United Nations Public Service Awards Case Studies

The Korean Independent Commission Against Corruption (KICAC) has been contributing to diminishing corruption via its Integrity Survey, which it introduced in 2002.

The Integrity Survey can be regarded as remarkable progress in Korea's anti-corruption movement, which was mostly led by civil society organizations, as it represents the government's efforts to cleanse itself of corruption.

The purpose of the survey is to measure the current status of corruption prevalent in the public sector. The Integrity Survey was developed and tested three times from 1999 to 2001, while the actual survey system was launched in 2002. The system focused on the areas, which were perceived to be the most corrupt, such as permits/registration, construction, and contracts for public procurement. Each year, 70-90 thousand civil complainants were surveyed. The results were released through the media, which led to the improvement of the areas susceptible to corruption and an increase in transparency in the public service.

This survey does not only measure each organization's level of corruption and its efforts to eliminate it, but it has also helped change the culture of permissiveness that has allowed corruption to be so pervasive. This integrity measurement of the Korean public sector is a very unique and special system and serves as: 1) Baseline Performance Index (BPI), which indicates the integrity levels of public organizations/agencies/departments, 2) Performance Benchmarking Index (PBI), which compares the public organizations with one another in terms of their levels of integrity, and 3) Performance Diagnosis Index (PDI), which identifies the areas of public service that need to be improved. State-owned enterprises are now using this system as a model for implementing meritocracies.

Although KICAC's Integrity Survey is uniquely used to measure integrity and counteract corruption in the public sector of Korea, it can be changed and applied to various cultures and environments. Other countries can also use this system to tackle corruption in their own state/government.

What is the initiative about? (the solution)
Introduced by the Korea Independent Commission Against Corruption (KICAC), the Integrity Survey was designed to identify corruption-prone areas by surveying citizens who have experienced administrative services and to analyze the factors that may contribute to the actual occurrence of corrupt practices. The ultimate purpose of this annual survey is to encourage public institutions to step up their anti-corruption efforts by ensuring that their integrity and corruption prevention systems are evaluated by ordinary citizens. As with the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) published by Transparency International, a global anti-corruption watchdog, the integrity survey is a kind of "naming-and-shaming" policy. It helps keep people away from bad behavior and encourages them to do the right things by subjecting wrongdoers to public humiliation. The effects of the integrity survey are very positive. Since the survey results are disclosed to the public, public institutions near the bottom of the rankings reinforce their efforts to improve their anti-corruption systems, while top performers strive continuously to maintain their good reputation. Since the Integrity Survey was launched in 2002, public institutions have strived to take anti-corruption measures tailored to specific conditions in each area of service; to establish and operate an internal body dedicated to preventing corruption; and to focus resources on improving their systems related to the areas that are prone to corruption. The Integrity Survey has assisted public institutions in identifying the areas susceptible to corruption, removing what causes corruption in their systems and administrative procedures and utilizing more scientific tools to root out corrupt practices. It covers over 1,300 areas of government service, including the awarding of contracts, the issuance of licenses, inspection and the disclosure of public information. So diverse and specific is the survey area that each public institution can discover and correct problems in a cost-effective way. According to the findings from the Integrity Survey, Korea has seen a consecutive increase in its overall level of integrity. In 2006, the average score for the surveyed public institutions was 8.77 points on a ten-point scale, up 2.34 from 2002. The 2006 survey also found that the overall the rate of offering bribes and suspicious hospitality sharply declined from 4.1% in 2002 to 0.7% in 2006.

Who proposed the solution, who implemented it and who were the stakeholders?
In 1999, the Anti-Corruption Special Committee developed an assessment model to measure the integrity of public institutions. To make sure that it is relevant and effective, three rounds of pilot studies were performed between 2000 and 2001. With the launch of the Korea Independent Commission Against Corruption (KICAC) in 2002, the assessment framework was completed based on the findings of the pilot studies as well as expert advice on the validity of assessment methods. The first Integrity Survey covered 71 public institutions and 348 areas of public service. Those surveyed were 30,639 ordinary citizens who had firsthand experience with these public services. The number of target institutions increased to 77 in 2003 and to 314 in 2004; the number of target areas rose to 394 in 2003 and to 1,324 in 2004; and the respondents grew to 36,458 in 2003 and to 75,317 in 2004. In 2005, to improve the validity and objectiveness of the framework for assessment, KICAC analyzed cases in which bribes and gifts of entertainment had been offered, and assessed 325 public institutions and 1,330 areas based on a survey of 86,892 citizens. In 2006, KICAC carried out the integrity survey on 304 public sector organizations, excluding those which had scored 9.0 or over in the previous year, and 1,369 areas of public service provided by these organizations. The total number of respondents increased to 89,941 people.

