development report 2012 - UMAR

54 Development Report 2012
Development by the priorities of SDS – An efficient and less costly state
Figure 16: State efficiency according to IMD (left) and WEF (right), score
7
6
Legal and regulatory environment
Adaptability of government policy
Implementation of government decisions
Transparency of government policy
Bureaucracy
Bribing and corruption
Efficiency of the central bank
5.5
5.0
Property rights
Intellectual property protection
Diversion of public funds
Public trust of politicians
Favouritism in decisions of government officials
Wastefulness of government spending
Burden of government regulation
Transparency of government policymaking
5
4.5
Score
4
3
2
Score
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
1
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Source: IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook, various issues, and The Global Competitiveness report, WEF, various issues.
Note: Higher scores are better, and maximum score in IMD (left) is 10, and in WEF (right) 7.
2.0
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
government decisions, the increasing of the bureaucracy
and corruption (IMD 2011; WEF 2011/12). The need
for economic and social reforms to improve Slovenia’s
competitiveness was, according to the surveys, not very
well accepted by the public, which resulted in the failure
to adopt some key structural reforms. Compared to the
previous year, there was deterioration in the ranking in
the area of business legislation, especially with regard
to a rigid legislation governing the labour market.
A similar deterioration is shown by the World Bank
Governance Indicators 2011, since Slovenia’s ranking
decreased in most of the fields surveyed, particularly in
the area of corruption. While Slovenia being a country
with a relatively low level of administrative corruption,
the financial crisis revealed a long-term development of
systemic corruption 140 which allows gaining benefits to
the detriment of public funds and public interest. The
number of reported suspicions of corruption and other
irregularities in the period from 2008 to 2011 increased
substantially 141 . These findings are confirmed by the
corruption perception index (Transparency International,
2011), where among 183 countries assessed, Slovenia’s
ranking in 2011 fell by 8 positions to 35 th (i.e. ranked 16 th
among EU Member States). According to the World Bank
survey on the ease of doing business (Doing Business,
2012), Slovenia’s ranking in 2011 remained the same as
the previous year’s ranking. Compared with other surveys
on competitiveness (and the latest IMD and WEF research
results), Slovenia’s ranking was higher in terms of the
ease of doing business, which is mainly owing to the fact
that this survey ranks countries merely by the quality
of the regulatory environments, while the subjective
perceptions of persons surveyed do not influence the
results. Slovenia’s ranking was the highest in terms of
the ease of establishing businesses, access to electricity
and investor protection. The main obstacle to the ease
of doing business are lengthy procedures for obtaining
documentation and permits as well as the number and
length of tax payment procedures since enterprises are
to make 22 payments of taxes and contributions every
year, which accounts for 260 hours per year. In terms of
institutional competitiveness, Slovenia’s ranking is much
lower in comparison with other comparable (mainly
European) countries, which is largely due to too slow
institutional changes in adapting to global challenges,
the inconsistency in the implementation of the adopted
regulations and to a deterioration of relations and values
in the society.
In 2011, public trust in institutions remained low. Public
trust in political parties, the government and the National
Assembly in Slovenia has substantially decreased
since the onset of the crisis and is at a fairly lower level
compared to other EU Member States (Eurobarometer
76, 2011). The political uncertainty and low public trust
in institutions strongly influenced the results of some
key structural reforms rejected by the population at
referenda. The population acknowledges the urgency
of the measures required to stabilise the public finances,
but refuses to believe that the government could take
the appropriate and fair measures. These findings are
confirmed by the WEF survey, which assesses that the
level of public trust in the ethical standards of politicians
in Slovenia is low.
140
Evaluation of the corruption situation, the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption, May 2011.
141
The number of reported suspicions of corruption by years: 2005 – 270, 2008 – 661, 2009 – 1.027, 2010 – 1.271, 2011 – 1.237. There
was also an increase in the number of cases which the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption referred to competent authorities
(police, inspection bodies, etc) for further consideration; 2008 – 208, 2009 – 302, 2010 – 342, 2011 – 515 (Annual Report, the Commission
for the Prevention of Corruption; 2005 - 2011; KPK Vestnik, December 2011 and January 2012).