World Justice Project EUROVOICES

2024

Thematic Report

Transparency & Corruption

We asked 72,000 people in the EU what they thought of transparency and corruption. Most people believe...

anticorruption measures have been ineffective so far,

state institutions are not corrupt,

authorities are perceived as transparent.

THEMATIC REPORT

Transparency & Corruption

Key Findings

For the most part, people do not think that state institutions are corrupt: Across EU regions, most people do not believe courts, parliaments, or other state institutions are corrupt. However, concerns exist regarding national governments and parliaments in regions of about a third of EU countries. Additionally, in regions of more than half of EU countries, people believe that political parties are the most corrupt compared to other state institutions.
Anticorruption measures are seen as ineffective: Across EU regions, most people believe government efforts to control corruption have been ineffective so far.
Authorities are perceived as transparent and providing information: Expert assessments of transparency and access to information at local level across EU regions are to a large extent positive, and most people believe that local authorities provide accessible information.

Introduction

The rule of law is one of the fundamental values upon which the European Union (EU) is founded and represents a constitutional priority shared by all Member States (Article 2 of the Treaty on EU). The rule of law is essential for the proper functioning of democratic societies and the protection of human rights. Furthermore, the rule of law plays a pivotal role in shaping the potential for sustainable regional growth and development.

Adherence to this principle requires effective democratic institutions that ensure public accountability and the separation of powers. It also mandates access to independent and impartial courts that protect people's fundamental rights and guarantee equality before the law. Upholding the rule of law further requires implementing targeted, evidence-informed strategies at both national and subnational levels, which are tailored to meet the diverse needs of people across different regions.

In this context, World Justice Project EUROVOICES provides new data that captures the perceptions and experiences of people living in 110 subnational regions across the 27 EU Member States in the areas of justice, democratic governance, and the rule of law. The report series draws upon survey responses from more than 8,000 local and independent legal experts, as well as regionally representative household surveys administered to more than 64,000 respondents across the EU. With this data, the World Justice Project (WJP) seeks to contribute to evidence-based decision-making at all government levels by helping decision-makers identify strengths, weaknesses, and policy priorities in their regions.

This data is organized into three thematic reports:

  1. Democracy and Fundamental Rights
  2. Justice and Safety
  3. Transparency and Corruption

Each report focuses on a selection of pillars of the rule of law, comprised of indicators that cover specific dimensions of each concept. Findings for each indicator are categorized into Expert Scorecards, calculated using expert survey responses, and/or People’s Voices, highlighting complementary question-level data from WJP’s household surveys. These two categories are presented side-by-side, offering a comprehensive view of how EU residents perceive and experience justice, governance, and the rule of law in their respective regions.

The Expert Scorecard captures legal experts’ assessments of composite indicators with scores ranging from 0 to 1, where 1 is the highest possible score and 0 is the lowest possible score. Each score is calculated by aggregating a set of questions that are relevant to various dimensions of the concept being measured. This expert data allows for a deeper examination of the technical aspects that determine how people interact with a complex network of institutions and the justice system. In contrast, findings from the People’s Voices database, presented at the question level using percentages (0 to 100%), reflect the beliefs and experiences of the general population.

The project’s conceptual framework builds upon the tested and proven methodology of the WJP Rule of Law Index®—a rigorous quantitative tool that evaluates and ranks 142 countries across key dimensions of the rule of law—with adaptations to reflect the institutional architecture in the EU. It should be noted that the results of both tools are not comparable, because this project presents data from its household surveys separately from its Expert Scorecards, whereas the Index integrates the General Population Poll into each country’s aggregate scores. Additionally, adjustments have been made to the conceptual framework and to the data analysis protocol, including changes in the methods used to calculate scores. For more information on the methodology of World Justice Project EUROVOICES, refer to the methodology section at the end of this report.

Given the diversity of institutional design across EU Member States, the questions in this project’s surveys mainly focus on the outcomes experienced by individuals concerning different issues related to justice, governance, and the rule of law. These outcomes result from their interactions with a complex network of institutions at local, national, and supranational levels. In this sense, the questionnaires minimized references to government institutions, focusing instead on the perceptions and experiences of people in the city, town, or village where they live. Regional information was produced following the framework of territorial divisions of the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS) system.

This project is funded by the EU and complements other research activities conducted by the WJP with the mission of advancing the rule of law worldwide. This data may also complement other monitoring tools that aim to promote a rule of law culture and enhance economic, social, and territorial cohesion in the EU, such as the European Commission’s yearly Rule of Law Report, the EU Justice Scoreboard, and the Cohesion Report, among others.

Key Findings

Democracy and Fundamental Rights:

  • People can vote freely: Most people in EU regions agree that they can vote freely, without feeling harassed or pressured.
  • Fundamental freedoms are protected: The freedoms of assembly, association, and expression are well-protected across most EU regions; however, some regions are falling short in upholding these essential rights.
  • The public has doubts about judicial independence: Legal experts in most EU countries consider judicial independence to be strong, but the majority of the general population thinks judges lack independence.
  • People worry about misinformation: Most people in EU regions believe senior government officials use misinformation to shape public opinion in their favor.
  • Discrimination is a challenge across the EU regions: Over 25% of people faced discrimination during the past year in approximately 80% of EU regions.

Justice and Safety:

  • Most people who experienced legal problems got the advice they needed: Legal problems are ubiquitous across EU regions. People facing legal problems have access to quality information and advice, and, to a lesser extent, appropriate assistance and representation, with important variations between regions.
  • In general, people believe that justice is expensive: Across EU regions, respondents think that most people cannot easily afford the costs of legal assistance and representation, or the costs of dispute resolution mechanisms if they face a legal problem, with significant variations between regions.
  • Criminal justice is generally considered effective, but not everyone feels they benefit equally: Most people in EU regions agree that the criminal justice system is effective and respects the rights of both victims and the accused, though there are important variations between regions. However, many believe that not everyone is treated equally.