Describe how and when the initiative was implemented by answering these questions
a. What were the strategies used to implement the initiative? In no more than 500 words, provide a summary of the main objectives and strategies of the initiative, how they were established and by whom.
With public criticism of corruption growing louder than ever, the fight against corruption has been a top priority of the incumbent government of Korea. Recognizing the need to achieve a transparent society and raise national competitiveness, the government sought to root out the causes of corruption by taking a scientific and systematic approach. A prerequisite for the solution of corruption problems is to understand the very nature of corruption. The first step in identifying the nature of corruption is to perform an objective and comprehensive study of the current status of corruption by analyzing such factors as the nature, seriousness and the trends of corrupt behavior. Preventive policies are required to address the fundamental causes of corruption, as opposed to simply applying reactive measures that rely on detecting and punishing corrupt officials after the misconduct has already occurred. Such preventive strategies can be developed only when the circumstances that encourage corruption within an organization have been identified. However, the only available data on corruption in Korea was the punishment records of authorities such as the Board of Audit and Inspection, the Office for Government Policy Coordination, the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs and the Public Prosecutors' Office. As the data has limitations in expressing the real magnitude of corruption, there was a need to assess the seriousness of corruption by questioning users of public administration services. In this context, a survey system was designed to assess the levels of public-sector integrity, identify corruption-causing factors, and improve the systems that are vulnerable to corruption. Introduced in 2002 by KICAC, the Integrity Survey is part of efforts to promote the transparency and fairness of public administration.

b. What were the key development and implementation steps and the chronology? No more than 500 words
The Integrity Survey was designed to encourage public institutions to step up their anti-corruption efforts by ensuring that their integrity and corruption prevention systems are evaluated by ordinary citizens. It is used to assess the perceptions of those who experienced the services of the organization concerned. Given that concessions are a great source of corruption, it is appropriate and effective to focus resources for the assessment on the risk areas. Therefore, KICAC selects and evaluates risk areas where discretionary power may affect citizens' interests and organizational decisions; the other areas where civil affairs are handled in a simple procedure are not subject to the integrity assessment. The risk areas concern the issuing of licenses and permits, control, supervisory tasks, the use and management of government subsidies, etc.

c. What were the main obstacles encountered? How were they overcome? No more than 500 words
The level of integrity refers to the degree to which a public official abides by law, refrains from corrupt practices and performs his or her duty in a proper and impartial way. (A) Procedural steps The following outlines the procedures used for assessing the level of integrity in public institutions.  Step 1: Establishing the assessment framework  Step 2: Identifying and selecting the subject  Step 3: Making a list of survey targets  Step 4: Conducting a phone survey  Step 5: Analyzing the data collected  Step 6: Placing the findings in the public domain (B) Target institutions In 2006, KICAC measured the level of integrity in 304 public institutions, excluding those that performed well in the previous year. (C) Target areas Given that concessions are a great source of corruption, it is appropriate and effective to focus resources for the assessment on the risk areas. Therefore, KICAC selects and evaluates risk areas where discretionary power may affect citizens' interests and organizational decisions; the other areas where civil affairs are handled in a simple procedure are not subject to the integrity assessment. The risk areas concern the issuing of licenses and permits, control, supervisory tasks, the use and management of government subsidies, etc. (D) Subject of survey Those surveyed are ordinary citizens who have had firsthand experience with target public services for the preceding 12 months or so. To obtain survey samples, KICAC asks the public institution to submit a list of public service users in accordance with Article 21 of the Anti-Corruption Act, and commissions research institutes to select subjects and conduct a phone survey. (E) Methodology The level of a public official's integrity is defined as the extent to which he or she refuses to involve in corrupt practices and performs public duties in an unbiased and appropriate manner. The assessment framework consists of two integrity factors, namely "perceived integrity" and "potential integrity." Perceived integrity reflects the level of corruption perceived or experienced by public service users. Potential integrity refers to the prevalence of potential factors causing corruption as perceived by the citizens. While the former reflects personal experience or perception of corruption, the latter indicates the presence of factors that are likely to correlate with actual incidences of corruption in the future. The higher the level of integrity is, the less likely is it that public service users experience or perceive corruption and that factors in the administrative system contribute to corruption. If and when all is taken together, KICAC communicates the findings of its assessment to mass media and society as a whole in the form of the Integrity Perceptions Index (IPI).

