Survey 2012 engl

Sociological Study Corruption in Republic of Moldova:

Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences

of Households and Business People

This study was conducted by Transparency International–Moldova and was made possible by the generous

support of the American people through the United States Department of State. The content of this study is

the responsibility of TI-Moldova, and does not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the United

States Department of State.

Chisinau, 2012

Contents

I. Objective and tasks of the sociological study .................................................................................................................... 4

Methodological aspects......................................................................................................................................................... 4

II. General information about the respondents.................................................................................................................... 6

Geographical distribution of the respondents ....................................................................................................................... 6

Residence .............................................................................................................................................................................. 8

Age of Respondents .............................................................................................................................................................. 8

Education .............................................................................................................................................................................. 8

Occupational group ............................................................................................................................................................... 9

Income .................................................................................................................................................................................. 9

III. Perception of corruption ................................................................................................................................................ 10

Problems that the respondents face ..................................................................................................................................... 10

Awareness of threat of corruption ....................................................................................................................................... 12

Evolution of corruption ....................................................................................................................................................... 12

Causes of the spread of corruption...................................................................................................................................... 13

Conflict of interest as cause of corruption .......................................................................................................................... 13

Sources of information about corruption ............................................................................................................................ 14

Spread of corruption ........................................................................................................................................................... 15

Unofficial ways to solve problems with public servants .................................................................................................... 16

IV. Experiences while contacting public institutions ......................................................................................................... 18

Most contacted institutions ................................................................................................................................................. 18

Amount of Average Bribe................................................................................................................................................... 20

Total estimated amount of bribe ......................................................................................................................................... 22

The purpose of unofficial payments ................................................................................................................................... 23

Unofficial payments made voluntarily or under pressure? ................................................................................................. 24

Concrete cases of corruption invoked by correspondents ................................................................................................... 24

V. Corruption and business environment ........................................................................................................................... 31

The contribution of the state in the business environment .................................................................................................. 31

Work time spent on solving problems with public servants .................................................................................................... 31

The response of control agencies to deviations from the law ............................................................................................. 32

The size of bribe compared with the tax evasion ................................................................................................................ 32

Frequency of controlsperformed by the government .......................................................................................................... 33

Participation in public procurement bids ............................................................................................................................ 33

VI. Engagement in preventing corruption .......................................................................................................................... 34

Disposition to pay a bribe ................................................................................................................................................... 34

Emotional aspects of paying a bribe ................................................................................................................................... 34

Tolerance towards corruption ............................................................................................................................................. 35

VII. Resistance to corruption ............................................................................................................................................... 36

Facing cases of corruption .................................................................................................................................................. 36

Denouncing corruption ....................................................................................................................................................... 36

Solving problems in a legal way ......................................................................................................................................... 36

Professionalism and credibility of the law enforcement institutions .................................................................................. 37

VIII. Can corruption be curbed in Moldova? .................................................................................................................... 39

Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences

3

Facing cases of corruption .................................................................................................................................................. 39

Corruption risks .................................................................................................................................................................. 40

Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................... 42

Transparency International – Moldova

I. Objective and tasks of the sociological study

Transparency International – Moldova carried out this study with the support of the U.S. State Department

and in collaboration with the Center for Sociological Studies and Marketing "CBS-AXA".

The objective of the study was to analyze the perceptions and the experiences with corruption of households

and business people in the Republic of Moldova.

The results of the study will be used to evaluate the impact of the implementation of the National

Anticorruption Strategy in 2012.

The tasks of the study are the following:

- Identifying the main sources of information about corruption and evaluating the credibility of

information on corruption from mass-media;

- Evaluating the awareness of the population on the threat of corruption for doing business;

- Identifying the main causes of corruption and their evolution in time;

- Evaluating the perception and the personal experience with corruption in 38 domains of public life;

- Estimating the total amount of unofficial payments in various public institutions/services;

- Evaluating the professionalism and credibility of the law enforcement staff members;

- Evaluating the acceptability of corruption, unofficial payments and readiness to pay bribes;

- Evaluating public awareness about conflict of interest;

- Identifying the most efficient measures to detect and combat corruption;

- Calculating corruption risks indicators for law enforcement institutions.

Two types of respondents were interviewed for this study: businesspeople and household representatives.

Separate questionnaires were used for each of the two categories. The questions referred to respondents’

perceptions on the spread of corruption in the country, as well as their personal experiences with corruption

during the last 12 months. In total, 38 domains/authorities were analyzed in this study. The questionnaire

also included an open type question that allowed respondents to share concrete examples of corruption and

other abuses by public servants.

Methodological aspects

The size of the sample: 490 business people and 1106 household representatives over the age of 18;

Sample: stratified, random, two-staged.

Stratification criteria:12 geographical regions based on territorial administrative units that were in place

before the last territorial-administrative reform, residential environment (urban-rural), size of urban

localities (2 types), size of rural localities (2 types of rural localities); The sample is relevant to analyze the

following strata of respondents: urban, rural, North, South and Center zones, with respective error margins

corresponding to the size of each strata of respondents.

Sample selection:

a. The sizes of each stratum and the totals for the regions (former districts) were calculated

proportionally to the number of population in accordance with the data of the National Bureau of

Statistics. The size of the rural localities was calculated proportionally to the number of voters in the

election lists;

Stages of randomization:

I. Locality: within the adjusted strata the localities were selected randomly, based on a table

with random numbers;


5

II. Household: the maximum number of interviews made in one pooling locality was 9. The

households were selected using the method of random route with statistical step;

III. Respondent: in households with several adults, the person whose birthday was closest was

selected for the interview.

b. The sample for business people was selected based on listings in the catalogue of goods and services

VARO–INFORM MOLDOVA 2012. A statistical step was used to select the subjects for the

interview. To replace the refusals a repeated selection was made. The procedure was repeated until the

necessary number of respondents was accumulated.

Representation: the sample is representative at the national level with a maximal error of +2.9% for

households and +4.4% for business people.

Time of interviewing: July 26–August 7, 2012 to interview household representatives, and July 26–

September 10, 2012 to interview business people. The interviews were conducted at the respondents’

homes by the network of operators of CBS-AXA. The questionnaire was prepared in Romanian and

Russian, the selection of the language being offered to the respondent.

Verification: To verify the quality of data collection, CBS-AXA contacted about 10% of respondents at

their homes and 30% by telephone. The data was processed using SPSS 15 statistical software.


6

II. General information about the respondents

Geographical distribution of the respondents

Center

Households – 21.6%

Businesses – 12%

Municipality ofChişinău

Households– 23.4%

Businesses –64.9%

South


Businesses – 8%

North


Businesses – 9.2%

Bălţi

Households– 5.1%

Businesses – 5.9%


7

Distribution of respondents by rayons, %

Rayon Households Businesses

Chisinau 23.5 65.4

Balti 5.1 6.0

Anenii Noi 2.9 1.2

Basarabeasca 2.1 0.4

Briceni 2.3 1.0

Cahul 3.9 1.2

Cantemir 2.6 0

Calarasi 2.2 0.6

Causeni 2.5 1.0

Cimislia 2.6 1.2

Criuleni 2.0 0.6

Donduseni 1.2 0.2

Drochia 2.7 0.4

Dubasari 1.3 0

Edinet 2.0 0.8

Falesti 2.1 0.4

Floresti 2.0 0.8

Glodeni 1.7 0.2

Hincesti 1.4 1.2

Ialoveni 2.6 2.2

Leova 1.9 0

Nisporeni 2.1 0.4

Ocnita 1.1 0.8

Orhei 2.4 2.4

Rezina 1.4 0.6

Riscani 1.7 1.0

Singerei 2.2 0.8

Soroca 2.8 0.8

Straseni 2.0 1.0

Soldanesti 1.6 0.6

Stefan Voda 1.7 0.8

Taraclia 0.9 0.8

Telenesti 2.7 0.6

Ungheni 2.7 2.2

UTA Gagauzia 4.1 2.4


8

Residence

Age of Respondents

Gender of Respondents

Education

Education: households, %High

education,

including

incomplete

26.6%

Incomplete

secondary

14,8%

Secondary

32.7%

Special

secondary

25.9%

Education: businessmen,%

High

education,

including

incomplete

76.3%Secondary

5.9%

Special

secondary

17.6%Incomplete

secondary

0,2%


9

Occupational group

Income


10

III. Perception of corruption

Problems that the respondents face

How acute are the following problems for you? (Average, calculated on a scale from 1 to 6, where 1 means – not a problem at all, 6 – major problem)

For household representatives, corruption did not change its position compared to 2008 and remains on the

third place among the biggest problems that affect their life.


11

To what extent do the following factors impede doing business in Moldova?(Average, calculated on a

scale from 1 to 6, where 1 means - does not impede at all, 6 – blocks the development).

For business people, more problems emerged since 2008; thus, they place corruption on the 6th place,

behind political instability, frequent modification of legislation, inflation and high taxes.


12

Awareness of threat of corruption

Public awareness of the threat posed by corruption among business people and household representatives

has increased. If 10 years ago the main part of respondents considered poverty as the main cause of

corruption, at present two thirds of the respondents understand that corruption causes poverty. The share of

households that understand the impact of corruption on poverty increased from 56.8% in 2008 to 66.9% in

2012. Among business people their share increased from 57.1% in 2008 to 63.5% in 2012.

Evolution of corruption

The largest group of households (49.6%) and business people (41.9%) think that the corruption

phenomenon increased in the last 12 months.

The share of respondents who think corruption increased during the last 12 months 2005 2007 2008 2012

Households 38 45.4 41 49.6

Businesses 37 35.4 33 41.9


13

Causes of the spread of corruption

What are the main causes of corruption in Moldova? Average, calculated on a scale from 1 to 4 (1 –very

important cause, 4 –not a cause at all)

As stated in the previous study of this kind that was conducted in 2008, the main causes of corruption

specified by the respondents are low impunity and not treating the corruption phenomenon in a serious way

by the governance.

Conflict of interest as cause of corruption

What is conflict of interests in public service?

A conflict between public servants 17.6%

A conflict between the interests of a public servant and his/her dueties 55.6%

A conflict betweeb the interests of a public servant 21.2%

Do not know 5.9%

Having to take a decision in conflict of interest situations is one of the causes that contribute to a wide

spread of corruption. TI-Moldova studies from 20081 and 2010

2show a low understanding among central

public authority servants of the notion of conflict of interest. The share of public servants that chose the

correct option to define conflict of interest increased from 52.8% in 2008 to 76.4% in 2010. To test how

familiar is the population with the notion of conflict of interest, the survey presented respondents with three

definitions. The results showed that only 55% of all respondents selected the right answer.

1 I. Spinei, E. Obreja, Treating Conflict of Interests in Public Service: Regulations and Perceptions, TI-Moldova, 2008

2 I. Spinei, Treating Conflict of Interests in Public Service: Evolution or Stagnation?, TI-Moldova, 2010


14

Sources of information about corruption

The main sources of information about corruption remained unchanged since 2008. The respondents

indicated television as the first source, followed by the printed and electronic press, radio and discussions

with friends and relatives.


15

How much do the respondents trust the information about corruption coming from mass-media?

About 34% of households and 44% of the business people trust mass-media as a reliable source of

information on corruption. Their numbers decreased compared to 2008.

Share of respondents that trust mass-media as a reliable source for information on corruption 2005 2007 2008 2012

Households z 40.3 50.0 33.9

Businesses z 38.5 55.5 44.1

Spread of corruption

How frequently do people resort to money, gifts and personal contacts to solve their problems in the

following institutions/domains? (% of respondents stating that this is happening frequently, very

frequently and always).

