Analysis of spatial homogeneity of integrity standards in selected eu oecd countries
Abstract
EconStor is a publication server for scholarly economic literature, provided as a non-commercial public service by the ZBW.
Full text
Filipiak, Beata Zofia; Dylewski, Marek; Cheba, Katarzyna Article Analysis of spatial homogeneity of integrity standards in selected eu oecd countries e-Finanse: Financial Internet Quarterly Provided in Cooperation with: University of Information Technology and Management, Rzeszów Suggested Citation: Filipiak, Beata Zofia; Dylewski, Marek; Cheba, Katarzyna (2018) : Analysis of spatial homogeneity of integrity standards in selected eu oecd countries, e-Finanse: Financial Internet Quarterly, ISSN 1734-039X, Sciendo, Warsaw, Vol. 14, Iss. 2, pp. 18-33, https://doi.org/10.2478/fiqf-2018-0009 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/197408 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0
www.e-finanse.com University of Information Technology and Management in Rzeszów 18 Beata Zofia Filipiak1, Marek Dylewski2, Katarzyna Cheba3 Abstract Theprincipleoftransparencynotonlyischangingbutitsimportanceisincreasing.International organizations,includingtheOECD,areseekingtodevelopharmonizedstandardsoftransparencyin publicadministration.Thisfactisofparticularimportanceinthesearchforcommonsolutionsfor theOECDcountriesintheimplementationoftransparencystandards,butalsothisorganisationhas soughtadequatemethodsformeasuringimplementationofthesestandards.Themainpurposeof thestudyistoanalyzethelevelofspatialhomogeneityintheareaofapplicationofthestandards of“integrity”oftheOECD,whichareanexpressionoftheprincipleoftransparencyinthemember statesofthisorganization,ontheEuropeancontinent.Inthestudyvectorcalculuswasused. 1 UniversityofSzczecin,Dep.ofFinance,Poland,e-mail:[email protected],ORCID:https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5480-5264; 2 WSBUniversities,Dep.ofFinance,Poland,e-mail:mar[email protected]znan.pl,ORCID:https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0168-2798 3 WestPomeranianUniversityofTechnologyinSzczecin,Dep.ofAppliedMathematicsinEconomics,e-mail:ka[email protected],ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8753-7764. ANALYSIS OF SPATIAL HOMOGENEITY OF INTEGRITY STANDARDS IN SELECTED EU OECD COUNTRIES Financial Internet Quarterly „e-Finanse” 2018, vol. 14/ no. 2, s. 18-33 DOI: 10.2478/fiqf-2018-0009 JEL classification: H39, H87, C61 Keywords: public finances, the principle of transparency, “integrity”, spatial homogeneity Received:19.07.2018 Accepted:21.07.2018
www.e-finanse.com University of Information Technology and Management in Rzeszów 19 „e-Finanse” 2018, vol. 14 / no. 2 Beata Zofia Filipiak, Marek Dylewski, Katarzyna Cheba Analysis of spatial homogeneity of integrity standards in selected EU OECD countries Introduction Recentyearshaveshownthatoneofthebasiccriteria forpursuingeffectivepoliciesbypublicauthoritiesensuring long-term economic stability is respecting budgetary principles, including the principle of transparency. This approachisreflected bothin international projectsand programsandinnationalpoliciesthroughactionstaken by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the OECD membercountriesandtheEUMemberStates. As indicated in the literature (Bertok, 2001; Hood, 2000; Lagunes, 2012; Sawulski, 2015; Gliniecka, 2015; Filipiak,2016),therearenumerousincentivesthatinduce public authorities to act contrary to the transparency principle. The public choice theory1 serves as the basis for explicating policy makers’ tendency to change their goalsanddirectionsforthedecisionsandactionstaken. Oneofthemostsignificantfactorsresultinginchangesto decisionsorpublicpoliciesadoptedisafailuretorespect ethicalnormsandbreachofthetransparencyprinciple. Ontheotherhand,theconsequencesofbreaching thebudgetaryprinciples,otherthanalackofeffectiveness inimplementingpoliciesandeconomicstability,include an unsatisfactory level of the execution of public tasks togetherwiththespreadofcorruption.Thus,introducing institutionalsolutionsthatwillserveascontrolmechanisms maybeoneofthewaystoreducethetendencytobreach thebudgetaryprinciples. Regulations,oftenelevatedto thestatusofformalagreements,maysignificantlyreduce systemic deficiencies if they are monitored, quantified andfurtherrefinedbyallstakeholders. One of the basic budgetary principles is especially important in this case – the transparency principle, whichprovidesthebasistocreateaneffectivesystemfor monitoring its application. International organizations, includingtheOECD,aimatdevelopinguniformstandards fortheclarityandtransparencyofpublicadministration operations.Ithasbeenindicatedthatthecountriesthat claim to observe the principle of transparency should have