SDMX Metadata Concepts

Download PDF

0.a. Goal

Goal 16: Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels

0.b. Target

Target 16.5: Substantially reduce corruption and bribery in all their forms

0.c. Indicator

Indicator 16.5.1: Proportion of persons who had at least one contact with a public official and who paid a bribe to a public official, or were asked for a bribe by those public officials, during the previous 12 months

0.d. Series

Applies to all series

0.e. Metadata update

2023-03-31

0.g. International organisations(s) responsible for global monitoring

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)

1.a. Organisation

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)

2.a. Definition and concepts

Definition:

This indicator is defined as the percentage of persons who paid at least one bribe (gave a public official money, a gift or counter favour) to a public official, or were asked for a bribe by these public officials, in the last 12 months, as a percentage of persons who had at least one contact with a public official in the same period.

Concepts:

In the International Classification of Crime for Statistical Purposes (ICCS), bribery is defined as: ‘Promising, offering, giving, soliciting, or accepting an undue advantage to or from a public official or a person who directs or works in a private sector entity, directly or indirectly, in order that the person act or refrain from acting in the exercise of his or her official duties’ (ICCS Category 07031). This definition is based on definitions of bribery of national public officials, bribery of foreign public officials and official of international organisations and bribery in the private sector that are contained in the United Nations Convention against Corruption (articles 15, 16, and 21).

While the concept of bribery is broader, as it includes also actions such as promising or offering, and it covers both public and private sector, this indicator focuses on specific forms of bribery that are more measurable (the giving and/or requesting of bribes) and it limits the scope to the public sector.

The concept of undue advantage is operationalized by reference to giving of money (in addition to an official fee), gifts or provision of a service requested/offered by/to a public official in exchange for a special treatment.

This indicator captures the often called ‘administrative bribery’, which is often intended as the type of bribery affecting citizens in their dealings with public administrations and/or civil servants.

For this indicator, public official refers to persons holding a legislative, executive, administrative or judicial office. In the operationalization of the indicator, a list of selected officials and civil servants is used.

2.b. Unit of measure

Percent (%)

2.c. Classifications

UNODC. 2015. International Classification of Crime for Statistical Purposes (ICCS)

UNODC. 2023. Statistical framework to measure corruption

3.a. Data sources

This indicator is derived from household surveys on corruption experience and/or victimisation surveys with a module on bribery.

The indicator refers to individual (“direct”) experiences of the respondent, who is randomly selected among the household members, while (“indirect”) experiences of bribery by other members should not be included. However, direct bribery experiences of the respondent can include instances where the giving of money (in addition to an official fee), gifts or provision of a service is done through someone else (e.g. middlemen). Experience of bribery is collected through a series of questions on concrete contacts and experiences of bribery with a list of public official and civil servants.

The denominator refers only to those persons that had at least one direct interaction with a public official/civil servant as they form the population group at risk of experiencing bribery.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) collects data on the prevalence of bribery through its annual data collection: the UN Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (UN-CTS). The data collection through the UN-CTS is facilitated by a network of over 140 national Focal Points appointed by responsible authorities.

3.b. Data collection method

At international level, data are collected by United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) through the annual UN-CTS data collection. Data are on bribery indicator are sent to UNODC by member states, usually through national UN-CTS Focal Points (over 140 appointed Focal Points) which in most cases are national institutions responsible for data production in the area of crime and criminal justice (National Statistical Offices, Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Justice, etc.). For countries that have not appointed a focal point, the request for data is sent to the permanent mission in Vienna. When a country does not report to UNODC, other official sources such as authoritative websites, publications, or other forms of communication are used. Once consolidated, data are shared with countries to check their accuracy and validity.

3.c. Data collection calendar

III-IV quarter year n

3.d. Data release calendar

II quarter year n+1 (data for year n-1). For instance, data for the year 2022 are collected in III-IV quarter 2023 and released in II quarter 2024.

