INDIVIDUAL PERCEPTIONS OF CORRUPTION IN RUSSIA

C O N F I D E N T I A L MOSCOW 001689 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 06/13/2018 TAGS: PGOV PHUM SOCI RS SUBJECT: INDIVIDUAL PERCEPTIONS OF CORRUPTION IN RUSSIA Classified By: Political M/C Alice G. Wells. Reason: 1.4 (d). ¶1. (SBU) Summary: Several recent studies of Russian public opinion demonstrate the extent to which corruption is a part of every Russian's daily life. Due to red-tape, weak government oversight and poorly thought-out reforms, corruption has expanded in various fields, such as HEALTH care education and military conscription. Russian traffic police have long had a well-earned reputation for taking bribes or "on the spot" fees. While the studies show some signs that Russians have increasingly refused to pay for supposedly free services, the jury is still out on whether this is a trend. Given the endemic nature of corruption in society, Medvedev's "no holds barred" war against corruption, announced with great fanfare on May 19, will be an uphill battle. End Summary. Corruption is a Pervasive Part of Russian Life -------------- - ¶2. (SBU) Three recent studies have found that corruption remains a pervasive part of Russian life. According to a March 2008 national survey by the Fund for Public Opinion (FOM),slightly more than half of all respondents said they believed corruption in Russia could not be eradicated, and only one-third said they felt such a task was achievable. In fact, almost half of respondents indicated they saw an increase in corruption, while only five percent thought corruption had decreased. This tracks with a joint study by Information Science for Democracy (INDEM) and the Levada Center in 2005 which estimated that 50 percent of all Russians were required to pay a bribe in order to receive a government service. Transparency International's 2007 Corruption Perceptions Index ranked Russia as ONE of the most corrupt countries, along with Indonesia, Angola and Nigeria. ¶3. (SBU) The FOM and INDEM studies measured corruption as experienced by citizens in contacts with government officials. Both studies broadly defined corruption as the giving of money or other valuable items in return for some benefit from a government worker that was inconsistent with the law or regulations. The two studies highlighted the ways corruption affects citizens in their contacts with law enforcement, HEALTH care education, the military draft, and the courts. Corruption Permeates all Layers of Education -------------- ¶4. (SBU) Citizens surveyed by FOM and INDEM alleged an increase in corruption and the risk of corruption in the educational system. INDEM limited its study to higher education, while FOM surveyed "education establishments" in general. Over the past ten years, the proportion of respondents in FOM's survey that felt universities and colleges were corrupt doubled, from 10 to 20 percent. INDEM found that the risk of being exposed to corruption in the education sector had increased from 36 to 52 percent, although the size of bribes had decreased slightly from USD 4,300 to USD 3,870. INDEM reported that despite lower bribes, corruption had become more widespread and estimated that the amount of money paid in bribes in higher education had increased during this period almost 30 percent from USD 450 million to USD 584 million. ¶5. (C) The head of the Moscow office of Transparency International, Yelena Panfilova, also believed that corruption permeates all layers of Russia's education system and is on the rise. She traced this rise in corruption to an out-of-date education system and poorly designed educational reforms. Russia's demographics have changed considerably, while the infrastructure in education has not kept up. Some regions have experienced a population decline, yet maintain a large number of unneeded schools, while other regions have seen huge increases in population without a corresponding increase in schools. Panfilova said this has put bureaucrats who control school admissions in areas like Moscow, where the population has increased, in a position to demand bribes from parents for placing their child in the neighborhood kindergarten or primary school. ¶6. (C) Panfilova traced a large increase in corruption to the school reforms of 2003-2004. The FOM study also showed a sharp rise in the perception of corruption after this date. During this period, the INDEM study found opportunities for corruption to be greater at the university level, but average bribe payments slightly reduced. However, INDEM's report concluded that the total value of bribes increased markedly because bribes were demanded or expected more often. Marked Increase in Corruption in HEALTH Care -------------- ¶7. (SBU) The FOM and INDEM studies showed a marked increase in the instance and perception of corruption in HEALTH care. FOM found the perception of corruption in HEALTH care had increased more than two-fold from 2002 to 2008. INDEM found that the instance of corruption in HEALTH care markedly increased, although again with caveats. Based on its analysis of the data, INDEM concluded that the willingness to pay a bribe for HEALTH care decreased while the average size of a bribe increased about 40 percent (from USD 1,093 to USD 1,420). Considered as a whole, INDEM concluded, however, that there was actually a significant decrease in the amount of money paid in bribes for HEALTH care. ¶8. (C) Panfilova disagreed with INDEM's findings. Transparency International's analysis of corruption in HEALTH care found no decrease in corruption, nor did its surveys find any decreased willingness by Russians to pay bribes to obtain better HEALTH care. Panfilova said that her data mirrored the FOM's. As with the case of corruption in education, she laid the blame for the increase at the feet of failed reforms. Russia's HEALTH care system had undergone significant changes, including monetarization of the previously free system. Panfilova blamed weak controls and oversight for the creation of greater opportunities for corruption. Corruption in Avoiding Conscription Surges -------------- ¶9. (SBU) Both the FOM and INDEM reports highlighted the poor public image of the military draft board. All Russian men are obliged to enter the army for ONE year at the age of 