Search results

Cognition of corruption, which changes in time, space and occurs in various forms, as well the implementation of measures to reduce and prevent it are inseparable from efforts to measure corruption. This article primarily is aimed to answer the question of what indicators and data sources are used to measure the prevalence of corruption in various fields. An overview of the development of corruption measurement tools shows that indicators for measuring the prevalence of corruption in various fields were created when the measurement of corruption became more specific. These indicators are the response to the need to have context-sensitive measurements of corruption. The analysis of the types of indicators measuring corruption confirms that it is useful to focus on more than one indicator when measuring the prevalence of corruption in different areas, especially in order to have actionable indicators (i. e. focused on reforms to reduce and prevent corruption). The analysis ofthe main data sources used to create indicators for measuring corruption also confirms that combining corruption perception and corruption experience data as basic indicators for measuring the prevalence of corruption and supplementing them with other context-sensitive data would reveal the situation of corruption in various fields in sufficient detail. Based on regional and national Lithuanian public opinion surveys conducted in 2017 and 2019 respectively, this article in a limited way, i. e. according to respondents' atititudes and perceptions, illustrates the prevalence of corruption in Lithuania in the public and private sectors. These surveys show that corruption is a widespread national problem (confirmed by the vast majority of the respondents (93%)). According to the respondents, the extent of corruption in both periods (1 and 3 years, and 5 years respectively) remained unchanged (46% and 42%, and 37% of respondents respectively). Measurements of the prevalence of corruption in different institutions and sectors in Lithuania reveal that the institutions of the health care system according to the prevalence of corruption are those in which corruption is extremely widespread (79% of respondents). Significant prevalence of corruption was also found in private medical institutions in the context of the institutions of the Health Ministry of the Lithuanian Republic (8% and 40% of respondents thought that private medical institutions are highly corrupt or partially corrupt respectively). However, in the context of various private enterprises, bailiffs are the leaders in terms of the prevalence of corruption, not health care institutions (17% and 47% of respondents respectively rated bailiffs as highly corrupt or partially corrupt). In the second place in the context of private companies - pharmaceutical companies (15 and 39% of the respondents respectively), and in the third place - again the representatives of the legal professions - lawyers (14 and 47% of the respondents respectively). It's not optimistic that according to the perceptions of the Lithuanian respondents and considering the prospect of the spread of corruption, 40% of respondents thought that the extent of corruption would not change over the next three years. However, it is interesting to what extent these data would coincide with the data on corruption experience of respondents' and other data useful for determining the prevalence of corruption in various fields.

Cognition of corruption, which changes in time, space and occurs in various forms, as well the implementation of measures to reduce and prevent it are inseparable from efforts to measure corruption. This article primarily is aimed to answer the question of what indicators and data sources are used to measure the prevalence of corruption in various fields. An overview of the development of corruption measurement tools shows that indicators for measuring the prevalence of corruption in various fields were created when the measurement of corruption became more specific. These indicators are the response to the need to have context-sensitive measurements of corruption. The analysis of the types of indicators measuring corruption confirms that it is useful to focus on more than one indicator when measuring the prevalence of corruption in different areas, especially in order to have actionable indicators (i. e. focused on reforms to reduce and prevent corruption). The analysis ofthe main data sources used to create indicators for measuring corruption also confirms that combining corruption perception and corruption experience data as basic indicators for measuring the prevalence of corruption and supplementing them with other context-sensitive data would reveal the situation of corruption in various fields in sufficient detail. Based on regional and national Lithuanian public opinion surveys conducted in 2017 and 2019 respectively, this article in a limited way, i. e. according to respondents' atititudes and perceptions, illustrates the prevalence of corruption in Lithuania in the public and private sectors. These surveys show that corruption is a widespread national problem (confirmed by the vast majority of the respondents (93%)). According to the respondents, the extent of corruption in both periods (1 and 3 years, and 5 years respectively) remained unchanged (46% and 42%, and 37% of respondents respectively). Measurements of the prevalence of corruption in different institutions and sectors in Lithuania reveal that the institutions of the health care system according to the prevalence of corruption are those in which corruption is extremely widespread (79% of respondents). Significant prevalence of corruption was also found in private medical institutions in the context of the institutions of the Health Ministry of the Lithuanian Republic (8% and 40% of respondents thought that private medical institutions are highly corrupt or partially corrupt respectively). However, in the context of various private enterprises, bailiffs are the leaders in terms of the prevalence of corruption, not health care institutions (17% and 47% of respondents respectively rated bailiffs as highly corrupt or partially corrupt). In the second place in the context of private companies - pharmaceutical companies (15 and 39% of the respondents respectively), and in the third place - again the representatives of the legal professions - lawyers (14 and 47% of the respondents respectively). It's not optimistic that according to the perceptions of the Lithuanian respondents and considering the prospect of the spread of corruption, 40% of respondents thought that the extent of corruption would not change over the next three years. However, it is interesting to what extent these data would coincide with the data on corruption experience of respondents' and other data useful for determining the prevalence of corruption in various fields.