Transparency and Corruption:

  • For the most part, people do not think that state institutions are corrupt: Across EU regions, most people do not believe courts, parliaments, or other state institutions are corrupt. However, concerns exist regarding national governments and parliaments in regions of about a third of EU countries. Additionally, in regions of more than half of EU countries, people believe that political parties are the most corrupt compared to other state institutions.
  • Anticorruption measures are seen as ineffective: Across EU regions, most people believe government efforts to control corruption have been ineffective so far.
  • Authorities are perceived as transparent and providing information: Expert assessments of transparency and access to information at local level across EU regions are to a large extent positive, and most people believe that local authorities provide accessible information.

General Trends Across Regions:

  • Governance is important for development: Across EU regions, where democratic governance is stronger, so is economic development.
  • People have more trust in local authorities: Public trust is higher in local authorities than in national governments across EU regions, with 52% of respondents trusting local governments compared to 41% for national ones.
  • Governance varies less within countries than across them: Public perceptions of the rule of law vary more between countries than across regions of the same country.
  • People in urban and rural areas largely agree on justice and the rule of law, with some exceptions: Across EU regions, urban and rural residents generally share similar views on issues related to justice and the rule of law, though differences emerge in specific regions, countries, population groups, and topics.
  • Gender inequality persists: Across EU regions, women generally share similar views to men on justice and the rule of law but hold more negative opinions regarding gender equality in both public and private life.

About this Report

EUROVOICES presents two different types of indicators: Expert Scorecard and People’s Voices. The Expert Scorecard provides an aggregated score at either the subnational or national level, depending on the topic, based on data from WJP’s survey of local and independent legal experts and practitioners from different disciplines. Explore the variable map, found in the “downloads” section, with information on the individual expert survey questions that make up each aggregated score. People’s Voices presents selected question-level data from household surveys to representative samples across the EU on each topic. Additional data and sociodemographic breakdowns of the People’s Voices indicators can be explored on the EUROVOICES dashboard. For all indicators, country-level data, when presented, is calculated using weighted averages of region-level scores based on population size.

This report, Transparency and Corruption, includes three chapters: (1) Control of corruption, (2) Transparency and access to information, and (3) Administrative proceedings, regulatory enforcement, and right to property. Each chapter contains thematic findings, definitions for each indicator, and graphs with data from the expert and/or household surveys (Expert Scorecard and People’s Voices, respectively).

  1. Control of corruption: Commonly defined as the abuse of entrusted power for private gain, corruption encompasses various malpractices. This chapter measures the prevalence of five distinct types of corruption within the public sector. The first two categories distinguish between petty corruption, typically involving bribes to lower-ranking public agents, and grand corruption, which affects high-level decision making and includes political corruption and corrupt procurement practices. In addition, this chapter examines three special types of corruption: embezzlement of public funds, favoritism, and electoral corruption. In total, this chapter includes the following indicators: (1) absence of bribery, (2) absence of corrupt procurement practices, (3) absence of embezzlement, (4) absence of favoritism, and (5) absence of corrupt electoral practices.

  2. Transparency and access to information: Transparency refers to the set of mechanisms that facilitate people's access to public information. This chapter categorizes these mechanisms into two types: proactive and reactive transparency. Proactive transparency involves institutional practices designed to make information of general interest readily accessible to the public. This category includes details on the degree of publicity of the legal framework, the generation and dissemination of information on people's rights, and the publication of reasoning and justifications for decisions of public interest. In contrast, reactive transparency refers to the mechanisms by which a public institution responds in a clear, complete and timely manner to requests for public information. In this chapter, both types of transparency are aggregated into one indicator: (1) transparency and access to information.

  3. Administrative proceedings, regulatory enforcement, and right to property: This chapter provides information on the clarity, stability, and accessibility of regulatory proceedings, specifically in the areas of trade, consumer protection, and environmental protection. Additionally, it covers the right to property, highlighting protections against arbitrary expropriation of private and intellectual property assets. This chapter also examines the effectiveness of enforcement mechanisms for these regulations. Clear and stable regulations enable businesses to plan their development effectively, while efficient administrative procedures reduce operational costs. Moreover, predictability in regulatory enforcement ensures uniform application of laws, thus fostering a favorable environment for business planning. This chapter includes three indicators: (1) clear, predictable, and timely administrative proceedings, (2) right to property, and (3) regulatory enforcement.

CHAPTER 1

Control of corruption

Explore topics

  1. absence of bribery
  2. absence of corrupt procurement practices
  3. absence of embezzlement
  4. absence of favoritism
  5. absence of corrupt electoral practices

Findings

Outlined below are the findings for this section. First, we present the main findings for the chapter, emphasizing notable insights in the data. This is followed by summaries of individual indicators organized by topic.

  • Across the EU, local legal experts say high-level corruption—including corrupt public procurement practices and political graft—is a more prevalent issue than street-level corruption.
  • People in the EU believe political parties and members of the legislature are more corrupt than the police and local and national government officials. However, there is considerable variation in the level of concern between respondents of different EU Member States. In Sweden, only 5% of people think that police officers are corrupt, while at least 30% think so in Romania, Bulgaria, Cyprus, and Croatia.
  • The majority of people in all EU Member States believe government actions to control corruption are ineffective and applied selectively.

Absence of bribery

  • The average score for the expert indicator of absence of bribery among the 27 EU Member States is 0.74 (Figure 1). Country-level scores range from 0.98 in Denmark to 0.46 in Bulgaria (graded on a scale from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the best possible score).
  • In all 27 Member States, the majority of respondents from the general population believe that their national government's efforts to combat corruption are ineffective (Figure 15) and that measures against corruption are not applied impartially (Figure 16).
  • In five Member States, the majority of respondents agree that they are personally affected by corruption in their daily lives (Figure 13). At the country level, the percentage of respondents who agree they are personally affected by corruption ranges from just 10.9% in Denmark to 68.6% in Cyprus.
  • Compared to a selection of government institutions, perceptions of corruption are highest regarding political parties: in 17 Member States, the majority of respondents believe that most or all political parties are involved in corrupt practices (Figure 11). Meanwhile, in nine Member States, the majority of respondents believe that most or all members of Parliament/Congress are corrupt (Figure 2), and in six Member States, the majority believe most or all officials in the national government are corrupt (Figure 3). In contrast, respondents across the EU report that perceptions of corruption are the lowest regarding car registration officers (Figure 10), land registry officers (Figure 9), and police officers (Figure 8).

