Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 21 – uploaded by Kinzang Gyeltshen

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Figure 23 Trust and its survey items Note: 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=4008, NIA 2019)

Figure 23 Trust and its survey items Note: 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=4008, NIA 2019)

Related Figures (109)

Figure 1 Model for National Integrity Assessment 2019 Note. Adapted from ACRC, 2015
Figure 1 Model for National Integrity Assessment 2019 Note. Adapted from ACRC, 2015
Note. *Human Resources (HR) service and Administration and Finance Division (AFD) service are counted a: two irrespective of the number of agencies assessed. Table 1 Number of services and agencies selected from each category of public agencies
Note. *Human Resources (HR) service and Administration and Finance Division (AFD) service are counted a: two irrespective of the number of agencies assessed. Table 1 Number of services and agencies selected from each category of public agencies
Note. Source (n=13869, NIA 2019) Table 2 Demographic profile of the respondents
Note. Source (n=13869, NIA 2019) Table 2 Demographic profile of the respondents
Table 3 External Integrity Assessment Framework Assessment Framework: Internal Integrity
Table 3 External Integrity Assessment Framework Assessment Framework: Internal Integrity
Table 5 Weight for External Integrity indexes, components and survey items Neight distribution for Internal Integrity components and its survey items
Table 5 Weight for External Integrity indexes, components and survey items Neight distribution for Internal Integrity components and its survey items
Table 6 Internal Integrity assessment factors and weights
Table 6 Internal Integrity assessment factors and weights
Table 7 Mean score and weights of Internal Integrity indexes
Table 7 Mean score and weights of Internal Integrity indexes
Table 8 Mean score and weights of Ethical Leadership components
Table 8 Mean score and weights of Ethical Leadership components
Table 9 Mean score and weights for different survey items of ethical leaders
Table 9 Mean score and weights for different survey items of ethical leaders
Note. Source (ACRC, 2017) Table 10 Conversion of 7-point scale into 10-point
Note. Source (ACRC, 2017) Table 10 Conversion of 7-point scale into 10-point
Table 11 Conversion of 5-pont scale into 10-point Formula to convert 5-point scale in 10-point and scores assigned to each scale 10-point score = (5-point score — 1 / 4) * 10
Table 11 Conversion of 5-pont scale into 10-point Formula to convert 5-point scale in 10-point and scores assigned to each scale 10-point score = (5-point score — 1 / 4) * 10
Table 12 Score interpretations for NIA 2019 Note. Source (ACRC, 2017)
Table 12 Score interpretations for NIA 2019 Note. Source (ACRC, 2017)
Figure 2 National Integrity score with an External and Internal Integrity score Note. The score deduction for NIA 2019 is 0.09 which was deducted from National Integrity; Source (n=13869, NIA 2019) The national integrity score for the country was calculated at 7.97, indicating a Good Level of integrity as depicted in Figure 2.
Figure 2 National Integrity score with an External and Internal Integrity score Note. The score deduction for NIA 2019 is 0.09 which was deducted from National Integrity; Source (n=13869, NIA 2019) The national integrity score for the country was calculated at 7.97, indicating a Good Level of integrity as depicted in Figure 2.
Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=9861, NIA 2019) Figure 3 External Integrity score
Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=9861, NIA 2019) Figure 3 External Integrity score
Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=9861, NIA 2019) Figure 4 Transparency component with its survey items
Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=9861, NIA 2019) Figure 4 Transparency component with its survey items
Note. Source (n=9861, NIA 2019) *Total indicates the sum of all the responses to a multiple-response item Table 14 Sources of information used by external clients to get information on services As can be seen from Table 14, the Satisfactory Level of the score in transparency was attributed due to significant progress in access to information related to public service delivery by the service users through websites, social media, and reminder/notification by the office as compared to other sources of information. Of the total 23274 responses, 8.80% preferred for website, 7.33% social media, and 17.96% reminder/notification by the office as sources of information related to public service delivery. Therefore, word of mouth is one of the main sources of information on services (26.75%), despite the advancement in information and communication technology.