3.e. Data providers

The primary source of data on the indicator of bribery experience is usually the institution responsible for surveys on corruption/victimisation surveys (National Statistical Office, Anti-Corruption Agency, etc.).

Data on bribery are sent to UNODC by member states, usually through national UN-CTS Focal Points which in most cases are national institutions responsible for data production in the area of crime and criminal justice (National Statistical Offices, Ministry of Interior, Ministry of Justice, etc.).

3.f. Data compilers

Name:

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC)

Description:

At the international level, data are routinely collected and disseminated by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) through the annual UN Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (UN-CTS) data collection. UNODC partners with regional organizations in the collection and dissemination of data, respectively with Eurostat in Europe and with the Organisation of American States in the Americas.

3.g. Institutional mandate

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) – as custodian of the UN standards and norms in crime prevention and criminal justice, UNODC assists Member States in reforming their criminal justice systems in order to be effective, fair and humane for the entire population. UNODC develops technical tools to assist Member States in implementing the UN standards and norms and supports Member States through the provision of technical assistance in crime prevention and criminal justice reform. It does so through several Global programmes and through the UNODC field office network.

UNODC is responsible for carrying out the United Nations Survey of Crime Trends and Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (UN-CTS), which was introduced through the General Assembly Resolution A/RES/3021(XXVII) in 1972. The Economic and Social Council, in its resolution 1984/48 of 25 May 1984, further requested that the Secretary-General maintain and develop the United Nations crime-related database by continuing to conduct surveys of crime trends and the operations of criminal justice systems.

4.a. Rationale

Corruption is an antonym of equal accessibility to public services and of correct functioning of the economy; as such, it has a negative impact on fair distribution of resources and development opportunities. Besides, corruption erodes public trust in authorities and the rule of law; when administrative bribery becomes a recurrent experience of large sectors of the population and businesses, its negative effects have an enduring negative impact on the rule of law, democratic processes and justice. By providing a direct measure of the experience of bribery, this indicator provides an objective metric of corruption, a yardstick to monitor progress in the fight against corruption

4.b. Comment and limitations

Bribery prevalence in the SDG indicator framework is defined as the percentage of persons who paid at least one bribe (gave a public official money, a gift or counter favour) to a public official, or were asked for a bribe by these public officials, in the last 12 months, as a percentage of persons who had at least one contact with a public official in the same period.

In this formulation, the share of the population in contact with public officials who was asked to pay a bribe (but did not give it) is to beincluded in the numerator of the indicator. However, several historical and on-going survey programmes implemented at the national and international level do not include experiences of bribery refusal in the formulation and prevalence computation. It is expected that data according to the preferred definition (which includes bribery refusal) will become increasingly available at national and global level, as standardised question wording and indicator computation are applied.

On a more general level, it should be noted that this indicator provides information on the experiences of bribery occurring during interactions between citizens and the public sector, while it does not cover other forms of corruption, such as ´grand corruption´, trading in influence, or abuse of power.

4.c. Method of computation

The indicator is calculated as the total number of persons who paid at least one bribe to a public official (or were asked for a bribe) in the last 12 months, over the total number of persons who had at least one contact with a public official in the same period, multiplied by 100.

B r i b e r y   p r e v a l e n c e = 100 * B C

Where B refers to the number of people who paid a bribe to or were asked for a bribe by public official in the last 12 months, and C refers to the total number of people who had contact with public officials in the last 12 months.

4.d. Validation

Following the submission of the CTS questionnaire, UNODC checks the submitted data for consistency and coherence with other data sources. For survey-based indicators, metadata are assessed in relation to the representativeness and coverage of the survey as well as alignment of question wording and answer options with international standards. Member States which are also part of the European Union or the European Free Trade Association, or candidate or potential candidate to the European Union are sending their response to the UN-CTS to Eurostat for validation. The Organization for American States is also reviewing the responses of its Member States. All data submitted by Member States through other means or taken from other sources are added to the dataset after review and validation by Member States.

