DEVELOPMENT

Lithuania, 61%; and in Russia, 69%. In the global corruption
report compiled in 2004, a clearly more positive
attitude toward public authority could be seen among
the Estonian elite, as compared with Lithuania, Latvia
and Russia. If 39% of the Estonian elite agreed with the
statement that the representatives of public authority
are dealing with their personal interests, in Russia, the
respective indicator was 61%, in Latvia 55% and in Lithuania
51% (Steen 2004).
When we examine the changes in Estonia’s position
based on the corruption perception for the last
ten years, we see a somewhat different picture. Estonia’s
ranking in the corruption perceptions index list
has constantly deteriorated during the named period
(see Table 2.5.1). Estonia’s highest position was achieved
in 2006 (24 th place); then, we fell by three to four places;
remained there; and declined again, during the last two
years. During the last six years, Estonia’s position has
worsened by eight places. Based on the corruption perceptions
indicators, Estonia has not drawn closer to the
Western and Northern European countries, but rather,
decreased its gap with the former socialist states. A shift
in the same direction is also occurring in the attitudes
of the public toward the abuse of power in Estonia. The
cases of political corruption, which have regularly been
disclosed recently, have increased people’s concerns
about political corruption and the transparency of
governance.
The last two GRECO reports dealt with political
corruption in Estonia. In 2008, the report included
several proposals for improving oversight over political
party financing. As of the beginning of 2012, of the eight
recommendations regarding the regulation of the criminalisation
of corruption, five had not been implemented,
two were partly implemented and one has been satisfactorily
implemented. In its newest report, which deals with
the prevention of corruption among parliament members,
judges and prosecutors, GRECO made seven recommendations
for improving the work of the Estonian Parliament
(Riigikogu). Among other things, the report dealt
with establishing rules for people who try to influence
the drafting of legislation, for the establishment of codes
of ethics, for subsequent job restrictions for members
of parliament and for the declaration of their economic
interests (GRECO 2012).
2.5.2
Summary
As compared to the majority of the former Eastern bloc
countries, the extent of the corruption in Estonia has
been assessed as rather modest. Estonia’s anti-corruption
strategy, are primarily concerned with simpler
forms of corruption, the so-called “lower level” of
corruption, i.e. activities which are mainly related to
the honesty and transparency in business. If foreign
companies, which represented the Western-style business
and management culture, played a large role in
the economic reorganisation, we were left, more or less,
on our own, when it came to the development of the
political culture.
The international organisations have repeatedly
indicated to the danger of political corruption, the
negative impact of which on the Estonian development
has become increasingly evident in recent years. An
essential role has also been played by our inexperience
and the lack of a consistent policymaking tradition. We
are often not able to see the importance of stability and
ethical values in institutional activities, compared to
personal gain and interests. Self-criticism is inhibited
by the wrong habit of hiding any shortcomings behind
a shiny façade.
References
1. 2012 Corruption Perceptions Index – www.transparency.org/
policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2012/results
2. GRECO 2012 – http://www.korruptsioon.ee/greco
3. Karklins, R. (2005). The System Made Me Do It: Corruption in
Post-Communist Societies. Armonk, NY, London: M.E. Sharpe.
4. Koch, A. (2012). Corruption Perceptions Index 2012 and the
European Financial Crisis. http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2012/results
5. Lipset, S., Lenz, G. (1999). Corruption, Culture, and Markets.
Manuscript, George Mason University, Arlington, VA.
6. Mauss, M. (2000/1924). The Gift: The Form and Reason for
Exchange in Archaic Societies. New York: W.W. Norton.
7. Nations in Transit 2012 – www.freedomhouse.org
8. Sandholtz, W., Taagepera, R. (2005). “Corruption, Culture, and
Communism,” International Review of Sociology, 15, 1, 109-131.
9. Steen, A. (2004). “How Elites View Corruption and Trust in
Post-Soviet States,” Global Corruption Report 2004: Special
Focus: Political Corruption. London; Sterling, VA: Pluto Press /
Transparency International.
Estonian Human Development Report 2012/2013
85