Expand All +

Expert's Scorecard

Figure 1 Absence of bribery

This indicator explores the absence of bribery in administrative procedures and interactions with the police and court personnel. It assesses whether individuals who interact with the police and court staff have to make informal payments or gifts to receive a public service or expedite a process. Results reflect the evaluation of experts across the 27 EU Member States at the subnational level. The expert scorecard ranges from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.

+

Data is not available for some regions due to a low number of expert responses.

People's Voices

Figure 2 Perception of corruption in Parliament/Congress

Percentage of respondents who believe that most or all members of Parliament/Congress are involved in corrupt practices.

+

People's Voices

Figure 3 Perception of corruption in the national government

Percentage of respondents who believe that most or all officials working in the national government are involved in corrupt practices.

+

People's Voices

Figure 4 Perception of corruption in the local government

Percentage of respondents who believe that most or all officials working in the local government are involved in corrupt practices.

+

People's Voices

Figure 5 Perception of corruption of judges and magistrates

Percentage of respondents who believe that most or all judges and magistrates are involved in corrupt practices.

+

People's Voices

Figure 6 Perception of corruption of criminal investigation prosecutors

Percentage of respondents who believe that most or all prosecutors in charge of criminal investigations are involved in corrupt practices.

+

People's Voices

Figure 7 Perception of corruption of public defense attorneys

Percentage of respondents who believe that most or all public defense attorneys are involved in corrupt practices.

+

People's Voices

Figure 8 Perception of corruption of police officers

Percentage of respondents who believe that most or all police officers are involved in corrupt practices.

+

People's Voices

Figure 9 Perception of corruption of land registry officers

Percentage of respondents who believe that most or all land registry officers are involved in corrupt practices.

+

People's Voices

Figure 10 Perception of corruption of car registration or driver license agency officers

Percentage of respondents who believe that most or all car registration or driver license agency officers are involved in corrupt practices.

+

People's Voices

Figure 11 Perception of corruption in political parties

Percentage of respondents who believe that most or all political parties are involved in corrupt practices.

+

People's Voices

Figure 12 Perception of corruption in EU's institutions and agencies

Percentage of respondents who believe that most or all officials working in the EU's institutions and agencies are involved in corrupt practices.

+

People's Voices

Figure 13 Perception of corruption affecting people's daily lives

Percentage of respondents who agree that they are personally affected by corruption in their daily lives.

+

People's Voices

Figure 14 Perception that citizens can make a difference in the fight against corruption

Percentage of respondents who believe citizens can make a difference in the fight against corruption.

+

People's Voices

Figure 15 Effectiveness of measures against corruption

Percentage of respondents who agree that the national government's measures to combat corruption are effective.

+

People's Voices

Figure 16 Impartiality in measures against corruption

Percentage of respondents who agree that measures against corruption are applied impartially.

+

Absence of corrupt procurement practices

  • The average score for the expert indicator of absence of corrupt procurement practices among the 27 EU Member States is 0.54 (Figure 17). Country-level scores range from 0.89 in Finland to 0.25 in Bulgaria.
  • In 21 Member States, the majority of respondents agree that the only way to succeed in business is to have political connections (Figure 18). At the country level, the percentage of respondents who agree ranges from 19.5% in Sweden to 75.5% in Croatia.

Expand All +

Expert's Scorecard

Figure 17 Absence of corrupt procurement practices

This indicator evaluates the prevalence of grand corruption, specifically in public procurement (graft) and political processes. This includes instances where high-ranking officials use their influence to award government contracts without competitive bidding or purchase goods at inflated prices. Additionally, this indicator examines whether high-ranking officials solicit or receive informal payments in exchange for political favors, including favorable treatment, favorable votes, and access to policymakers. Results reflect the evaluation of experts across the 27 EU Member States at the national level. The expert scorecard ranges from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.

+

People's Voices

Figure 18 Perception that political connections are key to succeed in business

Percentage of respondents who agree that the only way to succeed in business is to have political connections.

+

Absence of embezzlement

  • The average score for the expert indicator of absence of embezzlement among the 27 EU Member States is 0.60 (Figure 19). Country-level scores range from 0.90 in Finland to 0.32 in Bulgaria.

Expand All +

Expert's Scorecard

Figure 19 Absence of embezzlement

This indicator measures the prevalence of theft or misappropriation of public funds or other state resources for personal use by public sector employees or elected officials. Results reflect the evaluation of experts across the 27 EU Member States at the subnational level. The expert scorecard ranges from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.

+

Data is not available for some regions due to a low number of expert responses.

Absence of favoritism

  • The average score for the expert indicator of absence of favoritism among the 27 EU Member States is 0.53 (Figure 20). Country-level scores range from 0.84 in Finland and Sweden to 0.27 in Bulgaria.

Expand All +

Expert's Scorecard

Figure 20 Absence of favoritism

This indicator refers to the practice of using positions of public authority to benefit friends or family members, without necessarily requiring the exchange of political favors for money or gifts. Results reflect the evaluation of experts across the 27 EU Member States at the subnational level. The expert scorecard ranges from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.

+

Data is not available for some regions due to a low number of expert responses.

Absence of corrupt electoral practices

  • The average score for the expert indicator of absence of corrupt electoral practices among the 27 EU Member States is 0.57 (Figure 21). Country-level scores range from 0.90 in Finland to 0.24 in Bulgaria.
  • In all 27 Member States, the vast majority of people think it is unacceptable for an elected official to take public funds for private use (Figure 22). At the country-level, the percentage of respondents who say corrupt practices among elected officials are unacceptable range from 97.0% in Finland to 79.1% in Romania.
  • Most people across the EU believe it is unacceptable for a public officer to be recruited on the basis of family ties and friendship networks (Figure 23). Figures range from 85.6% in Italy to 49.9% in Luxembourg.

Expand All +

Expert's Scorecard

Figure 21 Absence of corrupt electoral practices

This indicator examines the prevalence of the misuse of public funds to benefit a political campaign or to interfere with the electoral process. It includes vote buying and cases where election officials request or receive bribes to benefit a candidate. Results reflect the evaluation of experts across the 27 EU Member States at the subnational level. The expert scorecard ranges from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.

