Suchergebnisse

The former manifests in cases when the official negotiating a transaction with the briber invokes administ- rative, material and financial resources of the institution that he/she represents only. In these cases interference of the hierarchically above-standing organizations or legislature is unnecessary. Political corruption determined by supply manifests in participation of political layers in corrupt transactions. Transactions of this kind can be implemented completely only after political approval is received or after special changes of legal norms have been passed. According to range of corrupt relations in organizations narrow-range and systematic corruption are distinguished. Narrow-range corruption manifests in cases when the solution of a problem that is important to the briber depends on one or a few corrupt persons only. Political corruption manifests in cases where solution of a certain problem in corrupt ways is a feature of the whole organization and different layers of organization (for example, separate departrnents) that take part in the process. According to subordination of layers of organization horizontai and vertical corruption are distinguished. HorizontaI corruption manifests when an important question (permit, licence, regulation) is being solved in a corrupt way in different parallel and unsubordinated departrnents of organization. Vertical corruption manifests in cases when a chain of corrupt acts unites persons standing on different steps of hierarchy. The practice reveals that horizontaI corruption in the last segment of a chain often turns to a vertical one while vertical corruption is practically impossible without support of horizontal segrnents of the chain.

The former manifests in cases when the official negotiating a transaction with the briber invokes administ- rative, material and financial resources of the institution that he/she represents only. In these cases interference of the hierarchically above-standing organizations or legislature is unnecessary. Political corruption determined by supply manifests in participation of political layers in corrupt transactions. Transactions of this kind can be implemented completely only after political approval is received or after special changes of legal norms have been passed. According to range of corrupt relations in organizations narrow-range and systematic corruption are distinguished. Narrow-range corruption manifests in cases when the solution of a problem that is important to the briber depends on one or a few corrupt persons only. Political corruption manifests in cases where solution of a certain problem in corrupt ways is a feature of the whole organization and different layers of organization (for example, separate departrnents) that take part in the process. According to subordination of layers of organization horizontai and vertical corruption are distinguished. HorizontaI corruption manifests when an important question (permit, licence, regulation) is being solved in a corrupt way in different parallel and unsubordinated departrnents of organization. Vertical corruption manifests in cases when a chain of corrupt acts unites persons standing on different steps of hierarchy. The practice reveals that horizontaI corruption in the last segment of a chain often turns to a vertical one while vertical corruption is practically impossible without support of horizontal segrnents of the chain.

The former manifests in cases when the official negotiating a transaction with the briber invokes administ- rative, material and financial resources of the institution that he/she represents only. In these cases interference of the hierarchically above-standing organizations or legislature is unnecessary. Political corruption determined by supply manifests in participation of political layers in corrupt transactions. Transactions of this kind can be implemented completely only after political approval is received or after special changes of legal norms have been passed. According to range of corrupt relations in organizations narrow-range and systematic corruption are distinguished. Narrow-range corruption manifests in cases when the solution of a problem that is important to the briber depends on one or a few corrupt persons only. Political corruption manifests in cases where solution of a certain problem in corrupt ways is a feature of the whole organization and different layers of organization (for example, separate departrnents) that take part in the process. According to subordination of layers of organization horizontai and vertical corruption are distinguished. HorizontaI corruption manifests when an important question (permit, licence, regulation) is being solved in a corrupt way in different parallel and unsubordinated departrnents of organization. Vertical corruption manifests in cases when a chain of corrupt acts unites persons standing on different steps of hierarchy. The practice reveals that horizontaI corruption in the last segment of a chain often turns to a vertical one while vertical corruption is practically impossible without support of horizontal segrnents of the chain.

The former manifests in cases when the official negotiating a transaction with the briber invokes administ- rative, material and financial resources of the institution that he/she represents only. In these cases interference of the hierarchically above-standing organizations or legislature is unnecessary. Political corruption determined by supply manifests in participation of political layers in corrupt transactions. Transactions of this kind can be implemented completely only after political approval is received or after special changes of legal norms have been passed. According to range of corrupt relations in organizations narrow-range and systematic corruption are distinguished. Narrow-range corruption manifests in cases when the solution of a problem that is important to the briber depends on one or a few corrupt persons only. Political corruption manifests in cases where solution of a certain problem in corrupt ways is a feature of the whole organization and different layers of organization (for example, separate departrnents) that take part in the process. According to subordination of layers of organization horizontai and vertical corruption are distinguished. HorizontaI corruption manifests when an important question (permit, licence, regulation) is being solved in a corrupt way in different parallel and unsubordinated departrnents of organization. Vertical corruption manifests in cases when a chain of corrupt acts unites persons standing on different steps of hierarchy. The practice reveals that horizontaI corruption in the last segment of a chain often turns to a vertical one while vertical corruption is practically impossible without support of horizontal segrnents of the chain.