Note. Source (n=9861, NIA 2019) *Total indicates the sum of all the responses to a multiple-response item Table 14 Sources of information used by external clients to get information on services As can be seen from Table 14, the Satisfactory Level of the score in transparency was attributed due to significant progress in access to information related to public service delivery by the service users through websites, social media, and reminder/notification by the office as compared to other sources of information. Of the total 23274 responses, 8.80% preferred for website, 7.33% social media, and 17.96% reminder/notification by the office as sources of information related to public service delivery. Therefore, word of mouth is one of the main sources of information on services (26.75%), despite the advancement in information and communication technology.
Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=9861, NIA 2019) Figure 5 Accountability component with its survey items
Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=9861, NIA 2019) Figure 5 Accountability component with its survey items
Note. Source (n=9861, NIA 2019) Table 15 Percentage of respondents on items of accountability component
Note. Source (n=9861, NIA 2019) Table 15 Percentage of respondents on items of accountability component
Note. Source (Analysis of the complaints received in the FY 2018-2019) Table 16 Percentage of complaints by issues Table 17 Percentage of responses on items related to service delivery
Note. Source (Analysis of the complaints received in the FY 2018-2019) Table 16 Percentage of complaints by issues Table 17 Percentage of responses on items related to service delivery
Figure 6 Corruption index and its Components Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean Source (n=9861, NIA 2019)
Figure 6 Corruption index and its Components Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean Source (n=9861, NIA 2019)
Figure 7 Experienced corruption and its survey items Whereas, the perceived corruption score of 6.31 indicates that the respondents sensed or felt some forms of corruption taking place in the agencies where they availed the services. For instance, when asked whether knowing the public official is beneficial in having the service processed faster, 44.98% and 20.48% of the respondents indicated agree and strongly agree respectively. These results corroborate with BTI’s (2016) findings which showed that 52.4% agreed that favouritism was one of the most prevalent forms of corruption in the country.
Figure 7 Experienced corruption and its survey items Whereas, the perceived corruption score of 6.31 indicates that the respondents sensed or felt some forms of corruption taking place in the agencies where they availed the services. For instance, when asked whether knowing the public official is beneficial in having the service processed faster, 44.98% and 20.48% of the respondents indicated agree and strongly agree respectively. These results corroborate with BTI’s (2016) findings which showed that 52.4% agreed that favouritism was one of the most prevalent forms of corruption in the country.
Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean Source (n=9861, NIA 2019) Figure 8 Perceived corruption and its survey items
Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean Source (n=9861, NIA 2019) Figure 8 Perceived corruption and its survey items
Table 18 Types of a personal relationship Respondents were also asked on what kind and level of personal relationship was beneficial in having the service processed faster. It can be seen from Table 18 that 26.60% of the respondents reported that family relationships were beneficial in processing services faster. This was followed by personal relationships (26.40%) and being from the same region/Dzongkhag (13.10%).
Table 18 Types of a personal relationship Respondents were also asked on what kind and level of personal relationship was beneficial in having the service processed faster. It can be seen from Table 18 that 26.60% of the respondents reported that family relationships were beneficial in processing services faster. This was followed by personal relationships (26.40%) and being from the same region/Dzongkhag (13.10%).
Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=9861, NIA 2019) Table 19 Overview of survey items for External Integrity
Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=9861, NIA 2019) Table 19 Overview of survey items for External Integrity
Figure 9 Internal Integrity score Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=4008, NIA 2019
Figure 9 Internal Integrity score Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=4008, NIA 2019
Figure 10 Integrity culture index and its components Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=4008, NIA 2019)
Figure 10 Integrity culture index and its components Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=4008, NIA 2019)
Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=4008, NIA 2019) Figure 11 Organizational culture and its survey items
Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=4008, NIA 2019) Figure 11 Organizational culture and its survey items
Note. Source (n=4008, NIA 2019) *Total indicates the sum of all the responses to a multiple-response item Table 20 Most influential factors in providing service faster as perceived by employees
Note. Source (n=4008, NIA 2019) *Total indicates the sum of all the responses to a multiple-response item Table 20 Most influential factors in providing service faster as perceived by employees
Figure 12 Corruption control system and its survey items Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=4008, NIA 2019)
Figure 12 Corruption control system and its survey items Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=4008, NIA 2019)
Figure 13 Work integrity index and its components Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=4008, NIA 2019)
Figure 13 Work integrity index and its components Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=4008, NIA 2019)
Figure 14 Personnel management and its survey items Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=4008, NIA 2019) The Personnel Management integrity score is 8.55. This is mainly due to the outstanding score in the »xperienced corruption (9.98) concerning HR matters indicating fewer experiences of corrupt practice: see Figure 14). However, the score is adversely affected by a low score of perceived corruption ir elation to HR matters, such as recruitment, training, promotion, and transfer (6.33). The low score n the perceived corruption is mostly affected by the perception of the effects of making payment ir ‘ash or kind and entertainments while making decisions related to HR matters (4.33). This is furthe confirmed by Figure 15 where, 41.59% (Very Greatly and Greatly) of the public officials believe that i hey make payment in cash or kind and entertainment, it could influence HR decision. Further, there ire also 12.52% of the respondents who had no idea related to decisions in HR matters. This indicate: hat the disclosure of information or transparency related to HR matters is weak.