Title of institutions/service/domain Households, % Businesses, %

2008 2012 2008 2012

Central public administration 43 40.2 32.8 45.9

Local public administration 35.9 30.0 30 33.8

Fiscal inspectorates 43.1 39.8 41.2 45.9

Customs 57.8 62.1 55.4 53.9

Police 61.7 69.5 59.8 57.6

Prosecutor offices 53.1 60.5 41.8 45.5

Sanitary inspections 44.1 39.7 39.8 37.4

Cadastral Bureaus 37 35.3 26.2 26.3

Privatization 40.1 37.7 28.8 31.0

Renting the state property 35.9 35.5 30.6 31.0

Courts of law 48.5 59.3 36.6 52.3

Public procurements 38.3 34.6 30 31.9

Education institutions 55 65.6 57 Z

Health care institutions 60.5 67.1 63.5 Z

Offices of civil records 28 30.4 21.5 Z

Passport bureaus 32.1 25.6 28.3 18.8

Utility service 24.5 18.4 17.7 15.8

Chamber of State Register 25.7 23.3 18.5 17.4

Fire inspections 25.5 22.8 23.3 26.1

Power/electricity inspections 25.1 20.8 21.3 19.6

Environment inspections 25.5 22.0 20.5 22.0

Chamber of Commerce and Industry 26.9 Z 18.3 Z

CCECC 28.1 32.4 19.1 27.0


16

Information and Security Service Z 21.1 Z Z

Issuing visas 38.9 30.7 31.2 21.4

Licensing 39.1 37.0 32.8 25.2

Notary offices 37.8 35.8 26.9 20.8

Attorneys 39.7 49.9 27.7 32.4

Access to credits/loans 24.1 23.3 17.5 23.1

Vehicle registration, issuing driving licenses 41.3 53.1 40 42.7

Technical revision of vehicles 43.1 51.2 41.8 43.5

Issuing construction authorizations 36.9 50.6 38 42.1

Water supply 21.1 20.6 14.6 15.6

Power supply 20.5 18.9 14 16.4

Gas supply 21.3 17.2 13.6 14.6

Heating supply/thermic agent 17.6 17.4 13.2 14.4

Labor inspection 20.3 22.3 18.7 19.4

Telecommunications 16.5 16.5 12.2 11.0 Insurance companies 18.3 17.7 15.3 10.6

Household representatives consider that the corruption phenomenon is most spread among police, health

care institutions, education institutions, customs, prosecutor offices and courts of law. Compared to 2008,

the share of respondents that indicated these domains as most corrupt has increased.

In the opinion of business people, the institutions/domains most affected by corruption are: police, customs,

law courts, fiscal inspectorates, prosecutor offices. Compared to 2008, the share of respondents indicating

courts of law, fiscal inspectorates and prosecutor offices as the most corrupt areas has increased.

When asked which of the three branches of governance is most corrupt, both categories of respondents

indicated the Judiciary system.

Which branch of the governance is most corrupt? %

Households

Business

people

Legislative (Parliament) 25.7 11.6

Judiciary (Courts system) 45.7 51.8

Executive (Government) 22.7 19.8

Do not know 5.9 16.7

Unofficial ways to solve problems with public servants


17

Households as well as business people consider cash as the main way to solve problems with public

servants. Compared to 2008, their share increased.

Is it easier to solve a problem in an unofficial way?

Compared to 2008, the share of respondents who consider that it is easier to solve their problems unofficial

ways slightly increased.

Share of respondents who consider that it is easier to solve their problems in an unofficial way,%

2005 2007 2008 2012

Households z 48.6 49 53

Business people z 45.7 41.8 47.6


18

IV. Experiences while contacting public institutions

Most contacted institutions

Did you contact the following institutions/authorities during the last 12 months? (%of the total)


19

Institutions where unofficial payments are made most frequently. Did you pay unofficially while dealing

with the following institutions/authorities during the last 12 months? % of those who paid.


20

Amount of Average Bribe

Business people: average bribe

Number of

payments

Minimal

amount,

lei

Maximal

amount,

lei

Average,

lei

Health care institutions 107 20 9000 1174

Customs 72 50 12000 3145

Police 64 50 10000 2032

Education institutions 61 100 8000 1205

Technical revisions of vehicles 56 50 2500 523

Fiscal inspections 55 50 10000 1781

Sanitary inspections 54 100 5000 955

Fire inspections 42 30 7000 2282

Vehicle registration and issuing the driving licenses 27 100 3000 952

Cadastral bureaus 24 150 10000 2740

Environment protection services 22 30 8000 3024

Notaries 19 100 1000 439

Labor inspections 18 100 6000 1139

Issuing construction authorizations 16 400 4000 2463

Passport bureau 13 100 1500 685

Courts of law 12 98 6000 4550

Telecommunications 10 100 2500 460

Access to credits/ loans 9 100 1500 672

Visa issuing 8 800 3000 1663

Prosecutors 5 1000 3000 2000

Gas supply 5 100 600 370

Utility services 5 50 500 250

Attorneys 4 1000 2000 1375

Licensing 3 1000 4000 2000

Power supply 3 100 5000 1867

Power inspection 3 500 2500 1667

State Chamber of Register 3 300 1000 600

Renting state property 1 1000 1000 1000

Public procurements 1 1000 1000 1000

Privatization 1 300 300 300

Water supply 1 100 100 100

Heat supply/thermic agent 1 100 100 100

Center for Combating Economic Crime and Corruption 0 0 0 0


21

Households: average bribe

Number of

payments

Minimal

amount, lei

Maximal

amount, lei

Average,

lei

Central public administration 8 30 3000 652

Health care institutions 229 50 5000 992

Education institutions 125 50 5000 1412

Police 63 20 5000 687

Customs 46 50 8000 1061

Technical revision of vehicles 32 30 1000 347

Local public administration 19 10 5000 1021

Sanitary inspections 16 50 6000 1084

Registering vehicles and issuing driving licenses 16 50 2000 689

Fiscal inspectorates 14 100 6000 1072

Passport bureaus 12 20 700 237

Cadastral bureaus 10 30 6000 1116

Civil register offices 10 50 3000 528

Issuing visas 9 300 10000 2787

Courts of law 7 210 5000 1701

Utility services 5 50 150 90

Notaries 5 50 400 213

Prosecutors 4 2000 6000 4378

Attorneys 4 2000 10000 5274

Water supply 4 100 700 305

Labor inspection 4 250 3000 1218

Telecommunications 4 50 300 158

Privatization 3 1000 2000 1485

Power inspections 2 180 7000 4111

Licensing 2 1500 3000 2293

Access to credits/ loans 2 100 1000 647

Issuing construction authorizations 2 200 500 408

Fire inspections 1 200 2000 1131

Power supply 1 500 500 500

Renting state property 0

Public procurements 0

State Chamber of Register 0

Environment inspection 0

Center for Combating Economic Crime and

Corruption

0

Internal Security Service 0

Gas supply 0

Heat supply/thermic agent 0

Insurance companies 0


22

Total estimated amount of bribe

The estimation of the total amount of bribes paid by households and business people in separate institutions

was based on such indicators as the incidence/frequency of bribes in each institution/domain, the amount of

the average bribe and the total number of businesses/households in the country. The estimation of the total

number of households3 on January 1, 2012 was based on the official statistics on the total population of the

Republic of Moldova (excluding Transnistria) and the average size of households.

The estimation of the total amount of bribes paid by households was based on the total number of

households (1,131 thousand), while the estimation of the total amount of bribes paid by business people –

the total number of economic agents registered at the State Chamber of Registration4 - 162,360, of which

66,404 individual entrepreneurs, 79,181 limited liability companies, 4,808 corporations, 4,017

cooperatives, 1,490 state and municipal enterprises, 3,313 non-commercial organizations, 3,147 - other.

According to the calculations, the total amount of bribes paid by households made in 2012 was about 732.7

million Lei, increasing in absolute terms, compared to 2008, by over 15%. Taking into consideration an

about 30% increase in consumer prices for goods and services in the same period of time5, in real terms

the amount of bribes paid by households decreased by almost 15%. In 2012, the households paid bribes

mostly to health care institutions (238 million Lei), education institutions (185 million Lei) and police (45.4

million Lei). It is notable that while the police made good progress in these terms compared to 2008, when

the total amount of bribes decreased from 97 million Lei in 2008 to 45.4 million Lei in 2012, the situation

in health care and education system was different. Thus, the total amount of bribes paid to the health care

system increased, compared to 2008, by a quarter, or a little slower than the increase of the consumer prices

for services. As for the education system, the total amount of bribes paid in this domain increased 2.9

times, compared to 2008. This in no way can be explained by the inflation phenomenon.

Households - Evolution of Total Bribes (Mill. Lei)

2005 2007 2008 2012

Police 81.5 79.9 97 45.4

Education 126 76.5 64 185

Health care 200 153 190 238

Other 493.6 280.6 279 264.3

TOTAL 901.1 590 630 732.7

The total amount of bribes paid by businesses in 2012 amounted to about 390 million Lei, increasing by

approximately 49% compared to 2008. The main payments were made to the customs officers (75 million

Lei), health care institutions (41.6 million Lei), police (41 million Lei) and fiscal inspectors (32.4 million

Lei).

Estimated Total Bribes: Businesses, Mill. Lei

Customs 75

Health care system 41.6

Police 41

Fiscal inspectorates 32.4

Fire inspectors 31.8

3http://statbank.statistica.md/pxweb/Database/RO/02%20POP/POP01/POP01.asp 4http://cis.gov.md-content/6#1 5http://statbank.statistica.md

http://statbank.statistica.md/pxweb/Database/RO/02%20POP/POP01/POP01.asp

http://cis.gov.md-content/6#1

http://statbank.statistica.md/


23

Educational institutions 24.4

Environment inspections 22

Cadastral bureaus 21.8

Courts of law 18.1

Sanitary-epidemiological inspections 17.1

Issuing construction authorizations 13.1

Technical revision of vehicles 9.7

Vehicle Registration, Driver’s License

issuing authority 8.5

Labor inspections 6.8

Other 26.7

TOTAL 390

The evolution of the estimated total amount of bribes paid by businesses shows a 1.5 times growth of this

indicator compared to 2008, which cannot be explained only by inflation and, essentially, proves a

worsening of the business environment in Moldova.

Businesses – evolution of the total amount of

bribes (million Lei)

2005 2007 2008 2012

Customs 120 66.1 33.8 75

Fiscal inspections 69.3 36 25.8 32.4

Courts of law Z 23.3 11.2 18.1

Construction authorization

authorities 14.5 26.5 8.1 13.1

Other 203 155.7 185.1 251.4

TOTAL 406.8 307.6 264 390

The purpose of unofficial payments

The respondents were asked to indicate the aim of the unofficial payment that they have made. They had to

choose from two options: to avoid punishment for breaking the law or tospeed up the process (so-called oil

the wheels), which is to obtain a faster or better service that had to be provided in any case. The answers

differed from one domain to another. If the majority of unofficial payments made to medical institutions

were made to speed up the provision of services, in the law enforcement institutions about half of the bribes

were given to avoid punishment/sanctions.

Households (% of respondents that paid unofficially)

Police

Health care institutions

Courts of law

To avoid punishment 36.3 17.1

59.1

To speed up the process 63.7 82.9 40.9

Business people(% of respondents that paid unofficially)

Customs Fiscal inspectorates

To avoid punishment 33.3 64.6

To speed up the process 66.7 35.4


24

Compared to 2008, the share of those who offered unofficial payments to police officers to speed up the

process increased; in the rest of the areas, this numbers diminished, the most essential decrease being

registered in the fiscal inspectorates, where the share of these payments decreased from 75.3% in 2008 to

35.4% in 2012.

Unofficial payments made voluntarily or under pressure?

The respondents were asked to indicate whether they paid unofficially on their own initiative or if they

have been forced to do so. The answers indicated that the payments to the police and health care

institutions were made voluntarily, while the ones made in the courts of law, customs and fiscal

inspectorates were made under pressure.

Households(% of respondents that paid unofficially)

Police

Health care institutions

Courts of law

Were forced to pay 46.9 36.5 74.2

Paid on their own initiative 53.1 63.5 25.8

Businesses(% of respondents that paid unofficially)

Customs Fiscal inspectorates

Were forced to pay 64.5 58.6

Paid on their own initiative 35.5 41.4

Compared to 2008, in all of the sectors mentioned above, the share of those who made unofficial payments on their own initiative has diminished. The most significant change was achieved in the courts of law, where this indicator decreased from 67.8% in 2008 to 25.8% in 2012.

Concrete cases of corruption invoked by correspondents

All of the respondents were asked to give concrete examples of corruption from their experience in the last 12 months. To protect them from eventual persecution or pressure, the information that allows them to be identified was removed from this report.

Households:

My sister was not allowed to pass the border at the airport, because her luggage was too heavy.

