1 the level of perception of corruption by business: 2 nd wave survey results of august-october 2015

1

THE LEVEL OF PERCEPTION OF CORRUPTION BY BUSINESS: 2nd WAVESurvey results of August-October 2015

2

Survey methodologyThis presentation is based on the results of the 2nd wave of the research «The level of perception of corruption by business».

The period of conducting the survey – August-October 2015.

The mode of the survey – phone interviews with representatives of enterprises.

A respondent – the management of enterprises.

Total number of the surveyed enterprises – 2 271.

Survey sampling is proportional to the number of the registered in Ukraine and economically active enterprises according to the following features:

•Oblast of enterprise registration (all the oblasts of Ukraine, excluding Crimea and ATO zone in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts);

•The branch of an enterprise according to SIC (agriculture, industry, trade, transport and communications, other services).

The enterprises for conducting a survey were sampled in a random way.

For conducting the data analysis, the sampling was gone behind so that the distribution of enterprises according to the branches and oblast of registration correspond to the data of the State Statistics Committee of Ukraine. It was done to remove the sampling shifts, connected with different level of consent to give interview among the various groups of respondents.

The data shown in the presentation:

•On the whole as to the surveyed sampling for the 2nd wave, and also in view of the branch of enterprises and the oblast of their registration;

•In dynamics comparing with the previous wave of research, conducted in February-March 2015.

Green and red frames/arrows at the graphics indicate:

•Statistically considerable differences in the analyzed group comparing with the total survey sampling in the data for the 2nd wave. Marked green – if the indicator in the analyzed group is higher than the average one in the sampling on the whole, marked red – lower (level of significance 90%).

•Statistically considerable changes in the indicators comparing with the previous wave of the research. Marked green – if the indicator has considerably increased, marked red – has decreased (level of significance 90%).

A margin of error of the research is not the same for all the data, depends on the amount of the respondents who answered the questions, and the part of each separate characteristics. The maximum margin of error for the total surveyed sampling of the 2nd wave (with a probability of 90%) – 2,1%.

3

Characteristics of the surveyed enterprises – the 2nd wave

BRANCH OF AN ENTERPRISE / OBLAST OF REGISTRATION OF AN ENTERPRISE

% to all the respondents, N = 2271

16,0

13,0

26,34,5

40,3

AGRICULTURE

INDUSTRY

TRADE

TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS

OTHER

Branch

23,9

8,6

6,9

6,8

5,8

5,0

4,6

3,3

3,3

2,9

2,6

2,5

2,5

2,4

2,2

2,1

2,1

1,9

1,9

1,9

1,7

1,7

1,5

1,3

0,8

THE CITY OF KYIV

DNIPROPETROVSK

KHARKIV

ODESSA

LVIV

KYIV

ZAPORIZHIA

MYKOLAYIV

POLTAVA

VINNYTSIA

CHERKASY

KIROVOHRAD

KHERSON

KHMELNYTSKYI

IVANO-FRANKIVSK

ZHYTOMYR

DONETSK

ZAKARPATTIA

CHERNIHIV

SUMY

VOLYN

RIVNE

TERNOPIL

CHERNIVTSI

LUHANSK

Oblast

4

Perception of changes as to corruption – 2nd wave

HOW WOULD YOU SIZE UP THE CORRUPTION SITUATION IN OUR PUBLIC AUTHORITIES IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS: ON A SCALE FROM «-5» TO «+5», WHERE «-5» – THE SITUATION HAS CONSIDERABLY CHANGED TO THE WORSE, «0» – HASN’T CHANGED, «+5» – HAS CONSIDERABLY IMPROVED.