similar rates of standards implementation. The greaterthedifferences,themoreoftenwecanobserve lower homogeneity of the OECD member countries in terms of the implementation of standards. Identifying suchdifferencesmaypromptstatesandtheirauthorities 1 Thistheoryisdiscussedinmoredetailby:(Musgrave&Musgrave, 1989;Stiglitz,2004;Buchanan,1997). totakeeffortstoequalizethe implementationlevels of thesestandards.Itisthencrucialtodetectinhomogeneity in terms of the standards being implemented by the European states, including the member states of the European Union, its economic partners and the candidatestatesawaitingaccession.Ananalysisofspatial homogeneity or inhomogeneity of the European states in the area of study indicated will allow to identify the factorsthathave“distorted”it.Understandably,precise identificationofthefactorsinvolvedintheemergenceof inhomogeneityandthenstrivingtoeliminatethemis a responsibilityofthepublicauthoritiesofagivencountry; itmightalsobeanimportantsignaltotakeappropriate decisionswithintheEuropeancommunity. Thegoalofthisstudyistoanalyzethelevelofspatial homogeneity in terms of the application of the OECD integritystandardsasamanifestationofthetransparency principle implementation in this organization’s member countrieslocatedontheEuropeancontinent.Thestudy employedthevectorcalculussuggestedintheliterature (Nermend, 2008; Nermend & Tarczyńska-Łuniewska, 2013) Principle of transparency in public administration and its manifestation in OECD activities The notion of “transparency” has not been normatively defined in the Polish law. As a result, the transparencyprincipleinthePolishfinancialsystemcan beonlydiscussedbasedonitssubjectiveinterpretation. Initiallythenotiononlyreferredtoabudgetandinthe Polishliteraturethetransparencyprincipleisoftendefined inthisway(Komar,1996,p.90;Kosikowskietal.,2003,p. 316;Lubińska,2013,p.252;Gliniecka,2015,pp.156-158). Itcanbeconcludedthenthatitisanarrowdefinitionof transparency.Atpresentthisprincipleisdefinednotonly in reference to a budget but also to the whole public finance sector including public administration (broad definition). Suchan approachrepresentstheconsensusofthe discussion underlying the replacement of the European Union’sofficialdocumentswhichtookplaceinthe1990s
Beata Zofia Filipiak, Marek Dylewski, Katarzyna Cheba Analysis of spatial homogeneity of integrity standards in selected EU OECD countries www.e-finanse.com University of Information Technology and Management in Rzeszów 20 „e-Finanse” 2018, vol. 14 / no. 2 andconcernedthescopeoftheconceptoftransparency2. Thenotionstandsfor:insight,knowledge,publicaccess to documents held by public authorities (Budzyńska & Pawłowski, 2000, p. 13). Transparency can be also understood as a quality of a public finance act which makes the document communicative, clear, logically organized and comprehensible; transparency contrasts withincomprehension,confusion,anunclearconnection of different elements (Gliniecka, 2015, p. 156). The transparency principle is also defined as “a situation in whichtheprinciplesofcashmanagementareclearand specific,thesystemforcollecting,processingandsharing dataonthe stateofpublicfinancesallowsustoobtain a full, solid and comprehensible picture of a country’s financial situation and specific segments of the public sector together with the influence of the public-sector operationsonthewholeeconomy(Misiąg&Niedzielski, 2001,p.5).TheopinionsexpressedinthePolishliterature areidenticaltotheevolutionandstandpointdeveloped by, for example, the European Union and the OECD regarding the substance and role of the transparency principleasinterpretedbyinternationalorganizations. The development of transparency standards is an integral part of the changes in management processes inthepublicsector.Theliteratureindicates(Friedman& Friedman,1997,p.65;Mazur,2003,p.86;Rybiński,2009; Filipiak,2016,p.64)thatthe qualityof managementis deteriorating,thereis alackof aneffectivemechanism ofreplacingworkerswhodonotmeettherequirements ofthesectorandthereasonforthisisaninefficientuse of public assets, a lack of an appropriate control and supervision system, a lack of transparency standards adequatetothecurrentdevelopmentlevel.Thisresults from an increasing trend of putting strong pressure by business-political groups on the decisions made by public administration. Unfortunately, the transparency oftheactivitiestakenremainsasignificantproblemina numberofcountries.Thetransparencystandardsinthe narrow sense (i.e. referring only to a budget, general in nature) have been already legitimized in practice 2 Theprecursorsofchangeinapproachweretheconsecutivestudies(Sen,1981,Kopits&Craig,1998)complementedwiththeconsiderations(Stiglitz,2004)whichunderlaythedevelopmentofthestandard