The Swedish Ministry of Finance publishes a report today by their Expert Group on Public Finance which shows that every other Swede suspects that corruption is widespread among municipal politicians and officials. Unlike other parts of the EU, in Sweden local politicians and officials are suspected far more than at national level and around 60% believe that cronyism, bribery and nepotism are common at the municipal level. The study was set up partly in reaction to the Gothenburg corruption scandal.
The report by the expert group consisting of Prof. Anders Bergh, Lund School of Economics, Prof. Gissur Erlingsson, Linköping University, Prof. Mats Sjölin, Linne University and Richard Öhrvall, Institute of Industrial Research, is published today. The report proposes a system of random independent audits and that information available to the public under transparency regulations must be much more understandable.
I don’t think that the public perception presented here is that far from reality.
Our central proposal for action is for a system of annual external audits of financial statements of a number of randomly selected municipalities. We also suggest that municipal finances disclosures shall be made accessible and that citizens who suspect fraud should be able to request external review of the municipality.
The legal aftermath of the corruption scandal in Gothenburg has now been running for two years. Despite some convictions, it is clear that morally reprehensible behavior does not necessarily lead to prosecution or heavy penalties. The Gothenburg scandal fits well into the general pattern.
In the new report presented today, we argue that corruption problems in Swedish municipalities are in an ethically gray area that does not fall clearly within narrow legal definitions. Corruption is a special case of abuse of power where politicians and officials benefit themselves or their relatives at taxpayers’ expense. Precisely because the boundaries are not clear, it is important that we do not rely only on the law to counter the problems. A positive side effect of the Gothenburg scandal is that the discussion about what we should expect from our elected officials and civil servants seems to have been established on the political agenda. …..
….. It is difficult to say if the scandals are exceptions to the image of Sweden as free from corruption problems or is the tip of an iceberg. More newspaper articles, more prosecutions and convictions does not necessarily mean that corruption has become more common. But when more people perceive widespread corruption problems it damages the credibility of democracy. Here Sweden differs from the other Nordic countries: Compared with Denmark, Finland and Norway, Swedes distrust the honesty of public officials to a much greater extent. Studies show that 9 out of 10 Swedes believe that public officialsbehaviour depends on personal contacts, a remarkably high figure by international standards. The pattern is repeated in several studies. …..
Transparency principles are well established in Swedish government. In many municipalities however, significant parts are run as businesses in corporate form, which often leads to ambiguities of the status of Freedom Of Information principles. Nor is it sufficient that the documents may be requested by anyone. To combat corruption documents must be understandable and encourage reviews and comparisons with other municipalities. Many municipalities use information technology inspired by the trend in open data. But it rarely occurs in a way that makes it easier for citizens, researchers and journalists to examine, for example, how the municipal councils are using their money, or what municipalities pay for various construction projects. ….
….. An analysis of, say, a dozen municipalities annually may not lead to new scandal revelations. But the audit is a strong reason to avoid precisely the kind of behavior that would be considered problematic if it was discovered. ….
The k2p blog 