Survey 2012 engl by TI-Moldova

Sociological Study Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences of Households and Business People

This study was conducted by Transparency Internationalâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Moldova and was made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Department of State. The content of this study is the responsibility of TI-Moldova, and does not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the United States Department of State.

Chisinau, 2012

Contents I. Objective and tasks of the sociological study .................................................................................................................... 4 Methodological aspects......................................................................................................................................................... 4 II. General information about the respondents.................................................................................................................... 6 Geographical distribution of the respondents ....................................................................................................................... 6 Residence .............................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Age of Respondents .............................................................................................................................................................. 8 Education .............................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Occupational group ............................................................................................................................................................... 9 Income .................................................................................................................................................................................. 9 III. Perception of corruption................................................................................................................................................ 10 Problems that the respondents face ..................................................................................................................................... 10 Awareness of threat of corruption....................................................................................................................................... 12 Evolution of corruption ....................................................................................................................................................... 12 Causes of the spread of corruption...................................................................................................................................... 13 Conflict of interest as cause of corruption .......................................................................................................................... 13 Sources of information about corruption ............................................................................................................................ 14 Spread of corruption ........................................................................................................................................................... 15 Unofficial ways to solve problems with public servants .................................................................................................... 16 IV. Experiences while contacting public institutions ......................................................................................................... 18 Most contacted institutions ................................................................................................................................................. 18 Amount of Average Bribe................................................................................................................................................... 20 Total estimated amount of bribe ......................................................................................................................................... 22 The purpose of unofficial payments ................................................................................................................................... 23 Unofficial payments made voluntarily or under pressure? ................................................................................................. 24 Concrete cases of corruption invoked by correspondents ................................................................................................... 24 V. Corruption and business environment ........................................................................................................................... 31 The contribution of the state in the business environment .................................................................................................. 31 Work time spent on solving problems with public servants .................................................................................................... 31 The response of control agencies to deviations from the law ............................................................................................. 32 The size of bribe compared with the tax evasion ................................................................................................................ 32 Frequency of controlsperformed by the government .......................................................................................................... 33 Participation in public procurement bids ............................................................................................................................ 33 VI. Engagement in preventing corruption .......................................................................................................................... 34 Disposition to pay a bribe ................................................................................................................................................... 34 Emotional aspects of paying a bribe ................................................................................................................................... 34 Tolerance towards corruption ............................................................................................................................................. 35 VII. Resistance to corruption ............................................................................................................................................... 36 Facing cases of corruption .................................................................................................................................................. 36 Denouncing corruption ....................................................................................................................................................... 36 Solving problems in a legal way ......................................................................................................................................... 36 Professionalism and credibility of the law enforcement institutions .................................................................................. 37 VIII. Can corruption be curbed in Moldova? .................................................................................................................... 39

Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences Facing cases of corruption .................................................................................................................................................. 39 Corruption risks .................................................................................................................................................................. 40 Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................... 42

Transparency International â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Moldova I. Objective and tasks of the sociological study Transparency International â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Moldova carried out this study with the support of the U.S. State Department and in collaboration with the Center for Sociological Studies and Marketing "CBS-AXA". The objective of the study was to analyze the perceptions and the experiences with corruption of households and business people in the Republic of Moldova. The results of the study will be used to evaluate the impact of the implementation of the National Anticorruption Strategy in 2012. The tasks of the study are the following: -

Identifying the main sources of information about corruption and evaluating the credibility of information on corruption from mass-media;

Evaluating the awareness of the population on the threat of corruption for doing business;

Identifying the main causes of corruption and their evolution in time;

Evaluating the perception and the personal experience with corruption in 38 domains of public life;

Estimating the total amount of unofficial payments in various public institutions/services;

Evaluating the professionalism and credibility of the law enforcement staff members;

Evaluating the acceptability of corruption, unofficial payments and readiness to pay bribes;

Evaluating public awareness about conflict of interest;

Identifying the most efficient measures to detect and combat corruption;

Calculating corruption risks indicators for law enforcement institutions.

Two types of respondents were interviewed for this study: businesspeople and household representatives. Separate questionnaires were used for each of the two categories. The questions referred to respondentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; perceptions on the spread of corruption in the country, as well as their personal experiences with corruption during the last 12 months. In total, 38 domains/authorities were analyzed in this study. The questionnaire also included an open type question that allowed respondents to share concrete examples of corruption and other abuses by public servants. Methodological aspects The size of the sample: 490 business people and 1106 household representatives over the age of 18; Sample: stratified, random, two-staged. Stratification criteria:12 geographical regions based on territorial administrative units that were in place before the last territorial-administrative reform, residential environment (urban-rural), size of urban localities (2 types), size of rural localities (2 types of rural localities); The sample is relevant to analyze the following strata of respondents: urban, rural, North, South and Center zones, with respective error margins corresponding to the size of each strata of respondents. Sample selection: a. The sizes of each stratum and the totals for the regions (former districts) were calculated proportionally to the number of population in accordance with the data of the National Bureau of Statistics. The size of the rural localities was calculated proportionally to the number of voters in the election lists; Stages of randomization: I. Locality: within the adjusted strata the localities were selected randomly, based on a table with random numbers;

Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences II. Household: the maximum number of interviews made in one pooling locality was 9. The households were selected using the method of random route with statistical step; III. Respondent: in households with several adults, the person whose birthday was closest was selected for the interview. b. The sample for business people was selected based on listings in the catalogue of goods and services VARO–INFORM MOLDOVA 2012. A statistical step was used to select the subjects for the interview. To replace the refusals a repeated selection was made. The procedure was repeated until the necessary number of respondents was accumulated. Representation: the sample is representative at the national level with a maximal error of +2.9% for households and +4.4% for business people. Time of interviewing: July 26–August 7, 2012 to interview household representatives, and July 26– September 10, 2012 to interview business people. The interviews were conducted at the respondents’ homes by the network of operators of CBS-AXA. The questionnaire was prepared in Romanian and Russian, the selection of the language being offered to the respondent. Verification: To verify the quality of data collection, CBS-AXA contacted about 10% of respondents at their homes and 30% by telephone. The data was processed using SPSS 15 statistical software.

Transparency International – Moldova II. General information about the respondents Geographical distribution of the respondents

Bălţi Households– 5.1% Businesses – 5.9% North Households – 27.7% Businesses – 9.2%

Municipality ofChişinău Households– 23.4% Businesses –64.9%

Center Households – 21.6% Businesses – 12%

South Households – 22.2% Businesses – 8%

Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences

Distribution of respondents by rayons, % Rayon Chisinau Balti Anenii Noi Basarabeasca Briceni Cahul Cantemir Calarasi Causeni Cimislia Criuleni Donduseni Drochia Dubasari Edinet Falesti Floresti Glodeni Hincesti Ialoveni Leova Nisporeni Ocnita Orhei Rezina Riscani Singerei Soroca Straseni Soldanesti Stefan Voda Taraclia Telenesti Ungheni UTA Gagauzia

Households 23.5 5.1 2.9 2.1 2.3 3.9 2.6 2.2 2.5 2.6 2.0 1.2 2.7 1.3 2.0 2.1 2.0 1.7 1.4 2.6 1.9 2.1 1.1 2.4 1.4 1.7 2.2 2.8 2.0 1.6 1.7 0.9 2.7 2.7 4.1

Businesses 65.4 6.0 1.2 0.4 1.0 1.2 0 0.6 1.0 1.2 0.6 0.2 0.4 0 0.8 0.4 0.8 0.2 1.2 2.2 0 0.4 0.8 2.4 0.6 1.0 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.6 2.2 2.4

Transparency International â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Moldova

Residence

Age of Respondents

Gender of Respondents

Education Education: households, % High education, including incomplete 26.6%

Special secondary 25.9%

Education: businessmen,% Incomplete secondary 14,8%

Secondary 32.7%

Special secondary 17.6%

Secondary 5.9%

Incomplete secondary 0,2%

High education, including incomplete 76.3%

Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences Occupational group

Income

Transparency International – Moldova III. Perception of corruption Problems that the respondents face How acute are the following problems for you? (Average, calculated on a scale from 1 to 6, where 1 means – not a problem at all, 6 – major problem)

For household representatives, corruption did not change its position compared to 2008 and remains on the third place among the biggest problems that affect their life.

Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences To what extent do the following factors impede doing business in Moldova?(Average, calculated on a scale from 1 to 6, where 1 means - does not impede at all, 6 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; blocks the development).

For business people, more problems emerged since 2008; thus, they place corruption on the 6th place, behind political instability, frequent modification of legislation, inflation and high taxes.

Transparency International â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Moldova Awareness of threat of corruption

Public awareness of the threat posed by corruption among business people and household representatives has increased. If 10 years ago the main part of respondents considered poverty as the main cause of corruption, at present two thirds of the respondents understand that corruption causes poverty. The share of households that understand the impact of corruption on poverty increased from 56.8% in 2008 to 66.9% in 2012. Among business people their share increased from 57.1% in 2008 to 63.5% in 2012. Evolution of corruption

The largest group of households (49.6%) and business people (41.9%) think that the corruption phenomenon increased in the last 12 months. The share of respondents who think corruption increased during the last 12 months Households Businesses

2005 38 37

2007 45.4 35.4

2008 41 33

2012 49.6 41.9

Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences Causes of the spread of corruption What are the main causes of corruption in Moldova? Average, calculated on a scale from 1 to 4 (1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C;very important cause, 4 â&#x20AC;&#x201C;not a cause at all)

As stated in the previous study of this kind that was conducted in 2008, the main causes of corruption specified by the respondents are low impunity and not treating the corruption phenomenon in a serious way by the governance. Conflict of interest as cause of corruption What is conflict of interests in public service? A conflict between public servants A conflict between the interests of a public servant and his/her dueties A conflict betweeb the interests of a public servant Do not know

17.6% 55.6% 21.2% 5.9%

Having to take a decision in conflict of interest situations is one of the causes that contribute to a wide spread of corruption. TI-Moldova studies from 20081 and 20102show a low understanding among central public authority servants of the notion of conflict of interest. The share of public servants that chose the correct option to define conflict of interest increased from 52.8% in 2008 to 76.4% in 2010. To test how familiar is the population with the notion of conflict of interest, the survey presented respondents with three definitions. The results showed that only 55% of all respondents selected the right answer. 1 2

I. Spinei, E. Obreja, Treating Conflict of Interests in Public Service: Regulations and Perceptions, TI-Moldova, 2008 I. Spinei, Treating Conflict of Interests in Public Service: Evolution or Stagnation?, TI-Moldova, 2010 13

Transparency International â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Moldova Sources of information about corruption The main sources of information about corruption remained unchanged since 2008. The respondents indicated television as the first source, followed by the printed and electronic press, radio and discussions with friends and relatives.

Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences How much do the respondents trust the information about corruption coming from mass-media?