known as “Code of Good Practices on Fiscal Transparency” prepared by the International Monetary Fund (version updated in 2001). Later thisapproachwasdevelopedanddiscussedbyOECDinthedocument entitled“BestPracticesforBudgetTransparency”(OECD,2002;OECD, 2011).Thesestandardsrepresentthefirstapproachtothetransparency principle,thatisthetransparencyofabudgetanditspreparation,data qualityandaccesstoinformation.Thesehigh-levelstandards,IMFand OECD,setthedirectionfordevelopingtheso-calledindustrystandards concerningsomeofthepublic-sectorsegmentsorcertainareasoffinancial management in the public sector. (e.g. in the existing legislation), but transparency in its broad sense (i.e. referring to the whole public finance sector including public administration, often industryspecific,concerningsomeofthepublicsectorsegments or certain areas of financial management in the public sector)3 requires further discussion, strengthening the existingstandardsandmonitoringtheirimplementation. Especiallyimportantistheproblemoftransparencyinthe execution of public tasks by public administration. The membercountriesoftheOECDhavetakeneffortsaimed atsupporting,popularizingandimplementingstandards thatimprovethequalityofmanagementandoperations inpublicadministration. The OECD publications on the development of the transparency principle put special emphasis on public administration professionalism, professional ethicsandintegrityintaskexecution.Forthisreason,to support proper disbursement of public funds, increase effectiveness of this spending and decrease the risk of its ineffectiveness and corruption, the OECD member countrieshavedecidedtostandardizeandmonitorpublic administrationoperations,whichreflectstheapplication of the transparency principle4.Thehonestyandcredibility of public authorities is precisely referred to as integrity (www2;OECD,2009,p.19).TheOECDmembercountries recognize it as the cornerstone of good management in public administration both at the national and local governmentlevel(Filipiak,2016,pp.64-72). Transparency is crucial as it facilitates control and prevents misuse of powers by public authorities. Practical application of the transparency principle stimulates supervision, internal control and activities under management control and, at the same time, makes it difficult to conceal irregularities and facts indicating malpractice. Transparency counteracts corruption-generatingpracticesandcorruptioninpublic administrationitself. Integrity standards as manifestation of transparency principle application Integrity stands for applying values, principles and norms in everyday operations of public sector actors, especially public administration. The general goal of introducing principles and norms is to implement and makemanagersobserveacultureofintegritythroughout 3 Thisapproachisdiscussedinmoredetailby:Niedzielski(2005). 4 This is reflected in the documents (OECD, 2000a) and (OECD, 2015).
www.e-finanse.com University of Information Technology and Management in Rzeszów 21 „e-Finanse” 2018, vol. 14 / no. 2 Beata Zofia Filipiak, Marek Dylewski, Katarzyna Cheba Analysis of spatial homogeneity of integrity standards in selected EU OECD countries anexecutioncycleofpublictasksaswellasthroughout a life cycle of a given service and during the execution oftaskperformedbypublicadministration.Theconcept ofintegrityhasevolvedandbyconsensusisnowbased on the four basic pillars, that are (OECD, 2009, pp. 1819): transparency, good management, prevention of misconduct and monitoring (including information) together with accountability and control. These pillars canbedividedinto:a)layersthatconstitutetheintegrity management framework (e.g. ethics code, conflict-ofinterest policies, whistle-blowing arrangements etc.), b) developmentprocessesandc)processbeneficiaries(these aretheso-calledintegrityactors-publicadministration workers)whoshouldhaveincentivetopromoteintegrity andconsistencyinpublicsectorentitieswhileproviding public services (Bertók et al., 2009, pp. 7-8). OECD research(OECD,2000;OECD,2009,OECD,2015a),aswell as Bertok (2001) indicate that emphasis should be put on a mechanism to promote desired ethical attitudes, including “integrity” standards and the prevention of corruption. Corruption is perceived here not so much as individual actions, but rather as a result of systemic imperfectionor civilization culture,underestimatingthe importance of professional ethics. The integrity standards in the execution of public sector tasks have been defined in relation to the most important areas of activity of public authorities. The most important group of standards concerns public procurement (this area is considered riskiest from the integrity perspective), lobbying (public administration workersgetincontactwithprivateinterestsofbusiness groupsrepresentedbylobbyist),eventsandpublictasks. They can be presented as follows (OECD, 2000; OECD, 2009;OECD,2015): 1) It is important to ensure an adequate degree of transparencythroughoutatask execution cycleand act to promote fair and equitable treatment of potential suppliers/contractors of the public sector. It is vital to developandregularlyauditpolicies,procedures,practices and institutions in terms of ethical behavior in public serviceandadministrationandintermsofperformance. 