18, although there are exceptions for men who attend universities or other qualifying institutions of higher learning with military courses, those who opt for a two-year term of alternative service, and those with disqualifying HEALTH conditions. After HEALTH care and education, the draft offices showed the steepest increase in perceived corruption in FOM data from 1998 to 2008. Reports of corruption roughly doubled from 10 percent of all respondents to 20 percent. INDEM noted not only a substantial increase in the opportunities for bureaucrats to ask for bribes, but also in the amount of bribes themselves. It estimated a five-fold increase in the amount paid from about USD 3,200 to USD 15,400 per transaction. ¶10. (C) Panfilova commented there are two reasons for the surge in corruption in this area. The second war in Chechnya was underway from 2002 to 2005 and conscripts could have expected to have been deployed there. Second, young men entering the army in that period had little memory of the Soviet Union, in which serving in the military was considered an honor. (Panfilova's comments ignored the demoralizing war in Afghanistan.) After two bloody wars in Chechnya, that feeling of civic pride had evaporated. Given the Russian army's reputation for harsh treatment of conscripts (hazing and even slave labor),parents' efforts to keep their sons out of the army were understandable. The Ubiquitous Traffic Police -------------- ¶11. (SBU) The FOM and INDEM studies found that the traffic police (GAI) had by far the worst reputation for corruption of all government institutions, and this perception has only gotten worse. Half of all respondents in the March 2008 FOM survey felt that GAI was corrupt -- up from one-third in ¶2002. INDEM noted that the opportunities for corruption among traffic police have remained relatively constant, as has the size of bribes paid. Although many ordinary Russians pay off police to avoid traffic tickets, the size of such bribes has remained small, meaning that in total, the size of the market for GAI corruption (measured by the amount of money grossed) has remained small compared to other areas of corruption such as conscription into the military. Why do Russians Put Up with Corruption? -------------- ¶12. (C) Panfilova disagreed with Georgiy Satarov, president of INDEM and the principal researcher on the 2001 and 2005 studies, concerning Russians' willingness to pay bribes. Satarov attempted to show through his study that the average Russian's willingness to pay a bribe had decreased during the period. He suggested instead that, more often than before, Russians sought legal means to accomplish their tasks or simply gave up the attempt. Panfilova provided a slightly more nuanced approach. She divided bribes into two types -- bribes for comfort and bribes for necessity. ¶13. (C) According to Panfilova, bribes for comfort included those pay-offs that come from a desire to accomplish a task more quickly or more easily. The fact that the law places no time limits on most bureaucratic decision making serves to increase the opportunity for corruption. The seemingly impenetrable red-tape Russians experience in their attempt to obtain a driver's license, buy an apartment, remodel a home, or register ownership of land, fosters extensive occasions for corruption. Most GAI pay-offs fall under this category as they forestall a trip to court and potential loss of driving privileges. Bribes of necessity include paying school bureaucrats to get a child registered in kindergarten or bribing clinic directors to receive needed medical care. Panfilova believed that these two types of paid corruption are equally common in Russian society although not equally distributed. The exact proportion depends on the sector of government. For example, about 80 percent of bribes to GAI would be bribes of convenience, whereas about half of the bribes paid in clinics or hospitals would be bribes of necessity. Unfortunately, no data exist to substantiate Panfilova's thesis. More Government Means More Corruption -------------- ¶14. (C) According to the FOM survey, 27 percent of respondents had to bribe a government worker at some time during 2007. Lyudmila Presnyakova, a senior researcher at FOM, told us that this national average differed greatly depending on where a person lives. For example, 40 percent of Muscovites reported being expected to pay a bribe while in villages only 25 percent reported the same. ¶15. (C) Presnyakova noted that with increasing disposable income, more people can afford cars and come into contact (and more often) with the traffic police. She also said that as more people send their children to college or university, they again come into greater contact with corrupt practices. Satarov agreed with Presnyakova, adding that, in fact, the probability of any ONE contact with a government agency requiring a bribe does not significantly differ geographically across Russia. He contended that villagers have much less need of government services while residents of large cities like Moscow make continual demands on the government. The difference, according to him, lies in the fact that more Muscovites are stopped by the GAI. ¶16. (C) Satarov also indirectly supported Panfilova's point that recent reforms in education and HEALTH care brought about greater corruption. He saw no oversight over the bureaucracy, and indeed as government services became more centralized, believed the levers of control had weakened. Without oversight by elected officials and without transparency in the system, it is difficult to hold bureaucrats to account for their actions. Comment -------------- ¶17. (C) The FOM and INDEM studies support the contention that Russians deal with corruption daily in obtaining routine government services. No ONE with whom we spoke knew of any grass-roots political movement to combat corruption although all national leaders speak of combating it. On June 6, the head of the Investigation Committee under the Office of the General Prosecutor that investigates government corruption cited recent INDEM statistics that businesses spend USD 33 billion each year bribing bureaucrats. The committee reportedly received 33,000 reports of corruption in 2007 and 16,000 in the first five months of 2008. RUSSELL