Figure 14 Personnel management and its survey items Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=4008, NIA 2019) The Personnel Management integrity score is 8.55. This is mainly due to the outstanding score in the »xperienced corruption (9.98) concerning HR matters indicating fewer experiences of corrupt practice: see Figure 14). However, the score is adversely affected by a low score of perceived corruption ir elation to HR matters, such as recruitment, training, promotion, and transfer (6.33). The low score n the perceived corruption is mostly affected by the perception of the effects of making payment ir ‘ash or kind and entertainments while making decisions related to HR matters (4.33). This is furthe confirmed by Figure 15 where, 41.59% (Very Greatly and Greatly) of the public officials believe that i hey make payment in cash or kind and entertainment, it could influence HR decision. Further, there ire also 12.52% of the respondents who had no idea related to decisions in HR matters. This indicate: hat the disclosure of information or transparency related to HR matters is weak.
Figure 15 Perception of providing payment in cash/kind and entertainment affects decisions related to HR matters Note. Source (n=4008, NIA 2019)
Figure 15 Perception of providing payment in cash/kind and entertainment affects decisions related to HR matters Note. Source (n=4008, NIA 2019)
Figure 16 Budget execution and its survey items Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=4008, NIA 2019)
Figure 16 Budget execution and its survey items Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=4008, NIA 2019)
Woes Source (n=4008, NIA 2019) Figure 17 Percentage of manipulation in budget execution and misuse of the budget for personal
Woes Source (n=4008, NIA 2019) Figure 17 Percentage of manipulation in budget execution and misuse of the budget for personal
Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=4008, NIA 2019) Figure 18 Fairness in the assignment of works and its survey items
Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=4008, NIA 2019) Figure 18 Fairness in the assignment of works and its survey items
Figure 19 Summary of experienced and perceived corruption for work integrity index Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=4008, NIA 2019)
Figure 19 Summary of experienced and perceived corruption for work integrity index Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=4008, NIA 2019)
Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=4008, NIA 2019) Figure 20 Ethical Leadership Index and its components
Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=4008, NIA 2019) Figure 20 Ethical Leadership Index and its components
Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=4008, NIA 2019 Figure 21 Integrity and its survey items
Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=4008, NIA 2019 Figure 21 Integrity and its survey items
Table 22 Percentage of complaints against an alleged position by alleged offence Note. Source (Analysis of the complaints received in the FY 2018-2019)
Table 22 Percentage of complaints against an alleged position by alleged offence Note. Source (Analysis of the complaints received in the FY 2018-2019)
Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=4008, NIA 2019)
Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=4008, NIA 2019)
Note. Source (n=4008, NIA 2019) Table 23 Percentage of leadership trust items in Ethical Leadership
Note. Source (n=4008, NIA 2019) Table 23 Percentage of leadership trust items in Ethical Leadership
Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=4008, NIA 2019) Figure 24 Transparency and its survey items
Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=4008, NIA 2019) Figure 24 Transparency and its survey items
Table 24 Percentage of leadership transparency items in Ethical Leadership
Table 24 Percentage of leadership transparency items in Ethical Leadership
Note. Source (Analysis of the complaints received in the FY 2018-2019) Table 25 Percentage of complaints against an alleged position by issues
Note. Source (Analysis of the complaints received in the FY 2018-2019) Table 25 Percentage of complaints against an alleged position by issues
Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=4008, NIA 2019 Figure 25 Accountability and its survey items
Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=4008, NIA 2019 Figure 25 Accountability and its survey items
In terms of leaders taking responsibility for their actions, the score 7.88 indicates a Satisfactory Level as almost 87% (Slightly Agree to Strongly Agree) of the employees agreed that both head and leaders take responsibility for his/her actions. However, only 79.22% (Slightly Agree to Strongly Agree) of the employees agreed that leaders hold employees accountable for their actions at work. Analysis of complaints also indicates that 70% of the complaints related to accountability are against the head, leaders, and staff of the organizations as shown in Table 27.