About 34% of households and 44% of the business people trust mass-media as a reliable source of information on corruption. Their numbers decreased compared to 2008. Share of respondents that trust mass-media as a reliable source for information on corruption Households Businesses

2005 z z

2007 40.3 38.5

2008 50.0 55.5

2012 33.9 44.1

Spread of corruption How frequently do people resort to money, gifts and personal contacts to solve their problems in the following institutions/domains? (% of respondents stating that this is happening frequently, very frequently and always). Title of institutions/service/domain Central public administration Local public administration Fiscal inspectorates Customs Police Prosecutor offices Sanitary inspections Cadastral Bureaus Privatization Renting the state property Courts of law Public procurements Education institutions Health care institutions Offices of civil records Passport bureaus Utility service Chamber of State Register Fire inspections Power/electricity inspections Environment inspections Chamber of Commerce and Industry CCECC

Households, % 2008 2012 43 40.2 35.9 30.0 43.1 39.8 57.8 62.1 61.7 69.5 53.1 60.5 44.1 39.7 37 35.3 40.1 37.7 35.9 35.5 48.5 59.3 38.3 34.6 55 65.6 60.5 67.1 28 30.4 32.1 25.6 24.5 18.4 25.7 23.3 25.5 22.8 25.1 20.8 25.5 22.0 26.9 Z 28.1 32.4

Businesses, % 2008 2012 32.8 45.9 30 33.8 41.2 45.9 55.4 53.9 59.8 57.6 41.8 45.5 39.8 37.4 26.2 26.3 28.8 31.0 30.6 31.0 36.6 52.3 30 31.9 57 Z 63.5 Z 21.5 Z 28.3 18.8 17.7 15.8 18.5 17.4 23.3 26.1 21.3 19.6 20.5 22.0 18.3 Z 19.1 27.0 15

Transparency International â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Moldova Information and Security Service Issuing visas Licensing Notary offices Attorneys Access to credits/loans Vehicle registration, issuing driving licenses

Z 38.9 39.1 37.8 39.7 24.1 41.3

21.1 30.7 37.0 35.8 49.9 23.3 53.1

Z 31.2 32.8 26.9 27.7 17.5 40

Z 21.4 25.2 20.8 32.4 23.1 42.7

Technical revision of vehicles Issuing construction authorizations Water supply Power supply Gas supply Heating supply/thermic agent Labor inspection Telecommunications Insurance companies

43.1 36.9 21.1 20.5 21.3 17.6 20.3 16.5 18.3

51.2 50.6 20.6 18.9 17.2 17.4 22.3 16.5 17.7

41.8 38 14.6 14 13.6 13.2 18.7 12.2 15.3

43.5 42.1 15.6 16.4 14.6 14.4 19.4 11.0 10.6

Household representatives consider that the corruption phenomenon is most spread among police, health care institutions, education institutions, customs, prosecutor offices and courts of law. Compared to 2008, the share of respondents that indicated these domains as most corrupt has increased. In the opinion of business people, the institutions/domains most affected by corruption are: police, customs, law courts, fiscal inspectorates, prosecutor offices. Compared to 2008, the share of respondents indicating courts of law, fiscal inspectorates and prosecutor offices as the most corrupt areas has increased. When asked which of the three branches of governance is most corrupt, both categories of respondents indicated the Judiciary system. Which branch of the governance is most corrupt? %

Legislative (Parliament) Judiciary (Courts system) Executive (Government) Do not know

Households 25.7 45.7 22.7 5.9

Business people 11.6 51.8 19.8 16.7

Unofficial ways to solve problems with public servants

Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences

Households as well as business people consider cash as the main way to solve problems with public servants. Compared to 2008, their share increased. Is it easier to solve a problem in an unofficial way?

Compared to 2008, the share of respondents who consider that it is easier to solve their problems unofficial ways slightly increased. Share of respondents who consider that it is easier to solve their problems in an unofficial way,% Households Business people

2005 z z

2007 48.6 45.7

2008 49 41.8

2012 53 47.6

Transparency International â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Moldova IV. Experiences while contacting public institutions Most contacted institutions Did you contact the following institutions/authorities during the last 12 months? (%of the total)

Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences Institutions where unofficial payments are made most frequently. Did you pay unofficially while dealing with the following institutions/authorities during the last 12 months? % of those who paid.

Transparency International â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Moldova

Amount of Average Bribe Business people: average bribe Number of payments Health care institutions Customs Police Education institutions Technical revisions of vehicles Fiscal inspections Sanitary inspections Fire inspections Vehicle registration and issuing the driving licenses Cadastral bureaus Environment protection services Notaries Labor inspections Issuing construction authorizations Passport bureau Courts of law Telecommunications Access to credits/ loans Visa issuing Prosecutors Gas supply Utility services Attorneys Licensing Power supply Power inspection State Chamber of Register Renting state property Public procurements Privatization Water supply Heat supply/thermic agent Center for Combating Economic Crime and Corruption

107 72 64 61 56 55 54 42 27 24 22 19 18 16 13 12 10 9 8 5 5 5 4 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 0

Minimal amount, lei 20 50 50 100 50 50 100 30 100 150 30 100 100 400 100 98 100 100 800 1000 100 50 1000 1000 100 500 300 1000 1000 300 100 100 0

Maximal amount, lei 9000 12000 10000 8000 2500 10000 5000 7000 3000 10000 8000 1000 6000 4000 1500 6000 2500 1500 3000 3000 600 500 2000 4000 5000 2500 1000 1000 1000 300 100 100 0

Average, lei 1174 3145 2032 1205 523 1781 955 2282 952 2740 3024 439 1139 2463 685 4550 460 672 1663 2000 370 250 1375 2000 1867 1667 600 1000 1000 300 100 100 0

Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences

Households: average bribe

Central public administration Health care institutions Education institutions Police Customs Technical revision of vehicles Local public administration Sanitary inspections Registering vehicles and issuing driving licenses Fiscal inspectorates Passport bureaus Cadastral bureaus Civil register offices Issuing visas Courts of law Utility services Notaries Prosecutors Attorneys Water supply Labor inspection Telecommunications Privatization Power inspections Licensing Access to credits/ loans Issuing construction authorizations Fire inspections Power supply Renting state property Public procurements State Chamber of Register Environment inspection Center for Combating Economic Crime and Corruption Internal Security Service Gas supply Heat supply/thermic agent Insurance companies

Number of payments 8 229 125 63 46 32 19 16 16 14 12 10 10 9 7 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

Minimal amount, lei 30 50 50 20 50 30 10 50 50 100 20 30 50 300 210 50 50 2000 2000 100 250 50 1000 180 1500 100 200 200 500

Maximal amount, lei 3000 5000 5000 5000 8000 1000 5000 6000 2000 6000 700 6000 3000 10000 5000 150 400 6000 10000 700 3000 300 2000 7000 3000 1000 500 2000 500

Average, lei 652 992 1412 687 1061 347 1021 1084 689 1072 237 1116 528 2787 1701 90 213 4378 5274 305 1218 158 1485 4111 2293 647 408 1131 500

0 0 0 0

Transparency International â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Moldova Total estimated amount of bribe The estimation of the total amount of bribes paid by households and business people in separate institutions was based on such indicators as the incidence/frequency of bribes in each institution/domain, the amount of the average bribe and the total number of businesses/households in the country. The estimation of the total number of households3 on January 1, 2012 was based on the official statistics on the total population of the Republic of Moldova (excluding Transnistria) and the average size of households. The estimation of the total amount of bribes paid by households was based on the total number of households (1,131 thousand), while the estimation of the total amount of bribes paid by business people â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the total number of economic agents registered at the State Chamber of Registration4 - 162,360, of which 66,404 individual entrepreneurs, 79,181 limited liability companies, 4,808 corporations, 4,017 cooperatives, 1,490 state and municipal enterprises, 3,313 non-commercial organizations, 3,147 - other. According to the calculations, the total amount of bribes paid by households made in 2012 was about 732.7 million Lei, increasing in absolute terms, compared to 2008, by over 15%. Taking into consideration an about 30% increase in consumer prices for goods and services in the same period of time5, in real terms the amount of bribes paid by households decreased by almost 15%. In 2012, the households paid bribes mostly to health care institutions (238 million Lei), education institutions (185 million Lei) and police (45.4 million Lei). It is notable that while the police made good progress in these terms compared to 2008, when the total amount of bribes decreased from 97 million Lei in 2008 to 45.4 million Lei in 2012, the situation in health care and education system was different. Thus, the total amount of bribes paid to the health care system increased, compared to 2008, by a quarter, or a little slower than the increase of the consumer prices for services. As for the education system, the total amount of bribes paid in this domain increased 2.9 times, compared to 2008. This in no way can be explained by the inflation phenomenon. Households - Evolution of Total Bribes (Mill. Lei) 2005 2007 2008 2012 Police 81.5 79.9 97 45.4 Education 126 76.5 64 185 Health care 200 153 190 238 Other 493.6 280.6 279 264.3 TOTAL 901.1 590 630 732.7

The total amount of bribes paid by businesses in 2012 amounted to about 390 million Lei, increasing by approximately 49% compared to 2008. The main payments were made to the customs officers (75 million Lei), health care institutions (41.6 million Lei), police (41 million Lei) and fiscal inspectors (32.4 million Lei). Estimated Total Bribes: Businesses, Mill. Lei Customs Health care system Police Fiscal inspectorates Fire inspectors

75 41.6 41 32.4 31.8

http://statbank.statistica.md/pxweb/Database/RO/02%20POP/POP01/POP01.asp

http://cis.gov.md-content/6#1

http://statbank.statistica.md 22

Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences Educational institutions Environment inspections Cadastral bureaus Courts of law Sanitary-epidemiological inspections Issuing construction authorizations Technical revision of vehicles

24.4 22 21.8 18.1 17.1 13.1 9.7

Vehicle Registration, Driverâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s License issuing authority Labor inspections Other

8.5 6.8 26.7

TOTAL

390

The evolution of the estimated total amount of bribes paid by businesses shows a 1.5 times growth of this indicator compared to 2008, which cannot be explained only by inflation and, essentially, proves a worsening of the business environment in Moldova. Businesses â&#x20AC;&#x201C; evolution of the total amount of bribes (million Lei)

Customs Fiscal inspections Courts of law Construction authorization authorities Other TOTAL

2005 120 69.3 Z

2007 66.1 36 23.3

2008 33.8 25.8 11.2

2012 75 32.4 18.1

14.5 203 406.8

26.5 155.7 307.6

8.1 185.1 264

13.1 251.4 390

The purpose of unofficial payments The respondents were asked to indicate the aim of the unofficial payment that they have made. They had to choose from two options: to avoid punishment for breaking the law or tospeed up the process (so-called oil the wheels), which is to obtain a faster or better service that had to be provided in any case. The answers differed from one domain to another. If the majority of unofficial payments made to medical institutions were made to speed up the provision of services, in the law enforcement institutions about half of the bribes were given to avoid punishment/sanctions. Households (% of respondents that paid unofficially) Police

Health care institutions

Courts of law

To avoid punishment

36.3

17.1

59.1

To speed up the process

63.7

82.9

40.9

Business people(% of respondents that paid unofficially) Customs

Fiscal inspectorates

To avoid punishment

33.3

64.6

To speed up the process

66.7

35.4 23

Transparency International – Moldova

Compared to 2008, the share of those who offered unofficial payments to police officers to speed up the process increased; in the rest of the areas, this numbers diminished, the most essential decrease being registered in the fiscal inspectorates, where the share of these payments decreased from 75.3% in 2008 to 35.4% in 2012. Unofficial payments made voluntarily or under pressure? The respondents were asked to indicate whether they paid unofficially on their own initiative or if they have been forced to do so. The answers indicated that the payments to the police and health care institutions were made voluntarily, while the ones made in the courts of law, customs and fiscal inspectorates were made under pressure. Households(% of respondents that paid unofficially) Police

Health care institutions

Courts of law

Were forced to pay

46.9

36.5

74.2

Paid on their own initiative

53.1

63.5

25.8

Businesses(% of respondents that paid unofficially) Customs

Fiscal inspectorates

Were forced to pay

64.5

58.6

Paid on their own initiative

35.5

41.4

Compared to 2008, in all of the sectors mentioned above, the share of those who made unofficial payments on their own initiative has diminished. The most significant change was achieved in the courts of law, where this indicator decreased from 67.8% in 2008 to 25.8% in 2012. Concrete cases of corruption invoked by correspondents All of the respondents were asked to give concrete examples of corruption from their experience in the last 12 months. To protect them from eventual persecution or pressure, the information that allows them to be identified was removed from this report.