After she gave 15 Euro to the customs officer, she was let to go (Questionnaire 4);

To receive a new passport, birth certificate and marriage license faster, I had to make unofficial

payments of about 200-300 Lei for each document at the Civil Registry Office and the Passport

Bureau (Questionnaire 6);

To see a doctor within an hour, I had to pay an unofficial fee of 100 Lei; otherwise, the

appointment would have been in two weeks (Questionnaire 10);

To see a doctor without an appointment I had to pay him 100 Lei (Questionnaire 15);

I was forced to pay bribes by a university professor - 300 Lei to pass each exam (Questionnaire 17);

I was needlessly directed to the passport bureau, the archives, and the registry office to resolve a

problem, and at each location I was told to bribe in average 100 Lei to solve my problem

(Questionnaire 20);

I have been asked to pay money to check my child out of the hospital (Questionnaire 21);

I had to pay the doctor 100 Lei to see the results of my medical tests (Questionnaire 23);


25

The Chief of Department at the Nisporeni Clinic required money to allow me to ask for a second

opinion at a better clinic in Chisinau. I gave her the money, because my child was very sick.

(Questionnaire 37);

I have been asked to pay for gifts for the teachers and school principle, because they did not want to

“wear out their shoes for my child” (Questionnaire 45);

The doctor did not want to take the castoff my leg. Despite my insurance, he said that he did not

work for free. He also demanded 50 Lei when I asked to receive a note for school to explain my

absences from physical education classes (Questionnaire 56);

The doctor requested 1,500 Lei to see me with my 6 month old baby. This consultation was

supposed to be free (Questionnaire 69);

I bribed a doctor 50 Lei to get a health certificate for the youth summer camp (Questionnaire 82);

I bribed the police so I would not get arrested (Questionnaire 86);

When passing the border with over 4 liters of wine, I bribed the border agent 1000 Russian Rubles

(Questionnaire 93);

Because I work and go to school, I often miss classes. My professor hinted that money could solve

the problem with my absences (Questionnaire 100);

On one instance, the professor told me to put 300 Lei into my transcript papers that he had to sign

to get an 8 in his class (Questionnaire 108);

At the university my daughter paid 200 Lei for each exam (Questionnaire 112);

I bribe the police officer 100 Lei each time to avoid getting a police record (Questionnaire 114);

My child was forced to pay 300 Lei for each exam (Questionnaire 116);

I paid the professor 100 Lei for each exam (Questionnaire 118);

I paid a 100 Lei bribe to the police officer for exceeding the speed limit. The officer asked, „should

we solve this now, or should I start writing a police record?” On a different occasion I bribed a

doctor 100 Lei to get a medical screening (Questionnaire 122);

I could not pass the driving test, so I paid a 50 Euro bribe to get my license (Questionnaire 140);

I was on my way to get a car inspection when I got pulled over. I had to bribe 200 Lei to be let go

(Questionnaire 153);

I drove over the speed limit and got pulled over by police. The officer asked that I step into his car,

where I was told that I would need to pay unofficially (Questionnaire 162);

I was very ill: I was having terrible headaches and dizziness. The doctor examined me and asked

for a 200 Lei bribe to share his medical opinion and decision on whether I should be hospitalized


I was beaten badly by a person in my community. When I filed a report at the police station, they

told me that they will look into my case only if I pay a 1,000 Lei bribe (Questionnaire 186);

When they see that you are coming from temporary work in Moscow, the agents at the border

between Moldova and Ukraine start looking for all sorts of flaws that you can pay a 10 or 20 Euro

bribe for to be allowed to cross the border (Questionnaire 195);

I went to see the doctor in the rayon. The medical assistant told me that without 50 Lei bribe the

doctor won’t even look at me (Questionnaire 202);

I paid 250 Euro at the Civil Registry Office to speed up the process of issuing my documents


My mom was supposed to receive disability benefits. She was asked to pay informally 500 Lei,

which she could not afford and therefore, she did not receive the disability benefits (Questionnaire

225);

I was forced to pay my child’s teachers 1,500 Lei. I was told that if I did not pay, my child would

not pass the end of school baccalaureate exams (Questionnaire 235);


26

To pass the baccalaureate exams in the town of Orhei, they collected 1,500 Lei from each student


I have been asked to pay 1,300 Lei for the baccalaureate exams of my son (Questionnaire 243);

I paid to the judge 3,000 Lei to solve the case in my favor. Otherwise, I would have lost


Our former mayor required a 200 USD bribe to offer me a little land lot where I could open a store


My son was arrested and released after I paid a bribe. The police officers and the prosecutor shared

the money among themselves (Questionnaire 295);

I bribed the professor 2,000 Lei to improve my son’s grades (Questionnaire 298);

I was required to pay 1,500 Lei unofficially to place my child in kindergarten (Questionnaire 300);

I was asked to pay unofficially 1,000 USD for my mom’s surgery, otherwise they would not do it


The police stopped me for exceeding the speed limit. They hinted that I should give a bribe to avoid

getting a police record. They did not let me go until I paid 100 Lei (Questionnaire 316);

I was in the hospital for the fifth day in a row and they still did not pay to me any attention. I was

forced to “thank” them by paying a bribe to receive help (Questionnaire 359);

My husband was asked to pay 100 USD to receive a disability certificate (Questionnaire 385);

For the admission in Soroca College I was asked to pay 4000 Lei for the contract and bribe in

advance 1,200 Lei for the exams (Questionnaire 394);

My husband ran for mayor as an independent. He was proposed to join a political party in exchange

for more votes (Questionnaire 396);

My vehicle did not pass the technical revision for the last 8 years. When the police stops me, I give

them a bribe (Questionnaire 397);

The windshield of my car is broken and I pay bribes each time I have to pass a technical revision


I was supposed to pass a medical examination with my one year old child. They told me that I will

have to bribe 20 Lei to each of the 7 doctors. I did not have the money and my child was not

examined (Questionnaire 401);

My husband required hospitalization and the doctors asked for a bribe. Without payment, they told

me, my husband would need to wait for another 3 months. I did not have the money and my

husband is still staying ill at home (Questionnaire 406);

I was hospitalized in Floresti to have a surgery and my mother bribed 6,000 Lei for my care


I was hospitalized to have a spine surgery. Even with health insurance, the doctors requested that I

pay a bribe of 200 Lei for the consultation and 2,000 Lei for the surgery (Questionnaire 420);

In the town of Edineţ, in addition to the official fee, the doctors asked for an unofficial payment of

8,000 Lei for my child delivery (Questionnaire 421);

In the district disability council I was told that my documents were not in order and asked to pay

300 Euro to increase my disability status, even thou the documents were in order and issued in

Chisinau. (Questionnaire 424);

The mail delivery woman that brings us our pensions required that I pay her for the service, even if

these are her duties. She collects all of the newspapers and brings them with a 4-5 days delay


I had two incidents involving traffic police. The first time I exceeded the speed limit and to avoid

all of the trouble, I paid them half of the official fine. The second time I was not even guilty, but I

gave them a bribe, because I did not have time to give them explanations (Questionnaire 447);


27

I paid the doctors for the surgery. In addition, the anesthesiologist asked for 800 Lei. He did not

even want to hear of a smaller amount (Questionnaire 458);

I gave a 175 Lei bribe to the cadastral office, otherwise my problem would have been solved in a

much longer time (Questionnaire 462);

I needed medical control certificate urgently to be able to apply for a job. The doctor said that a 100

Lei bill in his pocket would get me the certificate in one day (Questionnaire 474);

When I was hospitalized with my baby-child, I had to bribe the medical assistant 30 Lei for each

injection. Before that, they were giving each shot with a lot of anger. After I paid them, they

became friendlier. On a different occasion, I bribed a judge 5,000 Lei through the attorney to solve

the problem accrued in an road accident that I was not guilty of (Questionnaire 477);

To avoid getting a 600 Lei fine for driving over the speed limit, I paid the police officer 100 Lei


I bribed the police officer 500 Lei for an infringement that is usually punished by a 1,000 Lei fine.

Also this year, I paid 300 Lei to pass an exam. I put the money into the exam book (Questionnaire

485);

We pay for grades at our university – 150-500 Lei each time (Questionnaire 505);

I had problems related to property division. I bribed the judge and almost won the case, when the

other side paid more and won the process (Questionnaire 509 );

I gave 500 Lei and a bottle of cognac to the doctor that attended my delivery at the maternity ward.

The doctor made a scandal, because I paid too little (Questionnaire 521);

I voluntarily gave my professors 1,000 Lei to improve my grades (Questionnaire 525);

The road police stopped me on many occasions for breaking traffic rules and each time I gave them

on average 150 Lei (Questionnaire 526);

I had to pay for my medical treatment. I wanted to pay at the cash register and the doctor said that I

should not go there myself, and that I should not worry as he would pass the payment to the cash

register on his own (Questionnaire 527);

I had to have a surgery in Chisinau and I did not receive a medical consultation until I paid 1000

Lei before the surgery and then 3,000 Lei for a better treatment, otherwise they would not have

even looked at me (Questionnaire 528);

My husband had a surgery at the oncology hospital. It is scary what happens there. If you do not

put money in the medical card, nobody will look at you, even if you die there. Now, when he goes

there for a consultation, he does not even walk in without bringing 200 Lei (Questionnaire 533);

The public servant at the office that issues construction authorizations said that he does not work

for free and that his wage only motivates him to come to work. To do the actual job, he needs

additional payments of at least 200 Lei. I gave him all that I had and it seems that it was not

enough, because he extended the procedure for an extra week (Questionnaire 534);

My husband works in Odessa and comes home only once every three weeks, because the customs

officers demand 150 Ukrainian Hrivnas to enter the country and 150 to leave (Questionnaire 544);

To extend the term of the disability pension, I paid 300 Lei to the disability evaluation commission


My granddaughter asked for 800 Lei (my entire monthly pension) to pay a bribe for her school

exams. They told her that if she did not pay, she would not graduate and will not be allowed to take

the baccalaureate exam (Questionnaire 571);

My grandson was registered for kindergarten. Immediately, the director required 1,000 Lei to cover

the needs of the kindergarten. I did not have the money and therefore, had to take the grandson

home (Questionnaire 580);

When I was returning from Italy, at the border the customs officers unpacked my entire luggage

making me understand that they would not let me go until I give them 50 Euro. I waited for 4 hours

and was let go only after I gave those 50 Euro (Questionnaire 581);


28

I paid the doctor 1,000 Lei for the surgery and then another one 200 Lei to pay attention to my

problems. They called me themselves behind a door and told me how much I had to pay


I paid a 3,000 Lei bribe to receive my son’s diploma faster and with better grades. I do not wish to

name the university. (Questionnaire 590);

My son has a second degree disability, because of a problem with his knee. When we went to the

medical disability evaluation commission, the doctors told me that when I come next time, I should

remember to pay each one of the three members of the commission. They added that if I did not do

that, they would give my son a third degree of disability. My son’s disability pension is 104 Lei


My brother has cancer. In 2009 he had a surgery and received the second degree of disability. Last

year they gave him the third degree, but he cannot work. We addressed the disability evaluation

commission, but did not resolve our problem. Other employees of the hospital told us that we could

solve the problem for 2,000 Lei (Questionnaire 649);

Four months ago my nephew got very sick. He lives outside Moldova and has another citizenship. I

called the ambulance and the doctors said that the child needs hospitalization. The hospital doctors

refused to assist my nephew, because he did not have Moldovan citizenship, but when I gave them

200 Lei, the problem was solved (Questionnaire 653);

My son had an appendicitis surgery at the Sîngerei hospital. The doctors asked for extra money

before and after the surgery (Questionnaire 661);

I wanted to maintain the second degree disability for a life time, but the doctors asked for 1,000

Lei. I negotiated and paid him 700 Lei. After this, he said he would solve my problem next year. I

think he will require money again (Questionnaire 670);

I was hospitalized for an urgent surgery and they did not want operate on me until I paid them

unofficially 2,000 Lei (Questionnaire 692);

I had a surgery at Hospital Nr.1. The doctors required 2,000 Lei in advance to avoid problems and

complications during the surgery (Questionnaire 703);

Before giving birth, I paid 100 Euro in advance to the doctor to be sure he will help me


After giving birth, I thanked the doctor with 150 Euro, the medical assistant – with 50 Lei and all

other medical personnel – 30 Lei each (Questionnaire 780);

I had to pay at the university for the exams about 100 - 200 Lei, even if otherwise I had good

grades (Questionnaire 795);

The fiscal inspector conducted a control and we had to pay 5,000 Lei to avoid paying a bigger fine


To pass the baccalaureate exams, my granddaughter had to pay 1,500 Lei (Questionnaire 802);

Our family doctor kept complaining that she had 50 children to take care of in her sector and that

nobody properly thanked her. I decided to buy her a 200 Lei gift (Questionnaire 818);

I bribed a doctor 500 Lei to get an X-Ray of my hand faster (Questionnaire 886);

My child was hospitalized with a head tumor. I do not event want to start describing how the

doctors mistreated him until I paid 15,000 Lei (Questionnaire 888);

I had problems with my leg and even having health insurance they squeezed from me about 5,000

Lei (Questionnaire 892 );

My son was in critical condition in a hospital in Chisinau. I talked to the doctor and paid a 150 Lei

bribe before and 150 Lei after he looked at my child (Questionnaire 899);

I had to cross the border in Galaţi and I had too many cigarettes. I paid to the customs officers and

they let me go (Questionnaire 918);

I have a child with a second degree of disability. Twice a year he gets treatment at the Centre for

rehabilitation of people with disabilities in Chisinau. I am forced to pay bribe to each staff member,


29

beginning with the chief-doctor and ending up with custodians, otherwise nobody care of my child


I even had to pay bribe to transfer my sic relative from her hospital room into the surgery room.