In terms of leaders taking responsibility for their actions, the score 7.88 indicates a Satisfactory Level as almost 87% (Slightly Agree to Strongly Agree) of the employees agreed that both head and leaders take responsibility for his/her actions. However, only 79.22% (Slightly Agree to Strongly Agree) of the employees agreed that leaders hold employees accountable for their actions at work. Analysis of complaints also indicates that 70% of the complaints related to accountability are against the head, leaders, and staff of the organizations as shown in Table 27.
Table 27 Percentage of issues in complaints by position
Table 27 Percentage of issues in complaints by position
Figure 26 Fairness and its survey items The scores for fairness and its survey items show a Need Improvement Level as depicted in Figure 26. The Need Improvement Level in this component is mainly attributed to the low score (7.12) on leaders’ genuine concern about the professional growth of employees. A study by Den Hartog & De Hoogh (2009) also shows that perceived leader fairness correlates with employees’ higher commitment. While 80.04% (Slightly Agree to Strongly Agree) of the employees agreed that the leaders create a conducive working environment for employees to work independently, it is a matter of concern as 23.35% (Slightly Agree to Strongly Agree) of the employees agreed the leaders pursue his/her own interest at the expense of others as depicted in Table 28.
Figure 26 Fairness and its survey items The scores for fairness and its survey items show a Need Improvement Level as depicted in Figure 26. The Need Improvement Level in this component is mainly attributed to the low score (7.12) on leaders’ genuine concern about the professional growth of employees. A study by Den Hartog & De Hoogh (2009) also shows that perceived leader fairness correlates with employees’ higher commitment. While 80.04% (Slightly Agree to Strongly Agree) of the employees agreed that the leaders create a conducive working environment for employees to work independently, it is a matter of concern as 23.35% (Slightly Agree to Strongly Agree) of the employees agreed the leaders pursue his/her own interest at the expense of others as depicted in Table 28.
Note. Source (Analysis of the complaints received in the FY 2018-2019) 3.4.3.6 Fairness
Note. Source (Analysis of the complaints received in the FY 2018-2019) 3.4.3.6 Fairness
Summary of the Scores for Internal Integrity
Summary of the Scores for Internal Integrity
Table 29 Overview of survey items for Internal Integrity and its scores
Table 29 Overview of survey items for Internal Integrity and its scores
2ayments made in cash or kind, entertainment and other forms of gratificatio! Note: Source (n=9861, NIA 2019) Table 30 Average frequency, amount and ratio of payments in cash or kind, entertainment and other forms of gratification
2ayments made in cash or kind, entertainment and other forms of gratificatio! Note: Source (n=9861, NIA 2019) Table 30 Average frequency, amount and ratio of payments in cash or kind, entertainment and other forms of gratification
Note. Source (n=9861, NIA 2019) *Total indicates the sum of all the responses to a multiple-response item Table 31 Other forms of gratification According to a definition provided by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (2016), the gratification may be money, donation, gift, loan, fee, reward, valuable security, property, any office, dignity, employment, contract of employment or services or any undue advantage. In the same vein, other forms of gratification in NIA 2019 are accommodation, transportation, gifts, lending money (interest-free), and overseas trip.
Note. Source (n=9861, NIA 2019) *Total indicates the sum of all the responses to a multiple-response item Table 31 Other forms of gratification According to a definition provided by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (2016), the gratification may be money, donation, gift, loan, fee, reward, valuable security, property, any office, dignity, employment, contract of employment or services or any undue advantage. In the same vein, other forms of gratification in NIA 2019 are accommodation, transportation, gifts, lending money (interest-free), and overseas trip.
able 32 Timing for payments in cash or kind, entertainments, and gratifications (in percentage) It can be seen from Table 32 that 38.24% of the respondents reported making payments in cash or kine while availing the services. Likewise, 29.41 % reported making payments after processing the work and 23.53% indicated making payments before processing the services. Additionally, payments made in cash or kind were also provided during the settlement of the accounts and on special occasions like holidays or events as reported by 5.88% and 2.94% respondents respectively. The payments in the form of entertainment and other forms of gratification also follow similar trends with that of payment in cash or kind.
