Transparency International efterlyser politisk vilje til at bekæmpe korruption

Forfatter billede

New report shows lack of political will impedes fight against corruption in Albania, Kosovo, FYR Macedonia and Turkey. Transparency International calls for greater implementation of anti-corruption laws in EU accession countries.

Albania, Kosovo, FYR Macedonia and Turkey must do more to guarantee the effective implementation of anti-corruption laws, according to the latest report released in Brussels today by Transparency International, which calls on the governments to build capacity and improve governance in key institutions.

“There is a need for stronger political will to tackle the problem of corruption in these countries. Ensuring that anti-corruption reforms are implemented and irreversible is essential to provide for a credible accession process and uniform approach to corruption across Europe,” said Jana Mittermaier, Head of the TI Liaison Office to the European Union.

The accession process to the EU requires countries to meet certain financial, economic, social and political standards. This includes progress in the area of anti-corruption and good governance, which has proven a critical stumbling block for candidates and potential candidate countries.

Gap between law and practice

The new report, EU anti-corruption requirements: measuring progress in Albania, Kosovo, FYR Macedonia and Turkey, assesses anti-corruption progress in these four countries based on an evaluation of the institutions and anti-corruption laws in place. Using a new methodology, the Comparative Indicator-based Monitoring of Anti-corruption Progress initiative, developed by TI, the results provide a baseline analysis of how well a country complies with and implements anti-corruption legislation. This can then be monitored to see whether or not progress is made over time.

The findings show that while the legal and regulatory frameworks are often in place, implementation of anti-corruption laws and sanctioning of non-compliance is lacking across all four countries. Low capacity and weak governance in the judiciary, legislature and public administration help to explain this gap between law and practice in each country.