Acta Univ. Agric. Silvic. Mendelianae Brun. 2011, 59(7), 121-136 | DOI: 10.11118/actaun201159070121

Corruption in the Czech and Slovak Republic: Did the EU pressure improve legal framework and its enforcement?

Ladislava Grochová, Tomáš Otáhal
Ústav ekonomie, Mendelova univerzita v Brně, Zemědělská 1, 613 00 Brno, Česká republika

Did the EU pressure improve legal framework and its enforcement in the Czech and Slovak Republic? The paper analyzes the current state of the Czech and Slovak quality of legal framework and its enforcement in the context of the European Union accession. We looked at a variety of corruption indicator data, such as statistics of revealed and clarified malfeasance connected with corruption per 100 capita and the composite indexes. These indicators suggest that the quality of the legal framework and its enforcement in the Czech and Slovak Republic has not improved after joining the European Union. More precisely, it can be argued that in spite of implementation of anti-corruption public policies proposed by EU institutions, perceived corruption of public officers has remained the same. This means that trustworthiness of legal framework and enforcement authorities responsible for deterrence and reduction of corruption remained the same as well. Therefore, in order to improve the quality of the legal framework and its enforcement, reduction of barriers to entry and more profound legislation reforms is suggested.

Keywords: anti-corruption public policy, corruption, Czech Republic, EU accession, Slovak Republic
Grants and funding:

This article is the result of a research project supported by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic, No. 6214648904 "The Czech Economy in the Process of Integration and Globalization, and the Development of Agricultural Sector and the Sector of Services under the New Conditions of the Integrated European Market", thematic area 01 "Macroeconomic and microeconomic performance of the Czech economy, and the Czech government's econo-political measures in the context of the integrated European market".

