FILSAFAT KORUPSI - Direktori File UPI

strains. Democratization may breed corruption and crime if it is accompanied by a weakening of
state controls and confusion among the population about proper behavior in a context of increased
freedom.
28
Similarly, especially in the transition economies, the shift from central planning to the
market may lead to monetary corruption as a replacement for the system of administered benefits
based on connections. The market replaces many former administrative decisions, but the state
remains a source of important benefits and costs (Miller, Grødeland, and Koshechkina, 2001, Rose-
Ackerman, 1994). A key issue for reformers is to identify particular sources of strain and to act to
prevent transitional problems from producing major long-term distortions.
Several groups of researchers have carried out surveys in Eastern and Central Europe to
assess public attitudes, beliefs, and behavior. The work considers both citizens‘ views of
democracy and their attitudes toward and experience with public officials. The work consists of
focus groups, in-depth interviews, and questionnaires. I will concentrate mostly on the
questionnaires, but the results seem broadly consistent across methodologies. There are two major
sources of questionnaire data. The first, ―New Democracies Barometers,‖ have been carried out by
the Paul Lazerfeld Society, Vienna, and most fully analyzed by the Centre for the Study of Public
Policy (CSPP) at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow, Scotland, under its director Richard
Rose. The latest survey covers eleven countries in Eastern and Central Europe. Comparable surveys
28
See Verheijen and Dimitrova (1997) on the special problems facing the civil service in post-socialist
countries.
108
Page 29
29
have also been carried out for Russia.
29
The second collection of data from questionnaires,
interviews and focus groups has been analyzed by William Miller, Åse B. Grødeland, and Tatyana Y.
Koshechkina (2001). Most of their work is based on data gathered between the end of 1997 and
early 1998 from Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Ukraine. The countries were chosen to
represent a range of experience with the Czech Republic and Ukraine at opposite extremes and
Slovakia and Bulgaria taking up intermediate positions along an axis measuring the degree of
reform. Their work focuses on corruption, but it has broader implications for understanding
people‘s perceptions of and experience with public officials.
30
We know much less about the
countries of Central Asia, but World Bank research on poverty, corruption, and state capture
includes some material on that region (Hellman, Jones, and Kaufmann, 2000; World Bank 2000a,
2000b).
A. Citizens’ Views of Government
The survey evidence indicates both positive and negative views of the new regimes. The
most systematic data have been gathered countries on Central and Eastern Europe including Russia.
One way to see the range of opinion is to consider answers to the ―Barometer‖ surveys for Russia
and eleven countries in transition in Europe.
31
In 1998 these surveys showed that a large majority,
usually between 70 and 90 percent, feel freer today than under the previous regime (Rose and
Haerpfer, 1998a: 54-55, Rose and Shin, 1998:11-12, Rose 2000:23-24). At the low end of the
spectrum are Belarus, Ukraine, and the countries created out of the former Yugoslavia, but even in
those countries a summary measure indicates that a majority thinks that freedom has increased
along at least three of the five dimensions considered. Of course, these answers reflect both the
current situation and the repressiveness of the old regime which was relatively more open in the
former Yugoslavia compared with other East Bloc countries. Thus Romania experienced the largest
changes in freedom although few observers would characterize it as most free relative to other