10 A0.3%

7.7%

38.4%

32.5%

21.0%

Apr-11 No1.2% 1

7.9% 14

33.6% 38

32.9% 25

24.4% 19

ov-12 Ma1.1% 0.9

4.5% 19.

8.7% 42.

5.8% 26.

9.9% 10.

r-13 Sep-19% 1.7%

.4% 27.7

.0% 38.4

.8% 24.4

.9% 7.7%

13 Mar-14% 1.7%

7% 20.9%

4% 40.1%

4% 25.8%

% 11.5%

4

%

%

%

%

Figure 8.6: Confidence in IAAC

Confi

Rathe

Rathe

Not c

Mar-10

Sep-10

Apr-11

Nov-12

Mar-13

Sep-13

Mar-14

ident

er confident

er not confiden

confident at all

0

0

1

2

3

3

4

Mar-102.5%

28.0%

nt 47.4%

l 22.2%

Sep-101.8%

27.1%

49.4%

21.8%

Apr-11 N1.6%

25.4%

43.3%

29.7%

Nov-12 Ma1.9% 2

36.5% 38

38.8% 41

22.8% 17

ar-13 Sep-.0% 3.8

8.6% 42.7

1.8% 39.4

7.7% 14.0

-13 Mar-1% 2.9%

7% 42.8%

4% 39.8%

0% 14.5%

4

%

%

%


Figure 8.7: Confidence trend line in IAAC

69.6% 71.2% 73.0%

61.6% 59.5% 53.5% 54.3%

30.4% 28.8% 27.0%

38.4% 40.5% 46.5% 45.7%

Mar

-10

May

-10

Jul-1

0

Sep-

10

Nov

-10

Jan-

11

Mar

-11

May

-11

Jul-1

1

Sep-

11

Nov

-11

Jan-

12

Mar

-12

May

-12

Jul-1

2

Sep-

12

Nov

-12

Jan-

13

Mar

-13

May

-13

Jul-1

3

Sep-

13

Nov

-13

Jan-

14

Mar

-14

Not confinet/Rather not Confident Confident/Rather ConfidentNot Confi dent/Rather not Confi dent

Figure 8.8: Are you confident that IAAC is an impartial law enforcement body?

21.7% 21.9% 26.0% 30.4% 33.4% 34.7%

78.3% 78.1% 74.0% 69.6% 66.6% 65.3%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Mar-10 Sep-10 Nov-12 Mar-13 Sep-13 Mar-14

Yes No


9. DEALING WITH CORRUPTION

There has been a shift in this survey as to which factors respondents identify as

obstacles to fighting corruption. The factor most often identified over the years has

been the “habit to solve problems through corrupt practices.” Now, the number

one obstacle is identified as the “corruption in law enforcement bodies,” corrobo-

rating the observation in the “fair treatment” section that respondents have low

expectations of fair treatment from law enforcement. “Public passivity” has also

risen in importance, pushing “imperfect legislation” to fourth place (Figure 9.1).

“Strong enforcement measures and punishment” are still believed to be the most

effective measure against corruption, followed by “consistency in implementation

of the rule of law” (Figure 9.2). There has been a considerable increase in demand

for raising salaries of public employees to avoid corruption, which may have been

influenced by rising inflation. As noted earlier in the first section, respondents have

identified “inflation” as the second most important problem in the country (Figure

1.1).

The findings on civil society are somewhat inconsistent. On the one hand, there is

a steady growth in demand for “building public awareness on corruption.” On the

other hand, there is a significant drop in preference for “civil control over public ad-

ministration” (Figure 9.2). This may be somehow connected to the low confidence

in civil society organizations (Table 9.1).

Nevertheless, there is a visible positive change in public attitudes towards conflict

of interest among public officials. While 47.5 percent of the respondents in March

2010 believed that public officials are “always” in violation of conflict-of-interest

laws, this dropped to 28.1 percent in March 2014 (Figure 9.3). This can be linked

to the declining number of reported cases of petty corruption observed in the last

few surveys.


Figure 9.1: Factors hindering fight against corruption (Sep 2013)

2.59

2.99

2.99

3.07

3.11

3.12

3.13

2.57

3.08

3.15

3.05

3.10

3.29

3.15

2.74

3.19

3.18

3.26

3.09

3.37

3.29

2.94

3.21

3.25

3.28

3.31

3.45

3.41

Low professionalism in the delivery ofstate services

Absense of will to control corruptionfrom political leadership at a national

level

Absense of will to control corruptionfrom political leadership at a local level

Imperfect legislation or sanctions againstcorruption

Public passivity

The habit to solve problems throughcorrupt practices

Corruption in law enforcement bodies

Nov-12 Mar-13 Sep-13 Mar-14

Figure 9.2: Measures necessary to be taken against corruption

19.7%

15.2%

15.5%

8.6%

18.0%

5.5%

15.8%

1.6%

23.0%

14.8%

15.0%

10.0%

12.0%

6.9%

16.5%

1.8%

22.6%

16.2%

12.8%

12.2%

13.6%

7.7%

13.2%

1.7%

20.9%

15.9%

14.2%

12.9%

12.0%

11.6%

11.1%

1.5%

Strong enforcement measures and punishment

Consistency of implementation of rule of law

Transparency in administrative decision-making

Building public awareness

Strengthening state control over publicadministration

Increasing public employees' salaries

Strengthening civil (non-government) control overpublic administration

Other

Nov-12 Mar-13 Sep-13 Mar-14


Figure 9.3: In your opinion, how often public officials are acting in violation of conflicts of interest?