 

   

 

Households: My sister was not allowed to pass the border at the airport, because her luggage was too heavy. After she gave 15 Euro to the customs officer, she was let to go (Questionnaire 4); To receive a new passport, birth certificate and marriage license faster, I had to make unofficial payments of about 200-300 Lei for each document at the Civil Registry Office and the Passport Bureau (Questionnaire 6); To see a doctor within an hour, I had to pay an unofficial fee of 100 Lei; otherwise, the appointment would have been in two weeks (Questionnaire 10); To see a doctor without an appointment I had to pay him 100 Lei (Questionnaire 15); I was forced to pay bribes by a university professor - 300 Lei to pass each exam (Questionnaire 17); I was needlessly directed to the passport bureau, the archives, and the registry office to resolve a problem, and at each location I was told to bribe in average 100 Lei to solve my problem (Questionnaire 20); I have been asked to pay money to check my child out of the hospital (Questionnaire 21); I had to pay the doctor 100 Lei to see the results of my medical tests (Questionnaire 23);

Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences 

 

          

   

 

  



The Chief of Department at the Nisporeni Clinic required money to allow me to ask for a second opinion at a better clinic in Chisinau. I gave her the money, because my child was very sick. (Questionnaire 37); I have been asked to pay for gifts for the teachers and school principle, because they did not want to “wear out their shoes for my child” (Questionnaire 45); The doctor did not want to take the castoff my leg. Despite my insurance, he said that he did not work for free. He also demanded 50 Lei when I asked to receive a note for school to explain my absences from physical education classes (Questionnaire 56); The doctor requested 1,500 Lei to see me with my 6 month old baby. This consultation was supposed to be free (Questionnaire 69); I bribed a doctor 50 Lei to get a health certificate for the youth summer camp (Questionnaire 82); I bribed the police so I would not get arrested (Questionnaire 86); When passing the border with over 4 liters of wine, I bribed the border agent 1000 Russian Rubles (Questionnaire 93); Because I work and go to school, I often miss classes. My professor hinted that money could solve the problem with my absences (Questionnaire 100); On one instance, the professor told me to put 300 Lei into my transcript papers that he had to sign to get an 8 in his class (Questionnaire 108); At the university my daughter paid 200 Lei for each exam (Questionnaire 112); I bribe the police officer 100 Lei each time to avoid getting a police record (Questionnaire 114); My child was forced to pay 300 Lei for each exam (Questionnaire 116); I paid the professor 100 Lei for each exam (Questionnaire 118); I paid a 100 Lei bribe to the police officer for exceeding the speed limit. The officer asked, „should we solve this now, or should I start writing a police record?” On a different occasion I bribed a doctor 100 Lei to get a medical screening (Questionnaire 122); I could not pass the driving test, so I paid a 50 Euro bribe to get my license (Questionnaire 140); I was on my way to get a car inspection when I got pulled over. I had to bribe 200 Lei to be let go (Questionnaire 153); I drove over the speed limit and got pulled over by police. The officer asked that I step into his car, where I was told that I would need to pay unofficially (Questionnaire 162); I was very ill: I was having terrible headaches and dizziness. The doctor examined me and asked for a 200 Lei bribe to share his medical opinion and decision on whether I should be hospitalized (Questionnaire 173); I was beaten badly by a person in my community. When I filed a report at the police station, they told me that they will look into my case only if I pay a 1,000 Lei bribe (Questionnaire 186); When they see that you are coming from temporary work in Moscow, the agents at the border between Moldova and Ukraine start looking for all sorts of flaws that you can pay a 10 or 20 Euro bribe for to be allowed to cross the border (Questionnaire 195); I went to see the doctor in the rayon. The medical assistant told me that without 50 Lei bribe the doctor won’t even look at me (Questionnaire 202); I paid 250 Euro at the Civil Registry Office to speed up the process of issuing my documents (Questionnaire 220); My mom was supposed to receive disability benefits. She was asked to pay informally 500 Lei, which she could not afford and therefore, she did not receive the disability benefits (Questionnaire 225); I was forced to pay my child’s teachers 1,500 Lei. I was told that if I did not pay, my child would not pass the end of school baccalaureate exams (Questionnaire 235);

Transparency International – Moldova                



   



To pass the baccalaureate exams in the town of Orhei, they collected 1,500 Lei from each student (Questionnaire 238); I have been asked to pay 1,300 Lei for the baccalaureate exams of my son (Questionnaire 243); I paid to the judge 3,000 Lei to solve the case in my favor. Otherwise, I would have lost (Questionnaire 268); Our former mayor required a 200 USD bribe to offer me a little land lot where I could open a store (Questionnaire 269); My son was arrested and released after I paid a bribe. The police officers and the prosecutor shared the money among themselves (Questionnaire 295); I bribed the professor 2,000 Lei to improve my son’s grades (Questionnaire 298); I was required to pay 1,500 Lei unofficially to place my child in kindergarten (Questionnaire 300); I was asked to pay unofficially 1,000 USD for my mom’s surgery, otherwise they would not do it (Questionnaire 303); The police stopped me for exceeding the speed limit. They hinted that I should give a bribe to avoid getting a police record. They did not let me go until I paid 100 Lei (Questionnaire 316); I was in the hospital for the fifth day in a row and they still did not pay to me any attention. I was forced to “thank” them by paying a bribe to receive help (Questionnaire 359); My husband was asked to pay 100 USD to receive a disability certificate (Questionnaire 385); For the admission in Soroca College I was asked to pay 4000 Lei for the contract and bribe in advance 1,200 Lei for the exams (Questionnaire 394); My husband ran for mayor as an independent. He was proposed to join a political party in exchange for more votes (Questionnaire 396); My vehicle did not pass the technical revision for the last 8 years. When the police stops me, I give them a bribe (Questionnaire 397); The windshield of my car is broken and I pay bribes each time I have to pass a technical revision (Questionnaire 399); I was supposed to pass a medical examination with my one year old child. They told me that I will have to bribe 20 Lei to each of the 7 doctors. I did not have the money and my child was not examined (Questionnaire 401); My husband required hospitalization and the doctors asked for a bribe. Without payment, they told me, my husband would need to wait for another 3 months. I did not have the money and my husband is still staying ill at home (Questionnaire 406); I was hospitalized in Floresti to have a surgery and my mother bribed 6,000 Lei for my care (Questionnaire 408); I was hospitalized to have a spine surgery. Even with health insurance, the doctors requested that I pay a bribe of 200 Lei for the consultation and 2,000 Lei for the surgery (Questionnaire 420); In the town of Edineţ, in addition to the official fee, the doctors asked for an unofficial payment of 8,000 Lei for my child delivery (Questionnaire 421); In the district disability council I was told that my documents were not in order and asked to pay 300 Euro to increase my disability status, even thou the documents were in order and issued in Chisinau. (Questionnaire 424); The mail delivery woman that brings us our pensions required that I pay her for the service, even if these are her duties. She collects all of the newspapers and brings them with a 4-5 days delay (Questionnaire 438); I had two incidents involving traffic police. The first time I exceeded the speed limit and to avoid all of the trouble, I paid them half of the official fine. The second time I was not even guilty, but I gave them a bribe, because I did not have time to give them explanations (Questionnaire 447);

Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences    



     



  



I paid the doctors for the surgery. In addition, the anesthesiologist asked for 800 Lei. He did not even want to hear of a smaller amount (Questionnaire 458); I gave a 175 Lei bribe to the cadastral office, otherwise my problem would have been solved in a much longer time (Questionnaire 462); I needed medical control certificate urgently to be able to apply for a job. The doctor said that a 100 Lei bill in his pocket would get me the certificate in one day (Questionnaire 474); When I was hospitalized with my baby-child, I had to bribe the medical assistant 30 Lei for each injection. Before that, they were giving each shot with a lot of anger. After I paid them, they became friendlier. On a different occasion, I bribed a judge 5,000 Lei through the attorney to solve the problem accrued in an road accident that I was not guilty of (Questionnaire 477); To avoid getting a 600 Lei fine for driving over the speed limit, I paid the police officer 100 Lei (Questionnaire 478); I bribed the police officer 500 Lei for an infringement that is usually punished by a 1,000 Lei fine. Also this year, I paid 300 Lei to pass an exam. I put the money into the exam book (Questionnaire 485); We pay for grades at our university – 150-500 Lei each time (Questionnaire 505); I had problems related to property division. I bribed the judge and almost won the case, when the other side paid more and won the process (Questionnaire 509 ); I gave 500 Lei and a bottle of cognac to the doctor that attended my delivery at the maternity ward. The doctor made a scandal, because I paid too little (Questionnaire 521); I voluntarily gave my professors 1,000 Lei to improve my grades (Questionnaire 525); The road police stopped me on many occasions for breaking traffic rules and each time I gave them on average 150 Lei (Questionnaire 526); I had to pay for my medical treatment. I wanted to pay at the cash register and the doctor said that I should not go there myself, and that I should not worry as he would pass the payment to the cash register on his own (Questionnaire 527); I had to have a surgery in Chisinau and I did not receive a medical consultation until I paid 1000 Lei before the surgery and then 3,000 Lei for a better treatment, otherwise they would not have even looked at me (Questionnaire 528); My husband had a surgery at the oncology hospital. It is scary what happens there. If you do not put money in the medical card, nobody will look at you, even if you die there. Now, when he goes there for a consultation, he does not even walk in without bringing 200 Lei (Questionnaire 533); The public servant at the office that issues construction authorizations said that he does not work for free and that his wage only motivates him to come to work. To do the actual job, he needs additional payments of at least 200 Lei. I gave him all that I had and it seems that it was not enough, because he extended the procedure for an extra week (Questionnaire 534); My husband works in Odessa and comes home only once every three weeks, because the customs officers demand 150 Ukrainian Hrivnas to enter the country and 150 to leave (Questionnaire 544); To extend the term of the disability pension, I paid 300 Lei to the disability evaluation commission (Questionnaire 564); My granddaughter asked for 800 Lei (my entire monthly pension) to pay a bribe for her school exams. They told her that if she did not pay, she would not graduate and will not be allowed to take the baccalaureate exam (Questionnaire 571); My grandson was registered for kindergarten. Immediately, the director required 1,000 Lei to cover the needs of the kindergarten. I did not have the money and therefore, had to take the grandson home (Questionnaire 580); When I was returning from Italy, at the border the customs officers unpacked my entire luggage making me understand that they would not let me go until I give them 50 Euro. I waited for 4 hours and was let go only after I gave those 50 Euro (Questionnaire 581); 27

Transparency International – Moldova 

 



 

             

I paid the doctor 1,000 Lei for the surgery and then another one 200 Lei to pay attention to my problems. They called me themselves behind a door and told me how much I had to pay (Questionnaire 589); I paid a 3,000 Lei bribe to receive my son’s diploma faster and with better grades. I do not wish to name the university. (Questionnaire 590); My son has a second degree disability, because of a problem with his knee. When we went to the medical disability evaluation commission, the doctors told me that when I come next time, I should remember to pay each one of the three members of the commission. They added that if I did not do that, they would give my son a third degree of disability. My son’s disability pension is 104 Lei (Questionnaire 627); My brother has cancer. In 2009 he had a surgery and received the second degree of disability. Last year they gave him the third degree, but he cannot work. We addressed the disability evaluation commission, but did not resolve our problem. Other employees of the hospital told us that we could solve the problem for 2,000 Lei (Questionnaire 649); Four months ago my nephew got very sick. He lives outside Moldova and has another citizenship. I called the ambulance and the doctors said that the child needs hospitalization. The hospital doctors refused to assist my nephew, because he did not have Moldovan citizenship, but when I gave them 200 Lei, the problem was solved (Questionnaire 653); My son had an appendicitis surgery at the Sîngerei hospital. The doctors asked for extra money before and after the surgery (Questionnaire 661); I wanted to maintain the second degree disability for a life time, but the doctors asked for 1,000 Lei. I negotiated and paid him 700 Lei. After this, he said he would solve my problem next year. I think he will require money again (Questionnaire 670); I was hospitalized for an urgent surgery and they did not want operate on me until I paid them unofficially 2,000 Lei (Questionnaire 692); I had a surgery at Hospital Nr.1. The doctors required 2,000 Lei in advance to avoid problems and complications during the surgery (Questionnaire 703); Before giving birth, I paid 100 Euro in advance to the doctor to be sure he will help me (Questionnaire 770); After giving birth, I thanked the doctor with 150 Euro, the medical assistant – with 50 Lei and all other medical personnel – 30 Lei each (Questionnaire 780); I had to pay at the university for the exams about 100 - 200 Lei, even if otherwise I had good grades (Questionnaire 795); The fiscal inspector conducted a control and we had to pay 5,000 Lei to avoid paying a bigger fine (Questionnaire 799); To pass the baccalaureate exams, my granddaughter had to pay 1,500 Lei (Questionnaire 802); Our family doctor kept complaining that she had 50 children to take care of in her sector and that nobody properly thanked her. I decided to buy her a 200 Lei gift (Questionnaire 818); I bribed a doctor 500 Lei to get an X-Ray of my hand faster (Questionnaire 886); My child was hospitalized with a head tumor. I do not event want to start describing how the doctors mistreated him until I paid 15,000 Lei (Questionnaire 888); I had problems with my leg and even having health insurance they squeezed from me about 5,000 Lei (Questionnaire 892 ); My son was in critical condition in a hospital in Chisinau. I talked to the doctor and paid a 150 Lei bribe before and 150 Lei after he looked at my child (Questionnaire 899); I had to cross the border in Galaţi and I had too many cigarettes. I paid to the customs officers and they let me go (Questionnaire 918); I have a child with a second degree of disability. Twice a year he gets treatment at the Centre for rehabilitation of people with disabilities in Chisinau. I am forced to pay bribe to each staff member, 28

Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences

          

 



beginning with the chief-doctor and ending up with custodians, otherwise nobody care of my child (Questionnaire 952); I even had to pay bribe to transfer my sic relative from her hospital room into the surgery room. (Questionnaire 968); I paid a 3,000 Lei bribe to the doctor for a surgery (Questionnaire 973); My son passed the Baccalaureate exam and the driving test. I had to pay bribes for both. (Questionnaire 1004); Two months ago I had to pay 2,500 Lei to the midwife for the birth. If I wouldn’t pay, she would not take care and be rude with my wife (Questionnaire 1023); They asked that I pay for the X-ray. When I presented my health insurance card they sarcastically suggested that I show it to my husband (Questionnaire 1028); I paid 1,000 Lei so that my son passes the end of school baccalaureate exam (Questionnaire 1060); My wife passed away because the doctors did not state the right diagnosis. They extorted all of my money, and as soon as I stopped paying bribes they interrupted the treatment (Questionnaire 1066); I am building a home in Făleşti and to solve my problems with the Cadastral Bureau I had to pay a bribe (Questionnaire 1067); To enroll her child in kindergarten, my daughter paid 200 USD (Questionnaire 1069); The doctor told me my diagnoses only after I paid 400 Lei (Questionnaire 1072); I was working on my property papers and found out that half of my garage was on the property of the city hall. They asked for a 500 USD bribe and modified the borders of my land plot (Questionnaire 1076); The endocrinology doctor waited for me to put an envelope with money on his desk and then started examining me (Questionnaire 1073); My mother left me a small piece of land. To inherit the property, I was sent from office to office to dispute it, and at the end of the way, the land was not worth the time that I have spent on transferring it into my name. After I bribed the employees of the Cadastral Bureau, the documents were ready in 30 minutes (Questionnaire 1080); My doctor in Făleşti does not even look at the health insurance card and always hits that I have to pay. This happens each time. I do not want to ever see him again (Questionnaire 1083); The doctor asked for money and I did not give it to him. I paid for the health insurance and did not have money for a bribe. My neighbor in the hospital room paid a bribe and they treated her well (Questionnaire 1084); I have eye problems and had to bribe the eye doctor for a certificate I needed to receive a driver’s license (Questionnaire 1097); Business people:

 

  

My daughter had to pay 2,000 Lei so that my grandson could pass the baccalaureate exam (Questionnaire 34); I paid at the customs 5,000 Lei so that they would „close their eyes” and not see the goods that I was bringing from abroad. I also paid 400 Lei to the fiscal inspector so that he would not register the deviations from the law (Questionnaire 44); I paid 300 Lei the customs agent to speed up passing the border (Questionnaire 51); We had a fiscal control and the inspector found some irregularities. I paid the inspector 10,000 Lei so that he did not register the problems in his report (Questionnaire 52); I got a surgery at the Oncology Hospital in Chisinau. The doctor called me in and told me to pay him 200 Euro. I did (Questionnaire 58);

Transparency International – Moldova     



 

  



    

I was bringing goods for sale from the Ukraine to Moldova and paid 300 Lei to the customs officers so that they would not retain me at the border (Questionnaire 60); I paid a 3,000 Lei bribe to the customs officer (Questionnaire 88); I wanted to participate in a public procurement bid, but I found out that the son of a highly ranked public servant won the bid before it started (Questionnaire 103); I had to pay 100 Euro to be able to enter into the country (Questionnaire 113); Last year, during a fiscal control, they found some discrepancies in my bills. I was risking paying a big fine, because I had similar problems previously. The fiscal inspector named the amount of money that I had to pay to avoid problems, so I paid. (Questionnaire 137); I wrote a petition against the city mayor. The Prosecutor office opened a criminal file against me, but the Center for Combating Economic Crime and Corruption closed the case due to my highly ranked relatives (Questionnaire 157); Policemen come each Sunday to my little store and demand money (Questionnaire 182); My farm was robbed. The guilty person was not punished because he shared what he stole with policemen. They did not even examine the case. They even did not note his name. (Questionnaire 208); To avoid standing in line at the border, we always pay and pass the border quickly (Questionnaire 235); The employees of the fire department found some irregularities and I had to pay a 10,000 Lei fine. I paid to their chief a part of the amount and solved my problem (Questionnaire 254); I could not solve my problem at the Cadastral Bureau until I paid a 800 Lei bribe. I also paid on my own initiative 300 Lei to the doctor to have a more rigorous examination and to get better attention (Questionnaire 259); When I visited the Cadastral Office in 2010 to make the evaluation of the real estate, they told me that there is no need for this. In 2012 I got a fine, because I did not declare the real estate property and had to pay 30% of the undeclared amount – about 1,600 Lei. They suggested me to pay unofficially 800 lei. I did not accept and preferred to pay the fine. (Questionnaire 267); To avoid customs control, I give my driver 30% of the cost of the goods. Then he makes arrangements with the customs officers and everything goes well (Questionnaire 288); To receive an advantageous credit I paid to the bank clerk 10% of the credit (Questionnaire 295); We always pay 20% to the customs to pass the border faster (Questionnaire 342); I paid a bribe to speed up the issuance of the construction authorization (Questionnaire 368); I solicited a lot of land from local authorities to open a business and received a refusal that said there cannot be any business on this public place. A month later, the son of the city mayor opened his business on that very location (Questionnaire 386); I paid a bribe for the construction authorization (Questionnaire 393); I gave a bribe of 400 Lei to the policeman when he came with a control (Questionnaire 416); The fire inspector found irregularities and required a bribe of unofficial payments. I gave them everything I had. (Questionnaire 426); When I cross the border in my car, the customs officers always require a bribe in the form of money (Questionnaire 427); I paid a bribe to those from Sanitary Inspection to receive a certificate faster so that I could start my business (Questionnaire 448);

Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences V. Corruption and business environment The contribution of the state in the business environment

One third of respondents consider that the state institutions impede entrepreneurial activities. It is remarkable that during the last 10 years this negative perception significantly decreased.Compared to 2002, the share of business people thinking in this way diminished more than two-fold, from 74.7% to 33.2%. Share of business people who think that the state mainly impedes their activity, % 2005 46,7

2007 47,3

2008 33,8

2012 33,2

Work time spent on solving problems with public servants

The results show that in 2012, business people spent a little more than one tenth (11.1%) of their time settling problems with the representatives of public institutions, although this indicator has declined almost two-fold since 2005.

Transparency International – Moldova The response of control agencies to deviations from the law

It is interesting to see that the changes in the respondents’ perception regarding the behavior of control bodies also changed in a positive way. Thus, more than two thirds of the respondents consider that the fiscal inspector behaves correctly, following the procedures. It is also notable that the share of business people who have positive experience with fiscal inspectors increased from 41.1% in 2005 to 72.5% in 2012. Share of businesses that consider that the fiscal inspector follows the correct procedures during the fiscal controls, % 2005 41,1

2007 60,5

2008 66

2012 72,5

The size of bribe compared with the tax evasion If the fiscal inspector discloses a tax infringement X, which part of this X one can give to the fiscal inspector to „solve the problem”? (% from X)

Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences According to the business people, when an infringement is discovered, they can bribe the fiscal inspector on average 15.6% of the amount that they owe to the state to resolve the problem. The trend shows a constant decrease of this amount between 2005-2012. This trend cannot be interpreted in a positive way, but rather it means that tax evasion is not discouraged and the losses of the state, due to corruption in fiscal inspections, become more significant, compared to the size of the bribes accepted by the public servants, particularly by fiscal inspectors. Frequency of controlsperformed by the government Average number of visits by state control bodies during one year 2005 2007 2008 Fiscal inspectors 2.72 3.23 2.67 Police officers 4.38 2.88 2.48 Fire inspectors 1.55 1.76 1.92 Power/energy inspectors 2.96 3.25 2.88 Sanitary inspectors 3.04 2.75 2.36 Center for Combatting Economic Crime 2.38 1.69 1.63 and Corruption officers Environment protection officers 1.58 2.37 1.54 Labor inspectors 1.43 1.91 1.79

2012 1.74 1.33 0.68 0.75 0.87 0.28 0.32 0.49

According the responses of the business people, they were visited most frequently by police officers. This shows adecreasingin the number of visits from the state representatives. Thus, in 2008 the total number of visits was about 21 and in 2012 it diminished to 6.5, or decreased more than three-fold. Participation in public procurement bids 19.2 % of the interviewed businesses participated in public procurement bids; this share slightly decreased when compared to 2008 (22.1%). The main argument they made for this was the low transparency and fairness in the public procurements procedures. Reasons for non-participating in public procurement bids, % 2005

2007

2008

2012

Complexity of the process

46.6

47.4

40.1

17.7

High cost of the procedure

43.2

56.5

41.1

16.4

Too much competition

45.1

46.8

39.1

20.9

Would not win without paying a bribe

46.4

The procurement bids are not transparent and fair Direct contracts are simpler

49.4

36.5

27.6

58.7

59.6

50.4

29.1

Transparency International – Moldova VI. Engagement in preventing corruption Disposition to pay a bribe

The respondents in both categories were asked „If you are in a difficult situation, would you pay a bribe?” More than two thirds of the respondents answered affirmatively. However, the overall number of those who answered negatively increased. Share of respondents that are NOT willing to pay bribes in difficult situations, % 2005

2007

2008

2012

Households

24,1

34,7

27,1

Businesses

19,5

23,5

27,9

Emotional aspects of paying a bribe How do you feel when you give a bribe to solve a problem?

Revolted Humiliated Indifferent Satisfied Happy Do not know

Households

Business People

33.2% 39.9% 10.5% 6.1% 3.3% 7.0%

37.8% 38.8% 12.2% 3.5% 0.4% 7.3%

Three quarters of the respondents in both categories had negative emotions related to bribing. However, compared to 2008, the share of people that do not tolerate bribes increased significantly. Their share among households increased from 49.3% in 2008 to 73.1% in 2012 and for business people – from 41.2% in 2008 to 76.6% in 2012. Share of respondents that had negative emotions related to bribing,% Households Business people

2005 49.6 44.1

2007 42.1 43.8

2008 49.3 41.2

2012 73.1 76.6

Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences Tolerance towards corruption How acceptable is the situation when a public servant accepts an informal payment and uses it to pay his/her utility bill, % Households 2.1% 10.7% 16.8% 60.4% 10.0%

Totally acceptable Partially acceptable Acceptable as exception Not acceptable Do not know/no response

Business people 2.7% 5.3% 12.7% 75.4% 3.9%

Compared to 2008, the share of those who do not consider acceptable these situations increased among households from 55.8% in 2008 to 67.1% in 2012. Among business people this share increased from 61.8% in 2008 to 78.5% in 2012. In a more extended dynamic this trend can be seen better. Share of respondents that would not accept a situation in which a public servant accepts bribes to pay his/her utility bills Households Businesses

2005 43 49

2007 60.2 58.1

2008 55.8 61.8

2012 67.1 78.5

Transparency International â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Moldova VII. Resistance to corruption Facing cases of corruption

Denouncing corruption

Solving problems in a legal way Whom did you complain to?, % To the police To the prosecutor In courts of law To my superior To Center for Combatting Economic Crimes and Corruption To mass-media To the Government, President, Parliament Attorney Other Friends, relatives

Households 24.7 18.8 18 14.9 12.9 8.8 8.8 7.6 6.3 6.1

Businesses 33.3 44.4 0 11.1 11.1 11.1 0 11.1 0 0

Why was a complaint not submitted? (Multiple choice answer) Did not know to whom to address it to It would have taken too much time Nothing would have changed It would have created more problems Other