This article attempts to qualify categories of modern corruption in all areas of public life. The author of this article aims at classifying the categories of corruption on the basis of decisions made by corrupt individuals with regard to state management, public administration and private sector. It is important to look at corruption through the eyes of the corrupt individual who is authorized to make certain decision and of the individual who is interested in gaining certain benefit while they carry out their corrupt interchange. On the basis of this approach six categories of corrupt relationship are defined. Three of them are called extra-categories- this is corruption that manifests itself only among public servants, politicians and entrepreneurs. Often these corruption categories are undermined with regard to the others as they very rarely manifest themselves and facts come to light also very rarely, however, from the scientific point of view they are no less important than others. Many explanatory models of corruption may easily be fitted in this qualification system with participation of corruption subjects (administrative decision-making process) in unlawful corrupt interchange as a starting point. The list of decision-making processes bearing features of corrupt practices is inexhaustible, however, all categories obviously lack introduction of and compliance with principles of integrity, accountability and openness in public and private sectors. The national legislation (e.g., codes of conduct) should provide for these humanistic principles. ; Įvairūs korupcijos reiškinio tyrinėtojai skirtingai skirsto korupcijos formas. Kartais jos tapatinamos su korupcijos rūšimis ir atmainomis. Šio straipsnio autorės tikslas – suklasifikuoti korupcijos kategorijas remiantis korumpuotų asmenų priimamais sprendimais tiek valstybinio valdymo, tiek viešojo administravimo, tiek privataus sektoriaus atžvilgiu. Svarbu į korupciją pažvelgti per korumpuoto asmens, kuris įgaliotas priimti tam tikrą sprendimą, ir kito, tam tikra nauda suinteresuoto asmens, elgesio prizmę jiems dalyvaujant korupciniuose mainuose. Remiantis šiuo požiūriu apibūdinamos šešios korupcinių santykių kategorijos. Trys jų vadinamos ekstrakategorijomis – tai korupcija, pasireiškianti tiesiogiai tik tarp valstybės tarnautojų, politikų ar verslininkų. Dažnai šios ko-rupcijos kategorijos sumenkinamos kitų atžvilgiu dėl itin reto pasireiškimo ir faktų iškėlimo į viešumą, tačiau moksliniu požiūriu yra ne mažiau svarbios nei kitos.

The article analyses corrupt practices inherent in public procurement. The existence of the different types of corruption enables authors to examine various cases of corrupt behaviour and motivation for corruption. A comparative analysis of public procurement legislation allows the authors to identify changes in the public procurement process after Lithuania joined the European Union. The study is primarily focused on the objectives of the legislation, types of public procurement, ethics and changes in the public procurement processes. After defining corruption in public procurement, the authors examine the public procurement legislation in Lithuania. The following research methods were used in this study: logical analysis and synthesis, analysis of scientific literature, comparative analysis and content analysis of the legislation. [.]

The article analyses corrupt practices inherent in public procurement. The existence of the different types of corruption enables authors to examine various cases of corrupt behaviour and motivation for corruption. A comparative analysis of public procurement legislation allows the authors to identify changes in the public procurement process after Lithuania joined the European Union. The study is primarily focused on the objectives of the legislation, types of public procurement, ethics and changes in the public procurement processes. After defining corruption in public procurement, the authors examine the public procurement legislation in Lithuania. The following research methods were used in this study: logical analysis and synthesis, analysis of scientific literature, comparative analysis and content analysis of the legislation. [.]

The article analyses corrupt practices inherent in public procurement. The existence of the different types of corruption enables authors to examine various cases of corrupt behaviour and motivation for corruption. A comparative analysis of public procurement legislation allows the authors to identify changes in the public procurement process after Lithuania joined the European Union. The study is primarily focused on the objectives of the legislation, types of public procurement, ethics and changes in the public procurement processes. After defining corruption in public procurement, the authors examine the public procurement legislation in Lithuania. The following research methods were used in this study: logical analysis and synthesis, analysis of scientific literature, comparative analysis and content analysis of the legislation. [.]