DISTRIBUTION OF ANSWERS ACCORDING TO ESTIMATES

% to all the respondents, N = 2271

-0,80Average progress estimate in fighting

corruption in Ukraine

30,6% consider that the corruption situation has

changed for the worse in the past 6 months

17,4% consider that the corruption situation has improved in the past 6

months

5

Perception of changes as to corruption – dynamics

HOW WOULD YOU SIZE UP THE CORRUPTION SITUATION IN OUR PUBLIC AUTHORITIES IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS: ON A SCALE FROM «-5» TO «+5», WHERE «-5» – THE SITUATION HAS CONSIDERABLY CHANGED TO THE WORSE, «0» – HASN’T CHANGED, «+5» – HAS CONSIDERABLY IMPROVED..

DISTRIBUTION OF ANSWERS ACCORDING TO ESTIMATES

% to all the respondents, 1st wave, N = 2741; 2nd wave, N = 2271

-0,77-0,80

Average progress estimate in fighting corruption in Ukraine

1ST WAVE

2ND WAVE

The frames indicate the statistically considerable differences between the data of the 1st and 2nd waves (level of significance 90%). Marked green – value in the 2nd wave has increased, marked red- decreased

1ST wave

2nd wave

6

Perception of changes as to corruption: in view of various groups of surveyed enterprises – the 2nd wave (1)


CORRUPTION SITUATION HAS CHANGED FOR THE WORSE

% of those who chose an estimate «-5» - «-1» to the corresponding group of enterprises

30,6

29,6

29,4

28,5

33,5

32,4

28,5

45,2

TOTAL, N=2271

AGRICULTURE,N=330

INDUSTRY, N=281

TRADE, N=541

TRANSPORT ANDCOMMUNICATIONS,

N=100

OTHER, N=1019

YES, N=287

NO, N=1984

The frames indicate the statistically considerable differences in the performance evaluation among the corresponding group of the surveyed comparing with the analogous sampling evaluation on the whole (level of significance 90%). Marked green – the significance in the corresponding group is higher by sampling on the whole, marked red - lower

CORRUPTION SITUATION HASN’T CHANGED

% of those who chose an estimate «0» to the corresponding group of enterprises

CORRUPTION SITUATION

HAS IMPROVED

% of those who chose «+1» - «+5» to the corresponding group of enterprises

Branch

Encountered or not with corruption

7

Perception of changes as to corruption: in view of various groups of surveyed enterprises – the 2nd wave




30,6

29,226,9

32,331,8

28,5

34,8

33,931,0

25,9

28,734,3

36,434,733,1

20,826,8

32,820,9

29,429,527,3

23,6

17,9

42,6

18,6

TOTAL, N=2271

VINNYTSIA, N=58 VOLYN, N=53

NIPROPETROVSK, N=172DONETSK, N=50

ZHYTOMYR, N=50ZAKARPATTIA, N=54

ZaAPORIZHIAt, N=97 IVANO-FRANKIVSK,

THE CITY OF KYIV, N=508KYIV, N=101

KIROVOHRAD, N=52 LUHANSK, N=52

LVIV, N=118MYKOLAIV, N=66

ODESSA, N=148POLTAVA, N=73

RIVNE, N=57SUMY, N=50

TERNOPIL, N=50KHARKIV, N=148KHERSON, N=51

KHMELNYTSKYI, N=53CHERKASY, N=57

CHERNIHIV, N=50CHERNIVTSI, N=53

The frames indicate the statistically considerable differences in the performance evaluation among the corresponding group of the surveyed comparing with the analogous sampling evaluation on the whole (level of significance 90%). Marked green – the significance in the corresponding group is higher by sampling on the whole, marked red – lower.