+

Data is not available for some regions due to a low number of expert responses.

People's Voices

Figure 22 Disagreement with elected officials taking public funds for private use

Percentage of respondents who answered it is unacceptable for an elected official to take public funds for private use.

+

People's Voices

Figure 23 Disagreement with public officers recruited on account of family ties or friendship networks

Percentage of respondents who answered it is unacceptable for a public officer to be recruited on the basis of family ties and friendship networks.

+

CHAPTER 2

Transparency and access to information

Explore topics

  1. transparency and access to information

Findings

Outlined below are the findings for this section. First, we present the main findings for the chapter, emphasizing notable insights in the data. This is followed by summaries of individual indicators organized by topic.

  • Perceptions of transparency vary considerably across the EU, with experts in Sweden reporting the highest levels of positivity and experts in Romania reporting the lowest.
  • Respondents from the general population lack confidence in their ability to access detailed public information from government agencies through information requests in all surveyed EU Member States, such as detailed budget figures and copies of contracts.

Transparency and access to information

  • The average score for the expert indicator to the right of transparency and access to information among the 27 EU Member States is 0.67 (Figure 24). Country-level scores range from 0.83 in Sweden to 0.52 in Romania.
  • In 14 Member States, the majority of respondents agree that local authorities provide people with information about their rights (Figure 25), and in nine EU Member States, the majority of respondents believe that local authorities provide information in a simple, easy-to-read way (Figure 26).
  • In 21 Member States, the majority of respondents agree that local authorities make information easy to find online (Figure 27), yet only in Poland do the majority of people agree that this information is easy to find without using the internet (i.e., by using leaflets or posters) (Figure 28).
  • In 26 Member States (data was not collected in Ireland for these questions), fewer than half of respondents believe it is likely or very likely that government agencies would grant information requests related to copies of government contracts or to detailed budget figures of government agencies (Figure 29). In most Member States, people tend to agree they are more likely to be granted information on budget figures than government contracts.

Expand All +

Expert's Scorecard

Figure 24 Transparency and access to information

This indicator includes information on public institutions’ transparency measures and the accessibility of different types of public information. Additionally, it covers the publicity of laws and whether the right to request information is effectively guaranteed. Results reflect the evaluation of experts across the 27 EU Member States at the subnational level. The expert scorecard ranges from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.

+

Data is not available for some regions due to a low number of expert responses.

People's Voices

Figure 25 Access to information on people's rights

Percentage of respondents who agree that local authorities provide people with information about their rights.

+

People's Voices

Figure 26 Access to information in simple formats

Percentage of respondents who agree that local authorities provide information for people in a simple, easy-to-read way.

+

People's Voices

Figure 27 Access to information online

Percentage of respondents who agree that local authorities make information easy to find online.

+

People's Voices

Figure 28 Access to information without using the internet

Percentage of respondents who agree that local authorities make information easy to find without using the internet, such as using leaflets or posters.

+

People's Voices

Figure 29 Access to public information through requests

Percentage of respondents who believe it is likely or very likely that government agencies would grant information requests related to detailed budget figures of government agencies and copies of government contracts.

+

CHAPTER 3

Administrative proceedings, regulatory enforcement, and right to property

Explore topics

  1. simple, predictable, and timely administrative proceedings
  2. right to property
  3. regulatory enforcement

Findings

Outlined below are the findings for this section. First, we present the main findings for the chapter, emphasizing notable insights in the data. This is followed by summaries of individual indicators organized by topic.

  • While legal experts in the EU believe business regulation is predictable and evenly enforced, they say that starting and operating a business in the EU is unnecessarily complicated.

Simple, predictable, and timely administrative proceedings

  • The average score for the expert indicator of simple, predictable, and timely administrative proceedings among the 27 EU Member States is 0.61 (Figure 30). Country-level scores range from 0.86 in Finland to 0.43 in Romania.

Expand All +

Expert's Scorecard

Figure 30 Simple, predictable, and timely administrative proceedings

This indicator captures public experiences and perceptions regarding the efficiency and integrity of administrative proceedings. It evaluates the clarity, accessibility, and predictability of the legal framework for businesses, as well as the simplicity and timeliness of administrative proceedings. Results reflect the evaluation of experts across the 27 EU Member States at the subnational level. The expert scorecard ranges from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.

+

Data is not available for some regions due to a low number of expert responses.

Right to property

  • The average score for the expert indicator of right to property among the 27 EU Member States is 0.66 (Figure 31). Country-level scores range from 0.82 in Sweden to 0.53 in Bulgaria.

Expand All +

Expert's Scorecard

Figure 31 Right to property

This indicator evaluates whether all people have the right to acquire, own, and dispose of property to the extent permitted by law. It also examines whether expropriation and other proceedings with similar results are conducted legally and solely for public benefit. Results reflect the evaluation of experts across the 27 EU Member States at the subnational level. The expert scorecard ranges from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.

+

Data is not available for some regions due to a low number of expert responses.

Regulatory enforcement

  • The average score for the expert indicator which assesses regulatory enforcement, or the regularity and effectiveness of audits and inspections, among the 27 EU Member States is 0.66 (Figure 32). Country-level scores range from 0.79 in Austria to 0.46 in Malta.

Expand All +

Expert's Scorecard

Figure 32 Regulatory enforcement

This indicator assesses the regularity and effectiveness of audits and inspections to ensure they are conducted lawfully and without corruption. It also evaluates the accessibility and simplicity of complaint mechanisms, the impartiality and effectiveness of regulatory investigations, and the appropriateness of sanctions for violations. Results reflect the evaluation of experts across the 27 EU Member States at the subnational level. The expert scorecard ranges from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.

+

Data is not available for some regions due to a low number of expert responses.

Expert's Scorecard

Box 1 Regulatory enforcement

Experts’ assessments of regulatory inspections and audits, and effective sanctioning of detected violations.

