Analytical research «Analysis of corruptogenic factors. International experience of anti-corruption expertise: ways to improve the legislation of Ukraine”
There is a practice in Ukraine of conducting anti-corruption expertise of draft laws to determine the absence of corruptogenic factors that may lead to acts of corruption. The procedure and stages of the expertise are described in the methodology of anti-corruption expertise.
At the same time, the classification of corruptogenic factors in the Ukrainian methodology does not fully cover all the circumstances, rules, norms and provisions that, if used in practice, become the cause of and opportunity for corruption.
The following countries were selected for the study – Moldova, Lithuania, Uzbekistan, Armenia and Albania.
In Moldova, 9 groups of corruptogenic factors have been identified, each of which is described in detail using examples from legislation. Anti-corruption expertise is mandatory.
When conducting anti-corruption expertise in Lithuania, there is document which contains 14 questions, the answer to which makes it possible to determine – whether or not there are corruptogenic factors present. The expertise results are not binding, but whether or not they are taken into consideration is monitored.
In Uzbekistan, there are 3 groups of corruptogenic factors, with at least 5 corruptogenic factors in each group. The results of the anti-corruption expertise are binding.
12 corruptogenic factors in Armenia are not divided into groups, and the anti-corruption expertise is not mandatory.
Anti-corruption expertise in Albania covers 33 corruptogenic factors, which are divided in 7 groups, but such expertise is optional.
Based on the results of the analysis, we came to the conclusion that some of the corruptogenic factors in foreign methodologies of anti-corruption expertise coincide with the understanding of the definition of corruptogenic factors in Ukrainian methodology of anti-corruption expertise, while some are innovative and deserve to be implemented in domestic legislation.
That is why we propose to introduce into the domestic legislation such a corruptogenic factor as non-compliance of the normative legal act with the requirements of the national anti-corruption legislation and international standards in this area.
When amending the methodology of anti-corruption expertise, it is necessary to add such a group of corruptogenic factors as insufficient transparency of the relevant bodies and procedures.