4.e. Adjustments

Not applicable

4.f. Treatment of missing values (i) at country level and (ii) at regional level

• At country level

Missing values are not imputed.

• At regional and global levels

Not applicable

4.g. Regional aggregations

Not applicable

4.h. Methods and guidance available to countries for the compilation of the data at the national level

In 2018, UNODC together with the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the UNODC-INEGI Centre of Excellence published the Manual on Corruption Surveys, which provides Member States with detailed guidelines not only for planning and implementing corruption surveys, but for also analyzing and reporting on corruption survey data. The Manual deals with deals with corruption surveys among the general population as well as businesses. The Manual is available in multiple UN languages at: https://www.unodc.org/unodc/data-and-analysis/corruption-manuals.html

In 2022, the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) together with the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) published the SDG 16 Survey Questionnaire and Implementation Manual, which contain internationally standardised survey question wording (in the five official UN languages) as well as implementation guidance related to this indicator. The questionnaire and manual are available in multiple languages at:

https://www.sdg16hub.org/topic/sdg-16-survey-initiative-questionnaire

https://www.sdg16hub.org/topic/sdg-16-survey-initiative-implementation-manual

UNODC. 2023. Statistical framework to measure corruption

4.i. Quality management

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has a statistical section with dedicated staff to support the data collection through technical assistance, collating and verifying the received data and continuously improve data collection mechanisms including guidelines.

4.j. Quality assurance

It is recommended that National Statistics Offices (NSOs) serve as the main contact for compiling and assuring the quality of the necessary data to report on SDG 16.5.1, in close coordination with other relevant bodies in the country. Automated and substantive validation procedures are in place when data are processed by custodian agencies to assess their consistency and compliance with standards.

4.k. Quality assessment

See section 4.d Validation

5. Data availability and disaggregation

Data availability:

More than 120 countries have at least one data point on bribery prevalence based on a nationally representative survey. A growing number of countries are implementing surveys using similar methodologies in order to assess the prevalence of bribery experiences in the population. However, the scale and methods of administration of the surveys vary.

Time series:

The indicator has recently been included into the annual United Nations Crime Trends Survey (UN-CTS, the regular data collection used by UNODC to collect data from UN Member States. It is expected that countries will gradually report on this indicator as the methodological guidance is disseminated and relevant items are included in national surveys.

Disaggregation:

Recommended disaggregation for this indicator are by:

  • age and sex of the bribe-givers
  • type of official (police officer, health care worker, customs officer, etc.)ethe bribe-givers
  • educational attainment of the bribe-givers

6. Comparability/deviation from international standards

Sources of discrepancies:

If data from more than one survey are available for the same country, discrepancies may arise due to different wording of the questions, different structure of the questionnaire, different survey methods and operations, different sample design and sample size. As a rule, data from national surveys complying with recommended international standards are used, when available.

7. References and Documentation

URL and References:

www.unodc.org

https://dataunodc.un.org/sdgs

General information on UNODC’s work related to corruption surveys: https://www.unodc.org/unodc/data-and-analysis/corruption.html

Platform for accessing micro-data on corruption surveys: https://dataunodc.un.org/content/microdata

UNODC. 2015. International Classification of Crime for Statistical Purposes (ICCS)

https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/statistics/iccs.html

UNODC-UNDP-UNODC-INEGI CoE. 2018. Manual on Corruption Surveys.

https://www.unodc.org/unodc/data-and-analysis/corruption-manuals.html

UNODC-UNDP-OHCHR. 2022. SDG 16 Survey Questionnaire and Implementation Manual. Available at:

https://www.sdg16hub.org/topic/sdg-16-survey-initiative-questionnaire

https://www.sdg16hub.org/topic/sdg-16-survey-initiative-implementation-manual

UNODC. 2023. Statistical framework to measure corruption