2) Itisnecessarytoensuremaximumtransparencyin competitivetenderingandtakemaximumprecautionary measures to enhance cohesion of the actions taken (referring both to performance, executing a tenderer selectionprocessaswellasprovidinginformation). 3) Thetransparencyoftheuseofpublicfundsshould be monitored to ensure that they are employed in line withthepurposeintended,inparticular,usedaccording tothe intended purposeby thetendererindicatedina public procurement contract. 4) Itisessentialtoassurethatofficialsresponsiblefor procurementandtaskexecutionmeethighprofessional standardsintermsoftheirknowledge,skillsandintegrity. It is vital to implement procedures and principles with ethical dimension under public administration (offices) management to make sure that management practices areinlinewiththevaluesandprinciplesofpublicservice (administration). 5) Mechanismsshouldbeputinplacetoavoidand reduce risks to professionalism and transparency and topreventviolation ofethical principles. Itisespecially important to take efforts targeted to maintain high standards of conduct and to prevent corruption in the public sector. 6) Actionsneedtobetakentofosterclosecooperation betweennationalandlocalgovernmentsandthepublic sectortokeephighintegritystandards. 7) It is necessary to develop specific mechanisms for monitoring task execution and public procurement processes and detecting misconduct together with applyingappropriatesanctions. 8) It is important to create a clear chain of responsibility, transparent in terms of jurisdiction, togetherwitheffectivecontrolmechanisms. 9) Complaints from potential tenderers/suppliers shouldbeprocessedinafairandtimelymannerinline withtheestablishedprocedures. 10) Undertheintegrityframeworkitisalsonecessary to encourage social organizations and citizens, media and the public to scrutinize task execution and public procurement.Theseactivitiesshouldbefullyacceptedby publicadministration. In this context one should note that it is also advocatedtocombinemanagementsystemswithmoral and professional ethics principles. Managers should assess the effects of public management reforms in terms of their impact on providing public services and maintaining ethical conduct. Ethical principles in public service should be referred to in everyday operational management and included in attachments to relevant organizationaldocuments. The OECD standards indicate that an entity is considered to meet the integrity and transparency principles only when it demonstrates the ability to
Beata Zofia Filipiak, Marek Dylewski, Katarzyna Cheba Analysis of spatial homogeneity of integrity standards in selected EU OECD countries www.e-finanse.com University of Information Technology and Management in Rzeszów 22 „e-Finanse” 2018, vol. 14 / no. 2 Table 1: Implementation of integrity standards measured by composite index in 2014 (group I) Country Level of disclosure and public availability of private interests across branches of government: executive legislative judicial at risk area Australia 38,33 75 14,58 25 Austria 31,25 54,17 29,17 20,83 Belgium 37,5 41,67 0 20,83 Canada 66,67 70,83 10,42 20,83 Chile 35 62,5 56,25 29,17 CzechRepublic 29,17 58,33 0 58,33 Estonia 52,78 79,17 39,58 11,11 Finland 41,67 0 27,08 16,67 France 58,33 70,83 75 6,94 Germany 19,17 66,67 25 33,33 Greece 38,89 79,17 41,67 33,33 Hungary 59,03 87,5 45,83 41,67 Iceland 25 75 8,33 4,17 Ireland 38,89 62,5 6,25 12,5 Israel 45 54,17 43,75 45,83 Italy 32,5 70,83 70,83 43,06 Japan 28,33 58,33 20,83 25 Korea 81,94 87,5 83,33 83,33 Mexico 41,67 41,67 41,67 41,67 Netherlands 36,67 50 45,83 0 NewZealand 49,58 87,5 0 20,83 Norway 65 50 37,5 18,06 Poland 38,89 87,5 25 20,83 Portugal 54,17 100 37,5 20,83 SlovakRepublic 59,72 87,5 39,58 8,33 Slovenia 25 18,75 29,17 11,11 Spain 37,5 54,17 8,33 8,33 Sweden 50,83 54,17 29,17 22,92 Switzerland 23,33 25 10,42 19,44 Turkey 58,33 50 50 50 UnitedKingdom 59,17 75 12,5 27,78 UnitedStates 60 100 66,67 29,17 OECD-average 44,35 63,61 32,23 25,98 Brazil 30,83 43,75 37,5 29,17 Colombia 37,5 37,5 37,5 37,5 Latvia 87,5 87,5 87,5 87,5 Russia 66,67 66,67 66,67 66,67 Source: OECD data