The article analyses corrupt practices inherent in public procurement. The existence of the different types of corruption enables authors to examine various cases of corrupt behaviour and motivation for corruption. A comparative analysis of public procurement legislation allows the authors to identify changes in the public procurement process after Lithuania joined the European Union. The study is primarily focused on the objectives of the legislation, types of public procurement, ethics and changes in the public procurement processes. After defining corruption in public procurement, the authors examine the public procurement legislation in Lithuania. The following research methods were used in this study: logical analysis and synthesis, analysis of scientific literature, comparative analysis and content analysis of the legislation. [.]

Corruption is an old social phenomenon intrinsic to governments, individuals, organizations, and countries, both developed and developing. Despite sustained efforts of many states and international organizations to curb it, corruption as an ethical and legal problem still exists. The author aim at tackling the phenomena of corruption and responsibility not only at a theoretical level but also with attempts to model possibilities fighting corruption and increasing public servants responsibility. Paper starts with proposition that media role informing the public about corrupt behaviour of elected and appointed officials are controversial in Lithuania as it creates the feeling of helplessness, mistrut, etc. Detailed analyses of various concept of corruption are provided together with conclusion on three developing tendencies trying to define this social phenomenon. 1)Term was expanded from seeking private towards organizational or group benefit from the corrupt deal (personal/group interests). 2) Attention of researchers and practitioners moved from solely public towards private, non-profit sectors as well (traditional/modern definition). 3) The context of the problem had changed together with globalisation and internationalisation processes (national/global). Political, administrative, private and international types of corruption are distinguished, naming several forms of corrupt conduct (bribe, missue of official position, conflict of interest, etc.). [.]. ; Straipsnyje gvildenama korupcijos ir atsakomybės viešojo administravimo sistemoje tema. Analizuojama korupcijos sąvoka, išskiriant jos kitimo tendencijas, atskleidžiamas korumpuotos veikos turinys. Detalizuojant korupcijos tipus ar formas, atskiras dėmesys skiriamas korupciją paaiškinti bandančioms teorijoms. Akcentuojama administracinės atsakomybės svarba bei būdai ją didinti antikorupcinės politikos kontekste.

It could be easily traced a stereotype in public discourse – corruption is thought to be the biggest evil when it appears in public sector. On the contrary the private sector is being seen as an autonomic sphere in which corruption doesn't make such a big harm. Or even almost any harm at all. At the most radical point of view corruption in the private sector even could not exist. Nevertheless we may see that at least some specific corrupt acts in private sphere (such as embezzlement) are being condemned and prosecuted by means of criminal law since quite a long time ago. Still such acts as bribery and abuse of power even at the end of the 20th century were held as hardly related to private sector. Analysis provided in the study shows that qualitative and quantitative attributes of harm which is being caused by corruption in private or public sector should not be related with the specific sector itself. It is not a sector which makes corruption more or less harmful, but the specific interests which are being exposed quite randomly in the context of one or another sector. This is why corruption in a private sector could not be treated a priori as "lesser evil". At least five factors has made a global breakthrough on the perception of the harmfulness of corruption in private sector: 1) some great recent scandals related to the corruption in private sector (affair of Jerome Kerviel related to the funds of Société Générale, affair of Arthur Anderson and Enron, affair related to corrupt acts of workers union of Volkswagen etc.); 2) better understanding of links between an abstract category of corruption in private sector and specific interests being abused by such corruption; 3) origin and development of wide and influential networks of active international and local anticorruption organisations and initiatives; 4) transformation and even some constraints in understanding of the privacy in western civilisation; 5) privatisation and outsourcing of public functions which has been seen for a decades and even centuries as an integral part of public administration. In the international level the European Union and its institutions has been the pioneers in activating the fight against corruption in private sector. From 1995 they equally related the concept of corruption with both private and public sectors. And they took the bold position not to be in line with such authorities in anticorruption policy as World Bank and Transparency International which held that corruption is related only to public office and powers. In this context Lithuania could also be held as a pioneer in criminalisation of wide range of corrupt acts in the private sector: even before the above-mentioned political acts of European Union institutions the Lithuanian Parliament has adopted laws criminalising general bribery and abuse of power in private sector. Unfortunately some later developments in Lithuanian criminal law or to be more specific in the practice of the Supreme Court of Lithuania significantly narrowed the broad concept of the above-mentioned criminalisation. The court decided that specific harm to the public interests should be established in order to convect a person for bribery and abuse of power in private sector. The study provides two basic criterion to provide a typology of corruption in private sector: (1) who is being specifically harmed and (2) what specific harm (negative consequences) is being made. Corruption in private sector could harm: (1) clients of private businesses; (2) companies when employees commits corrupt acts on their expense; (3) owners and shareholders of affected companies; (4) employees in affected companies, their families and dependents; (5) third-parties being directly aimed or affected by bribery or other corrupt act and also those being harmed by unfair competition caused by corruption in private sector; (6) the society, i. e. unspecified or hardly specified group of individuals; (7) the state. Also corruption in private sector could bring both pecuniary and nonpecuniary loss.