52,0

57,353,6

51,156,3

47,7

53,347,3

50,9

62,656,2

54,149,754,1

49,6

42,060,8

53,660,9

54,6

69,4

44,6

64,2

41,6

68,560,9

17,4

13,519,5

16,711,8

23,812,111,910,1

18,19,9

19,515,0

24,122,3

13,911,2

17,210,712,4

25,218,317,0

9,718,1

21,4




HAS IMPROVED


Oblast

8

Perception of changes as to corruption: in view of various groups of surveyed enterprises – dynamics (1)


CORRUPTION SITUATION HAS CHANGED FOR THE WORSE % of those who chose an estimate «-5» - «-1» to the corresponding group

of enterprises27,7

30,9

26,6

27,4

22,6

27,5

47,4

24,4

30,6

29,6

29,4

28,5

33,5

32,4

45,2

28,5

TOTAL

AGRICULTURE

INDUSTRY

TRADE

TRANSPORT ANDCOMMUNICATIONS

OTHER

YES

NO


% of those who chose an estimate «0» to the corresponding group of

enterprises


HAS IMPROVED


Branch

Encountered or not

with corruption1st wave

2nd wave

The arrows indicate statistically considerable differences between the data of the 1st and 2nd waves (level of significance 90%). Marked green – the value in the 2nd wave has increased, marked red – has decreased.

9

Perception of changes as to corruption: in view of various groups of surveyed enterprises – dynamics (2)




27,7

27,2

17,2

26,5

26,9

28,7

13,2

35,1

29,0

25,8

31,9

27,1

37,9

23,5

30,6

34,6

19,5

20,3

25,9

28,9

33,0

23,0

36,4

33,1

20,4

23,9

30,6

29,2

26,9

32,3

31,8

28,5

18,6

34,8

42,6

33,9

31,0

25,9

17,9

28,7

34,3

23,6

36,4

34,7

33,1

20,8

26,8

32,8

20,9

29,4

29,5

27,3

TOTAL

VINNYTSIA

VOLYN

DNIPROPETROVSK

DONETSK

ZHYTOMYR

ZAKARPATTIA

ZAPORIZHIA

IVANO-FRANKIVSK

THE CITY OF KYIV

KYIV

KIROVOHRAD

LUHANSK

LVIV

MYKOLAIV

ODESSA

POLTAVA

RIVNE

SUMY

TERNOPIL

KHARKIV

KHERSON

KHMELNYTSKYI

CHERKASY

CHERNIHIV

CHERNIVTSI


HASN’T CHANGED



HAS IMPROVED


Oblast

1ST wave

2nd wave


10

Perception of changes as to corruption: by branches – 2nd wave


Average estimate from «-5» to «+5»

Statistically considerable differences in the performance evaluation among the corresponding group of the surveyed comparing with the analogous sampling evaluation on the whole have not been found (level of significance 90%).

AGRICULTURE, N=330

TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS,

N=100TRADE, N=541 INDUSTRY, N=281

OTHER BRANCHES,

N=1019TOTAL, N=2271

11

Perception of changes as to corruption: by branches – dynamics


Average estimate from«-5» to «+5»

AGRICULTURETRANSPORT AND

COMMUNICATIONSTRADE INDUSTRY

OTHER BRANCHES

TOTAL

The frames indicate statistically considerable differences between the data of the 1st and the 2nd waves (level of significance 90%). Marked green – the value in the 2nd wave has increased, marked red – has decreased.