I paid a 3,000 Lei bribe to the doctor for a surgery (Questionnaire 973);

My son passed the Baccalaureate exam and the driving test. I had to pay bribes for both.


Two months ago I had to pay 2,500 Lei to the midwife for the birth. If I wouldn’t pay, she would

not take care and be rude with my wife (Questionnaire 1023);

They asked that I pay for the X-ray. When I presented my health insurance card they sarcastically

suggested that I show it to my husband (Questionnaire 1028);

I paid 1,000 Lei so that my son passes the end of school baccalaureate exam (Questionnaire 1060);

My wife passed away because the doctors did not state the right diagnosis. They extorted all of my

money, and as soon as I stopped paying bribes they interrupted the treatment (Questionnaire 1066);

I am building a home in Făleşti and to solve my problems with the Cadastral Bureau I had to pay a

bribe (Questionnaire 1067);

To enroll her child in kindergarten, my daughter paid 200 USD (Questionnaire 1069);

The doctor told me my diagnoses only after I paid 400 Lei (Questionnaire 1072);

I was working on my property papers and found out that half of my garage was on the property of

the city hall. They asked for a 500 USD bribe and modified the borders of my land plot


The endocrinology doctor waited for me to put an envelope with money on his desk and then

started examining me (Questionnaire 1073);

My mother left me a small piece of land. To inherit the property, I was sent from office to office to

dispute it, and at the end of the way, the land was not worth the time that I have spent on

transferring it into my name. After I bribed the employees of the Cadastral Bureau, the documents

were ready in 30 minutes (Questionnaire 1080);

My doctor in Făleşti does not even look at the health insurance card and always hits that I have to

pay. This happens each time. I do not want to ever see him again (Questionnaire 1083);

The doctor asked for money and I did not give it to him. I paid for the health insurance and did not

have money for a bribe. My neighbor in the hospital room paid a bribe and they treated her well


I have eye problems and had to bribe the eye doctor for a certificate I needed to receive a driver’s

license (Questionnaire 1097);

Business people:

My daughter had to pay 2,000 Lei so that my grandson could pass the baccalaureate exam

(Questionnaire 34);

I paid at the customs 5,000 Lei so that they would „close their eyes” and not see the goods that I

was bringing from abroad. I also paid 400 Lei to the fiscal inspector so that he would not register

the deviations from the law (Questionnaire 44);

I paid 300 Lei the customs agent to speed up passing the border (Questionnaire 51);

We had a fiscal control and the inspector found some irregularities. I paid the inspector 10,000 Lei

so that he did not register the problems in his report (Questionnaire 52);

I got a surgery at the Oncology Hospital in Chisinau. The doctor called me in and told me to pay

him 200 Euro. I did (Questionnaire 58);


30

I was bringing goods for sale from the Ukraine to Moldova and paid 300 Lei to the customs officers

so that they would not retain me at the border (Questionnaire 60);

I paid a 3,000 Lei bribe to the customs officer (Questionnaire 88);

I wanted to participate in a public procurement bid, but I found out that the son of a highly ranked

public servant won the bid before it started (Questionnaire 103);

I had to pay 100 Euro to be able to enter into the country (Questionnaire 113);

Last year, during a fiscal control, they found some discrepancies in my bills. I was risking paying a

big fine, because I had similar problems previously. The fiscal inspector named the amount of

money that I had to pay to avoid problems, so I paid. (Questionnaire 137);

I wrote a petition against the city mayor. The Prosecutor office opened a criminal file against me,

but the Center for Combating Economic Crime and Corruption closed the case due to my highly

ranked relatives (Questionnaire 157);

Policemen come each Sunday to my little store and demand money (Questionnaire 182);

My farm was robbed. The guilty person was not punished because he shared what he stole with

policemen. They did not even examine the case. They even did not note his name. (Questionnaire

208);

To avoid standing in line at the border, we always pay and pass the border quickly (Questionnaire

235);

The employees of the fire department found some irregularities and I had to pay a 10,000 Lei fine. I

paid to their chief a part of the amount and solved my problem (Questionnaire 254);

I could not solve my problem at the Cadastral Bureau until I paid a 800 Lei bribe. I also paid on my

own initiative 300 Lei to the doctor to have a more rigorous examination and to get better attention


When I visited the Cadastral Office in 2010 to make the evaluation of the real estate, they told me

that there is no need for this. In 2012 I got a fine, because I did not declare the real estate property

and had to pay 30% of the undeclared amount – about 1,600 Lei. They suggested me to pay

unofficially 800 lei. I did not accept and preferred to pay the fine. (Questionnaire 267);

To avoid customs control, I give my driver 30% of the cost of the goods. Then he makes

arrangements with the customs officers and everything goes well (Questionnaire 288);

To receive an advantageous credit I paid to the bank clerk 10% of the credit (Questionnaire 295);

We always pay 20% to the customs to pass the border faster (Questionnaire 342);

I paid a bribe to speed up the issuance of the construction authorization (Questionnaire 368);

I solicited a lot of land from local authorities to open a business and received a refusal that said

there cannot be any business on this public place. A month later, the son of the city mayor opened

his business on that very location (Questionnaire 386);

I paid a bribe for the construction authorization (Questionnaire 393);

I gave a bribe of 400 Lei to the policeman when he came with a control (Questionnaire 416);

The fire inspector found irregularities and required a bribe of unofficial payments. I gave them

everything I had. (Questionnaire 426);

When I cross the border in my car, the customs officers always require a bribe in the form of

money (Questionnaire 427);

I paid a bribe to those from Sanitary Inspection to receive a certificate faster so that I could start my

business (Questionnaire 448);


31

V. Corruption and business environment

The contribution of the state in the business environment

One third of respondents consider that the state institutions impede entrepreneurial activities. It is

remarkable that during the last 10 years this negative perception significantly decreased.Compared to

2002, the share of business people thinking in this way diminished more than two-fold, from 74.7% to

33.2%.

Share of business people who think that the state mainly impedes their activity, %

2005 2007 2008 2012

46,7 47,3 33,8 33,2

Work time spent on solving problems with public servants

The results show that in 2012, business people spent a little more than one tenth (11.1%) of their time

settling problems with the representatives of public institutions, although this indicator has declined almost

two-fold since 2005.


32

The response of control agencies to deviations from the law

It is interesting to see that the changes in the respondents’ perception regarding the behavior of control

bodies also changed in a positive way. Thus, more than two thirds of the respondents consider that the

fiscal inspector behaves correctly, following the procedures. It is also notable that the share of business

people who have positive experience with fiscal inspectors increased from 41.1% in 2005 to 72.5% in

2012.

Share of businesses that consider that the fiscal inspector follows the correct procedures during the fiscal

controls, %

2005 2007 2008 2012

41,1 60,5 66 72,5

The size of bribe compared with the tax evasion

If the fiscal inspector discloses a tax infringement X, which part of this X one can give to the fiscal

inspector to „solve the problem”? (% from X)


33

According to the business people, when an infringement is discovered, they can bribe the fiscal inspector

on average 15.6% of the amount that they owe to the state to resolve the problem. The trend shows a

constant decrease of this amount between 2005-2012. This trend cannot be interpreted in a positive way,

but rather it means that tax evasion is not discouraged and the losses of the state, due to corruption in fiscal

inspections, become more significant, compared to the size of the bribes accepted by the public servants,

particularly by fiscal inspectors.

Frequency of controlsperformed by the government

Average number of visits by state control bodies during one year

2005 2007 2008 2012

Fiscal inspectors 2.72 3.23 2.67 1.74

Police officers 4.38 2.88 2.48 1.33

Fire inspectors 1.55 1.76 1.92 0.68

Power/energy inspectors 2.96 3.25 2.88 0.75

Sanitary inspectors 3.04 2.75 2.36 0.87

Center for Combatting Economic Crime

and Corruption officers

2.38 1.69 1.63 0.28

Environment protection officers 1.58 2.37 1.54 0.32

Labor inspectors 1.43 1.91 1.79 0.49

According the responses of the business people, they were visited most frequently by police officers. This

shows adecreasingin the number of visits from the state representatives. Thus, in 2008 the total number of

visits was about 21 and in 2012 it diminished to 6.5, or decreased more than three-fold.

Participation in public procurement bids

19.2 % of the interviewed businesses participated in public procurement bids; this share slightly decreased

when compared to 2008 (22.1%).

The main argument they made for this was the low transparency and fairness in the public procurements

procedures.

Reasons for non-participating in public procurement bids, %

2005 2007 2008 2012

Complexity of the process 46.6 47.4 40.1 17.7

High cost of the procedure 43.2 56.5 41.1 16.4

Too much competition 45.1 46.8 39.1 20.9

Would not win without paying a bribe 46.4 48 33 20

The procurement bids are not

transparent and fair

49.4 53 36.5 27.6

Direct contracts are simpler 58.7 59.6 50.4 29.1


34

VI. Engagement in preventing corruption

Disposition to pay a bribe

The respondents in both categories were asked „If you are in a difficult situation, would you pay a bribe?”

More than two thirds of the respondents answered affirmatively. However, the overall number of those

who answered negatively increased.

Share of respondents that are NOT willing to pay bribes in difficult situations, %

2005 2007 2008 2012

Households 23 24,1 34,7 27,1

Businesses 12 19,5 23,5 27,9

Emotional aspects of paying a bribe

How do you feel when you give a bribe to solve a problem?

Households

Business People

Revolted 33.2% 37.8%

Humiliated 39.9% 38.8%

Indifferent 10.5% 12.2%

Satisfied 6.1% 3.5%

Happy 3.3% 0.4%

Do not know 7.0% 7.3%

Three quarters of the respondents in both categories had negative emotions related to bribing. However,

compared to 2008, the share of people that do not tolerate bribes increased significantly. Their share among

households increased from 49.3% in 2008 to 73.1% in 2012 and for business people – from 41.2% in 2008

to 76.6% in 2012.

Share of respondents that had negative emotions related to bribing,%

2005 2007 2008 2012

Households 49.6 42.1 49.3 73.1

Business people 44.1 43.8 41.2 76.6


35

Tolerance towards corruption

How acceptable is the situation when a public servant accepts an informal payment and uses it to pay

his/her utility bill, %

Households Business people

Totally acceptable 2.1% 2.7%

Partially acceptable 10.7% 5.3%

Acceptable as exception 16.8% 12.7%

Not acceptable 60.4% 75.4%

Do not know/no response 10.0% 3.9%

Compared to 2008, the share of those who do not consider acceptable these situations increased among

households from 55.8% in 2008 to 67.1% in 2012. Among business people this share increased from

61.8% in 2008 to 78.5% in 2012. In a more extended dynamic this trend can be seen better.

Share of respondents that would not accept a situation in which a public servant accepts bribes to

pay his/her utility bills

2005 2007 2008 2012

Households 43 60.2 55.8 67.1

Businesses 49 58.1 61.8 78.5


36

VII. Resistance to corruption

Facing cases of corruption

Denouncing corruption

Solving problems in a legal way

Whom did you complain to?, %

Households Businesses

To the police 24.7 33.3

To the prosecutor 18.8 44.4

In courts of law 18 0

To my superior 14.9 11.1

To Center for Combatting Economic Crimes and Corruption 12.9 11.1

To mass-media 8.8 11.1

To the Government, President, Parliament 8.8 0

Attorney 7.6 11.1

Other 6.3 0

Friends, relatives 6.1 0

Why was a complaint not submitted? (Multiple choice answer)

Households

Businesses

Did not know to whom to address it to 6.8% 4.8% It would have taken too much time 12.0% 16.0% Nothing would have changed 57.4% 54.0% It would have created more problems 32.7% 39.6% Other 3.8% 0%


37

It is important to note that the share of those who do not know where and how to submit a complaint

severely diminishes.

