USAID/ENGAGE

Anticorruption Perception and Experience Poll. Eastern Macro-Region

Ukraine’s governance agenda and socio-economic development have seen multiple ups and downs, as well as unprecedented events in the last decade. Some of the most vocal demands post-Maidan have been those of justice and total cleansing of corruption. Over the previous three years, Ukraine has seen what some experts dubbed “the third electoral Maidan” with Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his team’s landslide victory (allowing him to retain a relatively high personal rating of trust in his third year of tenure). Over 1,5 years ago, the country plunged into the COVID-19 pandemic. Events of such magnitude tend to alter citizen perceptions and, in the case of pandemic restrictions, real-life experiences. The explosion of digital communications has boosted the popularity of politicians who can make voters feel as though they are talking to their neighbor, a person from across the street. In this light, do the numbers in the 2021 anti-corruption poll point to actual progress or are they a shift in volatile opinions due to well-crafted political rhetoric? Does the sheer weight of Presidential supporters today as opposed to opponents have an impact on perceptions? And is corruption truly the top-ranking issue? This note compares the all-Ukrainian landscape with data gathered in Kyivska, Poltavska, Sumska, Cherkaska and Chernihivska oblasts and is mostly concentrated on the areas that demonstrate “data outliers” and unexpected findings.

The Anticorruption Perception and Experience poll has been in place for over 15 years now, covering issues of corruption and anti-corruption developments, perceptions, and real-life experiences of Ukrainians. This brief analysis captures only some of the most noteworthy insights of the poll’s March 2021 edition and contrasts the nation-wide data with the situation observed in the macro-region made up of the five oblasts. The nation-wide poll sample, shaped by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, included 10,000 respondents, and reached out to no fewer than 400 persons in each of the oblasts in late February 2021. As such, the most evident data analysis disclaimer is that the ongoing pandemic and its restrictions have impacted citizen perceptions and real-life experiences. Meanwhile, we present below the sometimes controversial and, at the same time, vivid story that the 2021 data bring us.

See Interactive Visualization

Perceptions

Data broken down by the oblast shows some variability and the case of Sumy oblast is of special interest. Four out of five oblasts are aligned with the all-national trend, whereas they view the President and his Office the ones most responsible for overcoming corruption in Ukraine (Kyivska – 65,0%, Poltavska – 61,7%, Cherkaska – 55,6%, Chernihivska – 84,5%). Sumska oblast residents are a significant outlier, putting most of their faith in specialized anti-corruption institutions: 46,4% selecting NABU, 45,8% – SAPO, 45,1% – HACC and 42,4% – NAPC. ‘Ordinary citizens’ as a response option gained between a low of 5,0% in Kyivska and a high of 12,3% in Cherkaska oblasts.

As far as willingness is concerned, ordinary citizens (67,0%), mass media (41,7%), NGOs (39,7%) and the business community (21,7%) are believed to long for effective anti-corruption transformations at the national level. Specialized bodies, the judiciary system, prosecution system and sub-national government bodies all fluctuate in perceived willingness between 6,4% (the judiciary) and 15,4% (local government). As far as the national level authorities are concerned in terms of nation-wide averages, the President and his Office are seen as the most willing state entity to act against corruption (19,4%) – much more willing than the Cabinet of Ministers (9,9%) or the Verkhovna Rada (7,1%). These latter results should be interpreted with care, though, as at the national level much is linked to the popularity of politicians in top-level positions (for instance, at the helm of the Cabinet or the Parliament and the President himself) rather than practical anti-corruption action.

At the oblast level, ‘ordinary citizens’, ‘mass media’ and ‘non-governmental organizations’ top the list of those, who are willing to overcome corruption in the five oblasts. Sumska oblast is an outlier on this aspect as well, with 31,5% of the residents believing that the President and his Office are willing to overcome corruption in contrast to the 19,4% national average (a 12% gap).