Mar-10

Sep-10

Apr-11

Nov-12

Mar-13

Sep-13

Mar-14

Mar-10 Sep-10 Apr-11 Nov-12 Mar-13 Sep-13 Mar-14Always 47.5% 43.3% 49.2% 40.8% 32.3% 33.9% 28.1%

Sometimes 45.1% 46.5% 36.0% 50.7% 52.6% 53.6% 56.7%

Rarely 6.4% 8.6% 10.1% 7.3% 11.4% 10.1% 11.8%

Never 0.9% 1.6% 4.7% 1.2% 3.7% 2.4% 3.4%

Table 9.1: Confidence in state institutions (Source: SMF Politbarometers, March 2014)

President ParliamentJudiciary System

Government admin

Political parties

Civil society

Confident 29.2 13.2 10.9 23.4 6.9 16.3

Rather

confident32.5 29.4 28.5 40.9 26.1 36.2

Rather not

confident20.7 29.0 27.8 21.4 28.8 22.2

Not

confident11.3 19.3 23.3 8.7 28.3 15.7

(No answer) 1.7 2.7 2.8 1.8 2.6 2.8

(Don’t

know)4.8 6.4 6.8 3.8 7.3 6.9


10. INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS AGAINST CORRUPTION

Public awareness of the IAAC’s hotline has steadily decreased (Figure 10.1). Now,

only 25 percent of respondents are aware of it. This is a significant decrease from

March 2010, when 48 percent of respondents reported knowledge of the hotline.

There may be a partial correlation with the gradual decline in reported cases of petty

corruption since 2006. From March 2010 to March 2014, households that reported

paying a bribe in the last three months decreased by half, from 16 to 8 percent (Fig-

ure 10.5). The percent of respondents who said they would report it if asked for a

bribe also decreased. In March 2010, 20.5 percent of respondents said they would

report it, whereas only 12.9 percent said they would do so in March 2014 (Figure

10.3). From November 2012 to March 2014, the number of respondents willing to

report corruption if IAAC would accept anonymous information hovered around 60

percent (Figure10.2). Consequently, the lower willingness may be linked to respon-

dents’ declining confidence in the impartiality of the IAAC (Figure 8.8).

Figure 10.3 shows that the decrease in those willing to report has been accompa-

nied by an increase in those who will not pay a bribe if asked, from 28.7 percent in

March 2010 to 38.7 percent in March 2014. Together with other categories, it sug-

gests considerable weakness in Mongolia’s legal system. The implications of these

results may include the following:

Possible action if asked for a

bribe%

Relation to the legal environment (possibilities)

I will not pay 38.7 May either ignore or distrust the legal system

I will report 12.9 May believe in the legal framework

I shall pay if I have money 22.7 May act in violation of legal regulations

I should look for somebody who

may help me to avoid payment13.3

May prioritize convenience. May or may not

use legal help

I will do nothing just wait if

situation changes6.0

May completely distrust the legal system

DK/No Answer 6.3 May not have opinions

Among places to report a bribe, over 50 percent of respondents in the last four

surveys named the IAAC. However, in March 2014 there was also a big rise in those

who would report to the management (Figure 10.4).

There was little difference in the number and size of reported bribes from Septem-

ber 2013 to March 2014 (Figure 10.5). Eight percent of households reported giving


a bribe both in September 2013 and March 2014. In that same period, the average

size of the bribes differed by a mere MNT 5000 (Table 10.1).

Interestingly, this corresponds to a slight decline in respondents’ reports that bribes

“seriously” damaged the household budget. In March 2014, only 22.3 percent of

respondents said so, compared to 26.7 percent in September 2013 (Figure 10.6).

Throughout the survey period, teachers, health workers and clerks in the national

administration have been among the top three receivers of petty bribes (Table 10.2).

Health workers had a considerable lead, ranking at the top 75 percent of the time.

Teachers and clerks in the national administration were each in the top two 50

percent of the time. The sizes of bribes are not shown, because the sample was too

small to allow for accurate generalization6, but earlier surveys and later estimates

have consistently shown legal and law enforcement agencies in the lead by this

measure.

Figure 10.1: Are you aware of operating telephone hotline on reporting corruption?

47.8% 43.4% 47.8%

28.7% 28.5% 24.7% 25.2%

52.2% 56.6% 52.2%

71.3% 71.5% 75.3% 74.8%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Mar-10 Sep-10 Apr-11 Nov-12 Mar-13 Sep-13 Mar-14

Yes No

6 The subsample is too small to generalize with accuracy. Methodologically, generalizing from a small number of observations is subject to high sampling error.


Figure 10.2: Would you report a corruption case if the IAAC would accept anonymous information?

Yes No Don't know/No answer

Nov-12 61.3% 17.9% 20.9%

Mar-13 62.8% 18.6% 18.6%

Sep-13 61.7% 18.1% 20.2%

Mar-14 57.2% 18.3% 24.5%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Figure 10.3: If you face a situation in which you are directly asked for a bribe from a public or private official, what could be your most possible action?

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0%

Mar-10

Sep-10

Apr-11

Nov-12

Mar-13

Sep-13

Mar-14

Mar-10 Sep-10 Apr-11 Nov-12 Mar-13 Sep-13 Mar-14I will not pay 28.7% 33.8% 35.7% 32.5% 34.3% 36.0% 38.7%

I will report 20.5% 16.3% 12.9% 16.7% 15.5% 11.7% 12.9%

I shall pay if I have money 23.1% 23.3% 22.5% 24.0% 25.9% 26.0% 22.7%

I will look for help 16.0% 16.5% 15.2% 14.2% 14.4% 13.5% 13.3%

I will do nothing just wait 7.0% 5.3% 7.0% 6.4% 5.7% 6.4% 6.0%

DK/NA 4.7% 4.8% 6.7% 6.3% 4.1% 6.3% 6.3%


Figure 10.4: If you report than where?