Households

Businesses

6.8% 12.0% 57.4% 32.7% 3.8%

4.8% 16.0% 54.0% 39.6% 0%

Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences It is important to note that the share of those who do not know where and how to submit a complaint severely diminishes. Share of respondents that do not know whom to address in cases of corruption,% 2005 z z

Households Businesses

2007 19.3 7.3

2008 10.4 3.5

2012 6.8 4.8

The answers show that 37.3% of the total number of representatives of households faced corruption, 1.9% tried to solve their problem in a legal way/complained about their case and only 0.9% of the total succeeded to solve their problem entirely or partially. Also, 40% of the total number of businesses faced corruption in the last 12 months, 1.8% of the total tried to address their problem in a legal way and only 0.7% succeeded to solve them partially or entirely. This explains the low level of willingness to collaborate with public institution in the matters of preventing corruption. Professionalism and credibility of the law enforcement institutions Professionalism of law enforcement and control bodies’ staff members, %

Fiscal inspectors (resp.- bus) Police officers (resp.- households) Customs officers (resp. - buss) Judges (resp.- households) Collaborators of CCECC (resp.bus) Collaborators of Internal Security Service (resp.- bus) Prosecutors (resp.- households)

High 17.2 6.3 8.2 11.5 18.1

2007 Medium 68.1 57.7 66.2 67 62.9

Low 14.7 36 25.6 21,5 19

High 22.4 11.4 14.3 16.1 30.2

2008 Medium 61 58.5 56.1 62.1 52.1

Low 16.6 30.1 29.6 21,8 17.7

High 21.6 9.8 6.2 21 19.6

2012 Medium 64.4 50.5 66.5 55,6 63.6

Low 14.0 39.7 27.2 23,4 16.7

26.3

60.3

13.4

18.9

60.0

21.1

If a ranking of law enforcement institutions and control bodies would be made based on the respondents’ evaluation, the officers of the Internal Service and Security would be ranked as most professional, second would belong to the fiscal inspectors, followed by collaborators of the Center for Combatting Economic Crimes and Corruption, and the prosecutors’ office. The list would be closed by judges, customs officers and police officers.

Transparency International â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Moldova Credibility of law enforcement and staff members of the control bodies, % How much trust do you have in the following professions, %

Fiscal inspectors (resp.- bus) Customs officers (resp.- bus) Policemen (resp.- households) Judges (resp.- households) CCECC officers (resp.- bus) Officers of the Internal Security Service (resp.bus) Prosecutors (resp.- households)

2007 Absence A lot of of trust trust or or few total trust trust 61.5 38.5 84.6 15.4 84.2 15.8 78.6 21.4 69.4 30.6 z z

Z Z

2008 Absence A lot of of trust trust or or few total trust trust 68.8 31.2 84.6 15.4 84 16 79.2 20.8 59.7 40.3 z z

z z

2012 Absence A lot of of trust trust or or few total trust trust 66.2 33.8 81.3 18.7 86.8 13.2 83.7 16.3 72.1 27.9 76 77.8

24 22.2

In a ranking of this type, participants identified fiscal inspectors, followed by CCECC officers as the more credible groups, and closed the list with customs officers, judges and police officers.

Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences VIII. Can corruption be curbed in Moldova?

Most efficient measures to combat corruption

Facing cases of corruption What should be the monthly salary of the public servant that he/she wonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t be tempted to accept bribes? USD It is certain that if the supremacy of the law is not ensured and corrupt persons are not properly sanctioned, increasing the salary of public servants would only contribute to inflation and the public servant would adjust the size of the bribe to the his/her new salary. The estimation made in this study on the total bribe 39

Transparency International â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Moldova paid in Moldova confirms this premise. Still, when asked what should be the monthly salary of a public servant that would make him/her resistant to bribes, the respondents proved a good understanding and came up with realistic and well-motivated figures.

Minister Head of Department Ordinary public servant Judge

2007 Households Businesses 1600 2300 900 1270

2008 Households Businesses 1615 2280 1090 1460

2012 Households Businesses 1356 1939 912 1160

560

685

705

850

653

783

1334

1931

Corruption risks The financial benefits and other personal gains that result from a corrupt act are the main factors in the spread of corruption. However, the notion of corruption is very broad and cannot be limited simply to bribery. Several indicators pertaining to the risks posed by corruption can be calculated based on the estimated total bribe and total number of bribes paid in separate domains, as well as the official number of public servants in these domains, their average wage, and number of corruption cases opened against them. Corruption risks indicators Judges (Housh.)

CCECC collaborator s (Bus)

Police officers (Housh. )

Custom s officers (Bus.)

Fiscal inspectors (Bus)

Teachers/ Professors (Housh.)

1706 4291

Doctors and assistant s (Housh.) 33512 2920

Total number, persons Average monthly salary (including bonuses, premiums, etc.) Average bribe, Lei Estimated total bribes, Mil. Lei Estimated total number of bribes

440 4880

507 4302

12899 3800

1809 3725

1701 12,5 7163

0 0 0

687 45,4 64471

3145 75 23857

1781 32,4 18224

992 238 234348

1412 185 127919

Number of criminal dossiers opened by the CCECC/Anticorruption Prosecutor Office Average salary compared to the minimum subsistence, % Average bribe compared to the average salary, % Average bribe per person, Thou. Lei Probability of being caught read handed (with a bribe), % Share of persons being caught read handed in the total number, %

320

290

250

290

190

220

28,4

0,0

3,5

41,5

19,0

7,1

4,6

0,000

0,065

0,042

0,005

0,008

0,016

0,00

0,33

0,55

0,06

0,05

40159 3323

Calculations show that when persons involved in corruption are not properly punished, even a relatively high salary is not an impediment for taking bribes. For example, for customs employees, whose salary covers the minimal consumer basket 2.5 times, the average bribe is still high in absolute terms and compared to their salary.

Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences Furthermore, unpunished corrupt persons easily adjust to new conditions and quickly compensate their losses. Once the size of the bribe diminishes, their frequency increases to balance the loss. Finally, calculations show that the probability to be caught red-handed was higher among customs officials. Nonetheless, this likelihood remains extremely low (lower than 1%) in all of the domains, which further facilitates the spread of the corruption phenomenon.

Transparency International – Moldova Summary Transparency International - Moldova carried out this study with the support of the US State Department. The objective of the study was to analyze the perceptions and the encounters with corruption of households and business people in the Republic of Moldova, as well as to evaluate the impact of the implementation of the National Anticorruption Strategy in 2012. The tasks of the study are the following: - Evaluating the awareness of the population on the threat of corruption for doing business; - Identifying the main causes of corruption and their evolution; - Evaluating the perception and the personal encounters with corruption in 38 domains of public life; - Estimating the total amount of unofficial payments in various public institutions/services; - Evaluating the professionalism and credibility of the law enforcement staff members; - Evaluating public tolerance towards corruption, the acceptability of unofficial payments and willingness to pay bribes; - Evaluating public awareness about conflict of interest; - Identifying the most efficient measures to prevent and combat corruption; - Identifying the main sources of information about corruption and evaluating the credibility of information from mass-media; - Calculating corruption risks indicators for the law enforcement institutions. Two types of respondents were interviewed for this study: businesspeople and household representatives. Separate questionnaires were used for each of the two categories. The size of the sample: 490 businesspeople and 1106household representatives over the age of 18. Representation: the sample is representative at the national level with a maximal error of +2.9% for households and +4.4% for business people. Sample: stratified, random, two-staged. Stratification criteria:12 geographical regions based on territorial administrative units that were in place before the last territorial-administrative reform, residential environment (urban-rural), size of urban localities (2 types), size of rural localities (2 types of rural localities); The sample is relevant to analyze the following strata of respondents: urban, rural, North, South and Center zones, with respective error margins corresponding to the size of each strata of respondents. Time of interviewing: July 26–August 7, 2012 to interview household representatives, and July 26– September 10, 2012 to interview business people. The interviews were conducted at the respondents’ homes by the network of operators of CBS-AXA. The comparison of the results of this study with the results of similar studies conducted by TI-Moldova in the last 10 years allowed us to reveal some clear trends in perception and personal experience with corruption by the general public, as well as in the behavior of representatives of public institutions and the results of applied policies. For example: 

For the household representatives, the gravity of corruption as an impediment for country’s development did not change compared to 2008, and it remained third on the list of problems that they face. For businesses, compared to 2008, a number of other priority problems have emerged in addition to corruption, such as political instability, imperfections in the fiscal legislation, frequent changes in legislation and high taxes. Corruption took the sixth place in their ranking.



Public awareness about the threat of corruption for the country’s development among households and businesses has increased. If ten year ago the main part of the respondents would consider poverty as the main cause of corruption, at present two thirds of respondents understand that corruption causes poverty and therefore, fighting corruption is the main way to 42

Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences address poverty. The share of households that are aware of the impact of corruption on poverty increased from 56.8% in 2008 to 66.9% in 2012. Among businesses the number increased from 57.1% in 2008 to 63.5% in 2012. 

About half of the households (49.6%) and business people (41.9%) think that the corruption phenomenon increased in the last 12 month. The share of respondents that think corruption increased in the last 12 months, %

Households Businesses

2005 2007 2008 2012 38 45,4 41 49,6 37 35,4 33 41,9



Just as in the 2008study, the causes of corruption stated by the respondents were the lack of punishment for those who commit acts of corruption and the lack of firm action taken by the governance. To obtain the support of the public, the governance needs to conduct an extended awareness raising campaign on the implementation of its engagements vis-a-vis corruption prevention in diverse public institutions.



An important factor in the spread of corruption is conflict of interest in decision making situations. The Law on conflict of interest and the mechanism of its implementation was modified in 2001. To evaluate the degree of familiarization of the population with the notion of conflict of interest, the representatives of the households were asked to select the right definition out three options. The results showed that only 55% selected the correct answer. For comparison, in 2010, 76% of public servants from central public authorities gave a correct answer. These statements suggest the need to train the population and public servants to better understand conflict of interest and the consequences for ignoring the law.



The main sources of information about corruption remained unchanged since 2008. The respondents indicated television as the first source, followed by the printed and electronic press, radio and discussions with friends and relatives. It is important to note that 34% of the household respondents and 44% of businesses believed the information on corruption coming from massmedia; however, their share slightly decreased since 2008. Mass-media needs to consolidate the quality of the information related to corruption, to prove impartiality, ethical treatment and good quality of argumentation of corruption cases. Share of respondents that trust the information on corruption from mass-media,% Households Businesses



2005 Z Z

2007 40,3 38,5

2008 50,0 55,5

2012 33,9 44,1

In the perception of household respondents, corruption in most spread among police employees, health care and education institutions, customs, prosecutors and judges. In the perception of business people, the most affected by corruption are police employees, customs, law courts, fiscal inspectorates, and prosecutors. Compared to 2008, there is an increased perception that corruption in law courts, fiscal inspectorates and prosecutor offices has raised.



Having been asked which branch of the state power is most corrupt, both categories of respondents indicated the judicial branch. Which branch of the state power is most corrupt, % Households

Businesses 43

Transparency International – Moldova Legislative Judiciary Executive Do not know

25.7 45.7 22.7 5.9

11.6 51.8 19.8 16.7



Both, representatives of households and businesses consider money (cash) as the main modality to solve unofficially their problems with public servants. This suggests that an efficient prevention of corruption is impossible without a sound system of declaration and control of incomes and assets by public servants.



When compared to 2008, the share of those who think that it is easier to solve problems through unofficial channels is simpler remained within the margin of error. Share of respondents that think it is easier to solve problems by unofficial channels,% Households Businesses



2005 Z Z

2007 48.6 45.7

2008 49 41.8

2012 53 47.6

Among the institutions contacted by members of households the most are health care (55.2% of total) and educational institutions (28%), as well as local public administration offices (23.6%). In 2012, business people contacted most frequently fiscal inspectorates (66.9% of total), health care institutions (51%), vehicle technical inspectorates (47.1%), customs (44.3%) and sanitary inspectorates(39.4%). Households most frequently bribed police officers (41.2% of those who had contact with police), educational institutions (40.4%), health care institutions (39.1%) and technical revision of vehicles (33.1%). Businesses most frequently paid bribes to education (52.7%) and health care institutions (52.4%), the police (45%), customs (42.9%), the office of construction authorizations (37%) and the prosecutor’s office (33.3%). It is clear that to relieve the tension created in the society by the spread of corruption, it would be most efficient to concentrate on fighting corruption in health care, police and education institutions. If the governance aims to support businesses and increase its budget revenue – they should concentrate on fiscal inspectorates and customs. Nevertheless, if the governance wants to have a systemic approach in curbing corruption, it should start with such law enforcement institutions as the prosecutor’s office and law courts.