www.e-finanse.com University of Information Technology and Management in Rzeszów 23 „e-Finanse” 2018, vol. 14 / no. 2 Beata Zofia Filipiak, Marek Dylewski, Katarzyna Cheba Analysis of spatial homogeneity of integrity standards in selected EU OECD countries Table 2: Implementation of integrity standards measured by composite index in 2014 (group II) Country Level of disclosure and public availability of private interests by the level of public officials in the executive branch: head of the executive ministers or members the executive political advisors/ appointees senior civil servants civil servants Australia 75 75 8,33 29,17 4,17 Austria 37,5 37,5 25 25 25 Belgium 41,67 41,67 41,67 41,67 20,83 Canada 75 75 75 75 33,33 Chile 50 62,5 0 62,5 0 CzechRepublic 58,33 58,33 0 58,33 0 Estonia 79,17 79,17 0 70,83 8,33 Finland 87,5 87,5 - 25 8,33 France 62,5 75 75 75 0 Germany 16,67 16,67 - 25 25 Greece 79,17 79,17 25 25 25 Hungary 87,5 87,5 41,67 41,67 12,5 Iceland 75 75 0 0 0 Ireland 62,5 66,67 58,33 33,33 12,5 Israel 50 50 50 45,83 29,17 Italy 50 50 25 25 12,5 Japan 62,5 37,5 0 25 16,67 Korea 87,5 83,33 83,33 83,33 66,67 Mexico 41,67 41,67 41,67 41,67 41,67 Netherlands 62,5 62,5 16,67 25 16,67 NewZealand 87,5 87,5 16,67 33,33 19,05 Norway 75 75 58,33 58,33 58,33 Poland 56,25 87,5 0 16,67 16,67 Portugal 100 100 8,33 8,33 8,33 SlovakRepublic 87,5 87,5 87,5 4,17 4,17 Slovenia 29,17 29,17 16,67 29,17 16,67 Spain 62,5 62,5 0 62,5 0 Sweden 70,83 70,83 37,5 37,5 37,5 Switzerland 25 25 25 20,83 20,83 Turkey 50 50 50 50 50 UnitedKingdom 87,5 91,67 41,67 41,67 33,33 UnitedStates 100 66,67 66,67 66,67 0 OECD-average 64,78 64,84 32,5 39,45 19,48 Brazil 29,17 41,67 41,67 41,67 0 Colombia 37,5 37,5 37,5 37,5 37,5 Latvia 87,5 87,5 87,5 87,5 87,5 Russia 66,67 66,67 66,67 66,67 66,67 Source: OECD data
Beata Zofia Filipiak, Marek Dylewski, Katarzyna Cheba Analysis of spatial homogeneity of integrity standards in selected EU OECD countries www.e-finanse.com University of Information Technology and Management in Rzeszów 24 „e-Finanse” 2018, vol. 14 / no. 2 participate in making an ethical decision and maintains thetransparencyofitsactivities.Thisabilityincludesthe awarenessofmoralissuesinadecision-makingprocess concerning the execution of public tasks. An important problemindicatedhereiscombiningtheobligationsarising fromtheintegrityprincipleswiththerecommendations resulting from a budget, financial plans or agreements (ifataskisexecutedunderanagreementorconcluded contract) as well as implementing morally responsible decisionsinpractice(see:Petricketal.,2000)5. Respecting the transparency principle is becoming vital (as the OECD pays particular attention to it in its research) in terms of the ongoing globalization processes,especiallytheincreasingworldwideeconomic competitionandthegrowingtendencyofprivateentities totakeoverthepublicsector’stasks.Public authorities at different levels are becoming increasingly interested in supporting economic processes and attracting both domesticandforeigninvestors.Duetotheconstraintsof availablefinancialresourcestheydonotloseinterestin outsourcingoftasksincludingtheservicesthatsofarhave beenreservedforthepublicsector.Thissituationmight potentiallygenerateaconflictofinterestandabreachof the transparency principle (Mauro, 1995; Mauro, 1997; Grosse, 2000). Additionally, it has been indicated that in public service one may encounter references to the marketvalues,nottotheethosofservingthecommon good, which should be done in line with ethical values through the high quality of the tasks executed (Mauro, 1995;Mauro&Wei,1997and2000;DellaPorta&Meny, 1997; Della Porta & Vannucci, 1999; Friedman et al., 2000;Grosse,2000,Filipiak&Ruszała,2009;Mazur,2016; Filipiak,2016). Therefore, the OECD monitors the application of theintegritystandards.Inordertoassessthe“integrity” phenomenon,thefollowingareanalyzed:disclosuresof public officials’ private interests on the grounds of the authorityexercised(inthisstudythesearefourvariables denoted as group “I” in Table 1) and public availability of the information provided together with disclosures ofpublic officials’ privateinterestsbrokendown bythe positionsheld(describedbyfivevariablesdenotedas“II” inTable2). In the first group, covering disclosures of public 5 Someentities,havingbeencommercializedortransformedinto single-membercompanies,applythebusinessprinciples.Whileexecutingtasksentrustedunderpublicadministrationagreements,theyshouldperformtheminaccordancewiththeintegritystandards.Theothers employtraditionalortask-basedbudgetplanning. officials’privateinterestsonthegroundsoftheauthority exercised(disclosuresareexpressedaspercentages),the followinghavebeenanalyzed: 1) thelevelofdisclosuresanddisseminationtothe publicofprivateinterestsrelatingtoexecutiveauthorities, 2) thelevelofdisclosuresanddisseminationtothe