Mar-10

Sep-10

Apr-11

Nov-12

Mar-13

Sep-13

Mar-14

Mar-10 Sep-10 Apr-11 Nov-12 Mar-13 Sep-13 Mar-14Management 18.0% 12.9% 18.7% 29.5% 27.5% 18.2% 29.5%

IAAC 55.5% 56.4% 54.5% 53.7% 52.6% 62.9% 52.3%

Police 12.0% 15.3% 4.9% 7.5% 4.7% 6.9% 9.1%

Media 13.0% 15.3% 21.1% 7.9% 14.7% 11.3% 8.5%

Figure 10.5: In the past three months have you or anyone of your household paid a bribe in any form? (Yes)

26% 28%

23% 22%

19% 21%

15%

20%

16%

13%

9%

12%

9% 8% 8%


Table 10.1: Households bribe statistics

Mar-06 Sep-06 Mar-07 Mar-07 Mar-08 Sep-08 Mar-09 Sep-09

Average bribe (in 1000 MNT)

181 136 102 187 180 298 397 308

percent of households giving bribes

26% 28% 23% 22% 19% 21% 15% 20%

Total amount paid (in billion MNT)

28.8 23.3 14.8 26 23.2 42.4 40.3 41.7

Number of households

611000 611000 632500 632500 645700 645700 677800 677800

Statistical Yearbook

2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008

Mar-10 Sep-10 Apr-11 Nov-12 Mar-13 Sep-13 Mar-14

Average bribe (in 1000 MNT) 195 416 319 391 502 525 520

percent of households giving bribes 16% 13% 8.80% 12.40% 8.75% 7.64% 7.57%

Total amount paid (in billion MNT) 21.2 38.8 20.8 35.9 32.6 30.8 30.2

Number of households 677800 717000 742000 742000 742000 768300 768300

Statistical Yearbook 2008 2009 2010 2010 2010 2012 2012

Figure 10.6 Percent of respondents whose household was ‘seriously’ damaged by giving bribes (only for respondents who reported giving a bribe)

16.5%

24.8%

42.5%

29.4% 28.5%

33.6%

28.4%

16.8%

26.7%

22.3%

Mar-08 Sep-08 Mar-09 Sep-09 Mar-10 Sep-10 Nov-12 Mar-13 Sep-13 Mar-14


Table 10.2 To whom have you paid bribes in the past 3 months? (ranked by number of cases)

Nov 2012 Mar 2013 Sep 2013 Mar 2014

Health sector

employee48

Health sector

employee34 Teacher 40

Health sector

employee35

Teacher 47Clerk in national

administration25

Health sector

employee25

Clerk in national

administration18

Policeman 27 Teacher 23Clerk in national

administration21 Teacher 15

Clerk in national

administration20 Police officer 20 Police officer 11 Police officer 7

Local government

official 10 Tax officer 5

Local government

official5 Judge 5

11. DATA SEGREGATED BY GENDER, AREA, INCOME AND AGE

The following analyses were performed on the most recent survey, but the findings

can be traced throughout the SPEAK project’s surveys from 2012 to 2014. Respon-

dents were segregated by four profiles: gender, area type, income, and age.

Corruption perception segregated by gender

Throughout the period there were no significant differences by profile in respon-

dents’ opinions on most issues related to corruption. From the differences that were

noted, it can be deduced that men tend to be more involved in and aware of public

affairs, while women are more concerned with private or family affairs.

As noted in earlier surveys, male respondents preferred extreme options such as

“totally,” “very,” and “a lot.” In comparison, female respondents opted for milder

options such as “rather,” “some,” or “a little.” In addition, more female respondents

had no opinion or expressed uncertainty than males. The responses “don’t know”

and “no answer,” for example, were not presented as options to respondents, but

were recorded when respondents expressed a definite no-opinion. In many assess-

ments, initial analysis appeared to find some statistical differences related to gen-

der; however, on closer inspection those options created some variation. When the

same calculations were done excluding these options, the responses of males and

females were nearly identical.7 The rest of the variations fell within the margin of

error.

7 The differences were tested in two steps. The first step included the testing of observed responses (all response options) by nominal contingency coefficient (symmetric measures). If differences were found, a second step was taken in which the “don’t know” and “no answer” options were excluded from the computation (valid responses only) and the analysis was repeated. For most cases, this resulted in nearly identical responses for men and women and shrank the level of differences significantly. Therefore, the following analysis lists differences that have been found statistically significant from both observed and valid response options.


Similarly, men responded more frequently than women, but for most inquiries their

attitudes were not very different. One notable and statistically significant difference

was that more women cited the “low salary among civil servants” as an issue. This

supports the notion that women are more concerned about private or household

affairs than men. Men, on the other hand, deal with the questions surrounding

public and, at times, abstract issues more often than women.

It also seems that men are more likely either to give a bribe or to report it if asked

for a bribe. Women are more likely to refuse (Figure 11.1.1).

Figure 11.1.1: If directly asked for a bribe …

37.9%

39.3%

14.6%

11.5%

23.9%

21.7%

13.2%

13.4%

4.5%

7.4%

5.9%

6.7%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Male

FemaleI will not pay

I will report

I shall pay if I have money

I should look for somebody whomay help me to avoid payment


DK/No Answer

Corruption perception segregated by area

For analysis, responses were divided by urban and rural areas. The exposure to cor-

ruption varies for each group. Availability of services also creates differences. This

affects all levels of perception, but most significantly the chances of encountering

corruption through direct experience. Regarding the effects of corruption on per-

sonal life, nearly half of rural residents (46 percent) reported that corruption does

not affect them at all, while just about a quarter of urban residents (23.9%) believed

so (Figure 11.2.1).