Received: June 19, 2011; Published: January 26, 2014  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Grochová, L., & Otáhal, T. (2011). Corruption in the Czech and Slovak Republic: Did the EU pressure improve legal framework and its enforcement? Acta Universitatis Agriculturae et Silviculturae Mendelianae Brunensis, 59(7), 121-136. doi: 10.11118/actaun201159070121
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. ASLAN, A., 2008: Financial Development and Economic Growth: A Panel Co integration Analysis of the Middle East Countries. The Empirical Economics Letters, Vol. 7(7), pp. 681-691.
    2. BECKER, G. S. and STIGLER, G. J., 1974: Law Enforcement, Malfeasance, and Compensation of Enforcers. Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 3(1), pp. 1-18. DOI: 10.1086/467507 Go to original source...
    3. BENSON, B. L., 1990: The Enterprise of Law: Justice without the State. San Francisco (CA): Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy.
    4. COASE, R., 1960: The Problem of Social Costs. Journal of Law and Economics, Vol 3(1), pp. 1-44. DOI: 10.1086/466560 Go to original source...
    5. GERŠL, A., 2006: Development of Formal and Informal Institutions in the Czech Republic and Other New EU Members States Before Their EU Entry: Did the EU Pressure Have Impact? Prague Economic Papers, Vol. 15(1), pp. 78-90. DOI: 10.18267/j.pep.278 Go to original source...
    6. GROCHOVÁ, L., 2006: Využití regresní analýzy při modelování CPI skóre a jeho determinant. In: Firma a konkurenční prostředí 2006. Brno: MUAF in Brno.
    7. HADRI, K., 2000: Testing for Stationarity in Heterogeneous Panel Data. Econometrics Journal, Vol. 3, 148-161. DOI: 10.1111/1368-423X.00043 Go to original source...
    8. HAY, R. J. and SHLEIFER, A., 1998: Private Enforcement of Public Laws: A Theory of Legal Reform. American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, Vol. 88(2), pp. 398-403.
    9. IM, K. S., PESARAN, H. and SHIN, Y., 2003: Testing for Unit Roots in Heterogeneous Panels. Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 115, pp. 53-74. DOI: 10.1016/S0304-4076(03)00092-7 Go to original source...
    10. JOHANSEN, S., 1988: Statistical Analysis of Cointegration Vectors. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Vol. 12, pp. 231-254. DOI: 10.1016/0165-1889(88)90041-3 Go to original source...
    11. KADEŘÁBKOVÁ, A., 2007: Podmínky podnikání v České republice při hodnocení institucionální kvality. Politická ekonomie, Vol. 55(2), pp. 164-182. DOI: 10.18267/j.polek.595 Go to original source...
    12. KAO, C. and CHIANG, M. H., 2000: On the estimation and inference of a cointegrated regression in panel data. In: BALTAGI B. H. (ed.), Advances in Econometrics: Nonstationary Panels, Panel Cointegration and Dynamic Panels, 15, 179-222. Go to original source...
    13. KAUFMANN, D., KRAAY, A., MASTRUZZI, M., 2009: Governance Matters VIII: Aggregate and Individual Governance Indicators 1996-2008, Policy Research Working Paper 4978, World Bank. Go to original source...
    14. KÖRNER, P., KUDRNA, Z. and VYCHODIL, O., 2002: Měření kvality podnikatelského prostředí ve střední Evropě. Finance a úvěr, Vol. 52(12), pp. 674-697.
    15. KRUEGER, A. O., 1974: The Political Economy of the Rent-Seeking Society. American Economic Review, Vol. 64(3), pp. 291-303.
    16. LAMBSDORFF, J. G., 2006: Measuring Corruption - The Validity and Precision of Subjective Indicators (CPI). In: SMAPFORD, Ch., SHACKLOCK, A., CONNORS, C., Galtung, F. ed.: Measuring Corruption. Farnham, Surrey (GB) and Burlington (USA): Ashgate Publishing Company, 2006.
    17. LÍZAL, L. and KOČENDA, E., 2001: State of corruption in transition: case of the Czech Republic. Emerging Markets Review, Vol. 2(2), pp. 138-160. DOI: 10.1016/S1566-0141(01)00014-0 Go to original source...
    18. NISKANEN, W. A., 1968: The Peculiar Economics of Bureaucracy. American Economic Review, Vol. 58(2), pp. 293-305.
    19. NORTH, D. C., 2002: Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press.
    20. NYE, J. S., 1967: Corruption and Political Development: A Cost - Benefit Analysis. American Political Science Review, Vol. 61(2), pp. 417-427. DOI: 10.2307/1953254 Go to original source...
    21. OTÁHAL, T., 2006: Ekonomická anlýza definice korupce. Národohospodářský obzor, Vol. 4(1), pp. 50-60.
    22. OTÁHAL, T. (forthcoming) Korupce po roce 1989 na Slovensku. Scientia et Societas.
    23. OTÁHAL, T., 2010: Korupce v České republice po roce 1989. Scientia et Societas. Vol. 6(4), pp. 143-157.
    24. OTÁHAL, T., 2007: Why is Corruption a Problem of the State? Prague Economic Papers, Vol. 16(2), pp. 165-179. DOI: 10.18267/j.pep.304 Go to original source...
    25. OTÁHAL, T., 2008a: Komparace výsledků boje proti korupci v České a Slovenské republice. In: Firma a konkurenční prostředí 2008. Brno: MUAF in Brno.
    26. SACHS, J. D., 1996: The Transition at Mid Decade. American Economic Review, Vol. 86(2), pp. 128-133.
    27. SHLEIFER, A., 1997: Government in Transition. European Economic Review, Vol. 41(3-5), pp. 385-410. DOI: 10.1016/S0014-2921(97)00011-1 Go to original source...
    28. SHLEIFER, A. and VISHNY, R., 1992: Pervasive shortages under socialism. Rand Journal of Economics, Vol. 23(2), pp. 237-246. DOI: 10.2307/2555986 Go to original source...
    29. SOREIDE, T., 2003: Estimating corruption: Comments on available data. Chr. Michelsen Institute. [cit. 2010-10-10]. Cited from http://www.u4.no/document/showdoc.cfm?id=88.
    30. TULLOCK, G., 1996: Corruption Theory and Practice. Contemporary Economic Policy, Vol. 14(3), pp. 9-20. DOI: 10.1111/j.1465-7287.1996.tb00619.x Go to original source...
    31. TULLOCK, G., 1967: The Welfare Costs of Tariffs, Monopolies and Theft. Western Economic Journal, Vol. 5(3), pp. 224-232. Go to original source...
    32. VOLEJNÍKOVÁ, J., 2003: Východiska a orientace soudobé antikorupční politiky v ČR. Scientific Papers of the University of Pardubice, Vol. Ser. D(8), pp. 182-187.
    33. ŽÍDEK, L., 2005: Došlo v průběhu transformace k podcenění úlohy práva? Národohospodárský obzor, Vol. 5(2), pp. 70-84.
    34. ŽÁK, M. and VYMĚTAL, P., 2006: Institucionální aspekty Nové komparativní ekonomie: ČR a EU. Politická ekonomie, Vol. 54(5), pp. 583-609. DOI: 10.18267/j.polek.574 Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY NC ND 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content