The average bribe paid by households varies by domain. The highest bribes have been given to attorneys (on average 5,274 lei) who, in fact, direct the bribe to judges and prosecutors (4,378 lei). The highest average bribes paid by business people are directed to judges (4,550 lei), customs officers (3,145 lei), cadastral bureaus (2,740 lei) and services issuing construction authorizations (2,463 lei).



In the last 12 months, the total estimated bribe paid by households constituted about 732 million lei, which is a 15% increase in absolute value compared to 2008. Taking into consideration a 30% increase in consumer prices for goods and services during 2008-20126, in real terms this amount diminished by about 15%. In the same period of time, households paid most to health care (238 million lei), education institutions (185 million lei), and police (45.4 million lei). While police achieved considerable progress in reducing the amount of accepted bribes from 97 million lei in 2008 to 45.4 million lei in 2012, the situation in health care and education was different. Thus, in health care the total bribe increased by one quarter compared to 2008, or a little less than the consumer prices. As for the education system, the total amount of paid bribes increased 2.9 times compared to 2008, which cannot be explained by the inflation phenomenon.

http://statbank.statistica.md 44

Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences Households – evolution of estimated total bribe (million lei) 2005 2007 2008 2012 Police 81.5 79.9 97 45.4 Education 126 76.5 64 185 Health care 200 153 190 238 Other 493.6 280.6 279 264.3 TOTAL 901.1 590 630 732.7

The total amount of bribes paid by businesses in the last 12 months reached about 390 million lei, increasing in absolute value by 49% compared to 2008. The largest amount of bribes was paid to the customs officers (75 million lei), health care institutions (41.6 million lei), police (41 million lei), fiscal inspectors (32.4 million lei) and fire inspectors (31.8 million lei). The fact that, compared to 2008 this amount increased in absolute value almost 1.5 times cannot be explained simplyby inflation, and it demonstrates a worsening business environment in the country.  While in other domains the majority of unofficial payments were made to speed up the provision of services, bribes to law enforcement bodies were given to avoid punishment for breaking the law. Compared to 2008, the share of those who paid to speed up the process increased in the police, while in other domains this share diminished. The biggest modification was noticed in the fiscal inspectorates, where the share of payments made to speed up the process decreased from 75.3% in 2008 to 35.4% in 2012. 

The respondents stated that while the bribes made to health care providers were mostly voluntary, those made to judges, customs officers and fiscal inspectors were made under pressure. Compared to 2008, the share of those who paid bribes voluntarily to all of the above mentioned groups decreased. The most significant decline has been noticed in courts of law, where this indicator diminished from 67.8% in 2008 to 25.8% in 2012.



Although the total amount of bribes paid by businesses increased in 2012, their attitude towards the country governance and its efforts to improve the business environment did not deteriorate. The share of respondents who believe that the state impedes entrepreneurial activity diminished from 46.7% in 2008 to 33.2% in 2012, and two-fold since 2000. Share of businesses that consider the state impedes the entrepreneurial activity, % 2005 46.7



2007 47.3

2008 33.8

2012 33.2

On a positive note, the amount of time spent on solving problems with state institutions continually reduced. From 2008, when respondents spent 17.3% of their working time on this process, the number dropped to 11.1% in 2012. Time spent on solving problems with public institutions, (% of total time) 2005 22.4



2007 21

2008 17.3

2012 11.1

More than two thirds of the business people stated that the fiscal inspectors correctly followed the procedure during their controls. The share of business people who had a positive experience during the visit of fiscal inspectors increased from 41.1% in 2005 to 72.5% in 2012.

Share of business people who consider that the fiscal inspector followedthe correctprocedures during the fiscal controls, % 45

Transparency International – Moldova 2005 41.1

2007 60.5

2008 66

2012 72.5



The number of visits by state representatives made to businesses decreased from 21 times a year in 2008 to 6.5 times in 2012. Currently, they are most frequently visited by police officers.



Willingness to pay bribes to solve their problems with the state remains high among the respondents. More than two thirds of them confirmed this fact. The share of those who say a firm „NO” to bribes is slowly increasing. Share of those who DO NOT want to pay bribes in difficult situations, % Households Businesses

2005 23 12

2007 24.1 19.5

2008 34.7 23.5

2012 27.1 27.9



Compared to 2005, the share of those who do not consider corruption acceptable increased 1.5 times, from 43% in 2008 to 67.1% in 2012 among households, and from 49% in 2008 to 78.5% among businesses. This shows a clear trend of diminishing tolerance towards corruption.



Along with a diminished tolerance towards corruption, respondents changed their overall sentiment towards offering bribes. Three quarters of both categories of respondents stated that they had negative emotions when solving their problem by giving a bribe. Their share rapidly increased from 49.3% in 2008 to 73.1% in 2012 among households and from 41.2% in 2008 to 76.6% in 2012. Share of respondents that state they have negative sentiments when giving a bribe, % Households Businesses



2005 49.6 44.1

2007 42.1 43.8

2008 49.3 41.2

2012 73.1 76.6

Even though tolerance towards corruption decreases, the will to oppose corruption by collaborating with law enforcement institutions remains low. About 37.3% of households faced corruption in the last 12 month, 1.9% tried to solve their case in a legal manner and only 0.9% succeeded to solve their problem entirely or partially. Also, 40% of businesses faced corruption, 1.8% tried to solve their problem officially and only 0.7% had some success. It is remarkable that the share of respondents that do not know whom to address with their case of corruption continually diminishes. Share of respondents that do not know where to address a case of corruption, % Households Businesses

2005 z z

2007 19.3 7.3

2008 10.4 3.5

2012 6.8 4.8

Public authorities need to appeal to the population more rigorously and work together on combating corruption. It is necessary to improve the quality of public anti-corruption hot-lines and petition systems. An important role in this context play public awareness campaigns on achievements made in this domain, and the consolidation of whistleblower and witness protection mechanisms. 

If a ranking of law enforcement institutions and control bodies was made, respondents would evaluate the officers of the Internal Service and Security as most professional, followed by fiscal inspectors, the collaborators of the Center for Combating Economic Crime and Corruption and prosecutors. The list would be closed by judges, customs officers and police officers.

Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences In a ranking of this type, the most credible from the point of view of the poll participants would be fiscal inspectors, followed by Center for Combating Economic Crime and Corruption officers. The list would be closed by customs officers, judges and police officers. 

In spite of the high level of corruption in the Republic of Moldova, the majority of households (75.5%) and businesses (84.4%) are optimistic about Moldova’s chances to curb corruption. The state must rely on this optimism and engage the population in the process of combating corruption.



It is certain that if the supremacy of the law is not ensured and corrupt persons are not properly sanctioned, increasing the salary of public servants would only contribute to inflation and the public servant would adjust the size of the bribe to the his/her new salary. The estimation made in this study on the total bribe paid in Moldova confirms this premise. Still, when asked what should be the monthly salary of a public servant that would make him/her resistant to bribes, the respondents proved a good understanding and came up with realistic and well-motivated figures.

Minister Head of Department Ordinary public servant Judge



2007 Households Businesses 1600 2300 900 1270

2008 Households Businesses 1615 2280 1090 1460

2012 Households Businesses 1356 1939 912 1160

560

685

705

850

653

783

1334

1931

Among the most efficient ways to curb corruption, both categories listed increasing sanctions to those who take and offer bribes, meritocratic promotion and increasing the salaries of public servants.

Transparency International – Moldova Anexa

MOLDOVA CHESTIONAREA REPREZENTANŢILOR GOSPODĂRIILOR CASNICE În atenţia operatorului. Textul ce urmează trebuie citit respondentului. Transparency International – Moldova efectuează acest sondaj cu suportul Departamentului de Stat al SUA, Scopul sondajului este de a studia cauzele, a evalua percepţiile şi experienţele privind corupţia în structurile statale din Republica Moldova, precum şi pentru a elabora propuneri de remediere a situaţiei. Coordonatorul cercetării este Dr. Lilia Caraşciuc, directorul executiv al Transparency International – Moldova. Tel./fax 2034-84, 23-78-76, e-mail: office@transparency.md Va mulţumim anticipat pentru participare, asigurându-vă că chestionarul este anonim, iar informaţia prezentată – confidenţială. Vă rugăm să fiţi pe cât se poate de obiectiv la completarea chestionarului. Codul individual al operatorului:_______ _____________________ Data realizării interviului:__________________________________ Locul realizării interviului:__________________________________ Timpul începerii interviului: _________________________________ 1. Vârsta Numărul de ani

2. Genul

18–24

25–29

1.Masculin

30–39

40-49

50–59

Peste 60

2.Feminin

3. Studiile 1.Medii incomplete 2.Medii 3.Medii de specialitate 4.Superioare, inclusiv incomplete 4. Mediul rezidenţial

1.Urban

2.Rural

5 A. Ce venituri are familia Dvs. (un răspuns) 1.Venituri foarte joase 2.Venituri mai joase decât cele medii 3.Venituri medii 4.Venituri mai ridicate decât cele medii 5.Venituri înalte 5 B. Notaţi la ce categorie de persoane Vă referiţi: 1.Persoană angajată în baza contractului de muncă permanent 2.Persoană angajată în baza contractului de muncă temporar (ocaziţional, sezonier) 3.Persoană angajată fără contract de muncă (la negru) 4.Şomer înregistrat official 5.Persoană care nu lucrează, dar caută de lucru 6.Persoană care nu lucrează şi nu caută de lucru 7. Student 8.Alţii (invalizi, pensionari, persoane în concediu de maternitate) 6. Cât de acute sunt pentru Dvs. următoarele probleme? Factorul 1.Nu este o 2.Puţin problemă acută Inflaţia Calitatea joasă a sistemului educaţional Calitatea nesatisfăcătoare a

3.Neacut ă

4.Acută

5.Foarte acută

6.Problemă majoră

Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences asistenţei medicale Accesul limitat la informaţiile publice Criminalitatea Corupţia Impozitele înalte Instabilitatea politică Sărăcia Servicii nesatisfăcătoare de comunicaţii (drumuri, linii telefonice, acces Internet, etc.) Birocraţia Schimbări frecvente în legislaţie Reglementarea complicată a business-ului Şomajul înalt Degradarea mediului ambiant Sistemul judecătoresc nedrept/inechitabil Altele, indicaţi 7. Care sunt principalele surse de informare din care aflaţi despre corupţie? (3 răspunsuri) 1.Televiziunea 2.Radioul 3.Presa, inclusiv electronică 4.Experienţa proprie 5.Discuţiile cu rudele, prietenii, cunoscuţii 6.Rapoartele instituţiilor de stat 7.Comunicate ale organizaţiilor neguvernamentale 8.Comunicate ale organizaţiilor internaţionale 9.Altele, indicaţi Căt de mult credeţi în informaţiile despre corupţie din mass-media? (1 răspuns) 1.Foarte mult 2.Mult 3.Puţin

4.Nu cred deloc

9. Cât de importante sunt următoarele cauze în răspândirea corupţiei în RMoldova? 1.Foarte 2.Destul de importantă importantă

3.Puţin important ă

4.Nu este o cauză

Lipsa controlului intern în instituţiile publice Persoanele corupte nu sunt trase la răspundere Guvernarea nu abordează problema în mod serios Lăcomia Lipsa transparenţei în activitatea instituţiilor publice Salariile mici Presiunile din partea rudelor şi prietenilor Presiunile din partea şefului Este deja o tradiţie Lipsa standardelor de conduită a funcţionarilor publici Nivelul scăzut de cultură Altele, indicaţi 10. În opinia dvs. ... 10.1 câtă încredere aveţi în …? 1.nu am deloc încredere