Figure 11.2.1: Impact of corruption on personal life (segregated by area)

23.9%

46.0%

27.7%

23.3%

34.3%

18.3%

8.8% 2.4%

5.4% 10.1%

Urban Rural

Not at all To small extent To a moderate extent To a large extent

Concerning the business environment and political life, urban residents seemed to

be more affected by corruption (Figures 11.2.2 and 11.2.3). Urban residents are

more likely to have more sources of information and exposure.

Figure 11.2.2: Impact of corruption on business environment (segregated by area)

5.7% 7.0%16.1% 15.4%

37.1% 36.0%

31.4% 23.5%

9.6% 18.1%

Urban Rural

Not at all To small extent To a moderate extent To a large extent DK/NA


Figure 11.2.3: Impact of corruption on political life (segregated by area)

3.9% 4.8%10.9% 11.0%

28.4% 30.4%

43.6% 35.9%

13.2% 18.0%

Urban Rural

Not at all To small extent To a moderate extent To a large extent DK/NA

Urban respondents were more likely to report corruption incidents, but also to be

skeptical of anti-corruption efforts. Among scenarios offered to respondents, the

urban respondents were more likely to acknowledge “using public position to col-

lect gifts/money” or “using public position to help friends, relatives” as corruption.

Such cases of favoritism and nepotism (“ariin khalga”) were less likely to be con-

sidered corruption by rural respondents (Figures 11.2.4 and 11.2.5). One possible

explanation is the stronger ties of kinship in rural communities.

Figure 11.2.4: Using public position to collect gifts, money (segregated by area)

2.7% 4.8%13.0%

19.9%

36.3% 34.6%

43.2% 31.3%

4.8% 9.5%

Urban Rural

No, not at all Yes, to small extent

Yes, to a moderate extent Yes, to a large extent

DK/NA


Figure 11.2.5: Using public position to help friends, relatives (such as giving jobs, licenses) (segregated by area)

3.6% 4.0%11.4% 13.1%

33.9% 35.6%

48.4% 41.6%

2.7% 5.6%

Urban Rural



DK/NA

Vote buying by politicians and the diversion of state funds to their own electorates

were more commonly seen as corruption by urban respondents. Rural respondents

were nearly twice as likely to find this unobjectionable. Vote buying, for example, is

not corruption to 15.1 percent of rural and 8.6 percent urban respondents (Figure

11.2.6). Similarly, diverting state funds to a politician’s own electorate is not corrup-

tion to 27.6 percent of rural and 14.8 percent of urban residents (Figure 11.2.7).

Figure 11.2.6: Distributing gifts, money in Election campaign (segregated by area)

8.6% 15.1%

19.1% 22.5%

32.1% 28.6%

27.5% 17.9%

12.7% 15.9%

Urban Rural



DK/NA


Figure 11.2.7: To divert state funds to own Electorate (segregated by area)

14.8% 27.6%

15.2%

18.1% 28.2%

21.6%

22.5% 11.5%

19.3% 21.1%

Urban Rural



DK/NA

Despite the above, more urban residents consider giving presents to civil servants to

obtain services a form of corruption. Among the urban group, 36.3 percent believe

so, in contrast to 21.3 percent among the rural group (Figure 11.2.8).

Figure 11.2.8: To give presents or money to civil servants to obtain services entitled to (segregated by area)

3.9% 5.8%13.6%

18.9%

38.9% 41.5%

36.3% 21.3%

7.3% 12.6%

Urban Rural



DK/NA

When asked about their most probable action when directly asked for a bribe,

urban respondents expressed more willingness to pay bribes. Nearly half of rural re-

spondents said they would not pay (45.6 percent), compared to less than a third of

urban respondents (28.8 percent). At the same time, 19.5 percent of rural residents


said that they would pay if they had the money, compared to 27.3 percent urban

residents (Figure 11.2.9).

Figure 11.2.9: If you face a situation in which you are directly asked for a bribe from a public or private official, what could be your most possible action? (Segregated by area)

28.8%

45.6%

14.3%

12.0% 27.3%

19.5%

15.2% 12.0%

7.9% 4.8% 6.6% 6.1%

Urban Rural

DK/No Answer

I will do nothing just wait ifsituation changes



I will report

I will not pay

While the majority of respondents agreed that large businesses are a main source

of corruption, and that small and medium businesses are more negatively affected

by it, rural respondents supported these propositions more strongly (Figures 11.2.10

and 11.2.11).

Figure 11.2.10: Small and medium business are the more negatively affected by corruption than large businesses (segregated by area)

53.2% 63.0%

21.3% 14.6%

9.3% 4.9%4.8% 2.5%

11.4% 15.0%

Urban Rural

Agree Somehow agree Somehow disagree Disagree DK/NA


Figure 11.2.11: Do you agree that large business is one of the main sources of corruption (segregated by area)

46.3% 57.6%

20.4%

17.4% 10.7%

4.9%6.8% 4.4%

15.9% 15.8%

Urban Rural

Agree Somehow agree Somehow disagree Disagree DK/NA

In addition, urban respondents are more inclined to expect unfair treatment from

the judicial system, law enforcement, and local and national government adminis-

trations. In comparison, rural respondents were more likely to express no opinion

(Figure 11.2.12). This tendency may be the result of urban residents’ more frequent

contact with these institutions, as well as their greater exposure to news and infor-

mation.