publicofprivateinterestsrelatingtolegislativeauthorities, 3) thelevelofdisclosuresanddisseminationtothe publicofprivateinterestsrelatingtojudicialauthorities, 4) the level of disclosures and dissemination to the public of private interests – in risk areas (this level includestheofficialsoftaxandcustomsadministration, public procurement agencies and those responsible for finances). In the second group, covering the percentage of public availability of the information provided and disclosures of public officials’ private interests broken down by the positions held, the following have been analyzed: 1) thelevelofdisclosuresanddisseminationtothe public of private interests relating to officials acting as executivedirectors, 2) thelevelofdisclosuresanddisseminationtothe public of private interests relating to officials acting as ministersorcabinetmembers, 3) thelevelofdisclosuresanddisseminationtothe public of private interests relating to officials acting as politicaladvisers/appointedmembersofauthorities, 4) thelevelofdisclosuresanddisseminationtothe publicofprivateinterestsrelatingtoseniorstateofficials, 5) thelevelofdisclosuresanddisseminationtothe publicofprivateinterestsrelatingtostateofficials. Thedatagatheredserveasthebasistocomparethe OECDcountries,toassess theeffectivenessof activities taken by the member states and to modify policies in termsof implementingthe transparencyprinciple in its broadsense.Table1summarizestheresultsofthelatest researchconductedintheOECDcountriesregardingthe observanceoftheintegritystandards.Thisstudypresents disclosures, i.e. transparent activities compliant with theintegrityprinciples andprofessional ethicsin public administration. The table contains data expressed by a compositeindexreferringtothedisclosureswithinpublic administration. The level of disclosure of public officials’ private interestsdiffersamongthethreebranchesofgovernment and these are the legislative authorities that display
www.e-finanse.com University of Information Technology and Management in Rzeszów 25 „e-Finanse” 2018, vol. 14 / no. 2 Beata Zofia Filipiak, Marek Dylewski, Katarzyna Cheba Analysis of spatial homogeneity of integrity standards in selected EU OECD countries the highest level of disclosure and availability of public information in the vast majority of the OECD countries researched. The differences demonstrated pose a numberofquestions:dothesedifferencesconcerntheEU countries,aretheredifferencesbetweentheoldandthe newEUMemberStatesandwhatistheextentofthese differences? The answers to these questions might be providedbymeansofaspatialhomogeneityanalysisinthe areaoftheaggregateindicatorspresentedinTables1-2. Spatialhomogeneityisimportantasthereisanincreasing tendency to raise the issue of significant development differencesindifferentareasbetweenthecountriesthat makeuptheEuropeanUnion(Cheba,2016). Research approach and characteristics of methods employed ThestudyofthespatialhomogeneityoftheEuropean countriesintermsofobservingthetransparencyprinciple wasperformedbymeansofacompositeindexcalculated based on the integrity data presented in the OECD statistics. As the division of the European Union into theso-calledoldmemberstatesandthenewmembers of the EU or even into the rich Western countries and the poorer Eastern countries still seems to exist,it was decided to perform the analysis of the 3 groups of countries,i.e.Europeancountriesdividedinto:a)theold EU-15countries,b)thecountrieswhichaccessedtheEU after2004andtheotherEuropeancountries.Tables3-4 presentthecharacteristicsofgroupingthecountriesand thevalueofcompositeindexusedinthestudy. The information gathered and aggregated in Tables 1-4 are the data expressed as percentages by the composite index relating to the disclosures within public administration. It should be noted though that the measurement methodology used by the OECD is imperfectasitisbasedonthedeclarationsofthemember statesthatgatherinformationfrompublicadministration entitiesbymeansofasurvey.Thecompositeindexwas builtinlinewiththeapproachdescribedbyNardo(see: Nardo & Munda, 2004; Nardo et al., 2005), presented in a research report (OECD, 2008). The research was conducted in 20146 based on the disclosure of public 6 Itisthelastfullmeasurement;intheresearchconductedbefore 2014theintegritymeasurementmethodologywasonlybeingdevelopedthusthedataarenotcomparable. officials’privateinterestsdividedintotwocorevariables: the authority exercised, and the position held in public administration.Inthecaseoftwocountries(Finlandand Germany),owingtothelackofdataonpublicavailability of the information provided and disclosuresconcerning politicaladvisors/appointedmembersofauthorities,this information was complemented with the average value of this variable. Table 5 presents the basic