+

Appendix

List of Country and Region Abbreviations

Label Country
AT Austria
BE Belgium
BG Bulgaria
CY Cyprus
CZ Czechia
DE Germany
DK Denmark
EE Estonia
EL Greece
ES Spain
FI Finland
FR France
HR Croatia
HU Hungary
IE Ireland
IT Italy
LT Lithuania
LU Luxembourg
LV Latvia
MT Malta
NL Netherlands
PL Poland
PT Portugal
RO Romania
SE Sweden
SI Slovenia
SK Slovakia
Label Region
AT1 East Austria
AT2 South Austria
AT3 West Austria
BE1 Brussels Region
BE2 Flemish Region
BE3 Walloon Region
BG3 North and South-East
BG4 South-West and South-Central
CY0 Cyprus
CZ01 Prague
CZ020304 Western and Central Bohemia
CZ0506 North-East and South-East
CZ0708 Central Moravia and Silesia
DE1 Baden-Württemberg
DE2 Bavaria
DE3 Berlin
DE4 Brandenburg
DE5 Bremen
DE6 Hamburg
DE7 Hessen
DE8 Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
DE9 Lower Saxony
DEA North Rhine-Westphalia
DEB Rhineland-Palatinate
DEC Saarland
DED Saxony
DEE Saxony-Anhalt
DEF Schleswig-Holstein
DEG Thuringia
DK01 Capital (region)
DK02 Zealand
DK03 South Denmark
DK04 Central Jutland
DK05 North Jutland
EE0 Estonia
EL3 Attica
EL4 Aegean Islands, Crete
EL5 North Greece
EL6 Central Greece
ES1 North-West
ES2 North-East
ES3 Madrid
ES4 Centre
ES5 East
ES6 South
ES7 Canary Islands
FI19 West Finland
FI1B Helsinki-Uusimaa
FI1C20 South Finland and Åland
FI1D North and East Finland
FR1 Île-de-France
FRB Centre-Val de Loire
FRC Burgundy-Franche-Comté
FRD Normandy
FRE Hauts-de-France
FRF Grand Est
FRG Loire Region
FRH Brittany 
FRI New Aquitaine
FRJ Occitania
FRK Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes
FRL Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (PACA)
FRM Corsica 
HR02 Pannonian Croatia
HR03 Adriatic Croatia
HR05 Zagreb
HR06 Northern Croatia
HU1 Central Hungary
HU2 Transdanubia
HU3 Great Plain and North
IE04 Northern and Western
IE05 Southern
IE06 Eastern and Midland
ITC North-West
ITF South
ITG Islands
ITH North-East
ITI Centre
LT01 Capital Region
LT02 Central/Western Region
LU00 Luxembourg
LV00 Latvia
MT00 Malta
NL1 North Netherlands
NL2 East Netherlands
NL3 West Netherlands
NL4 South Netherlands
PL2 Southern
PL4 North-Western
PL5 South-Western
PL6 Northern
PL7 Central
PL8 Eastern
PL9 Mazowieckie
PT1 Continental Portugal
PT2 Azores
PT3 Madeira
RO1 Macroregion One
RO2 Macroregion Two
RO3 Macroregion Three
RO4 Macroregion Four
SE1 Eastern Sweden
SE2 Southern Sweden
SE3 Northern Sweden
SI03 East Slovenia
SI04 West Slovenia
SK01 Bratislava
SK02 West Slovakia
SK03 Central Slovakia
SK04 East Slovakia

Methodology

The production of World Justice Project EUROVOICES can be summarized in the following stages:

Conceptual Design

To develop a comprehensive methodological framework, WJP first defined the observable outcomes of a society's adherence to the rule of law and the ways the rule of law impacts people's everyday lives. Building upon the proven methodology of the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index®, the team focused the conceptual design of World Justice Project EUROVOICES on capturing people's perceptions and experiences of justice, governance, and the rule of law in their daily lives.

The team then conducted an extensive literature review and held consultations with experts from various sectors (including academia and international organizations) to adapt the project's methodology to the current reality and challenges faced by the European Union (EU) Member States. The resulting framework defines 51 rule of law indicators organized into ten pillars: 1) checks on government powers; 2) government respect for checks on power; 3) civic participation; 4) fundamental rights; 5) civil justice; 6) criminal justice; 7) safety; 8) control of corruption; 9) transparency and access to information; and 10) administrative proceedings and regulatory enforcement.

Pillars Indicators
Report 1. Democracy and Fundamental Rights
1. Checks on government powers 1.1. Legislative oversight
1.2. Judicial independence
1.3. Independent oversight
1.4. Independent prosecution
1.5. Free, fair, and secure elections
1.6. Non-governmental checks
2. Government respect for checks on power 2.1. Government respect for the constitution and political opponents
2.2. Government respect for judicial independence
2.3. Government respect for independent oversight
2.4. Government respect for independent prosecution
2.5. Government respect for the electoral system
2.6. Government respect for civil liberties
3. Civic participation 3.1. Civic participation
4. Fundamental rights 4.1. Prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment
4.2. Prohibition of slavery and forced labor
4.3. Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion
4.4. Freedom of assembly and association
4.5. Freedom of opinion and expression
4.6. Right to property
4.7. Right to asylum
4.8. Equality before the law
4.9. Workers’ rights
4.10. Right to vote and to stand as a candidate at elections
4.11. Right of access to documents
4.12. Right to petition
4.13. Right of movement and of residence
4.14. Due process of law
Report 2. Justice and Safety
5. Civil justice 5.1. Legal capability
5.2. Access to legal aid and representation in cases of civil disputes
5.3. Accessible, appropriate, and timely dispute resolution
5.4. Impartial and independent dispute resolution
5.5. Effective and outcome-oriented and effective dispute resolution
5.6. Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms
6. Criminal justice 6.1. Effective and impartial criminal investigation
6.2. Effective and impartial prosecution and pre-trial proceedings
6.3. Effective and impartial criminal adjudication
6.4. Alternative criminal justice mechanisms
6.5. Victims’ rights
6.6. Due process of law
6.7. Rights of persons deprived of liberty
7. Safety 7.1. Perceptions of safety
7.2. Control of violence
Report 3. Transparency and Corruption
8. Control of corruption 8.1. Absence of bribery
8.2. Absence of corrupt procurement practices
8.3. Absence of embezzlement
8.4. Absence of favoritism
8.5. Absence of corrupt electoral practices
9. Transparency and access to information 9.1. Transparency and access to information
10. Administrative proceedings, regulatory enforcement, and right to property 10.1. Simple, predictable, and timely administrative proceedings
10.2. Right to property
10.3. Regulatory enforcement

After establishing these pillars and indicators, WJP drafted survey questions to measure different aspects of each conceptual category included in the framework. This process resulted in a selection of 610 expert survey questions and 330 general population survey questions. To maintain reasonable survey length and improve response rates, the expert questions were organized into four separate questionnaires (one on criminal justice, two on civil and commercial justice, and one on governance).