1st wave

2nd wave

12

Perception of changes as to corruption: by oblasts – 2nd wave



ЛУГАНСЬКА, N=52

ХМЕЛЬНИЦЬКА, N=53

ЧЕРНІВЕЦЬКА, N=53

ТЕРНОПІЛЬСЬКА, N=50

ОДЕСЬКА, N=148

ХЕРСОНСЬКА, N=51

ЖИТОМИРСЬКА, N=50

ЗАКАРПАТСЬКА, N=54

ЧЕРКАСЬКА, N=57

МИКОЛАЇВСЬКА, N=66

ХАРКІВСЬКА, N=148

ЛЬВІВСЬКА, N=118

ВОЛИНСЬКА, N=53

М.КИЇВ, N=508

КИЇВСЬКА, N=101

ЧЕРНІГІВСЬКА, N=50

КІРОВОГРАДСЬКА, N=52

СУМСЬКА, N=50

ПОЛТАВСЬКА, N=73

ДНІПРОПЕТРОВСЬКА, N=172

ВІННИЦЬКА, N=58

РІВНЕНСЬКА, N=57

ДОНЕЦЬКА, N=50

ЗАПОРІЗЬКА, N=97

ІВАНО-ФРАНКІВСЬКА, N=50

ЗАГАЛОМ, N=2271

The frames indicate statistically considerable differences in the performance evaluation among the corresponding group of the surveyed comparing with the analogous sampling evaluation on the whole (level of significance 90%). Marked green – value in the corresponding group is higher than in the sampling on the whole, marked red – lower.

13

ЛУГАНСЬКА

ХМЕЛЬНИЦЬКА

ЧЕРНІВЕЦЬКА

ТЕРНОПІЛЬСЬКА

ОДЕСЬКА

ХЕРСОНСЬКА

ЖИТОМИРСЬКА

ЗАКАРПАТСЬКА

ЧЕРКАСЬКА

МИКОЛАЇВСЬКА

ХАРКІВСЬКА

ЛЬВІВСЬКА

ВОЛИНСЬКА

М.КИЇВКИЇВСЬКА

ЧЕРНІГІВСЬКА

КІРОВОГРАДСЬКА

СУМСЬКА

ПОЛТАВСЬКА

ДНІПРОПЕТРОВСЬКА

ВІННИЦЬКА

РІВНЕНСЬКА

ДОНЕЦЬКА

ЗАПОРІЗЬКА

ІВАНО-ФРАНКІВСЬКА

ЗАГАЛОМ

Perception of changes as to corruption: by oblasts – dynamics-,9

2

-1,2

3

-,50

-,72

-1,3

4

-,64

-,88

-,02

-,91

-1,1

3

-1,1

4

-,40

,07

-,62

-1,0

5

-,52

-,87 -,6

0

-,21

-,70

-,62

-,59

-,56

-1,3

1

-,95 -,7

7

-,09

-,25

-,38

-,55

-,56

-,75

-,76

-,76

-,76

-,82

-,84

-,84

-,84

-,85

-,96

-1,0

0

-1,0

8

-1,2

0

-,80

-,09

-,45

-,62

-,76

-,96

-1,1

4

-1,5

5-1,70

-1,20

-,70

-,20

Ряд 1 -,92 -1,23 -,50 -,72 -1,34 -,64 -,88 -,02 -,91 -1,13 -1,14 -,40 ,07 -,62 -1,05 -,52 -,87 -,60 -,21 -,70 -,62 -,59 -,56 -1,31 -,95 -,77

Ряд 2 -,09 -,09 -,25 -,38 -,45 -,55 -,56 -,62 -,75 -,76 -,76 -,76 -,76 -,82 -,84 -,84 -,84 -,85 -,96 -,96 -1,00 -1,08 -1,14 -1,20 -1,55 -,80

LUHANS

KHMELNY

CHERNIV

TERNOPIL

ODESSA

KHERSO

ZHYTOMY

ZAKARPAT

CHERKAS

MYKOLAI

KHARKIV

LVIVVOLY

NTHE CITY

KYIVCHE

RNIHKIROVOH

SUMY

POLTAVA

DNIPROP

VINNYTSI

RIVNE

DONETSK

ZAPORIZ

IVANO-

TOTAL




1st wave

2nd wave

14

14,6

85,4

12,7

87,3

0,0

10,0

20,0

30,0

40,0

50,0

60,0

70,0

80,0

90,0

100,0

YES NO

Encountered or not with corruption in the past 6 months – dynamics

PLEASE TELL US IF A PUBLIC AUTHORITY INDUCED YOUR COMPANY TO BRIBE IN THE PAST 6 MONTHS? WHAT PUBLIC AUTHORITY WAS IT?