Figure 11.2.12: Fair treatment (segregated by area)

Fair treatment: Judicial system

33.0% 24.1%

23.6% 23.1%

17.9% 14.8%

5.0% 6.3%

20.5% 31.8%

Urban Rural

Not fair Rather not fair Rather Fair

Fair DK/ No Answer

Fair treatment: Law Enforcement

30.9% 25.0%

27.0% 25.8%

18.0% 15.9%

5.5% 6.9%

18.6% 26.5%

Urban Rural


Fair DK/ No Answer


18.0% 14.0%

30.5% 25.9%

26.6% 27.9%

9.1% 17.5% 15.7% 14.8%

Urban Rural


Fair DK/ No Answer

Fair treatment: Local Government

17.1% 13.6%

27.1% 22.3%

25.4% 26.8%

6.6% 11.1%

23.8% 26.3%

Urban Rural


Fair DK/ No Answer

On the issue of conflict of interest (Figure 11.2.13), urban respondents are also more

likely to believe that public officials “always” have conflicts of interest (26.8 percent

urban vs. 17.1 percent rural).

Figure 11.2.13: In your opinion, how often public officials are acting in violation of conflict of interests? (Segregated by area)

26.8% 17.1%

40.2%

44.1%

6.6% 10.4%

1.1% 3.6%

25.4% 24.8%

Urban Rural

Always Sometimes Rarely Never DK/ No Answer


Corruption perception segregated by income

In the analysis, we divided respondents into four clusters of monthly incomes: under

MNT 250 thousand, MNT 250 to 450 thousand, MNT 450 to 750 thousand, and

MNT 750 thousand or more.

It should be noted that the nomadic or semi-nomadic respondents were subject to

seasonal earnings. Nonetheless, some respondents in these groups acknowledged

non-monetary transactions as bribes and reported them.7

The percent of respondents that chose no-opinion (“don’t know” or “no answer”)

was slightly higher in the lower income groups. This may be related to levels of edu-

cation, since lower income groups are more likely to have lower education levels.

Conversely, respondents in the higher income groups were more likely to express an

opinion on corruption. As a result, significant differences were found between the

lowest and highest income groups.

Higher income respondents also showed greater awareness of existing anti-corrup-

tion legislation and the telephone hotline, and greater willingness to report corrup-

tion (Figures 11.3.1, 11.3.2, 11.3.3, and 11.3.4).

Figure 11.3.1: Since the introduction of the new law on corruption in 2006 are you aware of any officials being prosecuted by the justice system on a corruption charge?

36.0% 49.5% 46.8% 53.3%

64.0% 50.5% 53.2% 46.7%

< 250 000 250 000 - 450 000 450 000 - 750 000 750 000 +

Yes No

7 The most common non-monetary bribes were sheep.


Figure 11.3.2: Are you aware of the conflict of interest law passed?

20.6% 25.1% 27.8% 41.1%

79.4% 74.9% 72.2% 58.9%

< 250 000 250 000 - 450 000 450 000 - 750 000 750 000 +

Yes No

Figure 11.3.3: Are you aware of operating telephone hotline on reporting corruption?

12.2% 16.4% 26.0%

35.5%

87.8% 83.6% 74.0%

64.5%

< 250 000 250 000 - 450 000 450 000 - 750 000 750 000 +

Yes No


Figure 11.3.4: Would you report a corruption case if the IAAC would accept anonymous information?

53.4% 55.9% 56.8% 61.1%

18.5% 17.7% 19.5% 16.5%

28.0% 26.4% 23.7% 22.4%

< 250 000 250 000 - 450 000 450 000 - 750 000 750 000 +

Yes No Don't know/No answer

Another notable difference was in how respondents said they would react if directly

asked for a bribe. Over half of respondents (51.9 percent) in the lowest income

group said they would not pay, compared to just a third in the highest income

group (32.1 percent). Furthermore, while only 16.9 percent of respondents in the

lowest income group said they would pay if they had money, 28 percent in the high-

est income group said they would do so. A higher proportion of the higher income

groups also said they would look for somebody to help them avoid paying (Figure

11.3.5).

Figure 11.3.5: If you face a situation in which you are directly asked for a bribe from a public or private official, what could be your most possible action?

51.9%

38.3% 40.1%32.1%

10.1%

16.1% 11.3%

13.1%

16.9%23.2%

20.6%28.0%

9.0% 13.5%13.4% 14.1%

5.8%5.1%

6.7% 5.8%

6.3% 3.9% 8.0% 6.8%

< 250 000 250 000 - 450 000450 000 - 750 000 750 000 +

DK/No Answer

I will do nothing just wait ifsituation changes



I will report

I will not pay


Respondents in the lowest income group were more inclined to report corruption

to management (57.9 percent). Over half of respondents in the other three income

groups chose the IAAC. The police were the least likely choice of both the lowest

and the highest income groups (Figure 11.3.6).

Figure 11.3.6: If you report than where?

57,9%

22,0% 22,7%29,6%

26,3%

58,0% 52,3%

57,4%

5,3% 12,0%11,4%

7,4%10,5% 8,0%

11,4%5,6%2,3%

< 250 000 250 000 - 450 000 450 000 - 750 000 750 000 +

Management IAAC Police Media Other

Income differences also determined where respondents got their information about

corruption (Figure 11.3.7). Roughly two thirds of the two lower income groups in-

dicated that TV was their main source, compared to just over half of the highest

income group. The proportion of respondents who got their information from the

Internet and social media was highest in the highest income group (15.1 percent)

and lowest in the lowest income group (2.6 percent).

Figure 11.3.7: What is your main source of information about corruption?

69.8% 71.4% 65.3%

56.9%

12.2% 10.3%

10.0%

7.5%

2.6% 6.1% 8.7%

15.1%

2.6% 5.8%

5.9% 8.0%

4.8% 3.2%

5.4% 6.3% 4.2%

2.9% 3.1% 5.6% 3.7% 0.3% 1.5% 0.5%

< 250 000 250 000 - 450 000 450 000 - 750 000 750 000 +

No answer

Other

Newspapers magazines

Internet/Social Media

Words of mouth

TV


Corruption perception segregated by age

In general, generational differences produced variations in responses. In the analysis,

respondents were divided into three groups: under 30, 30 to 49, and 50 or older.