d. What resources were used for the initiative and what were its key benefits? In no more than 500 words, specify what were the financial, technical and human resources’ costs associated with this initiative. Describe how resources were mobilized
Since KICAC launched the Integrity Survey in 2002, public institutions have paid keen attention to the IPI. To move up the "integrity ladder" in the IPI, they redouble efforts to strengthen their internal assessment, conduct various educational programs and improve their systems and procedures. Furthermore, public institutions and their subsidiaries work together to improve the situation, contributing to bettering the overall picture of the IPI every year. Low-ranked institutions are now striving to take anti-corruption measures tailored to specific conditions in each area of service; to establish and operate an internal body dedicated to preventing corruption; and to focus resources on improving their systems related to the areas that are prone to corruption. Since the introduction of the Integrity Survey, Korea has seen a consecutive increase in its overall level of integrity. In 2006, the average score for the surveyed public institutions was 8.77 points on a ten-point scale, up 2.34 from 2002. The 2006 survey also found that the overall the rate of offering bribes and suspicious hospitality sharply declined from 4.1% in 2002 to 0.7% in 2006.

Is the initiative sustainable and transferable?
The Integrity Survey, conducted pursuant to Article 11 of the Anti-Corruption Act, is an institutional mechanism to enhance the levels of integrity in public sector organizations. The relevance of the assessment model was tested and verified through three years' pilot study. The assessment framework has been further improved and reinforced during the course of five years' administration since 2002. A great majority of public sector organizations have utilized this system on their own in assessing the integrity levels of their affiliated organizations. The survey findings do not only serve as a deterrent of corruption within an organization, but also as the criteria for rating the performance of and providing incentives for the employees. This way, the public organizations engage themselves in achieving the common goal of enhancing national integrity. Although the assessment model reflects the unique characteristics of Korea's public service, it can be adjusted and applied to different cultures and environments. The core principles and strategies of the assessment system can be transferred to any country or organization that intends to increase its level of integrity.

What are the impact of your initiative and the lessons learned?
There might be disparities between the IPI and the public perceptions of corruption. That's because no data other than the survey of public service users are currently reflected in the integrity assessment. The integrity assessment is based on a survey of ordinary citizens who are outside users of public service with high possibilities of corruption. However, to enhance the overall level of transparency in the public sector, one must also take into account the services provided for internal members of the organization. That is, there is a need to ensure integrity in the internal process of the organization as well as in policy-planning and decision-making. To overcome this problem, KICAC conducted a pilot survey on internal affairs such as human resources management and budget spending in 2006, and plans to incorporate them in the integrity assessment starting from 2007. Additionally, KICAC is seeking to ensure that records on penalties for public institutions involving corruption are reflected in the IPI as a complementary indicator. Over the mid- and long-term, it will introduce an instrument to assess the opacity of policymaking process as well as the risk of corruption occurring.


Institution Name:		Korea Independent Commission Against Corruption
Institution Type:		Government Agency
Contact Person:		So-yeong Yoon
Title:		Deputy Director
Telephone/ Fax:		+82-2-2126-0184
Institution's / Project's Website:		+82-2-2126-0189
E-mail:		yoonsoy@kicac.go.kr
Address:		140-2, Hyundai Building 6F, Gye-dong, Jongno-gu
Postal Code:		110-793
City:		Seoul
State/Province:
Country:

The Problem

Solution and Key Benefits

Actors and Stakeholders

(a) Strategies

(b) Implementation

(c) Overcoming Obstacles

(d) Use of Resources

Sustainability and Transferability

Lessons Learned

Contact Information