% to all the respondents, 1st wave, N = 2741; 2nd wave, N = 2271

1st wave

2nd wave


15

Encountered or not with corruption in the past 6 months: in view of various groups of surveyed enterprises – 2nd wave (1)


12,7

13,8

13,5

13,4

12,9

11,8

TOTAL, N=2271

INDUSTRY, N=281

TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS, N=100

TRADE, N=541

AGRICULTURE, N=330

OTHER, N=1019

Branch

Statistically considerable differences in the performance evaluation among the corresponding group of the surveyed comparing with the analogous sampling evaluation on the whole have not been found (level of significance 90%).

16

Encountered or not with corruption in the past 6 months: in view of various groups of surveyed enterprises – 2nd wave (2)


The frames indicate statistically considerable differences in the performance evaluation among the corresponding group of the surveyed comparing with the analogous sampling evaluation on the whole (level of significance 90%). Marked green – value in the corresponding group is higher than in the sampling on the whole, marked red – lower.

12,7

16,915,0

14,214,014,013,613,413,313,1

12,411,911,411,211,1

10,48,98,7

7,67,4

6,45,7

35,718,0

4,73,9

TOTAL, N=2271

LUHANSK, N=52KHARKIV, N=148

KYIV, N=101VINNYTSIA, N=58

THE CITY OF KYIV, N=508KIROVOHRAD, N=52

IVANO-FRANKIVSK, N=50ODESSA, N=148

CHERNIHIV, N=50KHMELNYTSKYI, N=53

ZAPORIZHIA, N=97RIVNE, N=57

POLTAVA, N=73VOLYN, N=53

DNIPROPETROVSK, N=172LVIV, N=118

KHERSON, N=51TERNOPIL, N=50

SUMY, N=50MYKOLAIV, N=66

ZAKARPATTIA, N=54CHERKASY, N=57

CHERNIVTSI, N=53ZHYTOMYR, N=50

DONETSK, N=50

Oblast

17

Encountered or not with corruption in the past 6 months: in view of various groups of surveyed enterprises – dynamics (1)


14,6

13,3

18,5

14,3

14,4

14,9

12,7

13,8

13,5

13,4

12,9

11,8

TOTAL

INDUSTRY

COMMUNICATIONS AND TRANSPORT

TRADE

AGRICULTURE

OTHER

Branch


1ST wave

2nd wave

18

Encountered or not with corruption in the past 6 months: in view of various groups of surveyed enterprises – dynamics (2)


