World Justice Project EUROVOICES
2024
Transparency & Corruption
Transparency & Corruption
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:
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.
Democracy and Fundamental Rights:
Justice and Safety:
Transparency and Corruption:
General Trends Across Regions:
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).
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.
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.
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.
Explore topics
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.
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.
Percentage of respondents who believe that most or all members of Parliament/Congress are involved in corrupt practices.
Percentage of respondents who believe that most or all officials working in the national government are involved in corrupt practices.
Percentage of respondents who believe that most or all officials working in the local government are involved in corrupt practices.
Percentage of respondents who believe that most or all judges and magistrates are involved in corrupt practices.
Percentage of respondents who believe that most or all prosecutors in charge of criminal investigations are involved in corrupt practices.
Percentage of respondents who believe that most or all public defense attorneys are involved in corrupt practices.
Percentage of respondents who believe that most or all police officers are involved in corrupt practices.
Percentage of respondents who believe that most or all land registry officers are involved in corrupt practices.
Percentage of respondents who believe that most or all car registration or driver license agency officers are involved in corrupt practices.
Percentage of respondents who believe that most or all political parties are involved in corrupt practices.
Percentage of respondents who believe that most or all officials working in the EU's institutions and agencies are involved in corrupt practices.
Percentage of respondents who agree that they are personally affected by corruption in their daily lives.
Percentage of respondents who believe citizens can make a difference in the fight against corruption.
Percentage of respondents who agree that the national government's measures to combat corruption are effective.
Percentage of respondents who agree that measures against corruption are applied impartially.
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.
Percentage of respondents who agree that the only way to succeed in business is to have political connections.
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.
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.
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.
Percentage of respondents who answered it is unacceptable for an elected official to take public funds for private use.
Percentage of respondents who answered it is unacceptable for a public officer to be recruited on the basis of family ties and friendship networks.
Explore topics
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.
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.
Percentage of respondents who agree that local authorities provide people with information about their rights.
Percentage of respondents who agree that local authorities provide information for people in a simple, easy-to-read way.
Percentage of respondents who agree that local authorities make information easy to find online.
Percentage of respondents who agree that local authorities make information easy to find without using the internet, such as using leaflets or posters.
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.