It could be easily traced a stereotype in public discourse – corruption is thought to be the biggest evil when it appears in public sector. On the contrary the private sector is being seen as an autonomic sphere in which corruption doesn't make such a big harm. Or even almost any harm at all. At the most radical point of view corruption in the private sector even could not exist. Nevertheless we may see that at least some specific corrupt acts in private sphere (such as embezzlement) are being condemned and prosecuted by means of criminal law since quite a long time ago. Still such acts as bribery and abuse of power even at the end of the 20th century were held as hardly related to private sector. Analysis provided in the study shows that qualitative and quantitative attributes of harm which is being caused by corruption in private or public sector should not be related with the specific sector itself. It is not a sector which makes corruption more or less harmful, but the specific interests which are being exposed quite randomly in the context of one or another sector. This is why corruption in a private sector could not be treated a priori as "lesser evil". At least five factors has made a global breakthrough on the perception of the harmfulness of corruption in private sector: 1) some great recent scandals related to the corruption in private sector (affair of Jerome Kerviel related to the funds of Société Générale, affair of Arthur Anderson and Enron, affair related to corrupt acts of workers union of Volkswagen etc.); 2) better understanding of links between an abstract category of corruption in private sector and specific interests being abused by such corruption; 3) origin and development of wide and influential networks of active international and local anticorruption organisations and initiatives; 4) transformation and even some constraints in understanding of the privacy in western civilisation; 5) privatisation and outsourcing of public functions which has been seen for a decades and even centuries as an integral part of public administration. In the international level the European Union and its institutions has been the pioneers in activating the fight against corruption in private sector. From 1995 they equally related the concept of corruption with both private and public sectors. And they took the bold position not to be in line with such authorities in anticorruption policy as World Bank and Transparency International which held that corruption is related only to public office and powers. In this context Lithuania could also be held as a pioneer in criminalisation of wide range of corrupt acts in the private sector: even before the above-mentioned political acts of European Union institutions the Lithuanian Parliament has adopted laws criminalising general bribery and abuse of power in private sector. Unfortunately some later developments in Lithuanian criminal law or to be more specific in the practice of the Supreme Court of Lithuania significantly narrowed the broad concept of the above-mentioned criminalisation. The court decided that specific harm to the public interests should be established in order to convect a person for bribery and abuse of power in private sector. The study provides two basic criterion to provide a typology of corruption in private sector: (1) who is being specifically harmed and (2) what specific harm (negative consequences) is being made. Corruption in private sector could harm: (1) clients of private businesses; (2) companies when employees commits corrupt acts on their expense; (3) owners and shareholders of affected companies; (4) employees in affected companies, their families and dependents; (5) third-parties being directly aimed or affected by bribery or other corrupt act and also those being harmed by unfair competition caused by corruption in private sector; (6) the society, i. e. unspecified or hardly specified group of individuals; (7) the state. Also corruption in private sector could bring both pecuniary and nonpecuniary loss.