able 32 Timing for payments in cash or kind, entertainments, and gratifications (in percentage) It can be seen from Table 32 that 38.24% of the respondents reported making payments in cash or kine while availing the services. Likewise, 29.41 % reported making payments after processing the work and 23.53% indicated making payments before processing the services. Additionally, payments made in cash or kind were also provided during the settlement of the accounts and on special occasions like holidays or events as reported by 5.88% and 2.94% respondents respectively. The payments in the form of entertainment and other forms of gratification also follow similar trends with that of payment in cash or kind.
Table 33 Reasons for making payments in cash or kind, entertainment, and other forms of gratifications As can be seen from Table 33, the highest percentage of respondents (26.67%) made payment in cash or kind to expedite the work process. Similarly, the highest number of respondents (36.59%) have provided other forms of gratification to expedite the work process and as an appreciation for the service respectively. However, the highest number of respondents (35.80%) have provided entertainment, such as food and drinks as a customary practice followed by the appreciation for the service (24.57%). It is evident that the least number of public officials on duty have requested for payment in cash or kind and entertainments (6.67% and 1.23% respectively). Likewise, the least number of respondents have provided other forms of gratifications (2.44%) and entertainment (1.23%) to avoid paying penalties. There is a decrease in the number of respondents who indulge in making payments in cash or kind as compared to NIA 2016. However, to expedite the work process was reported as the main reason for providing cash or kind or other forms of gratification in both studies. Correspondingly, Hardoon and Heinrich (2011) found that in six South Asian countries bribe was paid to access service, avoid the problem with the authorities, and to expedite the process of public service delivery. In the same way, World Bank (2002) also reported that poor bribe to access services whereas rich bribe to speed up the process in availing the services.
Table 33 Reasons for making payments in cash or kind, entertainment, and other forms of gratifications As can be seen from Table 33, the highest percentage of respondents (26.67%) made payment in cash or kind to expedite the work process. Similarly, the highest number of respondents (36.59%) have provided other forms of gratification to expedite the work process and as an appreciation for the service respectively. However, the highest number of respondents (35.80%) have provided entertainment, such as food and drinks as a customary practice followed by the appreciation for the service (24.57%). It is evident that the least number of public officials on duty have requested for payment in cash or kind and entertainments (6.67% and 1.23% respectively). Likewise, the least number of respondents have provided other forms of gratifications (2.44%) and entertainment (1.23%) to avoid paying penalties. There is a decrease in the number of respondents who indulge in making payments in cash or kind as compared to NIA 2016. However, to expedite the work process was reported as the main reason for providing cash or kind or other forms of gratification in both studies. Correspondingly, Hardoon and Heinrich (2011) found that in six South Asian countries bribe was paid to access service, avoid the problem with the authorities, and to expedite the process of public service delivery. In the same way, World Bank (2002) also reported that poor bribe to access services whereas rich bribe to speed up the process in availing the services.
Payments in cash or kind, entertainment and other forms of gratification in relation to HR matters From Table 34, it is apparent that the average frequency of payments made in cash or kind related to personnel management (2.92) has reduced compared to NIA 2016 (3.67). Also, a similar trend was Noticed in the average amount of payments in cash or kind (Nu. 12,053.85), whereby the amount has reduced significantly compared to NIA 2016 (Nu.70,000). The ratio shows that one in 308 employees nave to make payments in cash or kind while availing HR services. The result shows that there is 10 significant reduction in the average frequency of entertainment and other forms of gratification compared with NIA 2016. However, the average amount of entertainment and other forms of sratification have reduced significantly compared to NIA 2016. Table 34 Average frequency, ratio, and amount of payments in cash or kind, entertainment, and other forms of gratification provided in relation to personnel management.