Data Collection

World Justice Project EUROVOICES presents original survey data from two sources: expert surveys and household surveys.

Expert Surveys

Expert survey data collection for World Justice Project EUROVOICES project was conducted by the WJP’s research team. The surveys were administered online between October 2023 and April 2024 using Alchemer, a user-friendly and highly secure survey administration platform. The expert surveys were administered in twelve languages: Bulgarian, Czech, English, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, and Spanish.

The expert survey respondents, representing the 110 subnational regions across all 27 EU Member States, included independent legal practitioners and academics selected from directories of law firms, universities and colleges, research organizations, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), as well as through referrals from the WJP's global network of practitioners. All expert respondents were vetted by WJP staff to ensure their qualifications.

Over the course of the expert survey data collection, WJP's research team regularly sent survey invitations and reminder emails to potential respondents using publicly available online contact information, collected through a systematic review of the websites of law firms, bar associations, universities, and other organizations. To expand WJP's network of expert respondents in the EU, the research team collaborated with local organizations, bar associations, universities, and law firms to identify and invite potential participants. As a result of this exercise, WJP's team generated a database with contact information for thousands of experts. In total, the WJP team obtained 8,042 expert survey responses.

Household Surveys

Household survey data collection was conducted by leading local polling companies: ACT (Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania), Alpha Research Ltd. (Bulgaria), Bilendi & Respondi (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands), D3 Systems, Inc. (Greece), ILRES (Luxembourg), Intercampus (Portugal), Ipsos (Czechia, Estonia, Finland, France, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden), Misco International (Malta), Pulse Market Research (Cyprus), RED C Research (Ireland), and Talk Online (Hungary and Slovakia).

The survey was translated into over 20 local languages, adapted to common local expressions, and administered in pilot tests in each country. After conducting, reviewing, and validating the pilot tests, the survey was administered to respondents in 110 regions of the 27 EU Member States, using both face-to-face (in 10 countries) and online (in 17 countries) polling methodologies. Survey respondents in each country were selected through a probability sampling method that ensures representativeness based on age, sex, income level, and degree of urbanization. During the full-fieldwork stage of data collection, which took place between December 2023 and April 2024, a total of 64,089 EU residents were surveyed.

Selecting Territorial Units

For the purposes of World Justice Project EUROVOICES, WJP selected territorial units based on the EU’s Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS) system, resulting in 110 regions for analysis. These regions are a combination of NUTS level 1 and NUTS level 2 regions, with some adjustments for Czechia (merging 8 regions into 4), Finland (combining 5 regions into 4), and France (dropping the overseas territories). The complete list of regions is presented in the Appendix.

Data Analysis

The expert survey data was calculated into scores using the following steps: first, the survey responses were normalized and codified into numeric values on a scale of 0 to 1, where 1 indicates the highest possible score; second, the data was mapped into the pillars and indicators, as defined in the conceptual framework; and third, the normalized data was aggregated at the NUTS and country levels using simple averages. The complete variable map detailing which questions from the expert surveys were aggregated into each score can be downloaded from the website.

Household survey responses were processed into a database that displays question-level results by collapsing the two most positive options on a four-level Likert scale in each case (e.g., strongly agree and agree, very likely and likely, among others, depending on the response scale of the question and the options that represent the most positive outcome). This data can be disaggregated by age group, sex, income, and degree of urbanization.

For both the household and the expert surveys, the respondent-level data was edited to exclude partially completed surveys, suspicious data, and outliers (which were detected using the Z-score method).

A series of quantitative and qualitative tests were conducted to identify biases and errors. The first process was a quantitative cross-check in which results were systematically compared to selected indicators from trusted third-party sources, including other organizations' measurement projects, such as the V-Dem Dataset by the V-Dem Institute, and the Quality of Government database by the University of Gothenburg; and official indicator systems, such as Eurobarometer surveys and the EU Justice Scoreboard. In addition, three qualitative information tools were developed to test the data across all EU Member States: a compendium of news stories collected from diverse sources across the EU; syntheses of information from national and international reports published by peer organizations; and semi-structured interviews with over 30 EU experts. These tools allowed WJP to enrich the survey data with trends, issues, improvements, and regional differences in a variety of rule of law topics and contextualize the survey results. As a result of this work, World Justice Project EUROVOICES presents a library of people-centered indicators with new data on justice, governance, and the rule of law in the EU, at both the regional and national level. Data from the expert surveys is presented at the indicator level, while household survey data is presented at the question level, with options to disaggregate by different socioeconomic and demographic variables. This data is presented in different formats, including thematic reports with maps and graphs, interactive dashboards, and databases available for download. This information allows region-to-region comparisons, detecting relative strengths and weaknesses, and identifying best practices and policies that can become reference points.

Additional Considerations

Comparisons with the WJP Rule of Law Index

The results of World Justice Project EUROVOICES cannot be directly compared to the WJP Rule of Law Index® for several reasons. First, the Index scores are calculated by aggregating three sources of information: expert surveys, household surveys, and third-party data. In contrast, WJP EUROVOICES presents findings in two separate categories: the Expert Scorecards, comprised of aggregated expert data, and People’s Voices, which displays question-level data from the household surveys.

Second, although the WJP Rule of Law Index and WJP EUROVOICES both use the Min-Max method to normalize expert data (so that all values are presented on a scale of 0 to 1), the Index’s longitudinal analysis requires an extra normalization (with a base year of 2015) to ensure scores are comparable across previous editions of the report.

Lastly, while WJP EUROVOICES builds upon the Index's methodology, the two projects have distinct conceptual frameworks. Key differences include the internal organization of the pillars, the inclusion of new questions to assess independent checks on government powers, a new category on the executive's behavior towards constraints on its power, the expansion of the chapter on fundamental rights based on the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the separation of the transparency and civic participation pillars.