14,6

19,8

18,8

24,1

20,6

14,0

15,5

11,9

19,4

11,6

14,1

15,7

13,1

7,6

8,5

12,3

12,6

9,8

12,4

15,1

19,3

15,8

6,3

8,8

7,6

11,8

12,7

35,7

18,0

16,9

15,0

14,2

14,0

14,0

13,6

13,4

13,3

13,1

12,4

11,9

11,4

11,2

11,1

10,4

8,9

8,7

7,6

7,4

6,4

5,7

4,7

3,9

TOTAL

LUHANSK

KHARKIV

KYIV

VINNYTSIA

THE CITY OF KYIV

KIROVOHRAD

IVANO-FRANKIVSK

ODESSA

CHERNIHIV

KHMELNYTSKYI

ZAPORIZZIA

RIVNEPOLTAVA

VOLYN

DNIPROPETROVSK

LVIV

KHERSON

TERNOPIL

SUMY

MYKOLAIV

ZAKARPATTIA

CHERKASY

CHERNIVTSI

ZHYTOMYR

DONETSK

Oblast


1st wave

2nd wave

19

25,9

4,4

7,1

2,5

3,2

2,8

5,1

3,3

4,0

4,8

2,8

0,6

1,4

0,9

1,2

26,7

6,3

6,0

5,2

4,1

4,0

3,8

3,5

3,4

3,2

3,1

2,6

2,6

2,0

1,9

STATE FISCAL SERVICE

CUSTOMS

AGENCY OF LAND RESOURCES

EMERGENCY SERVICE

POLICE

STATE REGISTRATION SERVICE

STATE AUTOMOBILE INSPECTORATE

PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE

MINISTRY OF INTERNA AFFAIRS

REFIONAL ADMINISTRATION

COURT

SELF-GOVERNING AUTHORITIES

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

OBLENERGO

LAND TENURE AUTHORITIES

1st WAVE, N=377

2nd WAVE, N=287

«Anti-rating» of the authorities – dynamics


% to all the respondents, encountered with corruption, TOP-15 of authorities

* The VC principle (mutually exclusive, mutually inclusive) was not used in the classification of the authorities.


20

««Anti-rating» of the authorities: by branches – 2nd wave



* The VC principle (mutually exclusive, mutually inclusive) was not used in the classification of the authorities / ** small benchmark for analysisThe frames indicate statistically considerable differences in the performance evaluation among the corresponding group of the surveyed comparing with the analogous sampling evaluation on the whole (level of significance 90%). Marked green – value in the corresponding group is higher than in the sampling on the whole, marked red – lower..

3,0

1,6

1,5

1,5

1,8

1,1

2,5

1,5

0,8

0,9

26,7

6,3

6,0

5,2

4,1

4,0

3,8

3,5

3,4

3,2

3,1

2,6

2,6

2,0

1,9

10,3

2,7

23,8

9,0

9,2

2,0

5,0

7,3

2,0

1,5

4,2

5,5

20,7

2,8

2,8

18,8

4,6

2,8

10,0

6,1

6,1

2,3

7,9

2,2

2,1

1,8

32,3

12,0

4,4

3,3

3,4

4,3

5,0

3,5

37,7

15,4

11,5

13,0

5,5

6,0

30,5

3,7

3,5

3,3

3,7

3,1

3,4

2,7

4,1

3,8

2,8

FISCAL SERVICE

CUSTOMS

STATE AGENCY OF LAND RESOURCES

STATE EMERGENCY SERVICE

POLICE



PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE

MINISTRY OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS

REGIONAL ADMINISTRATION

COURT


EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

OBLENERGO


TOTAL,

N=287

AGRICULTURE,

N=43

INDUSTRY,

N=40

TRADE,

N=73


N=13**

OTHER,

N=118

21

«Anti-rating» of the authorities: by branches – dynamics



* The VC principle (mutually exclusive, mutually inclusive) was not used in the classification of the authorities / ** small benchmark for analysis