Payments in cash or kind, entertainment and other forms of gratification in relation to HR matters From Table 34, it is apparent that the average frequency of payments made in cash or kind related to personnel management (2.92) has reduced compared to NIA 2016 (3.67). Also, a similar trend was Noticed in the average amount of payments in cash or kind (Nu. 12,053.85), whereby the amount has reduced significantly compared to NIA 2016 (Nu.70,000). The ratio shows that one in 308 employees nave to make payments in cash or kind while availing HR services. The result shows that there is 10 significant reduction in the average frequency of entertainment and other forms of gratification compared with NIA 2016. However, the average amount of entertainment and other forms of sratification have reduced significantly compared to NIA 2016. Table 34 Average frequency, ratio, and amount of payments in cash or kind, entertainment, and other forms of gratification provided in relation to personnel management.
Note. Source (n=4008, NIA 2019) *Total indicates the sum of all the responses to a multiple-response item
Note. Source (n=4008, NIA 2019) *Total indicates the sum of all the responses to a multiple-response item
Note. Source (n=4008, NIA 2019) *Total indicates the sum of all the responses to a multiple-response item. Table 37 Reasons for manipulation in the execution of the budget 3.7.2.5 Fairness in the Assignment of Work
Note. Source (n=4008, NIA 2019) *Total indicates the sum of all the responses to a multiple-response item. Table 37 Reasons for manipulation in the execution of the budget 3.7.2.5 Fairness in the Assignment of Work
Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=13869, NIA 2019)
Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=13869, NIA 2019)
Figure 28 External Integrity Scores by the Category of Public Agencies Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=9861, NIA 2019)
Figure 28 External Integrity Scores by the Category of Public Agencies Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=9861, NIA 2019)
Table 39 External Integrity scores by category of public agencies
Table 39 External Integrity scores by category of public agencies
Figure 29 Internal Integrity by Category of Public Agencies Note: 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=4008, NIA 2019)
Figure 29 Internal Integrity by Category of Public Agencies Note: 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=4008, NIA 2019)
Note: 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=9861, NIA 2019)
Note: 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=9861, NIA 2019)
Note: 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=4008, NIA 2019)
Note: 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=4008, NIA 2019)
Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=4008, NIA 2019)
Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=4008, NIA 2019)
sure 30 Integrity scores of different components of e-services and manual conventional services Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=271, NIA 2019)
sure 30 Integrity scores of different components of e-services and manual conventional services Note. 0 = highly corrupt/lowest level of integrity and 10 = highly transparent/very clean; Source (n=271, NIA 2019)
Table 42 Education qualification of service users for e-services and manual conventional services The closer look into the respondents’ education qualification in both the services also varies (see Table 42). More than 60% of the online service users were either postgraduates or graduates and not a single service user was below high school education qualification. Whereas, more than 50% of the manual conventional service users were either with no-education or functionally literate. Only about five percent of the service users were graduates or postgraduates. This shows that online services are mostly availed by people with high qualification and on the contrary, manual conventional services are mostly availed by uneducated citizens or people with low qualifications. This could be due to a lack of education and awareness of people on how to use online services.
Table 42 Education qualification of service users for e-services and manual conventional services The closer look into the respondents’ education qualification in both the services also varies (see Table 42). More than 60% of the online service users were either postgraduates or graduates and not a single service user was below high school education qualification. Whereas, more than 50% of the manual conventional service users were either with no-education or functionally literate. Only about five percent of the service users were graduates or postgraduates. This shows that online services are mostly availed by people with high qualification and on the contrary, manual conventional services are mostly availed by uneducated citizens or people with low qualifications. This could be due to a lack of education and awareness of people on how to use online services.
Note. Source (n=6155 in NIA 2009; n=9066 in NIA 2012; n=10814 in NIA 2016; and n=13869 in NIA 2019) Figure 31 National Integrity scores for NIA 2009, 2012, 2016 and 2019
Note. Source (n=6155 in NIA 2009; n=9066 in NIA 2012; n=10814 in NIA 2016; and n=13869 in NIA 2019) Figure 31 National Integrity scores for NIA 2009, 2012, 2016 and 2019
Note: Source (n=6155 in NIA 2009; n=9066 in NIA 2012; n=10814 in NIA 2016; and n=13869 in NIA 2019) Figure 32 External Integrity scores for NIA 2009, 2012, 2016, and 2019
Note: Source (n=6155 in NIA 2009; n=9066 in NIA 2012; n=10814 in NIA 2016; and n=13869 in NIA 2019) Figure 32 External Integrity scores for NIA 2009, 2012, 2016, and 2019
Note. Source (n=6155 in NIA 2009; n=9066 in NIA 2012; n=10814 in NIA 2016; and n=13869 in NIA 2019) Figure 33 Internal integrity scores for NIA 2012, 2016, and 2019 Figure 33 presents the Internal Integrity scores of the three NIAs. The trend line shows a gradual upward movement representing an increase in score over the years. The Internal Integrity score of NIA 2019 has improved by 0.04 and 0.25 points as compared to the NIA 2016 and NIA 2012, respectively. The increase in its score was contributed by the increase in scores of integrity culture and work integrity. This indicates that the organizational culture and internal management in relation to human resource management, budget execution, and fairness in assignment of work have improved over the years.