2.puţină încredere

3.multă încredere

10.2 care este nivelul de profesionalism al acestora? 4.încredere deplină

5.înalt

6.mediu

7.jos

Inspectori fiscali 49

Transparency International – Moldova Vameşi Poliţişti Judecători Colaboratori ai CCCEC Medici Colaboratori ai Serviciul de Informaţii şi Securitate Procurori 11. Cât de acceptabilă după părerea Dvs. este situaţia în care un funcţionar primeşte o plată neoficială şi o foloseşte pentru a-şi achita datoriile la serviciile comunale? 1.Acceptabilă pe deplin 2.Acceptabilă parţial 3.Acceptabilă în anumite situaţii 4.Inacceptabilă

12. În opinia Dvs., cât de frecvent se recurge la bani, cadouri, contacte personale pentru a „soluţiona” problemele în …? Instituţiile/serviciile/ 1.Niciod 4.Ade- 5.Foarte 6.Întot7.NŞ 2.Rar 3.Câteodată domeniile ată sea des deauna /NR Administraţia publică centrală Administraţia publică locală Inspectoratele fiscale Vama Poliţia Procuratura Inspecţiile sanitarepidemiologice Birourile cadastrale Privatizarea Arenda proprietăţii de stat Instanţele de judecată Achiziţiile publice Instituţiile de învăţământ Instituţiile medicale Oficiile stării civile Birourile de paşapoarte Serviciile comunale Camera Înregistrării de stat Inspecţiile antiincendiare Inspectoratul energetic Inspecţia ecologică CCCEC Serviciul de Informaţii şi Securitate Eliberarea vizelor Licenţierea Birourile notariale Birourile de avocaţi Accesul la credite, împrumuturi Înregistrarea transportului, elib. certificatului de conducere Revizia tehnică a automobilelor Eliberarea autorizaţiilor de construcţie 50

Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences Instituţiile/serviciile/ domeniile Furnizarea de apă Furnizarea de electricitate Furnizarea de gaze Furnizarea de căldură/agent termic Inspecţia muncii Telecomunicaţiile Companiile de asigurări

1.Niciod ată

2.Rar

3.Câteodată

4.Adesea

5.Foarte des

6.Întotdeauna

7.NŞ /NR

13. Căile neoficiale de soluţionare a problemelor cu funcţionarii publici, de obicei, iau forma de … (1 răspuns): 1. Contacte/relaţii 2. Cadouri 3. Bani 4. Presiuni din partea conducerii 5. Presiuni din partea organizaţiilor criminale 6. Altele, indicaţi Încă o dată Vă asigurăm confidenţialitatea interviului nostru 14. Uneori, oamenii trebuie să plătească neoficial sau să ofere cadouri pentru a obţine diverse servicii, pentru a evita problemele în organele de stat, precum şi pentru a obţine favoruri. Pe parcursul ultimului an Dvs. (sau altcineva din familia Dvs.) aţi plătit neoficial sau aţi oferit cadouri angajaţilor din următoarele instituţii/servicii/domenii? Instituţiile/ 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.5 14.6 serviciile/ Aţi contactat De câte ori Aţi plătit Dacă aţi plătit De câte ori Suma domeniile instituţia? aţi contac neoficial? neoficil, aţi aţi plătit totală, tat-o? făcut-o: neoficial? lei Da Nu Da Nu Din Aţi iniţiativ fost ă impus Administraţia publică centrală proprie Administraţia publică locală Inspectoratele fiscale Vama Poliţia Procuratura Inspecţiile sanitarepidemiologice Birourile cadastrale Privatizarea Arenda proprietăţii de stat Instanţele de judecată Achiziţiile publice Instituţiile de învăţământ Instituţiile medicale Oficiile stării civile Birourile de paşapoarte Serviciile comunale Camera Înregistrării de Stat Inspecţiile antiincendiare Inspectoratul energetic Inspecţia ecologică CCCEC Serviciul Intern de Securitate (SIS) Eliberarea vizelor Licenţierea Birourile notariale Birourile de avocaţi 51

Transparency International – Moldova Instituţiile/ serviciile/ domeniile Accesul la credite, împrumuturi Înregistrarea transportului şi calificarea conducătorilor auto Revizia tehnică a automobilelor Eliberarea autorizaţiilor de construcţie Furnizarea de apă Furnizarea de electricitate Furnizarea de gaze Furnizarea de căldură/agent termic Inspecţia muncii Telecomunicaţiile Companiile de asigurări

14.1 Aţi contactat instituţia?

14.2 De câte ori aţi contac tat-o?

14.3 Aţi plătit neoficial?

14.4 Dacă aţi plătit neoficil, aţi făcut-o:

14.5 De câte ori aţi plătit neoficial?

14.6 Suma totală, lei

15. Dacă aţi plătit neoficial (aţi dat bani, cadouri, servicii), în ce scop aţi făcut-o: (Dacă NU – treci la întrebarea 16) Pentru a „unge roţile” (a obţine ceva ce se cuvine conform legii) Pentru a evita pedeapsa/sancţiunea 16. Când contactaţi instituţiile de stat, este mai uşor de a soluţiona problemele prin „căi neoficiale” decât prin cele oficiale? (1 răspuns) 1.Întotdeauna 2.În majoritatea cazurilor 3.Foarte des 4.Câteodată 5.Rar de tot 6.Niciodată 7.NŞ/NR 17. Imaginaţi-vă că aţi fost impus să oferiţi cadou unui funcţionar public pentru a vă soluţiona problema. În opinia Dvs., cum v-aţi fi simţit? (un singur răspuns) 1.Indignat/ă 2.Înjosit/ă 3.Indiferent/ă 4.Satisfăcut/ă 5.Bucuros/oasă 6.NŞ/NR

18. Dacă dvs. veţi fi pus într-o situaţie dificilă, veţi plăti mită? 1.Da 2.Nu

3.Depinde de circumstanţe

19. Pe parcursul ultimului an dvs. sau altcineva din familia dvs. v-aţi confruntat cu cazuri de mituire, protecţionism, trafic de influenţă, etc. în instituţiile de stat? 1.Da 2.Nu 20. Dvs. sau cineva din familia dvs., v-aţi plâns/aţi depus plângere privitor la cazurile de corupţie? (Dacă NU – treci la întrebarea 23) 1.Da 2.Nu 21. Daca da, unde v-aţi adresat? ? (răspuns multiplu 2) 1. La poliţie 2. La avocat 3. În judecată 4. La Procuratură 5. În presă 52

Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences 6. Funcţionarului superior 7. Prietenilor, rudelor, vecinilor 8. La CCCEC 9. La ONG-uri 10.La Guvern, Preşedinţie, Parlament 11.Altele, indicaţi 22. A fost rezolvată problema dvs.? 1.Da

2.Parţial

3.Nu

23. Dacă nu aţi depus plângere, de ce nu aţi făcut-o? (răspuns multiplu 2) 1.Nu aţi ştiut unde şi cui să vă adresaţi 2.Ar fi luat prea mult timp 3.Nimic nu s-ar schimba 4.V-ar fi creat doar probleme 5.Alte cauze, specificaţi 24. Aţi putea să povestiţi despre un caz concret de corupţie (dare/luare de mită, protecţionism, cumătrism) din propria experienţă din ultimele 12 luni? ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________ 25. Care ramură a puterii de stat vă pare cea mai coruptă? (indicaţi un răspuns) 1. Parlamentul 2. Sistemul judecătoresc

3. Guvernul

26. În opinia dvs., ce înseamnă un conflict de interese în sectorul public? (bifaţi un singur răspuns) 1.Un conflict dintre funcţionarii publici 2.Un conflict dintre interesele personale ale unui funcţionar public şi obligaţiile lui de serviciu 3.Un conflict dintre interese personale ale unui funcţionar public 27. Cât de eficiente ar fi următoarele măsuri pentru a reduce corupţia în Moldova? 1.Deloc 2.Puţin eficiente eficiente Controlul declaraţiilor de venituri ale funcţionarilor publici Reducerea numărului de intervenţii ale statului în economie Informarea populaţiei despre pericolul corupţiei Aplicarea normelor de conduită în serviciul public si sancţiunilor pentru nerespectarea lor Asigurarea independenţei judecătorilor Transparentizarea activităţii instituţiilor publice Promovarea în funcţie după merit a angajaţilor din serviciul public Înăsprirea sancţiunilor faţă de cei care iau mită Înăsprirea sancţiunilor faţă de cei care dau mită Mărirea salariilor Introducerea unor sancţiuni severe pentru comportament corupt

3.Destul de eficiente

4.Foarte eficiente

5.NŞ/ NR

28. Cum consideraţi, care ar trebui să fie salariul lunar al următoarelor persoane pentru ca ele să nu primească plăţi neoficiale? Dolari SUA 1.Funcţionar de rand 2.Şef de department 3.Ministru 53

Transparency International – Moldova 4.Judecător 5. Preşedinte de ţară

29. Care din următoarele afirmaţii o consideraţi mai corectă? 1.Suntem corupţi deoarece suntem săraci 2.Suntem săraci deoarece suntem corupţi 30. Cu care din afirmaţiile de mai jos sunteţi de acord? În Republica Moldova ... (1 răspuns) 1.Corupţia nu poate fi combătută 2.Corupţia va exista întotdeauna, dar poate fi limitată 3.Corupţia poate fi redusă substanţial 4.Corupţia poate fi complet extirpată 5.NŞ/NR 31. După părerea Dvs. pe parcursul ultimului an (12 luni), corupţia în instituţiile de stat ... 1.A 2.A sporit 3.A rămas 4.S-a micşorat 5.S-a micşorat sporit puţin aproximativ aceeaşi puţin mult mult

6.NŞ/NR

Timpul finalizării interviului______ Vă mulţumim pentru colaborare!

Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences

Anexa MOLDOVA CHESTIONAREA OAMENILOR DE AFACERI În atenţia operatorului: textul ce urmează trebuie citit respondentului, Transparency International – Moldova efectuează acest sondaj cu suportul Departamentului de Stat al SUA. Scopul sondajului este de a studia cauzele, a evalua percepţiile şi experienţele privind corupţia în structurile statale din Republica Moldova, precum şi pentru a elabora propuneri de remediere a situaţiei. Coordonatorul cercetării este Dr. Lilia Caraşciuc, directorul executiv al Transparency International – Moldova. Tel,/fax 2034-84, 23-78-76, e-mail: office@transparency.md Va mulţumim anticipat pentru participare, asigurându-vă că chestionarul este anonim, iar informaţia prezentată – confidenţială, Vă rugăm să fiţi pe cât se poate de obiectiv la completarea chestionarului. Codul individual al operatorului:_______ _____________________ Data realizării interviului:__________________________________ Locul realizării interviului:__________________________________ Timpul începerii interviului: _________________________________ Date despre respondent 1. Vârsta Ani

18-24

2. Genul: 1. Masculin

25-29

30-39

40-49

50-59

Peste 60

2. Feminin

3. Studiile: 1.Medii incomplete 2.Medii 3.Medii de specialitate 4.Superioare, inclusiv incomplete 4. Mediul rezidenţial 1. Urban

2. Rural

5. Ce venituri are familia Dvs. (1 răspuns) 1. Foarte joase 2. Joase 3. Medii

4. Mai ridicate decât cele medii

6. Evaluaţi în ce măsură următorii factori împiedică desfăşurarea afacerilor în Moldova? Factorul 1.Nu 2.Împiedică 3.Împiedică 4.Împiedic împiedi că uneori puţin ă mult deloc Inflaţia Lipsa proprietăţii pentru a fi depuse în gaj Impozitele şi taxele înalte Legislaţia fiscală imperfectă Acces dificil la credite bancare Criminalitatea Corupţia Deficitul de forţă de muncă calificată Infrastructura slab dezvoltată a pieţei Situaţii de monopol pe piaţă