25,9

4,4

7,1

2,5

3,2

2,8

5,1

3,3

4,0

4,8

2,8

0,6

1,4

0,9

1,2

26,7

6,3

6,0

5,2

4,1

4,0

3,8

3,5

3,4

3,2

3,1

2,6

2,6

2,0

1,9

FISCAL SERVICE

CUSTOMS

AGENCY OF LAND RESOURCES

EMERGENCY SERVICE

POLICE



PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE

MINISTRY OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS

REGIONAL ADMINITRATION

COURT


EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

OBLENERGO


TOTAL,N=377N=287

AGRICULTURE,N=69N=43

INDUSTRY,N=46N=40

TRADE,N=89N=73


N=15**N=13**

OTHER,N=158N=118

20,1

0,4

21,4

5,6

4,2

3,7

1,5

3,7

1,2

1,7

2,5

10,3

2,7

23,8

9,0

9,2

2,0

5,0

7,3

2,0

1,5

4,2

5,5

26,0

7,7

5,0

3,2

4,3

1,8

3,1

3,8

9,8

9,2

1,2

2,0

32,3

12,0

3,0

4,4

3,3

3,4

4,3

1,6

5,0

1,5

1,5

1,8

3,5

1,1


1st wave

2nd wave

22

8,0

8,4

10,3

6,4

9,3

4,4

0,9

1,0

0,8

3,3

3,1

1,3

0,5

0,3

0,2

10,6

9,8

8,6

8,5

4,9

4,1

4,1

3,7

2,7

2,7

2,5

2,1

1,1

1,1

1,0

EXECUTION OF THE DOCUMENTS ON LAND / REAL ESTATE / BUILDING / LEASE

APPROVAL DOCUMENTS ISSUING / OBTAINING A PERMIT / LICENSE / TECHNICAL CONDITIONS / CERTIFICATES /ENQUIRIES

ON EXAMINATION

EXECUTION /HARMONIZATION / ISSUING / SUBMISSION OF OTHER DOCUMENTS / EXECUTION OF CONTRACTS

INDUCING TO BRIBE / DELIVERING CHERTABLE PAYMENTS /PAYMENTS WITHOUT RECEPTS / PAYMENTS OF EXTRASERVICES

WHILE BEARING TRANSPORTATION BURDEN / DELIVERY OF GOODS / EXPORT-IMPORT OPERATIONS

WHILE CONDUCTING TRANSACTIONS / ORDINARY OPERATIONS / ALL THE OPERATIONS

REGISTRATION / CLOSURE OF AN ENTERPRISE

REPORT DELIVERY

VAT OPERATIONS /OTHER TAXES / SINGLE TAX PAYMENT

COURT HEARING

MAKING PROCUREMENT / REALIZATION OF GOODS /PARTICIPATION IN TENDER

TEACHING SITUATION

CHARGING PENALTIES (ALSO WITHOUT CAUSE)

PROVISION OF HEALTHCARE

1st wave=377

2nd wave, N=287

Situations, where bribery is a common practice – dynamics

(IF THE ANSWER AS TO THE BRIBERY IS POSITIVE) TELL US PLEASE WHAT AUTHORITY WAS IT? WHAT CITY? WHAT OPERATIONS WERE BEING CONDUCTED ?



23

Situations, where bribery is a common practice – dynamics

(IF THE ANSWER AS TO THE BRIBERY IS POSITIVE) TELL US PLEASE WHAT AUTHORITY WAS IT? WHAT CITY? WHAT OPERATIONS WERE BEING CONDUCTED ?


1ST wave 2ND wave

FISCAL SERVICE ON EXAMINATION 5,4% 5,7%

CUSTOMSWHILE BEARING TRANSPORTATION BURDEN / DELIVERY OF GOODS / EXPORT-IMPORT OPERATIONS

- 3,1%

AGENCY OF LAND RESOURCES EXECUTION OF THE DOCUMENTS ON LAND / REAL ESTATE / BUILDING / LEASE 3,7% 3,0%

FISCAL SERVICEAPPROVAL DOCUMENTS ISSUING / OBTAINING A PERMIT / LICENSE / TECHNICAL CONDITIONS / CERTIFICATES / ENQUIRIES

0,7% 2,1%

STATE REGISTRATION SERVICE REGISTRATION / CLOSURE OF AN ENTERPRISE - 1,8%

FISCAL SERVICEWHILE CONDUCTING TRANSACTIONS / ORDINARY OPERATIONS / ALL THE OPERATIONS

- 1,8%

FISCAL SERVICEEXECUTION /HARMONIZATION / ISSUING / SUBMISSION OF OTHER DOCUMENTS / EXECUTION OF CONTRACTS

0,9% 1,4%

FISCAL SERVICEINDUCING TO BRIBE / DELIVERING CHERTABLE PAYMENTS /PAYMENTS WITHOUT RECEPTS / PAYMENTS OF EXTRA SERVICES

1,5% 1,1%

REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIONINDUCING TO BRIBE / DELIVERING CHERTABLE PAYMENTS /PAYMENTS WITHOUT RECEPTS / PAYMENTS OF EXTRA SERVICES

0,9% 1,0%

Colored data indicate statistically considerable differences between the data of the 1st and 2nd waves (level of significance 90%). Marked green – the value in the 2nd wave has increased, marked red – has decreased.

24

Thank you for your attention!