Note. Source (n=6155 in NIA 2009; n=9066 in NIA 2012; n=10814 in NIA 2016; and n=13869 in NIA 2019) Figure 33 Internal integrity scores for NIA 2012, 2016, and 2019 Figure 33 presents the Internal Integrity scores of the three NIAs. The trend line shows a gradual upward movement representing an increase in score over the years. The Internal Integrity score of NIA 2019 has improved by 0.04 and 0.25 points as compared to the NIA 2016 and NIA 2012, respectively. The increase in its score was contributed by the increase in scores of integrity culture and work integrity. This indicates that the organizational culture and internal management in relation to human resource management, budget execution, and fairness in assignment of work have improved over the years.
Table 43 Integrity scores of External Integrity components Note: Source (n=6155 in NIA 2009; n=9066 in NIA 2012; n=10814 in NIA 2016; and n=13869 in NIA 2019) However, the low score in perceived corruption in all the NIAs indicates that the services users perceived the existence of corruption in the agencies where they have availed the services. A possible explanation for these results is the existence of favouritism and nepotism based on the region and relationships while availing services.
Table 43 Integrity scores of External Integrity components Note: Source (n=6155 in NIA 2009; n=9066 in NIA 2012; n=10814 in NIA 2016; and n=13869 in NIA 2019) However, the low score in perceived corruption in all the NIAs indicates that the services users perceived the existence of corruption in the agencies where they have availed the services. A possible explanation for these results is the existence of favouritism and nepotism based on the region and relationships while availing services.
Note. Source (n=6155 in NIA 2009; n=9066 in NIA 2012; n=10814 in NIA 2016; and n=13869 in NIA 2019) Table 44 Internal Integrity and its components Scores for NIA 2012, 2016 and 2019
Note. Source (n=6155 in NIA 2009; n=9066 in NIA 2012; n=10814 in NIA 2016; and n=13869 in NIA 2019) Table 44 Internal Integrity and its components Scores for NIA 2012, 2016 and 2019
Note. Source (n=6155 in NIA 2009; n=9066 in NIA 2012; n=10814 in NIA 2016; and n=13869 in NIA 2019) Table 45 Summary of comparative analysis of NIAs
Note. Source (n=6155 in NIA 2009; n=9066 in NIA 2012; n=10814 in NIA 2016; and n=13869 in NIA 2019) Table 45 Summary of comparative analysis of NIAs
Figure 34 Seriousness of the problem of corruption by service users and providers Figure 34 depicts the opinion of the service providers and users on the seriousness of the problem of corruption in the country. The majority of the respondents (56.36%) reported the problem of corruption as ‘Quite Serious’, 25.01% reported ‘Very Serious’ and 9.09% ‘Not Serious’. In terms of the differences in the opinion of the service providers and service users on the seriousness of the problem of corruption in the country, 32.7% of service providers reported ‘Very Serious’, higher than the service users with 21.9%. Similarly, 9.7% of service users reported ‘Not Serious’, higher than the service providers with 7.5%. There was no significant difference in the ‘Quite Serious’ category.
Figure 34 Seriousness of the problem of corruption by service users and providers Figure 34 depicts the opinion of the service providers and users on the seriousness of the problem of corruption in the country. The majority of the respondents (56.36%) reported the problem of corruption as ‘Quite Serious’, 25.01% reported ‘Very Serious’ and 9.09% ‘Not Serious’. In terms of the differences in the opinion of the service providers and service users on the seriousness of the problem of corruption in the country, 32.7% of service providers reported ‘Very Serious’, higher than the service users with 21.9%. Similarly, 9.7% of service users reported ‘Not Serious’, higher than the service providers with 7.5%. There was no significant difference in the ‘Quite Serious’ category.