The middle age group constitutes the most active part of the population, and tend-

ed to give stronger and more negative assessments of corruption than the other

two groups.

It is also noteworthy, however, that in a situation where a bribe is directly requested,

the oldest respondents were most likely not to pay (Figure 11.4.1).

Figure 11.4.1: If directly asked for a bribe …..

27,6%35,4%

52,7%

17,4%11,8%

10,9%22,6%27,3%

16,0%17,9%

11,8%11,7%

6,8% 6,1%5,3%7,6% 7,6% 3,4%

Under 30 30 to 49 50 +

DK/No Answer




I will report

I will not pay

Otherwise, generational differences were most apparent in sources of information

about corruption. Television was the main source for all age groups, but even more

so for those over 50 (Figure 11.4.2).


Figure 11.4.2: Main source of information about corruption

55,6%64,1%

73,8%

9,4%

9,2%

10,4%20,9% 8,1%

1,2%

7,9%

5,9%4,9%

4,7%11,2% 9,0%

Under 30 30 to 49 50 +

TV Words of mouth Internet/Social Media Newspapers magazines Other

Among respondents reporting TV as their main source of information, age differ-

ence was correlated with viewing preferences. When asked which television chan-

nel is most informative in exposing corruption, respondents in all three age groups

ranked the main channels in the same order, but by different margins. The propor-

tion of respondents who chose MNB as the most informative was 34.9 percent

among those over 50, compared to 30 percent among those 30 to 49, and 21.2 per-

cent among those under 30. In contrast, 25 Channel was the choice of 17.5 percent

of those under 30, but just 11.2 percent of the group over fifty (Figure 11.4.3).


Figure 11.4.3: If TV is the main source which channel is most informative in exposing corruption?

21,2%30,0%

34,9%

38,6%

40,0%39,1%

17,5%

12,3%11,2%4,8%

4,9%5,3%

6,9%3,3%

2,3%4,2% 3,6% 2,6%6,3% 4,9% 3,9%0,5% 1,0% 0,7%

Under 30 30 to 49 50 +

DK/No answer

Other channels

TV5

TV8

Eagle

25 Channel

TV9

MNTV

There were too few respondents over 50 who used the Internet and social media as

a main source of information to be statistically reliable. Facebook was more popular

among respondents under 30 as a source of information, while information sites

were more popular among those 30 to 49 (Figure 11.4.4).

Figure 11.4.4: If Internet or Social Media is the main source which site is most informative in exposing corruption?

42,3%32,7%

5,6%8,2%

50,7% 59,2%

1,4%

Under 30 30 to 49

Facebook Other

SURVEY ON PERCEPTIONS &

KNOWLEDGE OF CORRUPTION

Strengthening Transparency and Governance in Mongolia Program

Survey instrument


Part A. General

1. In your opinion what is the most important social, economic, or political

problem in the country today?

2. Some people believe that corruption affects different spheres of life in

Mongolia. In your view, does corruption affect … not at all, to a small extent, to

a moderate extent or to a large extent?

Spheres not at all to a small extent

to a moderate extent

to a large extent

Don’t know/No answer

2.1 Your personal and family life 1 2 3 4 9

2.2 Business environment 1 2 3 4 9

2.3 Political life 1 2 3 4 9

3. In your opinion what could be regarded as a case of corruption. If yes, to

which extent it is present in Mongolia?

Spheres No, not at all

Yes, to a small extent

Yes, to a moderate extent

Yes, to a large extent


3.1. Using a public position to

collect gifts, money1 2 3 4 9

3.2. Using a public position to

help friends, relatives (such

as giving jobs, licenses, or

favoring in bids)

1 2 3 4 9

•

•

•


3.3. Distributing gifts, money in

election campaign1 2 3 4 9

3.4. For politicians to divert state

funds to their electorate 1 2 3 4 9

3.5. To give presents or money

to civil servants to obtain

services entitled to

1 2 3 4 9

3.6. For private people to

finance political party

activity

1 2 3 4 9


4. Could you express your opinion on the following statements?

AgreeSomehow

agreeSomehow disagree

DisagreeDon’t Know/No Answer

4.1 Corruption is a common practice in our country.

1 2 3 4 9

4.2 The existing political system1 is having success in stopping corruption

1 2 3 4 9

4.3a Civil society can prevent corruption 1 2 3 4 9

4.3b Only government institutions may help to prevent corruption.

1 2 3 4 9

4.4 Fighting corruption is being led by citizens and NGOs these days

1 2 3 4 9

4.5 Politicians have no real will to fight corruption as they may benefit from it

1 2 3 4 9

4.6. Do you agree that the only way to overcome bureaucracy is to pay bribes

1 2 3 4 9

4.7 Small and medium business are the more negatively affected by corruption than large businesses

1 2 3 4 9

4.8 Some level of corruption is acceptable

1 2 3 4 9

4.9 Do you agree that large business is one of the main sources of corruption

1 2 3 4 9

4.10 Giving a bribe helps to overcome

unjust regulations 1 2 3 4 9

4.11 Local administration officers in general are reliable and responsible people

1 2 3 4 9

4.12 Citizens should be responsible to reduce corruption

1 2 3 4 9

4.13 The existing legislation on corruption is not functioning effectively.

1 2 3 4 9

4.14 Decision-makers are less affected by corruption than ordinary people who are more affected by corruption.

1 2 3 4 9

1 triangular semi-presidential system: President- Parliament- Government


5. In the past three years, how has the level of corruption in Mongolia changed?

Increased a lot 1.