Methodological Strengths and Weaknesses

All information tools have advantages and limitations that need to be considered when using them, and World Justice Project EUROVOICES is no exception. This project organizes its findings into clearly defined indicators that allow for the easy and efficient interpretation of a multi-dimensional rule of law definition. Moreover, WJP's output-oriented approach facilitates comparisons between countries and regions.

However, this accessibility does require WJP to consolidate the unique and complicated realities different individuals experience into coherent findings at the national and regional levels. As such, interpretation of the data presented in this report requires a familiarity with the project's basic conceptual framework, including WJP's definitions for each indicator and explanations regarding which topics are and are not included in our findings.

Likewise, these indicators do not establish causality or contextualize the findings. Thus, it will be necessary to use the WJP EUROVOICES reports in combination with other analytical tools to provide a full picture of causes and potential solutions.

The data presented in WJP EUROVOICES captures the perceptions and experiences of people living in the EU at the time the data was collected. In addition, the WJP team confirmed the validity of this data using quantitative and qualitative checks. However, the results may be sensitive to contextual factors, including expectations, as well as cultural and social influences, which may affect people's responses. In addition, this information may be sensitive to specific events that took place during the data collection period or may be subject to measurement errors due in part to the limited number of experts interviewed in some regions.

More Information

For more information on the conceptual and measurement framework of this project, including more technical details on the data collection process, please refer to the complete methodological summary available on the World Justice Project EUROVOICES website.

About the World Justice Project

The World Justice Project (WJP) is an independent, multidisciplinary organization working to create knowledge, build awareness, and stimulate action to advance the rule of law worldwide. Effective rule of law is the foundation for communities of justice, opportunity, and peace—underpinning development, accountable government, and respect for fundamental rights.

The WJP builds and supports a global, multidisciplinary movement for the rule of law through three lines of work: collecting, organizing, and analyzing original, independent rule of law data, including the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index; supporting research, scholarship, and teaching about the importance of the rule of law, its relationship to development, and effective strategies to strengthen it; and connecting and building an engaged global network of policymakers and advocates to advance the rule of law through strategic partnerships, convenings, coordinated advocacy, and support for locally led initiatives.

Learn more at: worldjusticeproject.org.

Acknowledgements

The World Justice Project EUROVOICES 2024 thematic reports (Democracy & Fundamental Rights, Justice & Safety, and Transparency & Corruption) were produced by the World Justice Project under the research oversight of Alejandro Ponce and the executive direction of Elizabeth Andersen.

Conceptual Design: Horacio Ortiz, Alejandro Ponce, and Leslie Solís, building upon the WJP Rule of Law Index (developed by Juan Carlos Botero, Mark David Agrast, and Alejandro Ponce), with adaptations to reflect the institutional architecture in the European Union.

Data Collection: Giacomo D’Urbano and Erin Campbell (Expert Surveys Co-Leads), Alicia Evangelides and Joshua Fuller (Household Surveys Co-Leads), Ana María Montoya (Data Analytics Lead), Marta Basystiuk, Allison Bostrom, Lucía Estefanía González, Kirssy González, Pablo González Barón, Lauren Littlejohn, Alejandra Nava, Santiago Pardo, Natalia Rodríguez Cajamarca, Carlos Toruño, and Katrina Wanner, with the assistance of Said Aarji, Lloyd Cleary, John Cullen, Dalia Habiby, Skye Jacobs, Aleksandra Kozovic, Jaehee Lee, Andrea Marín Núñez de Arce, Abigail Skalka, Helen Souki Reyes, Holly West, and Moss Woodbury. The team also received support from Amy Gryskiewicz, Mario Rodríguez, Juan Salgado, and Victoria Thomaides during this stage.

Data Analysis: Ana María Montoya (Lead), Santiago Pardo and Natalia Rodríguez Cajamarca (Expert Surveys Data Co-Leads), and Carlos Toruño (General Population Poll Data Co-Lead), with support from Isabella Coddington, Dalia Habiby, and Artha Pillai.

Research: Horacio Ortiz and Leslie Solís (Leads), Jacob Alabab-Moser, Marta Basystiuk, Allison Bostrom, Erin Campbell, Giacomo D’Urbano, Kirssy González, Lauren Littlejohn, Ana María Montoya, Gustavo Núñez Peralta, Santiago Pardo, Natalia Rodríguez Cajamarca, Carlos Toruño, and Katrina Wanner, with support from Aleksandra Kozovic, Andrea Marín Núñez de Arce, Abigail Skalka, and Holly West. Finally, the team received feedback from Daniela Barba, Shallum David, Natalia Jardón, and Stephanie Presch.

Data Visualization: Mariana López and Carlos Toruño (Leads), Ana María Montoya, and Santiago Pardo, with the assistance of Isabella Coddington.

Design: Mariana López (Lead), Irene Heras, Raquel Medina, and Enrique Paulin.

Website Design: Natalia Jardón (Lead) and Mariana López.

Website Production: Gobierno Fácil.

Engagement Strategy: Alejandro González and Alejandro Ponce (Leads), Marta Basystiuk, Natalia Jardón, Lauren Kitz, Jan Kleijssen, Mark Lewis, Leslie Solís, James van der Klok, and Tanya Weinberg.

Operations and Administrative Support: Amy Gryskiewicz, Shakhlo Hasanova, and Richard Schorr.

These reports were made possible by the generous support of the European Union. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.

Contributors

Throughout the process of designing the methodology and conceptual framework, building the website, collecting expert surveys, and reviewing the data for World Justice Project EUROVOICES 2024, the team consulted with a variety of experts. We are grateful for their contributions and support. The names of those wishing to be acknowledged are below:

Comments for the conceptual framework: Francesca Fanucci and Simona Ognenovska (European Center for Not-for-Profit Law), Mihály Fazekas (Central European University), Waltraud Heller and Gabriel Toggenburg (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights), Liesbet Hooghe (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill), Jan Kleijssen (Senior Advisor, WJP), Anna Máriássyová and Lilla Ozorákovrá (Slovak National Centre for Human Rights), Tommaso Pavone (University of Arizona), Linda Ravo (Civil Liberties Union for Europe), Francesca Recanatini (World Bank), Christel Schurrer and Muriel Décot (European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice, Council of Europe), and Anonymous Contributors.