Share of respondents that do not know whom to address in cases of corruption,%

2005 2007 2008 2012



The answers show that 37.3% of the total number of representatives of households faced corruption, 1.9%

tried to solve their problem in a legal way/complained about their case and only 0.9% of the total

succeeded to solve their problem entirely or partially.

Also, 40% of the total number of businesses faced corruption in the last 12 months, 1.8% of the total tried

to address their problem in a legal way and only 0.7% succeeded to solve them partially or entirely. This

explains the low level of willingness to collaborate with public institution in the matters of preventing

corruption.

Professionalism and credibility of the law enforcement institutions

Professionalism of law enforcement and control bodies’ staff members, %

2007 2008 2012

High Medium Low High Medium Low High Medium Low

Fiscal inspectors (resp.- bus) 17.2 68.1 14.7 22.4 61 16.6 21.6 64.4 14.0

Police officers (resp.- households) 6.3 57.7 36 11.4 58.5 30.1 9.8 50.5 39.7

Customs officers (resp. - buss) 8.2 66.2 25.6 14.3 56.1 29.6 6.2 66.5 27.2

Judges (resp.- households) 11.5 67 21,5 16.1 62.1 21,8 21 55,6 23,4

Collaborators of CCECC (resp.-

bus)

18.1 62.9 19 30.2 52.1 17.7 19.6 63.6 16.7

Collaborators of Internal Security

Service (resp.- bus)

z z z z z Z 26.3 60.3 13.4

Prosecutors (resp.- households) z z z z z z 18.9 60.0 21.1

If a ranking of law enforcement institutions and control bodies would be made based on the respondents’

evaluation, the officers of the Internal Service and Security would be ranked as most professional, second

would belong to the fiscal inspectors, followed by collaborators of the Center for Combatting Economic

Crimes and Corruption, and the prosecutors’ office. The list would be closed by judges, customs officers

and police officers.


38

Credibility of law enforcement and staff members of the control bodies, %

How much trust do you have in the following professions, %

2007 2008 2012

Absence

of trust

or few

trust

A lot of

trust or

total

trust

Absence

of trust

or few

trust

A lot of

trust or

total

trust

Absence

of trust

or few

trust

A lot of

trust or

total

trust

Fiscal inspectors (resp.- bus) 61.5 38.5 68.8 31.2 66.2 33.8

Customs officers (resp.- bus) 84.6 15.4 84.6 15.4 81.3 18.7

Policemen (resp.- households) 84.2 15.8 84 16 86.8 13.2

Judges (resp.- households) 78.6 21.4 79.2 20.8 83.7 16.3

CCECC officers (resp.- bus) 69.4 30.6 59.7 40.3 72.1 27.9

Officers of the Internal Security Service (resp.-

bus) z Z z z 76 24

Prosecutors (resp.- households) z Z z z 77.8 22.2

In a ranking of this type, participants identified fiscal inspectors, followed by CCECC officers as the more

credible groups, and closed the list with customs officers, judges and police officers.


39

VIII. Can corruption be curbed in Moldova?

Most efficient measures to combat corruption

Facing cases of corruption

What should be the monthly salary of the public servant that he/she won’t be tempted to accept bribes?

USD It is certain that if the supremacy of the law is not ensured and corrupt persons are not properly sanctioned,

increasing the salary of public servants would only contribute to inflation and the public servant would

adjust the size of the bribe to the his/her new salary. The estimation made in this study on the total bribe


40

paid in Moldova confirms this premise. Still, when asked what should be the monthly salary of a public

servant that would make him/her resistant to bribes, the respondents proved a good understanding and

came up with realistic and well-motivated figures.

2007 2008 2012

Households Businesses Households Businesses Households Businesses

Minister 1600 2300 1615 2280 1356 1939 Head of Department

900 1270 1090 1460 912 1160

Ordinary public servant

560 685 705 850 653 783

Judge z z z Z 1334 1931

Corruption risks

The financial benefits and other personal gains that result from a corrupt act are the main factors in the

spread of corruption. However, the notion of corruption is very broad and cannot be limited simply to

bribery.

Several indicators pertaining to the risks posed by corruption can be calculated based on the estimated

total bribe and total number of bribes paid in separate domains, as well as the official number of public

servants in these domains, their average wage, and number of corruption cases opened against them.

Corruption risks indicators Judges

(Housh.) CCECC

collaborators

(Bus)

Police officers (Housh.

)

Customs

officers (Bus.)

Fiscal inspectors

(Bus)

Doctors and

assistants

(Housh.)

Teachers/ Professors (Housh.)

Total number, persons 440 507 12899 1809 1706 33512 40159

Average monthly salary (including bonuses, premiums, etc.)

4880 4302 3800 3725 4291 2920 3323

Average bribe, Lei 1701 0 687 3145 1781 992 1412

Estimated total bribes, Mil. Lei 12,5 0 45,4 75 32,4 238 185

Estimated total number of bribes 7163 0 64471 23857 18224 234348 127919

Number of criminal dossiers opened by the CCECC/Anti-corruption Prosecutor Office

0 0 42 10 1 18 20

Average salary compared to the minimum subsistence, %

320 290 250 250 290 190 220

Average bribe compared to the average salary, %

30 0 20 80 40 30 40

Average bribe per person, Thou. Lei

28,4 0,0 3,5 41,5 19,0 7,1 4,6

Probability of being caught read handed (with a bribe), %

0,000 Z 0,065 0,042 0,005 0,008 0,016

Share of persons being caught read handed in the total number, %

0,00 0,00 0,33 0,55 0,06 0,05 0,05

Calculations show that when persons involved in corruption are not properly punished, even a

relatively high salary is not an impediment for taking bribes. For example, for customs employees,

whose salary covers the minimal consumer basket 2.5 times, the average bribe is still high in absolute

terms and compared to their salary.


41

Furthermore, unpunished corrupt persons easily adjust to new conditions and quickly compensate their

losses. Once the size of the bribe diminishes, their frequency increases to balance the loss.

Finally, calculations show that the probability to be caught red-handed was higher among customs

officials. Nonetheless, this likelihood remains extremely low (lower than 1%) in all of the domains,

which further facilitates the spread of the corruption phenomenon.


42

Summary

Transparency International - Moldova carried out this study with the support of the US State Department.

The objective of the study was to analyze the perceptions and the encounters with corruption of households

and business people in the Republic of Moldova, as well as to evaluate the impact of the implementation of

the National Anticorruption Strategy in 2012.

The tasks of the study are the following:

- Evaluating the awareness of the population on the threat of corruption for doing business;

- Identifying the main causes of corruption and their evolution;

- Evaluating the perception and the personal encounters with corruption in 38 domains of public life;

- Estimating the total amount of unofficial payments in various public institutions/services;

- Evaluating the professionalism and credibility of the law enforcement staff members;

- Evaluating public tolerance towards corruption, the acceptability of unofficial payments and

willingness to pay bribes;

- Evaluating public awareness about conflict of interest;

- Identifying the most efficient measures to prevent and combat corruption;

- Identifying the main sources of information about corruption and evaluating the credibility of

information from mass-media;

- Calculating corruption risks indicators for the law enforcement institutions.

Two types of respondents were interviewed for this study: businesspeople and household representatives.

Separate questionnaires were used for each of the two categories.

The size of the sample: 490 businesspeople and 1106household representatives over the age of 18.

Representation: the sample is representative at the national level with a maximal error of +2.9% for

households and +4.4% for business people.

Sample: stratified, random, two-staged.

Stratification criteria:12 geographical regions based on territorial administrative units that were in place

before the last territorial-administrative reform, residential environment (urban-rural), size of urban

localities (2 types), size of rural localities (2 types of rural localities); The sample is relevant to analyze the

following strata of respondents: urban, rural, North, South and Center zones, with respective error margins

corresponding to the size of each strata of respondents.

Time of interviewing: July 26–August 7, 2012 to interview household representatives, and July 26–

September 10, 2012 to interview business people. The interviews were conducted at the respondents’

homes by the network of operators of CBS-AXA.

The comparison of the results of this study with the results of similar studies conducted by TI-Moldova in

the last 10 years allowed us to reveal some clear trends in perception and personal experience with

corruption by the general public, as well as in the behavior of representatives of public institutions and the

results of applied policies. For example:

For the household representatives, the gravity of corruption as an impediment for country’s

development did not change compared to 2008, and it remained third on the list of problems that

they face. For businesses, compared to 2008, a number of other priority problems have emerged

in addition to corruption, such as political instability, imperfections in the fiscal legislation,

frequent changes in legislation and high taxes. Corruption took the sixth place in their ranking.

Public awareness about the threat of corruption for the country’s development among

households and businesses has increased. If ten year ago the main part of the respondents

would consider poverty as the main cause of corruption, at present two thirds of respondents

understand that corruption causes poverty and therefore, fighting corruption is the main way to


43

address poverty. The share of households that are aware of the impact of corruption on poverty

increased from 56.8% in 2008 to 66.9% in 2012. Among businesses the number increased from

57.1% in 2008 to 63.5% in 2012.

About half of the households (49.6%) and business people (41.9%) think that the corruption

phenomenon increased in the last 12 month.

The share of respondents that think corruption increased in the last 12 months, %

2005 2007 2008 2012

Households 38 45,4 41 49,6

Businesses 37 35,4 33 41,9

Just as in the 2008study, the causes of corruption stated by the respondents were the lack of

punishment for those who commit acts of corruption and the lack of firm action taken by the

governance. To obtain the support of the public, the governance needs to conduct an extended

awareness raising campaign on the implementation of its engagements vis-a-vis corruption

prevention in diverse public institutions.

An important factor in the spread of corruption is conflict of interest in decision making situations.

The Law on conflict of interest and the mechanism of its implementation was modified in 2001.

To evaluate the degree of familiarization of the population with the notion of conflict of interest, the

representatives of the households were asked to select the right definition out three options. The

results showed that only 55% selected the correct answer. For comparison, in 2010, 76% of public

servants from central public authorities gave a correct answer. These statements suggest the need to

train the population and public servants to better understand conflict of interest and the

consequences for ignoring the law.

The main sources of information about corruption remained unchanged since 2008. The

respondents indicated television as the first source, followed by the printed and electronic press,

radio and discussions with friends and relatives. It is important to note that 34% of the household

respondents and 44% of businesses believed the information on corruption coming from mass-

media; however, their share slightly decreased since 2008. Mass-media needs to consolidate the

quality of the information related to corruption, to prove impartiality, ethical treatment and

good quality of argumentation of corruption cases.

Share of respondents that trust the information on corruption from mass-media,% 2005 2007 2008 2012

Households Z 40,3 50,0 33,9

Businesses Z 38,5 55,5 44,1

In the perception of household respondents, corruption in most spread among police employees,

health care and education institutions, customs, prosecutors and judges.

In the perception of business people, the most affected by corruption are police employees,

customs, law courts, fiscal inspectorates, and prosecutors. Compared to 2008, there is an increased

perception that corruption in law courts, fiscal inspectorates and prosecutor offices has raised.

Having been asked which branch of the state power is most corrupt, both categories of respondents

indicated the judicial branch.

Which branch of the state power is most

corrupt, %

Households Businesses


44

Legislative 25.7 11.6

Judiciary 45.7 51.8

Executive 22.7 19.8

Do not know 5.9 16.7

Both, representatives of households and businesses consider money (cash) as the main modality to

solve unofficially their problems with public servants. This suggests that an efficient prevention of

corruption is impossible without a sound system of declaration and control of incomes and assets

by public servants.

When compared to 2008, the share of those who think that it is easier to solve problems through

unofficial channels is simpler remained within the margin of error.

Share of respondents that think it is easier to solve problems by unofficial channels,% 2005 2007 2008 2012

Households Z 48.6 49 53

Businesses Z 45.7 41.8 47.6

Among the institutions contacted by members of households the most are health care (55.2% of

total) and educational institutions (28%), as well as local public administration offices (23.6%). In

2012, business people contacted most frequently fiscal inspectorates (66.9% of total), health care

institutions (51%), vehicle technical inspectorates (47.1%), customs (44.3%) and sanitary

inspectorates(39.4%).