5.Înalte

5.Împiedi că foarte mult

6.Blochea ză

Transparency International – Moldova Lipsa materiei prime Numărul mare de controale şi inspecţii Instabilitatea politică Schimbări frecvente ale legislaţiei Reglementarea complicată a business-ului Probleme şi reglementări la export-import Controlul preţurilor Legislaţia muncii imperfectă Sistemul judecătoresc nedrept/inechitabil Alte, indicaţi 7. Care sunt principalele surse de informare din care aflaţi despre corupţie? (cel mult 3 răspunsuri) 1.Televiziunea 2.Radioul 3.Presa, inclusiv electronică 4.Experienţa proprie 5.Discuţiile cu rudele, prietenii, cunoscuţii 6.Rapoartele instituţiilor de stat 7.Comunicatele organizaţiilor neguvernamentale 8.Comunicatele organizaţiilor internaţionale 9.Altele, specificaţi ______________________ 8. Cât de mult credeţi în informaţiile despre corupţie din mass-media? (1 răspuns) 1.Foarte mult 2.Mult 3.Puţin 4.Nu cred deloc 9. Cât de importante sunt următoarele cauze în răspândirea corupţiei în RMoldova? Se evaluează pe o scară de la 1 la 4 (1 – cauză foarte importantă, 2 – cauză destul de importantă, 3 – cauză puţin importantă, 4 – nu este o cauză) 1.Foarte 2.Destul 3.Puţin 4.Nu importantă de impor impor este o tantă tantă cauză Lipsa controlului intern în instituţiile publice Persoanele corupte nu sunt trase la răspundere Guvernul nu abordează problema în mod serios Lăcomia Lipsa transparenţei în activitatea instituţiilor publice Salariile mici Presiunile din partea rudelor şi prietenilor Presiunile din partea şefului Este deja o tradiţie Lipsa standardelor de conduită a funcţionarilor publici Nivelul scăzut de cultură Altele, indicaţi 10. În opinia dvs, ...

câtă încredere aveţi în …? 1.nu am deloc încredere

2.puţină încredere

3.multă încredere

4.încredere deplină

care este nivelul de profesionalism al acestora? 5.înalt 6.mediu 7.jos

Inspectori fiscali 56

Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences Vameşi Poliţişti Judecători Colaboratori ai CCCEC Colaboratori ai Serviciului de Informaţii şi Securitate Procurori 11. Cât de acceptabilă după părerea Dvs, este situaţia în care un funcţionar primeşte o plată neoficială şi o foloseşte pentru a-şi achita datoriile la serviciile comunale? 1.Acceptabilă pe deplin

2.Acceptabilă parţial

3.Acceptabilă în anumite situaţii

4.Inacceptabilă

12. În opinia Dvs,, cât de frecvent se recurge la bani, cadouri, contacte personale pentru a „soluţiona” problemele în …? Instituţiile/serviciile/ 3.Câteo 4.Adese 5.Foarte 6.Întot1.Niciodată 2.Rar 7.NŞ /NR domeniile dată a des deauna Administraţia publică centrală Administraţia publică locală Inspectoratele fiscale Vama Poliţia Procuratura Inspecţiile sanitar-epidemiologice Birourile cadastrale Privatizarea Arenda proprietăţii de stat Instanţele de judecată Achiziţiile publice Birourile de paşapoarte Serviciile comunale Camera Înregistrării de Stat Inspecţiile antiincendiare Inspectoratul energetic Serviciile de protecţie a mediului CCCEC Eliberarea vizelor Licenţierea Birourile notariale Birourile de avocaţi Accesul la credite, împrumuturi Înregistrarea transportului şi eliberarea permisului de conducere Revizia tehnică a automobilelor Eliberarea autorizaţiilor de construcţie Furnizarea de apă Furnizarea de electricitate Furnizarea de gaze Furnizarea de căldură/agent termic Inspecţia muncii Telecomunicaţiile Companiile de asigurări 13. Căile neoficiale de soluţionare a problemelor cu funcţionarii publici, de obicei, iau forma de … (1 răspuns): 1.Contacte/relaţii 57

Transparency International – Moldova 2.Cadouri 3.Bani 4.Presiuni din partea conducerii 5.Presiuni din partea organizaţiilor criminale 6. Altele, indicaţi Încă o dată Vă asigurăm confidenţialitatea interviului nostru Uneori, oamenii trebuie să plătească neoficial sau să ofere cadouri pentru a obţine diverse servicii, pentru a evita probleme cu poliţia sau alte organe de stat, precum şi pentru a obţine favoruri speciale (loc de muncă, contract, licenţă, etc,). 14. Pe parcursul ultimului an Dvs, (sau altcineva din întreprinderea Dvs,) aţi plătit neoficial sau aţi oferit cadouri angajaţilor din următoarele instituţii/servicii/domenii? Instituţiile/ 14.1 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.5 14.6 serviciile/ Aţi contactat De Aţi plătit Dacă aţi plătit De câte Suma Domeniile instituţia? câte neoficial? neoficial, aţi făcut-o: ori aţi totală, lei ori aţi plătit Da Nu Da Nu Din Aţi fost contac neofici iniţiaimpus Inspectoratele fiscale tat-o? al? tivă Vama proprie Poliţia Procuratura Inspecţiile sanitar-epidemiologice Birourile cadastrale Privatizarea Arenda proprietăţii de stat Instanţele de judecată Achiziţiile publice Instituţiile de învăţământ Instituţiile medicale Birourile de paşapoarte Serviciile comunale Camera Înregistrării de stat Inspecţiile antiincendiare Inspectoratul energetic Serviciile de protecţie a mediului CCCEC Eliberarea vizelor Licenţierea Birourile notariale Birourile de avocaţi Accesul la credite, împrumuturi Înregistrarea transportului şi eliberarea permisului de conducere Revizia tehnică a automobilelor Eliberarea autorizaţiilor de construcţie Furnizarea de apă Furnizarea de electricitate Furnizarea de gaze Furnizarea de căldură/agent termic Inspecţia muncii Telecomunicaţiile 15. Dacă aţi plătit neoficial (aţi dat bani, cadouri, servicii), în ce scop aţi făcut-o: (Dacă NU – treci la întrebarea 16) Pentru a „unge roţile” (a obţine ceva ce se cuvine conform legii) 2. Pentru a evita pedeapsa/sancţiunea 16. Când contactaţi instituţiile de stat, este mai uşor de a soluţiona problemele prin „căi neoficiale” decât prin cele oficiale? (un răspuns) 1.Întotdeauna 2.În majoritatea cazurilor 58

Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences 3.Foarte des 4.Câteodată 5.Rar de tot 6.Niciodată 7.NŞ/NR 17. Pe parcursul ultimelor 12 luni, ce organe de control şi de câte ori au vizitat compania Dvs.? Numărul de vizite în 12 luni Inspectoratul fiscal Poliţia Inspecţia antiincendiară Inspectoratul energetic Inspecţia sanitar-epidemiologică CCCEC Serviciul de protecţie a mediului Inspecţia Muncii Altele, indicaţi 18. Dacă inspectorul fiscal găseşte o încălcare a legislaţiei, cum procedează el de obicei … 1.Înregistrează încălcările şi întocmeşte actul de control conform regulamentului 2.Dă de înţeles că este necesar de a plăti pentru a „soluţiona” problemele 3.Numeşte preţul pentru a corecta datele raportului 4.Altele (indicaţi) ______________________________ 19. Dacă vi se depistează o încălcare a legislaţiei pentru care trebuie să plătiţi o amendă într-o suma X, de obicei, a câta parte din această sumă este necesar de plătit direct inspectorului pentru a „soluţiona” problema ( % din X) ________ 20. Estimaţi, a câta parte din timpul de lucru o utilizaţi pentru a rezolva problemele cu funcţionarii din instituţiile de stat? ___ % 21. Pe parcursul ultimilor doi ani, la câte oferte de achiziţii publice a participat compania Dvs.? _______ 22. Dacă nu aţi participat, cât de importante au fost următoarele motive? (foarte important, important, minor, nu este un motiv) Complexitatea procedurii Costul procedurii Prea multă concurenţă Nu aş câştiga contractul fără efectuarea unor plăţi neoficiale Procedura achiziţiilor publice nu este transparentă şi echitabilă; Contractele directe sunt mai simple Nu este profilul nostru Altele, indicaţi

1.Foarte important

2.Important

3.Motiv minor

4.Nu este un motiv

23. Cum evaluaţi aportul statului în desfăşurarea business-ului Dvs,? (1 răspuns) 1.Ajută mult 2. Ajută întrucâtva 3. Ajută foarte puţin 4. Este absolut neutru 5.Câteodată chiar împiedică 6.Mai mult împiedică 59

Transparency International – Moldova 7. NŞ/NR 24. Imaginaţi-vă că aţi fost impus să oferiţi cadou unui funcţionar public pentru a vă soluţiona problema. În opinia Dvs., cum v-aţi fi simţit? (un singur răspuns) 1.Indignat/ă 2.Înjosit/ă 3.Indiferent/ă 4.Satisfăcut/ă 5.Bucuros/să 6.NŞ/NR 25. Dacă dvs. veţi fi într-o situaţie dificilă, veţi plăti mită? 1.Da 2. Nu

3. Depinde de circumstanţe

26 Care ramură a puterii de stat Vă pare cea mai coruptă? (indicaţi un răspuns) 1. Parlamentul 2. Sistemul judecătoresc

3. Guvernul

27. Pe parcursul ultimului an dvs. sau altcineva din familia dvs. v-aţi confruntat cu cazuri de mituire, protecţionism, trafic de influenţă, etc. în instituţiile publice? 1.Da 2.Nu 28. Dvs. sau cineva din familia dvs. v-aţi plâns/aţi depus plângere privitor la cazurile de corupţie? (Dacă NU, treci la întrebarea 31) 1.Da 2.Nu 29. Daca Da, unde v-aţi adresat? (răspuns multiplu 2) 1.La poliţie 2.La avocat 3.În judecată 4.La Procuratură 5.În presă 6.Funcţionarului superior 7.Prietenilor, rudelor, vecinilor 8.La CCCEC 9.La ONG-uri 10.La Guvern, Preşedinţie, Parlament 11.Altele, indicaţi 30. A fost rezolvată problema dvs.? 1.Да

2. Parţial

3. Nu

31. Dacă nu aţi depus plângere, de ce nu aţi făcut-o? (răspuns multiplu 2) 1.Nu am ştiut unde şi cui să mă adresez 2.Ar fi luat prea mult timp 3.Nimic nu s-ar schimba 4.V-ar fi creat doar probleme 5.Alte cauze, specificaţi 32. Aţi putea să povestiţi despre un caz concret de corupţie (dare/luare de mită, protecţionism, cumătrism) din propria experienţă din ultimele 12 luni? ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ ______ 33. Cât de eficiente ar fi următoarele măsuri pentru a reduce corupţia în Moldova? 1.Deloc 2.Puţin eficiente Eficiente Controlul declaraţiilor de venituri ale funcţionarilor publici Reducerea numărului de intervenţii ale statului în economie

3.Destul de eficiente

4.Foarte eficiente

5.NŞ/ NR

Corruption in Republic of Moldova: Perceptions vs. Personal Experiences Informarea populaţiei despre pericolul corupţiei Aplicarea normelor de conduită în serviciul public si a sancţiunilor pentru nerespectarea lor Asigurarea independenţei judecătorilor Publicarea bugetelor instituţiilor publice Promovarea în funcţie după merit a angajaţilor din serviciul public Înăsprirea sancţiunilor faţă de cei care iau mită Înăsprirea sancţiunilor faţă de cei care dau mită Mărirea salariilor Introducerea unor sancţiuni severe pentru comportament corupt 34. Cum consideraţi, care ar trebui să fie salariul lunar al următoarelor persoane pentru ca ele să nu primească plăţi neoficiale? Dolari SUA 1. Funcţionar de rând 2. Şef de departament 3. Ministru 4. Judecător 35. Care din următoarele afirmaţii o consideraţi mai corectă? 1.Suntem corupţi deoarece suntem săraci 2.Suntem săraci deoarece suntem corupţi 36. Cu care din afirmaţiile de mai jos sunteţi de acord? În Republica Moldova … 1.Corupţia nu poate fi combătută

(1 răspuns)

2.Corupţia va exista întotdeauna, dar poate fi limitată 3.Corupţia poate fi redusă substanţial 4.Corupţia poate fi complet extirpată 5.NŞ/NR 37. După părerea Dvs, pe parcursul ultimului an (12 luni), corupţia în instituţiile de stat ... 1.A sporit mult

2.A sporit puţin

3.A rămas aceeaşi

4.S-a micşorat puţin

5.S-a micşorat mult

6.NŞ/NR

Timpul finalizării interviului ______________ Vă mulţumim pentru colaborare!