Increased a little 2.

Is the same 3.

Decreased a little 4.

Decreased a lot 5.

Don’t know/No answer 9.

6. How do you expect the level of corruption in the next three years to change? Will it?

Increase a lot 1.

Increase a little 2.

Remain the same 3.

Decrease a little 4.

Decrease a lot 5.


4.15 Low salary is the main reason for bribes among public civil servants

1 2 3 4 9

4.16 A deterrent to corruption will be stronger punishment for public officials convicted of corruption.

1 2 3 4 9

4.17 Some level of corruption is expected 1 2 3 4 9

4.18 The person who gives the bribe is in the same way responsible as the one who accepts it

1 2 3 4 9

4.19 Implementation of anti-corruption policies are politically unbiased.

1 2 3 4 9


Part B. Combating Corruption

7. In your opinion, who should organize and lead the effort to combat corruption (1 choice)

National Government 1.

Local Government 2.

Law Enforcement 3.

Civil Society 4.

Parliament 5.

Courts 6.

NGOs 7.

President’s Office 8.

IAAC 9.

Ministry of Justice 10.

The Private Sector 11.

Other (specify) 12.

8. How do you think the current government will perform compared to its predecessor in fighting corruption:

Will deal better with corrup-tion

1.

Will stay the same 2.

Will do worse 3.


9. In your opinion, how much is the impact, of the following factors, hindering

efforts to combat corruption?

Not at all

Little Moderate A lot Don’t know/No answer

9.1 Low professionalism in the delivery of state services

1 2 3 4 9

9.2 Absence of will to control corruption from political leadership at a national level

1 2 3 4 9


9.3 Absence of will to control corruption from political leadership at a local level

1 2 3 4 9

9.4 The habit to solve problems through corrupt practices

1 2 3 4 9

9.5 Corruption in law enforcement bodies 1 2 3 4 9

9.6 Public passivity 1 2 3 4 9

9.7 Imperfect legislation or sanctions/pen-alties against corruption

1 2 3 4 9

10. What should be done to prevent corruption? (1 choice)

Strong enforcement measures and punish-ment

1.

Increasing public employees’ salaries 2.

Transparency in administrative decision-mak-ing

3.

Strengthening state control over public ad-ministration

4.

Strengthening civil (non-government) control over public administration

5.

Building public awareness 6.

Consistency of implementation of rule of law 7.

Other (specify) 8.

11. Since the introduction of the new law on corruption in 2006 are you aware of any officials being prosecuted by the justice system on a corruption charge?

Yes 1.

No 2.

12. Are you aware of a telephone hotline to report corruption at

IAAC?

Yes 1.

No 2.

13. Would you report a corruption case if the IAAC would

accept anonymous information?

Yes 1.

No 2.

Don’t know/No

answer

3.


Block C. Institutions

14. How do you evaluate the IAAC’s performance in fighting corruption?

Very good 1.

Good 2.

Nor good, nor bad 3.

Bad 4.

Very bad 5.


15. How much confidence do you have in the IAAC in fighting corruption?

Confident 1.

Rather confident 2.

Rather not confident 3.

Not confident 4.


16. Are you confident that IAAC is an impartial law enforcement body?

Yes 1.

No 2.


17. To what extent do you perceive the following areas or institutions in this country

to be affected by corruption?

Corrupt:Sectors

Not at all

A little Don’t know/No answer

1) Customs 1 2 3 4 5 9

2) Education system 1 2 3 4 5 9

3) Health system 1 2 3 4 5 9

4) Judicial system 1 2 3 4 5 9

5) Law Enforcement Officers 1 2 3 4 5 9

6) Political parties 1 2 3 4 5 9

7) Legislature 1 2 3 4 5 9

8) National Government adminis-tration

1 2 3 4 5 9

9) Local Government administra-tion

1 2 3 4 5 9

10) Registry and permit service (civil registry for birth, marriage, licenses, permits)

1 2 3 4 5 9

11) Taxation system 1 2 3 4 5 9

12) Private companies in mining sector

1 2 3 4 5 9

13) State entities regulating mining sector

1 2 3 4 5 9

14) Land and Property 1 2 3 4 5 9


Block E. Personal experience

19. If you face a situation in which you are directly asked for a bribe from a public or private of-ficial, what could be most your possible action?

I will not pay 1.

I will report (answer Q20) 2.

I shall pay if I have money 3.

I should look for somebody who may help me to avoid payment

4.

I will do nothing and just wait if the situation changes

5.


20. If you report then where?(only one choice)

Management 1.

IAAC 2.

Police 3.

Media 4.

Other 5.

21. What is your main source of information about corruption? (only one choice)

TV (answer Q22) 1.

Newspapers magazines 2.

Internet or Social Media (an-swer Q23)

3.

Radio 4.

Personal Experience 5.

Friends/ relatives 6.

Word of mouth 7.

Other sources (specify) 8.

22. If TV is the main source which channel is most informative in exposing corruption?

MNTV 1.

25 Channel 2.

Eagle 3.

TV9 4.

TV5 5.

UBS 6.


15) Professional Inspection agency 1 2 3 4 5 9

16) Local Procurement Tenders 1 2 3 4 5 9

17) Banks & financial institutions 1 2 3 4 5 9

18. Could you name another area or institution strongly affected by corruption:


23. If Internet or Social Media is the main source which site is most informative in exposing cor-ruption?

Facebook 1.

Twitter 2.


Let’s consider following matters.

24. To what degree of fair treatment are you expecting to receive when contacting

following institutions?

Spheres Not fair Rather not fair

Rather fair

Fair Don’t know/No answer

1. Education system 1 2 3 4 9

2. Health system 1 2 3 4 9

3. Judicial system 1 2 3 4 9

4. Law Enforcement 1 2 3 4 9

5. Local government administration 1 2 3 4 9

6. National state administration 1 2 3 4 9

25. Are you aware of the conflict of interest law passed? Yes 1.

No 2.