Households most frequently bribed police officers (41.2% of those who had contact with police),

educational institutions (40.4%), health care institutions (39.1%) and technical revision of vehicles

(33.1%). Businesses most frequently paid bribes to education (52.7%) and health care institutions

(52.4%), the police (45%), customs (42.9%), the office of construction authorizations (37%) and

the prosecutor’s office (33.3%). It is clear that to relieve the tension created in the society by the

spread of corruption, it would be most efficient to concentrate on fighting corruption in health care,

police and education institutions. If the governance aims to support businesses and increase its

budget revenue – they should concentrate on fiscal inspectorates and customs. Nevertheless, if the

governance wants to have a systemic approach in curbing corruption, it should start with such law

enforcement institutions as the prosecutor’s office and law courts.

The average bribe paid by households varies by domain. The highest bribes have been given to

attorneys (on average 5,274 lei) who, in fact, direct the bribe to judges and prosecutors (4,378 lei).

The highest average bribes paid by business people are directed to judges (4,550 lei), customs

officers (3,145 lei), cadastral bureaus (2,740 lei) and services issuing construction authorizations

(2,463 lei).

In the last 12 months, the total estimated bribe paid by households constituted about 732 million lei,

which is a 15% increase in absolute value compared to 2008. Taking into consideration a 30%

increase in consumer prices for goods and services during 2008-20126, in real terms this amount

diminished by about 15%. In the same period of time, households paid most to health care (238

million lei), education institutions (185 million lei), and police (45.4 million lei). While police

achieved considerable progress in reducing the amount of accepted bribes from 97 million lei in

2008 to 45.4 million lei in 2012, the situation in health care and education was different. Thus, in

health care the total bribe increased by one quarter compared to 2008, or a little less than the

consumer prices. As for the education system, the total amount of paid bribes increased 2.9 times

compared to 2008, which cannot be explained by the inflation phenomenon.

6http://statbank.statistica.md

http://statbank.statistica.md/


45

Households – evolution of estimated total bribe (million lei)

2005 2007 2008 2012

Police 81.5 79.9 97 45.4

Education 126 76.5 64 185

Health care 200 153 190 238

Other 493.6 280.6 279 264.3

TOTAL 901.1 590 630 732.7

The total amount of bribes paid by businesses in the last 12 months reached about 390 million lei,

increasing in absolute value by 49% compared to 2008. The largest amount of bribes was paid to the

customs officers (75 million lei), health care institutions (41.6 million lei), police (41 million lei), fiscal

inspectors (32.4 million lei) and fire inspectors (31.8 million lei). The fact that, compared to 2008 this

amount increased in absolute value almost 1.5 times cannot be explained simplyby inflation, and it

demonstrates a worsening business environment in the country.

While in other domains the majority of unofficial payments were made to speed up the

provision of services, bribes to law enforcement bodies were given to avoid punishment for

breaking the law. Compared to 2008, the share of those who paid to speed up the process

increased in the police, while in other domains this share diminished. The biggest modification

was noticed in the fiscal inspectorates, where the share of payments made to speed up the

process decreased from 75.3% in 2008 to 35.4% in 2012.

The respondents stated that while the bribes made to health care providers were mostly

voluntary, those made to judges, customs officers and fiscal inspectors were made under

pressure. Compared to 2008, the share of those who paid bribes voluntarily to all of the above

mentioned groups decreased. The most significant decline has been noticed in courts of law,

where this indicator diminished from 67.8% in 2008 to 25.8% in 2012.

Although the total amount of bribes paid by businesses increased in 2012, their attitude towards

the country governance and its efforts to improve the business environment did not deteriorate.

The share of respondents who believe that the state impedes entrepreneurial activity diminished

from 46.7% in 2008 to 33.2% in 2012, and two-fold since 2000.

Share of businesses that consider the state impedes the entrepreneurial activity, %

2005 2007 2008 2012

46.7 47.3 33.8 33.2

On a positive note, the amount of time spent on solving problems with state institutions continually

reduced. From 2008, when respondents spent 17.3% of their working time on this process, the

number dropped to 11.1% in 2012.

Time spent on solving problems with public institutions, (% of total time)

2005 2007 2008 2012

22.4 21 17.3 11.1

More than two thirds of the business people stated that the fiscal inspectors correctly followed the

procedure during their controls. The share of business people who had a positive experience during

the visit of fiscal inspectors increased from 41.1% in 2005 to 72.5% in 2012.

Share of business people who consider that the fiscal inspector followedthe correctprocedures during the

fiscal controls, %


46

2005 2007 2008 2012

41.1 60.5 66 72.5

The number of visits by state representatives made to businesses decreased from 21 times a year in

2008 to 6.5 times in 2012. Currently, they are most frequently visited by police officers.

Willingness to pay bribes to solve their problems with the state remains high among the

respondents. More than two thirds of them confirmed this fact. The share of those who say a firm

„NO” to bribes is slowly increasing.

Share of those who DO NOT want to pay bribes in difficult situations, %

2005 2007 2008 2012

Households 23 24.1 34.7 27.1

Businesses 12 19.5 23.5 27.9

Compared to 2005, the share of those who do not consider corruption acceptable increased 1.5

times, from 43% in 2008 to 67.1% in 2012 among households, and from 49% in 2008 to 78.5%

among businesses. This shows a clear trend of diminishing tolerance towards corruption.

Along with a diminished tolerance towards corruption, respondents changed their overall sentiment

towards offering bribes. Three quarters of both categories of respondents stated that they had

negative emotions when solving their problem by giving a bribe. Their share rapidly increased from

49.3% in 2008 to 73.1% in 2012 among households and from 41.2% in 2008 to 76.6% in 2012.

Share of respondents that state they have negative sentiments when giving a bribe, %

2005 2007 2008 2012

Households 49.6 42.1 49.3 73.1

Businesses 44.1 43.8 41.2 76.6

Even though tolerance towards corruption decreases, the will to oppose corruption by collaborating

with law enforcement institutions remains low. About 37.3% of households faced corruption in the

last 12 month, 1.9% tried to solve their case in a legal manner and only 0.9% succeeded to solve

their problem entirely or partially. Also, 40% of businesses faced corruption, 1.8% tried to solve

their problem officially and only 0.7% had some success. It is remarkable that the share of

respondents that do not know whom to address with their case of corruption continually diminishes.

Share of respondents that do not know where to address a case of corruption, %

2005 2007 2008 2012



Public authorities need to appeal to the population more rigorously and work together on combating

corruption. It is necessary to improve the quality of public anti-corruption hot-lines and petition systems.

An important role in this context play public awareness campaigns on achievements made in this domain,

and the consolidation of whistleblower and witness protection mechanisms.

If a ranking of law enforcement institutions and control bodies was made, respondents would

evaluate the officers of the Internal Service and Security as most professional, followed by fiscal

inspectors, the collaborators of the Center for Combating Economic Crime and Corruption and

prosecutors. The list would be closed by judges, customs officers and police officers.


47

In a ranking of this type, the most credible from the point of view of the poll participants would be

fiscal inspectors, followed by Center for Combating Economic Crime and Corruption officers. The

list would be closed by customs officers, judges and police officers.

In spite of the high level of corruption in the Republic of Moldova, the majority of households

(75.5%) and businesses (84.4%) are optimistic about Moldova’s chances to curb corruption. The

state must rely on this optimism and engage the population in the process of combating corruption.

It is certain that if the supremacy of the law is not ensured and corrupt persons are not properly

sanctioned, increasing the salary of public servants would only contribute to inflation and the public

servant would adjust the size of the bribe to the his/her new salary. The estimation made in this

study on the total bribe paid in Moldova confirms this premise. Still, when asked what should be

the monthly salary of a public servant that would make him/her resistant to bribes, the respondents

proved a good understanding and came up with realistic and well-motivated figures.

2007 2008 2012

Households Businesses Households Businesses Households Businesses Minister 1600 2300 1615 2280 1356 1939 Head of Department

900 1270 1090 1460 912 1160

Ordinary public servant

560 685 705 850 653 783

Judge z z z z 1334 1931

Among the most efficient ways to curb corruption, both categories listed increasing sanctions to

those who take and offer bribes, meritocratic promotion and increasing the salaries of public

servants.


48

Anexa

CHESTIONAREA REPREZENTANŢILOR GOSPODĂRIILOR CASNICE

În atenţia operatorului. Textul ce urmează trebuie citit respondentului.

Transparency International – Moldova efectuează acest sondaj cu suportul Departamentului de Stat al SUA, Scopul

sondajului este de a studia cauzele, a evalua percepţiile şi experienţele privind corupţia în structurile statale din Republica

Moldova, precum şi pentru a elabora propuneri de remediere a situaţiei.

Coordonatorul cercetării este Dr. Lilia Caraşciuc, directorul executiv al Transparency International – Moldova. Tel./fax 20-

34-84, 23-78-76, e-mail: [email protected]

Va mulţumim anticipat pentru participare, asigurându-vă că chestionarul este anonim, iar informaţia prezentată –

confidenţială. Vă rugăm să fiţi pe cât se poate de obiectiv la completarea chestionarului.

Codul individual al operatorului:_______ _____________________

Data realizării interviului:__________________________________

Locul realizării interviului:__________________________________

Timpul începerii interviului: _________________________________

1. Vârsta

Numărul de ani 18–24 25–29 30–39 40-49 50–59 Peste 60

2. Genul

3. Studiile

1.Medii incomplete

2.Medii

3.Medii de specialitate

4.Superioare, inclusiv incomplete

4. Mediul rezidenţial

5 A. Ce venituri are familia Dvs. (un răspuns)

1.Venituri foarte joase

2.Venituri mai joase decât cele medii

3.Venituri medii

4.Venituri mai ridicate decât cele medii

5.Venituri înalte

5 B. Notaţi la ce categorie de persoane Vă referiţi:

1.Persoană angajată în baza contractului de muncă permanent

2.Persoană angajată în baza contractului de muncă temporar (ocaziţional, sezonier)

3.Persoană angajată fără contract de muncă (la negru)

4.Şomer înregistrat official

5.Persoană care nu lucrează, dar caută de lucru

6.Persoană care nu lucrează şi nu caută de lucru

7. Student

8.Alţii (invalizi, pensionari, persoane în concediu de maternitate)

6. Cât de acute sunt pentru Dvs. următoarele probleme?

Factorul 1.Nu este o

problemă

2.Puţin

acută

3.Neacut

ă

4.Acută 5.Foarte

acută

6.Problemă

majoră

Inflaţia

Calitatea joasă a sistemului

educaţional

Calitatea nesatisfăcătoare a

1.Masculin 2.Feminin

1.Urban 2.Rural

MOLDOVA


49

asistenţei medicale

Accesul limitat la informaţiile

publice

Criminalitatea

Corupţia

Impozitele înalte

Instabilitatea politică

Sărăcia

Servicii nesatisfăcătoare de

comunicaţii (drumuri, linii

telefonice, acces Internet, etc.)

Birocraţia

Schimbări frecvente în legislaţie

Reglementarea complicată a

business-ului

Şomajul înalt

Degradarea mediului ambiant

Sistemul judecătoresc

nedrept/inechitabil

Altele, indicaţi

7. Care sunt principalele surse de informare din care aflaţi despre corupţie? (3 răspunsuri)

1.Televiziunea

2.Radioul

3.Presa, inclusiv electronică

4.Experienţa proprie

5.Discuţiile cu rudele, prietenii, cunoscuţii

6.Rapoartele instituţiilor de stat

7.Comunicate ale organizaţiilor neguvernamentale

8.Comunicate ale organizaţiilor internaţionale

9.Altele, indicaţi

Căt de mult credeţi în informaţiile despre corupţie din mass-media? (1 răspuns)

1.Foarte mult 2.Mult 3.Puţin 4.Nu cred deloc

9. Cât de importante sunt următoarele cauze în răspândirea corupţiei în RMoldova?

1.Foarte

importantă

2.Destul de

importantă

3.Puţin

important

ă

4.Nu este

o cauză

Lipsa controlului intern în instituţiile publice

Persoanele corupte nu sunt trase la răspundere

Guvernarea nu abordează problema în mod serios

Lăcomia

Lipsa transparenţei în activitatea instituţiilor publice

Salariile mici

Presiunile din partea rudelor şi prietenilor

Presiunile din partea şefului

Este deja o tradiţie

Lipsa standardelor de conduită a funcţionarilor publici

Nivelul scăzut de cultură

Altele, indicaţi

10. În opinia dvs. ...

