Suchergebnisse

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.

Corruption prevention is an important measure addressing corruption because it targets the very roots of corruption phenomenon. Repressive measures, indeed, are also important, but they are mostly oriented to the symptoms of that phenomenon. The article analyses the impact of press freedom on corruption in mass-media sector in particular and in society in general. In order to achieve this goal, relevant scientific literature and most important empirical research on the subject were analysed. Analysis of scientific literature on the subject and relevant empirical research has shown a causal relationship between (level of) press freedom and (level of) corruption in most countries. Accordingly, mass media as a "watchdog" plays an important role in corruption prevention. Free press discloses cases of corrupt behaviour, demands accountability for it and formulates negative public opinion towards corruption. On the other hand, if reporting on corrupt practices becomes too intense, it could increase an apathy towards corruption in society. Nevertheless, free press is undoubtedly e/ective indirect measure to prevent corruption and more of press freedom leads to less corruption. Especially, this is the case, when it comes hand in hand with strong competition in the media market, high level of economic freedom and high standards of democracy. In Lithuania, freedom of the press is in a relatively good position, comparing it to other countries. On the other hand, there are potential dangers to it, introduced in recent Government legislative initiatives, related to free access to information and ideological control of media content. In order to curb corruption using media sector, it is important to strengthen freedom of press using various economic, legal or educational measures. For instance, criminal liability for defamation should be abolished as a disproportional measure. In addition, freedom of the press could be strengthened by financial support provided to investigative journalism projects, also by organising trainings, establishing scholarships or awards for the best researches, and finally, by encouraging transparency while disclosing the ownership of the media outlets.

Corruption prevention is an important measure addressing corruption because it targets the very roots of corruption phenomenon. Repressive measures, indeed, are also important, but they are mostly oriented to the symptoms of that phenomenon. The article analyses the impact of press freedom on corruption in mass-media sector in particular and in society in general. In order to achieve this goal, relevant scientific literature and most important empirical research on the subject were analysed. Analysis of scientific literature on the subject and relevant empirical research has shown a causal relationship between (level of) press freedom and (level of) corruption in most countries. Accordingly, mass media as a "watchdog" plays an important role in corruption prevention. Free press discloses cases of corrupt behaviour, demands accountability for it and formulates negative public opinion towards corruption. On the other hand, if reporting on corrupt practices becomes too intense, it could increase an apathy towards corruption in society. Nevertheless, free press is undoubtedly e/ective indirect measure to prevent corruption and more of press freedom leads to less corruption. Especially, this is the case, when it comes hand in hand with strong competition in the media market, high level of economic freedom and high standards of democracy. In Lithuania, freedom of the press is in a relatively good position, comparing it to other countries. On the other hand, there are potential dangers to it, introduced in recent Government legislative initiatives, related to free access to information and ideological control of media content. In order to curb corruption using media sector, it is important to strengthen freedom of press using various economic, legal or educational measures. For instance, criminal liability for defamation should be abolished as a disproportional measure. In addition, freedom of the press could be strengthened by financial support provided to investigative journalism projects, also by organising trainings, establishing scholarships or awards for the best researches, and finally, by encouraging transparency while disclosing the ownership of the media outlets.

Corruption prevention is an important measure addressing corruption because it targets the very roots of corruption phenomenon. Repressive measures, indeed, are also important, but they are mostly oriented to the symptoms of that phenomenon. The article analyses the impact of press freedom on corruption in mass-media sector in particular and in society in general. In order to achieve this goal, relevant scientific literature and most important empirical research on the subject were analysed. Analysis of scientific literature on the subject and relevant empirical research has shown a causal relationship between (level of) press freedom and (level of) corruption in most countries. Accordingly, mass media as a "watchdog" plays an important role in corruption prevention. Free press discloses cases of corrupt behaviour, demands accountability for it and formulates negative public opinion towards corruption. On the other hand, if reporting on corrupt practices becomes too intense, it could increase an apathy towards corruption in society. Nevertheless, free press is undoubtedly e/ective indirect measure to prevent corruption and more of press freedom leads to less corruption. Especially, this is the case, when it comes hand in hand with strong competition in the media market, high level of economic freedom and high standards of democracy. In Lithuania, freedom of the press is in a relatively good position, comparing it to other countries. On the other hand, there are potential dangers to it, introduced in recent Government legislative initiatives, related to free access to information and ideological control of media content. In order to curb corruption using media sector, it is important to strengthen freedom of press using various economic, legal or educational measures. For instance, criminal liability for defamation should be abolished as a disproportional measure. In addition, freedom of the press could be strengthened by financial support provided to investigative journalism projects, also by organising trainings, establishing scholarships or awards for the best researches, and finally, by encouraging transparency while disclosing the ownership of the media outlets.

Corruption prevention is an important measure addressing corruption because it targets the very roots of corruption phenomenon. Repressive measures, indeed, are also important, but they are mostly oriented to the symptoms of that phenomenon. The article analyses the impact of press freedom on corruption in mass-media sector in particular and in society in general. In order to achieve this goal, relevant scientific literature and most important empirical research on the subject were analysed. Analysis of scientific literature on the subject and relevant empirical research has shown a causal relationship between (level of) press freedom and (level of) corruption in most countries. Accordingly, mass media as a "watchdog" plays an important role in corruption prevention. Free press discloses cases of corrupt behaviour, demands accountability for it and formulates negative public opinion towards corruption. On the other hand, if reporting on corrupt practices becomes too intense, it could increase an apathy towards corruption in society. Nevertheless, free press is undoubtedly e/ective indirect measure to prevent corruption and more of press freedom leads to less corruption. Especially, this is the case, when it comes hand in hand with strong competition in the media market, high level of economic freedom and high standards of democracy. In Lithuania, freedom of the press is in a relatively good position, comparing it to other countries. On the other hand, there are potential dangers to it, introduced in recent Government legislative initiatives, related to free access to information and ideological control of media content. In order to curb corruption using media sector, it is important to strengthen freedom of press using various economic, legal or educational measures. For instance, criminal liability for defamation should be abolished as a disproportional measure. In addition, freedom of the press could be strengthened by financial support provided to investigative journalism projects, also by organising trainings, establishing scholarships or awards for the best researches, and finally, by encouraging transparency while disclosing the ownership of the media outlets.

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.

First of all, the article deals with the aspects of the concept of corruption. 'e article reveals that de*nitions of corruption established in the Lithuanian legal acts, which are not su{cient to describe the phenomenon of corruption in NGOs: it is limited to de*nitions of criminal law, which do not cover corruption characteristics speci*c to the NGO sector. 'erefore, it is appropriate to de*ne the phenomenon of corruption in the NGO sector with reference to the broader concept of corruption. Taking into account the speci*cs of the NGO sector, the concept of corruption for NGOs is best described by these elements: public interest, the receipt of resources from donors, misuse of the resources received, use of the resources received for public interest, violation of the established procedure and the NGO's instrumentalization in order to obtain unlawful bene*ts. 'e Aid and Charity foundations are particularly vulnerable to corruption if they act on behalf of politicians actively participating in political life. In such cases, there is a risk that the foundation may be used to *nance illegal activities of a politician or political party. One of the most common examples is the hidden political advertising in various public events. Another problem is the lack of transparency in the foundations' activities. In 2016, only 8 out of 14 foundations, a{liated with the Parliament members, had o{cial websites. However, straightforward prohibition of registering foundations on behalf of politicians seems to be too rigorous and disproportionate. Such a measure restricts possibilities of politicians to engage in socially bene*cial activities but does not prevent non-transparent activities. It should be noted, that recent legal amendments, proposed by the President O{ce, are directly intended to combat the lack of transparency in this sphere by imposing additional obligations on disclosure of relevant documents and sanctions for failure to provide information. In order to strengthen the transparency and accountability of foundations it is further suggested that documents should also be freely available on the social media accounts of the foundations (as an alternative to submission on o{cial websites). Moreover, it would be useful to provide an obligation to respond to the electronic inquiries of the citizens. In the context of the Aid and Charity foundations, it is not clear what could be considered a political advertisement. A narrow interpretation of the political advertising de*nition according to the Law on the Financing of Political Parties and Political Campaigns could lead to the conclusion that naming the foundation on behalf of a politician can be considered as a "propaganda" of certain politician. 'e same applies to organizing of discussion events, which can be considered as "promoting ideas". 'erefore, it would be useful if the Central Electoral Commission of the Republic of Lithuania gave detailed clari*cation what is speci*cally considered as political advertising in the context of the activity of the foundations.

First of all, the article deals with the aspects of the concept of corruption. 'e article reveals that de*nitions of corruption established in the Lithuanian legal acts, which are not su{cient to describe the phenomenon of corruption in NGOs: it is limited to de*nitions of criminal law, which do not cover corruption characteristics speci*c to the NGO sector. 'erefore, it is appropriate to de*ne the phenomenon of corruption in the NGO sector with reference to the broader concept of corruption. Taking into account the speci*cs of the NGO sector, the concept of corruption for NGOs is best described by these elements: public interest, the receipt of resources from donors, misuse of the resources received, use of the resources received for public interest, violation of the established procedure and the NGO's instrumentalization in order to obtain unlawful bene*ts. 'e Aid and Charity foundations are particularly vulnerable to corruption if they act on behalf of politicians actively participating in political life. In such cases, there is a risk that the foundation may be used to *nance illegal activities of a politician or political party. One of the most common examples is the hidden political advertising in various public events. Another problem is the lack of transparency in the foundations' activities. In 2016, only 8 out of 14 foundations, a{liated with the Parliament members, had o{cial websites. However, straightforward prohibition of registering foundations on behalf of politicians seems to be too rigorous and disproportionate. Such a measure restricts possibilities of politicians to engage in socially bene*cial activities but does not prevent non-transparent activities. It should be noted, that recent legal amendments, proposed by the President O{ce, are directly intended to combat the lack of transparency in this sphere by imposing additional obligations on disclosure of relevant documents and sanctions for failure to provide information. In order to strengthen the transparency and accountability of foundations it is further suggested that documents should also be freely available on the social media accounts of the foundations (as an alternative to submission on o{cial websites). Moreover, it would be useful to provide an obligation to respond to the electronic inquiries of the citizens. In the context of the Aid and Charity foundations, it is not clear what could be considered a political advertisement. A narrow interpretation of the political advertising de*nition according to the Law on the Financing of Political Parties and Political Campaigns could lead to the conclusion that naming the foundation on behalf of a politician can be considered as a "propaganda" of certain politician. 'e same applies to organizing of discussion events, which can be considered as "promoting ideas". 'erefore, it would be useful if the Central Electoral Commission of the Republic of Lithuania gave detailed clari*cation what is speci*cally considered as political advertising in the context of the activity of the foundations.

This paper analyzes relationship between corruption and economic growth and results of empirical research about corruption level impact on economic growth in politically free and not free countries during the period of 1996–2013. The theme of corruption impact on different economic phenomena is not new. Rigorous study of corruption by economists was commenced in the 1980s. However, it was noticed that the number of research in corruption level impact on economic growth field is low. Most of existing research is not complex. Basic statistical methods, such as correlation analysis or binary linear regression analysis are used in most of research only. It was also noticed that only one measure of corruption is used in most of research. [.]

This paper analyzes relationship between corruption and economic growth and results of empirical research about corruption level impact on economic growth in politically free and not free countries during the period of 1996–2013. The theme of corruption impact on different economic phenomena is not new. Rigorous study of corruption by economists was commenced in the 1980s. However, it was noticed that the number of research in corruption level impact on economic growth field is low. Most of existing research is not complex. Basic statistical methods, such as correlation analysis or binary linear regression analysis are used in most of research only. It was also noticed that only one measure of corruption is used in most of research. [.]

This paper analyzes relationship between corruption and economic growth and results of empirical research about corruption level impact on economic growth in politically free and not free countries during the period of 1996–2013. The theme of corruption impact on different economic phenomena is not new. Rigorous study of corruption by economists was commenced in the 1980s. However, it was noticed that the number of research in corruption level impact on economic growth field is low. Most of existing research is not complex. Basic statistical methods, such as correlation analysis or binary linear regression analysis are used in most of research only. It was also noticed that only one measure of corruption is used in most of research. [.]

In this Master thesis the role of public in the prevention of corruption in Lithuania was analyzed and assessed. The first chapter of the thesis provides the theoretical analysis of corruption concept and determines that in national legislation there is no official concept of corruption in the private sector while the term of corruption is understood in different ways in both Lithuanian national legislation and national legislation. After the analysis of the prevalence of corruption in Lithuania it was ascertained that corruption is the most common in health care institutions/ hospitals, courts, police and Seimas. The second chapter investigates the factors of public participation in the prevention of corruption in Lithuania assessing which factors promote and which ones – inhibits public participation in the prevention of corruption and what can be done to increase the role of public in the prevention of corruption in Lithuania. The third chapter discusses the data of the research performed by the survey in order to reveal the ways of public contribution of the prevention of corruption, problems and their possible solutions.