Experiences

Intentions, opinions and motivations

The top-three motivating factors at the national level included the feeling that the case in point was important for the respondent or their family (71,5%), guarantees of anonymity and security for those who partake in anti-corruption action (66,6%) and availability of accessible and simple mechanisms for participation (64,0%). Regional disaggregation of data suggests that residents in Kyivska and Poltavska oblasts were closest in their opinions to the national average. Respondents from Sumska oblast noted multiple response options with a very small difference between them as if to suggest that all listed options were motivating for them. Respondents from Chernihivska oblast were hardest to motivate – this oblast has the highest proportion of those, who are ‘not motivated at all’ by all listed options.

Meanwhile, physical insecurity (74,1%), disbelief in effectiveness of one’s actions (70,7%) and the lack of trust towards anti-corruption authorities (69,3%) topped the list of disempowering factors in the national averages. At the regional level respondents also quoted the lack of awareness about effective anti-corruption tools (74,4% – Poltavska and 66,4% – Chernihivska oblasts), the fear of retaliation at work or a backlash at schoolchildren (62,9% – Chernihivska oblast), lack of trust to anti-corruption CSOs (60,1% – Sumska and 64,5% – Chernihivska oblasts) and fatigue from anti-corruption issues (62,1% – Sumska oblast).

Where does this leave us?

This note has looked more attentively at the macro-region comprised of five oblasts in the northern and central part of Ukraine. Overall, respondents in Kyivska, Poltavska, Sumska, Cherkaska and Chernihivska oblasts shared opinions comparable to the nation-wide sentiments. A summary of the poll findings may be presented in these ten points:

  1. Corruption is reported as the number one concern at the national level. The regional level is more nuanced, and a higher margin of error does not allow to posit that corruption is the main issue for the five oblasts. Nevertheless, corruption is mentioned as a significant concern in the macro-region.
  2. Top-level, political corruption is seen as the biggest problem if compared to petty corruption and corruption in business at the national level. The same is true for Kyivska, Poltavska, Cherkaska and Chernihivska oblasts. Residents of Sumska oblast believe that petty corruption is more corrosive (the difference cannot be explained by the margin of error). Corruption in business is universally seen as a less serious challenge.
  3. Corruption is seen as ‘very common’ and ‘common’ by eight out of ten respondents in the national average, and the situation is comparable in the five target oblasts. Respondents in Sumska (93,5% of respondents – combined ‘very common’ and ‘common’ responses) and Chernihivska (94,9% – combined ‘very common’ and ‘common’ responses) seem to be especially pessimistic about corruption prevalence in the country.
  4. In terms of corruption dynamics over the last two years, even in case of the most optimistic respondents (Cherkaska oblast), less than one out of ten respondents believe that the levels of corruption have decreased. Most believe that the situation has remained the same or that corruption levels have increased (biggest pessimism in Chernihivska oblast with 46,7% as compared to 34,1% of the national average). At the same time, this piece of data has to be interpreted cautiously – comparison with previous years suggests that Ukrainians face corruption less frequently in real life than in previous years. Instead, perceptions of corruption prevalence are impacted not only by personal experience (petty corruption for the most part) but also by the societal narratives and the stories promoted by the media.
  5. Well in line with the overall trend to see most corruption originating at the high, political level, Ukrainians believe that central government bodies (Parliament, Cabinet of Ministers, the President and his Office) generally have higher levels of corruption than local self-government bodies. Corruption is seen as “an issue somewhere out there, in high offices”. At the same time, Poltavska and Sumska oblast respondents believe that prevalence of corruption in the Office of the President is lower than in the local self-government. The President and his Office are believed to be the least corrupt out of the national government triad (Parliament, Cabinet and President).
  6. Ukrainians overall see the President and his Office and the Parliament as two entities most responsible for fighting corruption. The situation is similar in four out of five oblasts – in a very notable outlier, residents of Sumska oblast believe that specialized anti-corruption agencies, such as NABU, NAPC, SAPO and HACC, have highest responsibility for tackling graft. This difference cannot be explained by the margin of error. Despite this outlier case, in the eye of most respondents, political will for change seems to be given priority over strength of specialized anti-corruption institutions, which are located closer to the middle of the “responsibility rating” (all oblasts but Sumy). Citizens, mass media, NGOs and businesses are seen as much less responsible for acting. In turn, the “willingness rating”, i.e. the listing of institutions and entities that are seen as wishing to overcome corruption, is almost perfectly inverted. Respondents all over Ukraine and in the five target oblasts believe that ordinary citizens, media, NGOs, and businesses are willing to overcome corruption, while government entities are not seen as champions in this realm. The President and his Office as well as local self-government are amongst the most “willing” of all government entities listed.
  7. Real-life exposure to corruption-related situations has been decreasing over the years. In the national average, only 16 out of 100 Ukrainians faced corruption in any form directly or through their relatives throughout the past year. Oblast-level data is in line with the situation observed at the national level with the highest rates of real-life corruption exposure in Kyivska (23,6%) and Cherkaska (22,0%) oblasts. Residents of Chernihivska oblast claim they hardly ever face corruption (96,7% stating they have not experienced such situations throughout the past year). This, once again, is important to emphasize in light of corruption prevalence perceptions and the importance ascribed to different levels of corruption (high-level and political, petty or business-related).
  8. Out of the 21 life situations and institutions included into the questionnaire, over half of the respondents at the national level dealt with the healthcare system (overwhelmingly, state-owned healthcare institutions). Respondents from the five targeted oblasts echoed this finding with the lowest share of healthcare system contracts in Chernihivska (41,5%) and Sumska (42,0%) oblasts. When dealing with Ukrainian healthcare, respondents reported extorted bribes or unofficial payments as well as voluntary, citizen-initiated payments and use of personal contacts to obtain necessary care.
  9. In line with the national-level averages, Ukrainians in the five target oblasts believe that inevitability of prosecution (punishment) for corruption is a crucial deterrent for corrupt behaviors. Other popular anti-corruption measures include stripping members of Parliament from their immunity, preventing corrupt officials from taking office again, and making sure that authorities have clearly delineated responsibilities accompanied by inter-institutional anti-corruption mechanisms.
  10. There are multiple catalysts and inhibitors for anti-corruption action by the citizens. Respondents both in the national-level averages and in the five target oblasts are more likely to act against corruption if the issue at hand is important to them and if there are adequate protections against retaliation for anti-corruption action. Some of the top-ranking inhibitors include potential physical insecurity for self or family members, disbelief that such action could change anything, and the lack of trust to the relevant authorities, as anti-corruption champions.


The Anticorruption Perception and Experience poll is a unique longitudinal study on Ukraine’s population perceptions and actual experience of corruption. The study was conducted in 2007, 2009, 2011, 2015, 2018 and 2021 with samples over 10’000 respondents each time, thus enabling oblast-level comparison of data. The random samples are representative of the adult population (18+) from all oblasts of Ukraine and Kyiv city. Temporarily occupied territories of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, the city of Sevastopol, and certain areas of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts (non-government controlled areas) were excluded from the 2015-2021 surveys. The sample was shaped as a multistage random sample with quota selection at the last stage. Interviews were provided face-to-face, every time. The margin of effort is ≤ 1.5% for the cases where data is of the whole, nation-wide sample.

The biennial nation-wide large-scale Anticorruption Perception and Experience poll was started in 2007 and 2009 by Management Systems International (MSI) and continued in 2011, 2015, 2018 and 2021 by Pact Inc. with the support of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The polling data, its interpretations, and resulting analytics are the sole responsibility of Pact and its implementing partners and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government. Globally, Pact builds systemic solutions in partnership with local organizations, businesses, and governments that create sustainable and resilient communities where those we serve are heard, capable, and vibrant. On the ground in nearly 40 countries, Pact’s integrated adaptive approach is shaping the future of international development.