Table 46 Seriousness of the problem of corruption by age group and education level Table 46 depicts the responses to the seriousness of the corruption by age group and education level. The responses depicted a similar trend across age groups with ‘Quite Serious’ as the highest response followed by ‘Very Serious’. It was mostly the respondents in the age group of 31-45 and 16-30 who viewed the problem of corruption as ‘Quite Serious’ and ‘Very Serious’. This could be attributed to the growing investment and economic activities as these age groups fall under economically active cohert. It could also be due to various interpretations and understanding of the term corruption itself as most of the citizens refer administrative lapses as corruption.
Table 46 Seriousness of the problem of corruption by age group and education level Table 46 depicts the responses to the seriousness of the corruption by age group and education level. The responses depicted a similar trend across age groups with ‘Quite Serious’ as the highest response followed by ‘Very Serious’. It was mostly the respondents in the age group of 31-45 and 16-30 who viewed the problem of corruption as ‘Quite Serious’ and ‘Very Serious’. This could be attributed to the growing investment and economic activities as these age groups fall under economically active cohert. It could also be due to various interpretations and understanding of the term corruption itself as most of the citizens refer administrative lapses as corruption.
Figure 35 Trends of corruption viewed by service users and providers in the last five years
Figure 35 Trends of corruption viewed by service users and providers in the last five years
Figure 36 Comparative analysis of corruption trend Note. Source (n=6155 in NIA 2009; n=9066 in NIA 2012; n=10814 in NIA 2016; and n=13869 in NIA 2019
Figure 36 Comparative analysis of corruption trend Note. Source (n=6155 in NIA 2009; n=9066 in NIA 2012; n=10814 in NIA 2016; and n=13869 in NIA 2019
Figure 37 Rampancy of various types of corruption Figure 37 shows the rampancy of various types of corruption. Generally, all four types of corruption are equally prevalent as the percentage of respondents depicts a similar trend. Considering the percentage of the respondents for ‘Most Rampant’, abuse of function and conflicts of interest were perceived to be high. This confirms the finding in the External Integrity section wherein 65.5% of service users responded that knowing a public official is beneficial in processing services.
Figure 37 Rampancy of various types of corruption Figure 37 shows the rampancy of various types of corruption. Generally, all four types of corruption are equally prevalent as the percentage of respondents depicts a similar trend. Considering the percentage of the respondents for ‘Most Rampant’, abuse of function and conflicts of interest were perceived to be high. This confirms the finding in the External Integrity section wherein 65.5% of service users responded that knowing a public official is beneficial in processing services.
Figure 38 Rampancy of bribery in NIA 2016 and 2019
Figure 38 Rampancy of bribery in NIA 2016 and 2019
Figure 39 Rampancy of embezzlement in NIA 2016 and 2019
Figure 39 Rampancy of embezzlement in NIA 2016 and 2019
Figure 40 Rampancy of abuse of function in NIA 2016 and 2019
Figure 40 Rampancy of abuse of function in NIA 2016 and 2019
Figure 41 Rampancy of conflicts of interest in NIA 2016 and 2019
Figure 41 Rampancy of conflicts of interest in NIA 2016 and 2019
Figure 42 ACC’s effort in combating corruption
Figure 42 ACC’s effort in combating corruption
Figure 43 Perception of ACC’s efforts by service users and providers Note. Source (n=13869, NIA 2019)
Figure 43 Perception of ACC’s efforts by service users and providers Note. Source (n=13869, NIA 2019)
Note. Source (n=6155 in NIA 2009; n=9066 in NIA 2012; n=10814 in NIA 2016; and n=13869 in NIA 2019) Figure 44 Comparative analysis of ACC’s efforts
Note. Source (n=6155 in NIA 2009; n=9066 in NIA 2012; n=10814 in NIA 2016; and n=13869 in NIA 2019) Figure 44 Comparative analysis of ACC’s efforts
Figure 45 Opinion on strategies to combat corruption
Figure 45 Opinion on strategies to combat corruption
Figure 46 Other strategies ACC should focus as opined by service users and providers
Figure 46 Other strategies ACC should focus as opined by service users and providers
Renewal of Environmental Clearance
Renewal of Environmental Clearance
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved