1. Corruption in Education in Eastern Europe
and Central Asia: impact on social inclusion
and human development
Francesco Checchi,
UNDP Bratislava Regional Centre
Regional Conference on Fighting Corruption in Education
in Eastern Europe and Central Asia
24 November, Bratislava, Slovak Republic

2. UNDP anti corruption effort in the region

3. Reasons for engaging on
anti corruption in sectors
 1) Criticism of the “traditional’ approach to fighting corruption
 2) Basic service delivery (health- education) one of the areas
where corruption mostly occurs
TI global corruption Barometer – 2010 Data from NIS
percentage of people reporting bribes
40
35
30
25
20
15
percentage of people reporting bribes
10
5
0

4. Reasons for engaging on
anti corruption in sectors
 3) There is a lot of work still to be done:
 corruption in sectors still to be assessed in many
countries
 little systemisation of good practices and lessons
learned from anti-corruption activities in basic public
service
 Few programmes addressing the issue in the region
 4) The value added of addressing corruption in sectors :
 Utilization of sector expertise and AC expertise
 Address specific corruption patterns in the sectors

5. Human development and
anti corruption: making the link
 human development goal of the development
assistance, social inclusion = tool to achieve HD
 Education is the key sector for social inclusion
 Corruption is an obstacle (barrier) for educationally
deprived people to make choices and limits their
freedoms to get access to knowledge . It leads to social
exclusion of uneducated people.
 Fight against corruption in education contributes to
promotion of social inclusion (inviting for more equal
access to education, promoting knowledge-based
society, improving quality of human capital)

6. Education and social inclusion
 Social exclusion = inability to participate
 process and an outcome (access to goods and rights)
 Drivers and risks
Exclusion from -
Inclusion in
Economic life
Education
Corrup
system
tion Civic and social life
and networks
Structural
deficiencies
Social services

7. Corruption – education –
social exclusion
Corruption in education >
1. Waste and unequal use of educational resources at various levels:
(from the central to the local government - from local government to
schools and teachers - from schools and teachers to the
students)
2. Misallocation of talents
3. Propagating culture of corruption
Social Exclusion drivers: structures and
institutions, values and behavioral Social exclusion risk
patterns and policies factors: individual
developed in culture of corruption will characteristics (lack
not be able to promote social inclusion or of education)
to address the issue of corruption

8. Evidence from the region
Source: Regional Human Development Report
“Beyond Transition. Towards Inclusive Societies”
, UNDP 2011

9. Disadvantaged groups (Serbia)

10. Tolerance of corruption
Social exclusion index by dominating values (tolerance to
corruption) and type of settlement
30
25 Low acceptance of
unofficial payments for
20 services or for getting
business done
15
10 High acceptance of
unofficial payments for
services or for getting
5 business done
0
Villages Small towns Capital
Source: Social Exclusion Survey 2009

11. Thank you!
Francesco.checchi@undp.org

12. Multidimensional Poverty Approach
 Same UNDP/OPHI approach as used for Global HDR 2010 for poverty
 „Dual cutoff‟ method:
 within dimension: based on deprivation with respect to given dimension
 across dimensions: overall threshold (number of deprivations) beyond which a
person is considered socially excluded

13. Three dimensions of social exclusion
(with 8 indicators each):
Economic: Deprivation in
 incomes, basic needs,
 access to employment, financial services;
 material needs and lack of amenities;
 housing and ICT-related exclusion.
Social services: Access to and affordability of
 education and health services;
 other public services, such as public utilities.
Participation: Deprivation in
 political, cultural and social participation;
 political, cultural and social support networks.

14. Tough measurement question:
How many deprivations does it
take to be excluded?
Threshold-number of deprivations, a matter of
choice
Our survey: 9
14

15. The cut-off line affects the share of excluded, but not
countries‟ relative standing
Social exclusion headcount for three different thresholds
100
90
Percentage of people considered 'socially excluded'
80
threshold
70
Kazakhstan
for each cutoff value
60 Moldova
FYR
50
Macedonia
Serbia
40
Tajikistan
30
Ukraine
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Deprivation cutoff value

16. individual dimensions to overall
exclusion
FYR
Kaz. Moldova Macedonia Serbia Tajikistan Ukraine
A. Economic 34% 32% 30% 31% 39% 28%
exclusion
B. Exclusion from 34% 39% 38% 38% 34% 36%
social services
C. Exclusion from 32% 30% 32% 31% 27% 36%
participation in civic
and social life and
networks