Branding and website strategy consultations: Sophio Asatiani (USAID Information Integrity Program, Zinc Network), Alfred Bridi (Scale LLP), Isabela Campos (World Bank), Illia Chernohorenko (University of Oxford; European Young Bar Association), Lewis Dijkstra (Joint Research Centre, European Commission), Jorge Durán Laguna (DG for Regional and Urban Policy, European Commission), Eric Gaus (Moody’s Analytics), Waltraud Heller and Alison Taylder (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights), Jan Kleijssen (Senior Advisor, WJP), Jorge A. Morales Alfaro (PhD student, University of Berkley), Irene Rioboo (European Institute for Gender Equality), Rony Rodriguez (PhD student, Harvard University), Magaly Sáenz (Interamerican Development Bank), Igor Vidačak (University of Zagreb), and Anonymous Contributors.

Support for strategic expert data collection:

Bar associations and law societies: Council of European Bars and Law Societies (CCBE), Croatian Bar Association / Hrvatska Odvjetnicka Komora, Danish Bar and Law Society / Advokatsamfundet, Estonian Bar Association / Esti Advokatuur, Finnish Bar Association / Suomen Asianajajaliitto, French National Bar Council / Conseil national des barreaux, German Bar Association / Deutscher Anwaltverein, German Federal Bar / Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer, Latvian Collegium of Sworn Advocates / Latvijas Zvērinātu advokātu kolēģija, Chamber of Advocates Malta, The Netherlands Bar / Nederlandse orde van advocaten (NOvA), Seán ÓhUallacháin S.C. (The Bar of Ireland), Swedish Bar Association / Sveriges advokatsamfund.

Individual contributors, universities, and other organizations: York Albrecht (Institut für Europäische Politik, IEP), Liz Ayre (Children of Prisoners Europe, COPE), Sergiy Barbashyn (Barbashyn Law Firm), Anne-Charlotte Bernard (Catholic University of Lille), Markus Böckenförde (Central European University), Laura Carlson (European Women Lawyers Association), Central European University Democracy Institute Rule of Law Clinic, Hans Corell (Former Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and the Legal Counsel of the United Nations), Elena Crespi (International Federation for Human Rights), Celina Del Felice (Agency for Peacebuilding), European Council on Refugees and Exiles, European Digital Rights, European Prison Litigation Network, European Young Bar Association, Danijela Frangež (University of Maribor), Nuno Garoupa (George Mason University), Willy Giacchino (Conseil supérieur du notariat français), Jakub Gładkowski (KG Legal Kiełtyka Gładkowski), Alonso Hernández-Pinzón García (European Lawyers Foundation), International Commission of Jurists, Anna Kalinichenko (DLA Piper), Adna Karamehic-Oates (Open Government Partnership), Jan Kayser (Center for Civil and Commercial Mediation, Luxembourg), Małgorzata Kiełtyka (KG Legal Kiełtyka Gładkowski), Jan Kleijssen (Senior Advisor, WJP), Mika Lehtimäki (StratXcel.tech), Legal Studies Department of the College of Europe, Kristaps Loze (Loze & Partners: Attorneys at Law), Caoimhín MacMaoláin (Trinity College Dublin), Didzis Melkis (ManaBalss.lv), PILnet, Rolf Ring (Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law), Jan Smits (Maastricht University), Henricus Joseph (Henk) Snijders (Leiden University), Gintaras Švedas (Vilnius University), Marek Svoboda (CEELI Institute), University of Helsinki, Konstantinos Valmas-Vloutis (K. Valmas-Vloutis & Associates Law Office), Marie-Florence Zampiero-Bouquemont (Conseil supérieur du notariat français), Francesco Zatelli (Pro Publico), and Anonymous Contributors.

Experts interviewed during the data analysis phase: Fenella Billing (Aalborg University), Markus Böckenförde (Central European University), Styliani (Stella) Christoforidou (Hellenic Open University), Alessia-Ottavia Cozzi (University of Udine), Graciela Faffelberger (VAMED AG), János Fazekas (ELTE Faculty of Law), John A. Gealfow (OYERS.LAW and Masaryk University Faculty of Law), Tania Groppi (University of Siena), Małgorzata Kiełtyka (Kiełtyka Gładkowski KG LEGAL), Christian Koller (University of Vienna), Emilia Korkea-aho (University of Eastern Finland Law School), Urmas Kukk (KPMG Law), Mika Lehtimäki (StratXcel.tech and Tampere University), Felicien Lemaire (University of Angers), Christian Lemke (Heissner & Struck, and German Federal Bar), Heidi Lett (KPMG Law), Dieuwke Levinson-Arps (Attorney at Law), Imelda Maher (University College Dublin), Luigi Mori (BLR&M), Kevät Nousiainen (University of Turku), Lilla Ozoráková (Slovak National Centre for Human Rights), Viera Petrasova (Petrasova Legal Law Firm), Ulrike Schultz (FernUniversität), Helen Siegumfeldt (Citizen Rights Attorney), Henricus Joseph (Henk) Snijders (Leiden University), Petr Žídek (Feichtinger Žídek Fyrbach advokáti), and Anonymous Contributors.

Contributing experts who answered the expert surveys: World Justice Project EUROVOICES 2024 was made possible by the generous contributions of more than 8,000 academics and legal practitioners who contributed their time and expertise by answering our surveys. The names of those wishing to be acknowledged individually are included in the downloads section of the website and are also available in the PDF version of this report.

These reports were also made possible by the work of the polling companies who conducted fieldwork, and the more than 64,000 individuals who answered the General Population Poll in the EU.


Requests to reproduce this document should be sent to:

Alejandro Ponce
World Justice Project
1025 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20005, USA
E-mail: wjp@worldjusticeproject.org

World Justice Project EUROVOICES 2024: Transparency & Corruption
Print: ISBN: 978-1-951330-72-9
Digital: ISBN: 978-1-951330-73-6