10.1 câtă încredere aveţi în …? 10.2 care este nivelul de

profesionalism al acestora?

1.nu am

deloc

încredere

2.puţină

încredere

3.multă

încredere

4.încredere

deplină

5.înalt 6.mediu 7.jos

Inspectori fiscali


50

Vameşi

Poliţişti

Judecători

Colaboratori ai CCCEC

Medici

Colaboratori ai Serviciul de

Informaţii şi Securitate

Procurori

11. Cât de acceptabilă după părerea Dvs. este situaţia în care un funcţionar primeşte o plată neoficială şi o foloseşte pentru

a-şi achita datoriile la serviciile comunale?

1.Acceptabilă pe deplin 2.Acceptabilă parţial 3.Acceptabilă în anumite situaţii 4.Inacceptabilă

12. În opinia Dvs., cât de frecvent se recurge la bani, cadouri, contacte personale pentru a „soluţiona” problemele în …?

Instituţiile/serviciile/

domeniile

1.Niciod

ată 2.Rar 3.Câteodată

4.Ade-

sea

5.Foarte

des

6.Întot-

deauna

7.NŞ

/NR

Administraţia publică

centrală

Administraţia publică locală

Inspectoratele fiscale

Vama

Poliţia

Procuratura

Inspecţiile sanitar-

epidemiologice

Birourile cadastrale

Privatizarea

Arenda proprietăţii de stat

Instanţele de judecată

Achiziţiile publice

Instituţiile de învăţământ

Instituţiile medicale

Oficiile stării civile

Birourile de paşapoarte

Serviciile comunale

Camera Înregistrării de stat

Inspecţiile antiincendiare

Inspectoratul energetic

Inspecţia ecologică

CCCEC

Serviciul de Informaţii şi

Securitate

Eliberarea vizelor

Licenţierea

Birourile notariale

Birourile de avocaţi

Accesul la credite,

împrumuturi

Înregistrarea transportului,

elib. certificatului de

conducere

Revizia tehnică a

automobilelor

Eliberarea autorizaţiilor de

construcţie


51


domeniile

1.Niciod

ată 2.Rar 3.Câteodată

4.Ade-

sea

5.Foarte

des

6.Întot-

deauna

7.NŞ

/NR

Furnizarea de apă

Furnizarea de electricitate

Furnizarea de gaze

Furnizarea de căldură/agent

termic

Inspecţia muncii

Telecomunicaţiile

Companiile de asigurări

13. Căile neoficiale de soluţionare a problemelor cu funcţionarii publici, de obicei, iau forma de … (1 răspuns):

1. Contacte/relaţii

2. Cadouri

3. Bani

4. Presiuni din partea conducerii

5. Presiuni din partea organizaţiilor criminale

6. Altele, indicaţi

Încă o dată Vă asigurăm confidenţialitatea interviului nostru

14. Uneori, oamenii trebuie să plătească neoficial sau să ofere cadouri pentru a obţine diverse servicii, pentru a evita

problemele în organele de stat, precum şi pentru a obţine favoruri. Pe parcursul ultimului an Dvs. (sau altcineva din familia

Dvs.) aţi plătit neoficial sau aţi oferit cadouri angajaţilor din următoarele instituţii/servicii/domenii?

Instituţiile/

serviciile/

domeniile

14.1

Aţi contactat

instituţia?

14.2

De câte ori

aţi contac

tat-o?

14.3

Aţi plătit

neoficial?

14.4

Dacă aţi plătit

neoficil, aţi

făcut-o:

14.5

De câte ori

aţi plătit

neoficial?

14.6

Suma

totală,

lei Da Nu Da Nu Din

iniţiativ

ă

proprie

Aţi

fost

impus

Administraţia publică centrală

Administraţia publică locală Inspectoratele fiscale

Vama

Poliţia

Procuratura

Inspecţiile sanitar-

epidemiologice


Privatizarea






Oficiile stării civile


Serviciile comunale

Camera Înregistrării de Stat



Inspecţia ecologică

CCCEC

Serviciul Intern de Securitate

(SIS)

Eliberarea vizelor

Licenţierea

Birourile notariale



52

Instituţiile/

serviciile/

domeniile

14.1

Aţi contactat

instituţia?

14.2

De câte ori

aţi contac

tat-o?

14.3

Aţi plătit

neoficial?

14.4

Dacă aţi plătit

neoficil, aţi

făcut-o:

14.5

De câte ori

aţi plătit

neoficial?

14.6

Suma

totală,

lei Accesul la credite,

împrumuturi

Înregistrarea transportului şi

calificarea conducătorilor auto

Revizia tehnică a

automobilelor

Eliberarea autorizaţiilor de

construcţie

Furnizarea de apă


Furnizarea de gaze

Furnizarea de căldură/agent

termic

Inspecţia muncii

Telecomunicaţiile


15. Dacă aţi plătit neoficial (aţi dat bani, cadouri, servicii), în ce scop aţi făcut-o: (Dacă NU – treci la întrebarea 16)

Pentru a „unge roţile” (a obţine ceva ce se cuvine conform legii)

Pentru a evita pedeapsa/sancţiunea

16. Când contactaţi instituţiile de stat, este mai uşor de a soluţiona problemele prin „căi neoficiale” decât prin cele oficiale?

(1 răspuns)

1.Întotdeauna

2.În majoritatea cazurilor

3.Foarte des

4.Câteodată

5.Rar de tot

6.Niciodată

7.NŞ/NR

17. Imaginaţi-vă că aţi fost impus să oferiţi cadou unui funcţionar public pentru a vă soluţiona problema. În opinia Dvs.,

cum v-aţi fi simţit? (un singur răspuns)

1.Indignat/ă 2.Înjosit/ă 3.Indiferent/ă 4.Satisfăcut/ă 5.Bucuros/oasă 6.NŞ/NR

18. Dacă dvs. veţi fi pus într-o situaţie dificilă, veţi plăti mită?

1.Da 2.Nu 3.Depinde de circumstanţe

19. Pe parcursul ultimului an dvs. sau altcineva din familia dvs. v-aţi confruntat cu cazuri de mituire, protecţionism, trafic

de influenţă, etc. în instituţiile de stat?

1.Da 2.Nu

20. Dvs. sau cineva din familia dvs., v-aţi plâns/aţi depus plângere privitor la cazurile de corupţie? (Dacă NU – treci la

întrebarea 23)

1.Da 2.Nu

21. Daca da, unde v-aţi adresat? ? (răspuns multiplu 2)

1. La poliţie

2. La avocat

3. În judecată

4. La Procuratură

5. În presă


53

6. Funcţionarului superior

7. Prietenilor, rudelor, vecinilor

8. La CCCEC

9. La ONG-uri

10.La Guvern, Preşedinţie, Parlament

11.Altele, indicaţi

22. A fost rezolvată problema dvs.?

1.Da 2.Parţial 3.Nu

23. Dacă nu aţi depus plângere, de ce nu aţi făcut-o? (răspuns multiplu 2)

1.Nu aţi ştiut unde şi cui să vă adresaţi

2.Ar fi luat prea mult timp

3.Nimic nu s-ar schimba

4.V-ar fi creat doar probleme

5.Alte cauze, specificaţi

24. Aţi putea să povestiţi despre un caz concret de corupţie (dare/luare de mită, protecţionism, cumătrism) din propria

experienţă din ultimele 12 luni?

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

____________________

25. Care ramură a puterii de stat vă pare cea mai coruptă? (indicaţi un răspuns)

1. Parlamentul 2. Sistemul judecătoresc 3. Guvernul

26. În opinia dvs., ce înseamnă un conflict de interese în sectorul public? (bifaţi un singur răspuns)

1.Un conflict dintre funcţionarii publici

2.Un conflict dintre interesele personale ale unui funcţionar public şi obligaţiile lui de serviciu

3.Un conflict dintre interese personale ale unui funcţionar public

27. Cât de eficiente ar fi următoarele măsuri pentru a reduce corupţia în Moldova?

1.Deloc

eficiente

2.Puţin

eficiente

3.Destul de

eficiente

4.Foarte

eficiente

5.NŞ/

NR

Controlul declaraţiilor de venituri ale funcţionarilor publici

Reducerea numărului de intervenţii ale statului în economie

Informarea populaţiei despre pericolul corupţiei

Aplicarea normelor de conduită în serviciul public si sancţiunilor

pentru nerespectarea lor

Asigurarea independenţei judecătorilor

Transparentizarea activităţii instituţiilor publice

Promovarea în funcţie după merit a angajaţilor din serviciul public

Înăsprirea sancţiunilor faţă de cei care iau mită

Înăsprirea sancţiunilor faţă de cei care dau mită

Mărirea salariilor

Introducerea unor sancţiuni severe pentru comportament corupt

28. Cum consideraţi, care ar trebui să fie salariul lunar al următoarelor persoane pentru ca ele să nu primească plăţi

neoficiale?

Dolari SUA

1.Funcţionar de rand

2.Şef de department

3.Ministru


54

4.Judecător

5. Preşedinte de ţară

29. Care din următoarele afirmaţii o consideraţi mai corectă?

1.Suntem corupţi deoarece suntem săraci

2.Suntem săraci deoarece suntem corupţi

30. Cu care din afirmaţiile de mai jos sunteţi de acord? În Republica Moldova ... (1 răspuns)

1.Corupţia nu poate fi combătută

2.Corupţia va exista întotdeauna, dar poate fi limitată

3.Corupţia poate fi redusă substanţial

4.Corupţia poate fi complet extirpată

5.NŞ/NR

31. După părerea Dvs. pe parcursul ultimului an (12 luni), corupţia în instituţiile de stat ...

1.A

sporit

mult

2.A sporit

puţin

3.A rămas

aproximativ aceeaşi

4.S-a micşorat

puţin

5.S-a micşorat

mult

6.NŞ/NR

Timpul finalizării interviului______

Vă mulţumim pentru colaborare!


55

Anexa

CHESTIONAREA OAMENILOR DE AFACERI

În atenţia operatorului: textul ce urmează trebuie citit respondentului,

Transparency International – Moldova efectuează acest sondaj cu suportul Departamentului de Stat al SUA. Scopul

sondajului este de a studia cauzele, a evalua percepţiile şi experienţele privind corupţia în structurile statale din Republica

Moldova, precum şi pentru a elabora propuneri de remediere a situaţiei.

Coordonatorul cercetării este Dr. Lilia Caraşciuc, directorul executiv al Transparency International – Moldova. Tel,/fax 20-

34-84, 23-78-76, e-mail: [email protected]

Va mulţumim anticipat pentru participare, asigurându-vă că chestionarul este anonim, iar informaţia prezentată –

confidenţială, Vă rugăm să fiţi pe cât se poate de obiectiv la completarea chestionarului.