26. If you discover a case of conflict of interest would you

report it?

Yes 1.

No 2.

27. If you were aware of a situation of conflict of

interest where would you report it?

(only one choice)

Management2 1.

IAAC 2.

Police 3.

Media 4.

Other 5.

28. In your opinion, how often are public officials acting in violation of conflict of interest?

Always 1.

Sometimes 2.

Rarely 3.

Never 4.


29. Did your family give some money or gifts as bribery in the last 3 months?

Yes 1.

No (go to block F) 2.

Don’t know (go to block F) 3.

Refused (go to Block F) 4.

2 Rejers to the management of the place where the corruption occured, e.g, the department store would be approached.


30 . To whom have you paid bribes in the past 3 months? (multiple)

31. If paid how much did it cost approximately? (multiple)

1. Teacher

2. Health Sector Employee

3. Clerk in national state administration

4. Policeman

5. Judge

6. Advocate/Lawyer

7. Prosecutor

8. Tax officer

9. Utilities service personal

10. Custom’s officer

11. Local government official

12. Media (newspapers, TV, Radio)

13. Other

32. How much does the total amount of bribes paid affect your family budget?

Not at all 1.

A little 2.

Somehow 3.

Seriously 4.


33. Which of the following mostly applies to the bribes paid in the past three months?

A bribe was directly asked for 1.

A bribe was offered to avoid a problem with the authorities

2.

A bribe was offered to receive a service entitled

3.

None of above 4.


Block F: State Administration

34. In your opinion when it comes to decisions affecting citizens life, are state adminis-tration and officials consulting with citizens?

А. National level В. Local Level

1. Yes, always 1. Yes, always

2. Sometimes 2. Sometimes

3. Rarely 3. Rarely

4. Never 4. Never

9. Don’t Know/Refused 9. Don’t Know/Refused

35. When it comes to these decisions do you think they are in line with rules and regulations?

A. National level B. Local Level



3. Rarely 3. Rarely

4. Never 4. Never


36. Are those decisions transparent and clear to public?




3. Rarely 3. Rarely

4. Never 4. Never


37. Is government administration and officials effective in resolving public complaints?




3. Rarely 3. Rarely

4. Never 4. Never



Block G: Grand Corruption

38. What is your understanding of

grand corruption?

Cases with strong political interest 1.

Cases with involvement of high level public

officials

2.

Cases where big local and foreign businesses

are involved

3.

Cases with high level damage to the country 4.

Cases which organized crime is involved in 5.

Bribe amount is a very big one 6.

Other (specify): 7.

Don’t Know/Refused 9.

39. What do you think about the level of grand corruption in Mongolia?

There is a significant amount of GC 1.

There are some cases of GC 2.

There are only few cases of GC 3.

There is no GC in Mongolia 4.


40. If there are cases of grand

corruption, why do you think

that there is grand corruption in

Mongolia

Because the Mongolian legal system is still

in formation and not able to deal with such

issues

1.

Because there is a lot of poorly controlled

money in the Mongolian economy

2.

Because of the lack of the transparency at a

high government level

3.

Because large foreign companies operating

in Mongolia are frequently using corrupt

practices

4.

Because large Mongolian companies

operating in Mongolia are frequently using

corrupt practices

5.

Because it is happening due to the merger of

business and political interests

6.

Don’t Know/Refused 9.

41. Do you have any idea about the

size of grand corruption bribes?

Yes 1.

No (go to Q44) 2.

Don’t Know/Refused (go toQ44) 9.


42. If yes, in your opinion what could be a lowest limit of a bribe in grand corruption?

43. What could be an upper limit of a bribe?

44. How frequently do you hear about grand

corruption incidences?

Often 1.

Rarely 2.

Never (go to Q46) 3.


(go to Q46)

4.

45. If you heard, which way the bribe was given? (multiple responses)

Cash 1.

Major gift such as apartment or car

2.

Partnership or block of stock in a company

3.

Foreign travel 4.

Position in administration 5.

Other(specify):6.


46. Do you think that GC has any negative impact

on you and your family?

Very strong 1.

Some 2.

Small 3.

Not at all (go to Demography) 4.


47. If there is a negative impact, can you be specific about what sort of impact it has on you and

your family?

Life level deteriorating 1.

Family business degrading 2.

Bureaucracy, non transparency 3.

Public services down 4.

Price increase 5.

Impact on environment 6.

Other 7.



Block H: Demography

1. Year of birth: 19...2. Gender: male / female3. Education:

· Did not go to school..........1· Primary/not completed

secondary..........................2· Secondary..........................3· Vocational..........................4· High....................................5

4. Employment

· Full time job.........................1

· Part time job.......................2

· Professional training......... .3

· Unemployed...................... 4

· Home-based Caretaker .....5

· Retired/on allowance..........6

· Army..................................7

· Student..............................8

if selected retired,

army or student than go to 7

5. Social statute

- Worker.........................1

- office worker...............2

- self-employed.............3

- herder/farmer..............4

- intelligentsia................5

6. Sector

• Public/ state officer.....1

• Public/ state service....2

• Private/mixed sector....3

• NGO.............................4

7. Marital status:

• Married..............................1

• Living with partner, but not

married..............................2

• Single.................................3

• Separated or divorced.......4

• Widowed...........................5

8. Number of people in

household:

9. Number of household

employed:

10. Estimated Income of

Household:

Monthly: Annual:

11. District/Aimag Khoroo/Sum

12. Interviewer

survey on perceptions and knowledge of corruption (jun 2014)

Food