descriptive profilesfortheso-calledintegrityratedeterminedforthe groupsofcountriesresearched. Apreliminaryanalysisoftheinformationpresented in the table indicates a considerable variation across certain groups of countries; this is proven by the high values of the coefficients of variation determined for each of the groups analyzed. There are also significant differencesbetweenthemaximumandminimumvalues oftheanalyzedvariables.Ineachgroupitispossibleto identify countries whose integrity rate values are much lowerwhencomparedtotheothercountries.However,it isnotaregularitythatcharacterizesonespecificcountry. This information indicates substantial inhomogeneity of the results obtained by the countries belonging to particulargroupsandthelevelofthisinhomogeneitycan bealsoassessedbymeansofthevectorcalculus. The theoretical foundations of the vector calculus anditspotentialapplicationineconomicswerepresented in the following publications: Kolenda (2006), Nermend (2008), Nermend & Tarczyńska-Łuniewska (2013), Łatuszyńska(2014),Cheba(2016).Oneoftheapplications ofthevectorcalculus,especiallythevectorcalculusbased onthe scalarproductand the arithmeticof increments described by Borawski (2012), is an analysis of spatial homogeneityofasetofobjectslocatedwithinabigger spatial unit, in this study analyzed for a set of the EU MemberStatesbelongingtotheso-calledoldEU-15,the new member states and other European countries, not members of theEU.Balanceddevelopmentin different areas of activity is embedded in the basic strategic goals of the European Union, nevertheless, as shown by numerous studies, analyses and experience of the EU’s functioning, it is an extremely challenging task (Cheba,2016).Oneofsuchareas,forwhichthepursuit ofahighandhomogeneouslevelofdevelopmentisan importantadvance,notonlywithintheEuropeanUnion, isthe application oftheintegritystandardsin everyday operations of public sector actors, especially public administration. A study of the homogeneity of changes
Beata Zofia Filipiak, Marek Dylewski, Katarzyna Cheba Analysis of spatial homogeneity of integrity standards in selected EU OECD countries www.e-finanse.com University of Information Technology and Management in Rzeszów 32 „e-Finanse” 2018, vol. 14 / no. 2 References Bertok,J.(2001).Promowaniepostawyetycznejwsłużbiepublicznej.DoświadczeniapaństwOECD,Służba Cywilna, 2, 51-78. Bertók, J., Maesschalck, J. (2009). Towards a Sound Integrity Framework: Instruments, Processes, Structures and Conditions for Implementation.Paris:OECD. Borawski,M.(2012).Rachunek wektorowy z arytmetyką przyrostów w przetwarzaniu obrazów.Warszawa:Wydawnictwo NaukowePWN. Buchanan,J.M.(1997).Finanse publiczne w warunkach demokracji.Warszawa:WydawnictwoNaukowePWN. Budzyńska,J.,Pawłowski,B.(2000).PolitykajawnościiprzejrzystościUEzeszczególnymuwzględnieniemdostępudo dokumentów publicznych. Informacja BSE, 731, 12-19. (IP – 91P). Retrieved from biurose.sejm.gov.pl/teksty_ pdf_00/i-731.pdf. Cheba,K.(2016).TheApplicationsofVectorCalculustotheStudyoftheUniformityofDevelopmentofSocio-economic Objects.Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Oeconomica , 325(5),87-98. DellaPorta,D.,Meny,Y.(1997).Democracy and Corruption in Europe.LondonandWashington:Pinter. DellaPorta,D.,Vannucci,A.(1999).Corrupt Exchanges. Actors, Resources, and Mechanisms of Political Corruption.New York:AldinedeGruyter. Filipiak,B.,Ruszała,J.(2009).Instytucje otoczenia biznesu.Warszawa:Difin. Filipiak,B.Z.(2016).Podobieństwairóżnicewwystępowaniuzjawiska„Integrity”wpaństwachOECD.Studia Ekonomiczne, 273,62-74. Friedman,E.,Johnson,S.,Kaufmann,D.,Zoido-Lobaton,P. (2000).DodgingtheGrabbingHand:theDeterminantsof UnofficialActivityin69Countries.Journal of Public Economics, 76,459–493. Friedman,M.,Friedman,R.(1997).Tyrania Status Quo.Sosnowiec:Panta. Gliniecka,J.(2015).Przejrzystośćijawnośćjakoregułygospodarowaniapublicznymiśrodkamipieniężnymi.Gdańskie Studia Prawnicze, XXXIII,155-175. Grosse,T.G.(2000).Działaniaanty-korupcyjnewpaństwachczłonkowskichOECD,Florencja.Retrievedfromhttp://www. antykorupcja.gov.pl/ak/analizy-i-raporty/oecd/3528,Dzialania-antykorupcyjne-w-panstwach-czlonkowskich-OECD. html. Hood, Ch. (2000). Paradoxes of Public-Sector Managerialism, Old Public Management and Public Service Bargains. International Public Management Journal, 3(1),1-22. Kolenda,M.(2006). Taksonomia numeryczna. Klasyfikacja, porządkowanie i analiza obiektów wielocechowych.Wrocław: WydawnictwoAkademiiEkonomicznejim.OskaraLangegoweWrocławiu. Komar,A.(1996).Finanse publiczne w gospodarce rynkowej.Bydgoszcz:OficynaWydawniczaBranta. Kopits,G.,Craig,J.(1998).TransparencyinGovernmentOperations,OccasionalPaperno.158.WashingtonDC:IMF. Retrievedfrom http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.529.902&rep=rep1&type=pdf. Kosikowski,C.,Ruśkowski,E.