Codul individual al operatorului:_______ _____________________

Data realizării interviului:__________________________________

Locul realizării interviului:__________________________________

Timpul începerii interviului: _________________________________

Date despre respondent

1. Vârsta

Ani 18-24 25-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 Peste 60

2. Genul:

1. Masculin 2. Feminin

3. Studiile:

1.Medii incomplete

2.Medii

3.Medii de specialitate

4.Superioare, inclusiv incomplete

4. Mediul rezidenţial

1. Urban 2. Rural

5. Ce venituri are familia Dvs. (1 răspuns)

1. Foarte joase 2. Joase 3. Medii 4. Mai ridicate decât cele medii 5.Înalte

6. Evaluaţi în ce măsură următorii factori împiedică desfăşurarea afacerilor în Moldova?

Factorul 1.Nu

împiedi că

deloc

2.Împiedică

uneori

3.Împiedică

puţin

4.Împiedic

ă mult

5.Împiedi

că foarte

mult

6.Blochea ză

Inflaţia

Lipsa proprietăţii pentru a fi

depuse în gaj

Impozitele şi taxele înalte

Legislaţia fiscală imperfectă

Acces dificil la credite bancare

Criminalitatea

Corupţia

Deficitul de forţă de muncă

calificată

Infrastructura slab dezvoltată a

pieţei

Situaţii de monopol pe piaţă

MOLDOVA

MOLDOVA


56

Lipsa materiei prime

Numărul mare de controale şi

inspecţii

Instabilitatea politică

Schimbări frecvente ale

legislaţiei

Reglementarea complicată a

business-ului

Probleme şi reglementări la

export-import

Controlul preţurilor

Legislaţia muncii imperfectă

Sistemul judecătoresc

nedrept/inechitabil

Alte, indicaţi

7. Care sunt principalele surse de informare din care aflaţi despre corupţie? (cel mult 3 răspunsuri)

1.Televiziunea

2.Radioul

3.Presa, inclusiv electronică

4.Experienţa proprie

5.Discuţiile cu rudele, prietenii, cunoscuţii

6.Rapoartele instituţiilor de stat

7.Comunicatele organizaţiilor neguvernamentale

8.Comunicatele organizaţiilor internaţionale

9.Altele, specificaţi ______________________

8. Cât de mult credeţi în informaţiile despre corupţie din mass-media? (1 răspuns)

1.Foarte mult

2.Mult

3.Puţin

4.Nu cred deloc

9. Cât de importante sunt următoarele cauze în răspândirea corupţiei în RMoldova? Se evaluează pe o scară de la 1 la 4 (1 –

cauză foarte importantă, 2 – cauză destul de importantă, 3 – cauză puţin importantă, 4 – nu este o cauză)

1.Foarte

importantă

2.Destul

de impor

tantă

3.Puţin

impor

tantă

4.Nu

este o

cauză

Lipsa controlului intern în instituţiile publice

Persoanele corupte nu sunt trase la răspundere

Guvernul nu abordează problema în mod serios

Lăcomia

Lipsa transparenţei în activitatea instituţiilor publice

Salariile mici

Presiunile din partea rudelor şi prietenilor

Presiunile din partea şefului

Este deja o tradiţie

Lipsa standardelor de conduită a funcţionarilor publici

Nivelul scăzut de cultură

Altele, indicaţi

10. În opinia dvs, ...

câtă încredere aveţi în …?

care este nivelul de profesionalism

al acestora?

1.nu am

deloc

încredere

2.puţină

încredere

3.multă

încredere

4.încredere

deplină

5.înalt 6.mediu 7.jos

Inspectori fiscali


57

Vameşi

Poliţişti

Judecători

Colaboratori ai CCCEC

Colaboratori ai Serviciului

de Informaţii şi Securitate

Procurori

11. Cât de acceptabilă după părerea Dvs, este situaţia în care un funcţionar primeşte o plată neoficială şi o foloseşte pentru

a-şi achita datoriile la serviciile comunale?

1.Acceptabilă pe deplin 2.Acceptabilă parţial 3.Acceptabilă în anumite situaţii 4.Inacceptabilă

12. În opinia Dvs,, cât de frecvent se recurge la bani, cadouri, contacte personale pentru a „soluţiona” problemele în …?


domeniile 1.Niciodată 2.Rar

3.Câteo

dată

4.Adese

a

5.Foarte

des

6.Întot-

deauna 7.NŞ /NR

Administraţia publică centrală

Administraţia publică locală

Inspectoratele fiscale

Vama

Poliţia

Procuratura

Inspecţiile sanitar-epidemiologice


Privatizarea





Serviciile comunale

Camera Înregistrării de Stat



Serviciile de protecţie a mediului

CCCEC

Eliberarea vizelor

Licenţierea

Birourile notariale


Accesul la credite, împrumuturi

Înregistrarea transportului şi eliberarea

permisului de conducere

Revizia tehnică a automobilelor

Eliberarea autorizaţiilor de construcţie

Furnizarea de apă


Furnizarea de gaze

Furnizarea de căldură/agent termic

Inspecţia muncii

Telecomunicaţiile


13. Căile neoficiale de soluţionare a problemelor cu funcţionarii publici, de obicei, iau forma de … (1 răspuns):

1.Contacte/relaţii


58

2.Cadouri

3.Bani

4.Presiuni din partea conducerii

5.Presiuni din partea organizaţiilor criminale

6. Altele, indicaţi

Încă o dată Vă asigurăm confidenţialitatea interviului nostru

Uneori, oamenii trebuie să plătească neoficial sau să ofere cadouri pentru a obţine diverse servicii, pentru a evita probleme

cu poliţia sau alte organe de stat, precum şi pentru a obţine favoruri speciale (loc de muncă, contract, licenţă, etc,).

14. Pe parcursul ultimului an Dvs, (sau altcineva din întreprinderea Dvs,) aţi plătit neoficial sau aţi oferit cadouri

angajaţilor din următoarele instituţii/servicii/domenii?

Instituţiile/

serviciile/

Domeniile

14.1

Aţi contactat

instituţia?

14.2

De

câte

ori aţi

contac

tat-o?

14.3

Aţi plătit

neoficial?

14.4

Dacă aţi plătit

neoficial, aţi făcut-o:

14.5

De câte

ori aţi

plătit

neofici

al?

14.6

Suma

totală, lei

Da Nu Da Nu Din

iniţia-

tivă

proprie

Aţi fost

impus Inspectoratele fiscale

Vama

Poliţia

Procuratura

Inspecţiile sanitar-epidemiologice


Privatizarea







Serviciile comunale

Camera Înregistrării de stat



Serviciile de protecţie a mediului

CCCEC

Eliberarea vizelor

Licenţierea

Birourile notariale


Accesul la credite, împrumuturi

Înregistrarea transportului şi eliberarea

permisului de conducere

Revizia tehnică a automobilelor

Eliberarea autorizaţiilor de construcţie

Furnizarea de apă


Furnizarea de gaze

Furnizarea de căldură/agent termic

Inspecţia muncii

Telecomunicaţiile

15. Dacă aţi plătit neoficial (aţi dat bani, cadouri, servicii), în ce scop aţi făcut-o: (Dacă NU – treci la întrebarea 16)

Pentru a „unge roţile” (a obţine ceva ce se cuvine conform legii) 2. Pentru a evita pedeapsa/sancţiunea

16. Când contactaţi instituţiile de stat, este mai uşor de a soluţiona problemele prin „căi neoficiale” decât prin cele oficiale?

(un răspuns)

1.Întotdeauna

2.În majoritatea cazurilor


59

3.Foarte des

4.Câteodată

5.Rar de tot

6.Niciodată

7.NŞ/NR

17. Pe parcursul ultimelor 12 luni, ce organe de control şi de câte ori au vizitat compania Dvs.?

Numărul de vizite în 12 luni

Inspectoratul fiscal

Poliţia

Inspecţia antiincendiară


Inspecţia sanitar-epidemiologică

CCCEC

Serviciul de protecţie a mediului

Inspecţia Muncii

Altele, indicaţi

18. Dacă inspectorul fiscal găseşte o încălcare a legislaţiei, cum procedează el de obicei …

1.Înregistrează încălcările şi întocmeşte actul de control conform regulamentului

2.Dă de înţeles că este necesar de a plăti pentru a „soluţiona” problemele

3.Numeşte preţul pentru a corecta datele raportului

4.Altele (indicaţi) ______________________________

19. Dacă vi se depistează o încălcare a legislaţiei pentru care trebuie să plătiţi o amendă într-o suma X, de obicei, a câta

parte din această sumă este necesar de plătit direct inspectorului pentru a „soluţiona” problema ( % din X) ________

20. Estimaţi, a câta parte din timpul de lucru o utilizaţi pentru a rezolva problemele cu funcţionarii din instituţiile de stat?

___ %

21. Pe parcursul ultimilor doi ani, la câte oferte de achiziţii publice a participat compania Dvs.? _______

22. Dacă nu aţi participat, cât de importante au fost

următoarele motive? (foarte important, important, minor, nu

este un motiv)

1.Foarte

important

2.Important 3.Motiv

minor

4.Nu este un

motiv

Complexitatea procedurii

Costul procedurii

Prea multă concurenţă

Nu aş câştiga contractul fără efectuarea unor plăţi neoficiale

Procedura achiziţiilor publice nu este transparentă şi

echitabilă;

Contractele directe sunt mai simple

Nu este profilul nostru

Altele, indicaţi

23. Cum evaluaţi aportul statului în desfăşurarea business-ului Dvs,? (1 răspuns)

1.Ajută mult

2. Ajută întrucâtva

3. Ajută foarte puţin

4. Este absolut neutru

5.Câteodată chiar împiedică

6.Mai mult împiedică


60

7. NŞ/NR

24. Imaginaţi-vă că aţi fost impus să oferiţi cadou unui funcţionar public pentru a vă soluţiona problema.

În opinia Dvs., cum v-aţi fi simţit? (un singur răspuns)

1.Indignat/ă 2.Înjosit/ă 3.Indiferent/ă 4.Satisfăcut/ă 5.Bucuros/să 6.NŞ/NR

25. Dacă dvs. veţi fi într-o situaţie dificilă, veţi plăti mită?

1.Da 2. Nu 3. Depinde de circumstanţe

26 Care ramură a puterii de stat Vă pare cea mai coruptă? (indicaţi un răspuns)

1. Parlamentul 2. Sistemul judecătoresc 3. Guvernul

27. Pe parcursul ultimului an dvs. sau altcineva din familia dvs. v-aţi confruntat cu cazuri de mituire, protecţionism, trafic

de influenţă, etc. în instituţiile publice?

1.Da 2.Nu

28. Dvs. sau cineva din familia dvs. v-aţi plâns/aţi depus plângere privitor la cazurile de corupţie? (Dacă NU, treci la

întrebarea 31)

1.Da 2.Nu

29. Daca Da, unde v-aţi adresat? (răspuns multiplu 2)

1.La poliţie

2.La avocat

3.În judecată

4.La Procuratură

5.În presă

6.Funcţionarului superior

7.Prietenilor, rudelor, vecinilor

8.La CCCEC

9.La ONG-uri

10.La Guvern, Preşedinţie, Parlament

11.Altele, indicaţi

30. A fost rezolvată problema dvs.?

1.Да 2. Parţial 3. Nu

31. Dacă nu aţi depus plângere, de ce nu aţi făcut-o? (răspuns multiplu 2)

1.Nu am ştiut unde şi cui să mă adresez

2.Ar fi luat prea mult timp

3.Nimic nu s-ar schimba

4.V-ar fi creat doar probleme

5.Alte cauze, specificaţi

32. Aţi putea să povestiţi despre un caz concret de corupţie (dare/luare de mită, protecţionism, cumătrism) din propria

experienţă din ultimele 12 luni?

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

______

33. Cât de eficiente ar fi următoarele măsuri pentru a reduce corupţia în Moldova?

1.Deloc

eficiente

2.Puţin

Eficiente

3.Destul de

eficiente

4.Foarte

eficiente

5.NŞ/

NR

Controlul declaraţiilor de venituri ale funcţionarilor publici

Reducerea numărului de intervenţii ale statului în economie


61

Informarea populaţiei despre pericolul corupţiei

Aplicarea normelor de conduită în serviciul public si a

sancţiunilor pentru nerespectarea lor

Asigurarea independenţei judecătorilor

Publicarea bugetelor instituţiilor publice

Promovarea în funcţie după merit a angajaţilor din serviciul

public

Înăsprirea sancţiunilor faţă de cei care iau mită

Înăsprirea sancţiunilor faţă de cei care dau mită

Mărirea salariilor

Introducerea unor sancţiuni severe pentru comportament

corupt

34. Cum consideraţi, care ar trebui să fie salariul lunar al următoarelor persoane pentru ca ele să nu primească plăţi

neoficiale?

Dolari SUA

1. Funcţionar de rând

2. Şef de departament

3. Ministru

4. Judecător

35. Care din următoarele afirmaţii o consideraţi mai corectă?

1.Suntem corupţi deoarece suntem săraci

2.Suntem săraci deoarece suntem corupţi

36. Cu care din afirmaţiile de mai jos sunteţi de acord? În Republica Moldova … (1 răspuns)

1.Corupţia nu poate fi combătută

2.Corupţia va exista întotdeauna, dar poate fi limitată

3.Corupţia poate fi redusă substanţial

4.Corupţia poate fi complet extirpată

5.NŞ/NR

37. După părerea Dvs, pe parcursul ultimului an (12 luni), corupţia în instituţiile de stat ...

1.A sporit

mult

2.A sporit

puţin

3.A rămas aceeaşi 4.S-a micşorat

puţin

5.S-a micşorat

mult

6.NŞ/NR

Timpul finalizării interviului ______________

Vă mulţumim pentru colaborare!

Survey 2012 engl

Documents

Transcript of Survey 2012 engl