It could be easily traced a stereotype in public discourse – corruption is thought to be the biggest evil when it appears in public sector. On the contrary the private sector is being seen as an autonomic sphere in which corruption doesn't make such a big harm. Or even almost any harm at all. At the most radical point of view corruption in the private sector even could not exist. Nevertheless we may see that at least some specific corrupt acts in private sphere (such as embezzlement) are being condemned and prosecuted by means of criminal law since quite a long time ago. Still such acts as bribery and abuse of power even at the end of the 20th century were held as hardly related to private sector. Analysis provided in the study shows that qualitative and quantitative attributes of harm which is being caused by corruption in private or public sector should not be related with the specific sector itself. It is not a sector which makes corruption more or less harmful, but the specific interests which are being exposed quite randomly in the context of one or another sector. This is why corruption in a private sector could not be treated a priori as "lesser evil". At least five factors has made a global breakthrough on the perception of the harmfulness of corruption in private sector: 1) some great recent scandals related to the corruption in private sector (affair of Jerome Kerviel related to the funds of Société Générale, affair of Arthur Anderson and Enron, affair related to corrupt acts of workers union of Volkswagen etc.); 2) better understanding of links between an abstract category of corruption in private sector and specific interests being abused by such corruption; 3) origin and development of wide and influential networks of active international and local anticorruption organisations and initiatives; 4) transformation and even some constraints in understanding of the privacy in western civilisation; 5) privatisation and outsourcing of public functions which has been seen for a decades and even centuries as an integral part of public administration. In the international level the European Union and its institutions has been the pioneers in activating the fight against corruption in private sector. From 1995 they equally related the concept of corruption with both private and public sectors. And they took the bold position not to be in line with such authorities in anticorruption policy as World Bank and Transparency International which held that corruption is related only to public office and powers. In this context Lithuania could also be held as a pioneer in criminalisation of wide range of corrupt acts in the private sector: even before the above-mentioned political acts of European Union institutions the Lithuanian Parliament has adopted laws criminalising general bribery and abuse of power in private sector. Unfortunately some later developments in Lithuanian criminal law or to be more specific in the practice of the Supreme Court of Lithuania significantly narrowed the broad concept of the above-mentioned criminalisation. The court decided that specific harm to the public interests should be established in order to convect a person for bribery and abuse of power in private sector. The study provides two basic criterion to provide a typology of corruption in private sector: (1) who is being specifically harmed and (2) what specific harm (negative consequences) is being made. Corruption in private sector could harm: (1) clients of private businesses; (2) companies when employees commits corrupt acts on their expense; (3) owners and shareholders of affected companies; (4) employees in affected companies, their families and dependents; (5) third-parties being directly aimed or affected by bribery or other corrupt act and also those being harmed by unfair competition caused by corruption in private sector; (6) the society, i. e. unspecified or hardly specified group of individuals; (7) the state. Also corruption in private sector could bring both pecuniary and nonpecuniary loss.

It could be easily traced a stereotype in public discourse – corruption is thought to be the biggest evil when it appears in public sector. On the contrary the private sector is being seen as an autonomic sphere in which corruption doesn't make such a big harm. Or even almost any harm at all. At the most radical point of view corruption in the private sector even could not exist. Nevertheless we may see that at least some specific corrupt acts in private sphere (such as embezzlement) are being condemned and prosecuted by means of criminal law since quite a long time ago. Still such acts as bribery and abuse of power even at the end of the 20th century were held as hardly related to private sector. Analysis provided in the study shows that qualitative and quantitative attributes of harm which is being caused by corruption in private or public sector should not be related with the specific sector itself. It is not a sector which makes corruption more or less harmful, but the specific interests which are being exposed quite randomly in the context of one or another sector. This is why corruption in a private sector could not be treated a priori as "lesser evil". At least five factors has made a global breakthrough on the perception of the harmfulness of corruption in private sector: 1) some great recent scandals related to the corruption in private sector (affair of Jerome Kerviel related to the funds of Société Générale, affair of Arthur Anderson and Enron, affair related to corrupt acts of workers union of Volkswagen etc.); 2) better understanding of links between an abstract category of corruption in private sector and specific interests being abused by such corruption; 3) origin and development of wide and influential networks of active international and local anticorruption organisations and initiatives; 4) transformation and even some constraints in understanding of the privacy in western civilisation; 5) privatisation and outsourcing of public functions which has been seen for a decades and even centuries as an integral part of public administration. In the international level the European Union and its institutions has been the pioneers in activating the fight against corruption in private sector. From 1995 they equally related the concept of corruption with both private and public sectors. And they took the bold position not to be in line with such authorities in anticorruption policy as World Bank and Transparency International which held that corruption is related only to public office and powers. In this context Lithuania could also be held as a pioneer in criminalisation of wide range of corrupt acts in the private sector: even before the above-mentioned political acts of European Union institutions the Lithuanian Parliament has adopted laws criminalising general bribery and abuse of power in private sector. Unfortunately some later developments in Lithuanian criminal law or to be more specific in the practice of the Supreme Court of Lithuania significantly narrowed the broad concept of the above-mentioned criminalisation. The court decided that specific harm to the public interests should be established in order to convect a person for bribery and abuse of power in private sector. The study provides two basic criterion to provide a typology of corruption in private sector: (1) who is being specifically harmed and (2) what specific harm (negative consequences) is being made. Corruption in private sector could harm: (1) clients of private businesses; (2) companies when employees commits corrupt acts on their expense; (3) owners and shareholders of affected companies; (4) employees in affected companies, their families and dependents; (5) third-parties being directly aimed or affected by bribery or other corrupt act and also those being harmed by unfair competition caused by corruption in private sector; (6) the society, i. e. unspecified or hardly specified group of individuals; (7) the state. Also corruption in private sector could bring both pecuniary and nonpecuniary loss.

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.