(2003).Finanse publiczne i prawo finansowe.Warszawa:DomWydawniczyABC. Lagunes,P.F.(2012).Corruption’sChallengetoDemocracy:AReviewoftheIssues.Politics & Policy, 40(5),802–826. Lubińska,T.(2013).Finanse publiczne – kategorie, instytucje, struktury, procesy i dane.Szczecin:ECONOMICUS. Łatuszyńska, A. (2014). Propozycja miary agregatowej efektów działalności środowiskowej. Ekonomia i Środowisko, 3(50),23-35. Mauro,P.(1995).CorruptionandGrowth.The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(3),681-712. Mauro, P. (1997). The Effects of Corruption on Growth, Investment, and Government Expenditure: A Cross-Country Analysis.InK.Elliott(Ed.),CorruptionintheGlobalEconomy(pp.83-107).Washington:InstituteforInternational Economics. Mazur,S.(2016).The Culture of Institutionalised Distrust.InReflectionsonPerformance,IntegrityandTrustinthePublic SectorinEurope(pp.9-16).Brussels:EUPAN. Mazur,S.(2003).Narodowe modele administracji publicznej.InJ.Hausner(Ed.),Administracjapubliczna(pp.63-86). Warszawa:PWN. Misiąg, W., Niedzielski, A. (2001). Jawność i przejrzystość finansów publicznych w Polsce w świetle standardów MiędzynarodowegoFunduszuWalutowego.Zeszyty IBnGR, 29,1-34. Munda,G.,Nardo,M.(2005). Constructing Consistent Composite Indicators: the Issue of Weights.Ispra:JointResearch Centre. Musgrave,R.A.,Musgrave,P.B.(1989).Public Finance in Theory and Practice, 5thed.,NewYork:McGraw-Hill. Nardo,M.,Tarantola,S., Saltelli,A.,Andropoulos,C., Buescher,R.,Karageorgos,G.,Latvala,A.,Noel,F.(2004).The E-businessReadinessCompositeIndicatorFor2003:APilotStudy,(EUR21294,EuropeanCommission).Retrieved
www.e-finanse.com University of Information Technology and Management in Rzeszów 33 „e-Finanse” 2018, vol. 14 / no. 2 Beata Zofia Filipiak, Marek Dylewski, Katarzyna Cheba Analysis of spatial homogeneity of integrity standards in selected EU OECD countries from http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC28490/EUR%2021294%20EN.pdf. Nermend, K., (2008). Rachunek wektorowy w analizie rozwoju regionalnego. Szczecin: Wydaw. Nauk. Uniwersytetu Szczecińskiego. Nermend, K., Tarczyńska-Łuniewska, M., (2013). Badanie jednorodności przestrzennej i czasowej rozwoju obiektów społeczno-gospodarczych.Przegląd Statystyczny, 60(1),85-100. Niedzielski,A.,(2005).Międzynarodowestandardyjawnościiprzejrzystościfinansówpublicznych:analizaekonomiczna orazodniesieniedoPolski.Retrievedfromwww.nik.gov.pl/kolegium-nik/posiedzenia (20050420-referat-niedziclski. pdf. OECD,(2000).BuildingPublicTrust:EthicsMeasuresinOECDCountries,Annex-1998RecommendationoftheOECD CouncilonImprovingEthicalConductinthePublicService,36IncludingPrinciplesforManagingEthicsinthePublic Service,OECD,PUMAPolicyBriefNo.7.Retrievedfromhttps://www.oecd.org/gov/ethics/48994450.pdf. OECD,(2002).BestPracticesforBudgetTransparency,OECDPublishing,Paris.Retrievedfromhttp://www.oecd.org/ governance/budgeting/Best%20Practices%20Budget%20Transparency%20-%20complete%20with%20cover%20 page.pdf. OECD,(2005).Managing Conflict of Interest in the Public Sector,OECDPublishing,Paris.Retrievedfromhttps://www. oecd.org/gov/ethics/49107986.pdf. OECD,(2008).Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators,OECDPublishing&JRC,Paris.Retrievedfromhttp:// www.oecd.org/std/leading-indicators/42495745.pdf. OECD,(2009).Principles for Integrity in Public Procurement,OECDPublishing,Paris.Retrievedfromhttp://www.oecd. org/gov/ethics/48994520.pdf. OECD, (2011). Best Practices for Budget Transparency, OECD Publishing, Paris. Retrieved from http://oecd.org. dataoecd/33/12/1905258.pdf. OECD, (2015). Government at a Glance 2015, OECD Publishing, Paris. Retrieved from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/ governance/government-at-a-glance-2015_gov_glance-2015-en. Petrick,J.A.,QuinnJ.F.(2000).TheIntegrityCapacityConstructand MoralProgressinBusiness.Journal of Business Ethics, 23(1),3–18. Rybiński, K. (2009). Gdybym miał władzę, Wprost, z 29 marca 2009. Retrieved from https://www.wprost.pl/ tygodnik/156026/Gdybym-mial-wladze.html. Sawulski,J.(2015).Audyt(nie)przejrzystościfinansówpublicznychwPolsce. IBS Policy Paper, 2,2-23. Sen,A.(1981).Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation.Oxford:ClarendonPress. Stiglitz,J.F.(2004).Ekonomia sektora publicznego.Warszawa:WydawnictwoNaukowePWN. Wei,S.J(2000).HowTaxingIsCorruptionOnInternationalInvestors?,Review of Economics and Statistics, 82(1,Feb), 1-11. Wei,S.J.(1997).HowTaxingisCorruptiononInternationalInvestors?National Bureau of Economics Research Working Paper 6030,Cambridge. Web References: www1.http://stats.oecd.org/# www2.http://www.oecd.org/gov/ethics/publicsectorintegrityreviews.htm#Introduction www3.http://www.oecd.org/gov/ethics/48720289.xlsx