This article deals with insights into the analysis of shortcommings of ensuring separate human rights legal regulation in Lithuania while implementing the rule of law. The shortcomings of the Lithuania legislature are highlighted in particular the failure to ensure or inappropriate or insufficient guaranteeing of separate rights.This article has chosen to present here a selection of rights from a wider range of rights to be analysed. This choice reflects not a few but a set of the most striking examples of the shortcomings of the legislature of Lithuania. These examples could be named 'the most striking' because the constitutional requirements for the ensuring of human rights are explained accurately in the vast Lithuanian constitutional jurisprudence, despite this fact they are not sufficiently obeyed. In this article the problem of ensuring two quite different kinds of rights are identified and analysed.These include two civil rights (i.e. the right to freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degradating treatment or punishment in the context of conditions of imprisonment, the right to freedom of expression and information) and one economic right - the right to freedom of individual economic activity and initiative. They distinctly approve at least a few shortcomings of legal regulation: non-complexity/non-systematicity, inconsistency, intricacy, uncertainty, and often – instability, unconstitutionality, and in some cases nonconformity with international standards of human rights protection, as well as the inaccessibility of legal regulation. In this article the recommendations of how to improve those shortcommings are considered. In light of the inability to actually fully ensure constitutional guarantees of separate human rights it could be argued that the principle of rule of law which is enshrined in the preamble of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania which is an aspiration, remains a major challenge for the Lithuanian society.

This article deals with insights into the analysis of shortcommings of ensuring separate human rights legal regulation in Lithuania while implementing the rule of law. The shortcomings of the Lithuania legislature are highlighted in particular the failure to ensure or inappropriate or insufficient guaranteeing of separate rights.This article has chosen to present here a selection of rights from a wider range of rights to be analysed. This choice reflects not a few but a set of the most striking examples of the shortcomings of the legislature of Lithuania. These examples could be named 'the most striking' because the constitutional requirements for the ensuring of human rights are explained accurately in the vast Lithuanian constitutional jurisprudence, despite this fact they are not sufficiently obeyed. In this article the problem of ensuring two quite different kinds of rights are identified and analysed.These include two civil rights (i.e. the right to freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degradating treatment or punishment in the context of conditions of imprisonment, the right to freedom of expression and information) and one economic right - the right to freedom of individual economic activity and initiative. They distinctly approve at least a few shortcomings of legal regulation: non-complexity/non-systematicity, inconsistency, intricacy, uncertainty, and often – instability, unconstitutionality, and in some cases nonconformity with international standards of human rights protection, as well as the inaccessibility of legal regulation. In this article the recommendations of how to improve those shortcommings are considered. In light of the inability to actually fully ensure constitutional guarantees of separate human rights it could be argued that the principle of rule of law which is enshrined in the preamble of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania which is an aspiration, remains a major challenge for the Lithuanian society.