Open Budget Effect on Corruption in the EAEU Countries
https://doi.org/10.22394/2073-2929-2023-04-43-51
Abstract
Until 1991, the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) countries, namely Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia, were part of the unified budget system of the USSR. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and subsequent independence, the countries began to pursue an independent fiscal policy. In all five countries, a number of reforms have been implemented that have resulted in changes in the organization of fiscal policy, the creation of new fiscal institutions and the corresponding legal framework.
Aim . To reveal the open budget effect on the corruption on the cases of the EAEU countries.
Tasks. We analyze data from international organizations that assess the current situation in these countries.
Methods. We assess the impact of open financial data (according to the Open Data Inventory, ODIN, prepared by Open Data Watch) on corruption for the five EAEU countries (2015–2020) based on unbalanced panel data analysis.
Results . The hypothesis posed about the positive anti-corruption impact of an open budget in the EAEU countries was confirmed. We found that the quality of regulation and openness of the budget can affect the reduction of corruption.
Conclusion. It is concluded that the EAEU countries differ significantly in anti-corruption and open budget policies and practices, as well as in the international organizations indices.
About the Author
R. V. Bolgov
St. Petersburg State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Radomir V. Bolgov , Associate Professor of the World Politics Department, PhD in Political Sciences
Saint Petersburg
References
1. Andreula N., Chong A., Guillen J. Institutional Qu ality and Fiscal Transparency. IDB Working Paper Series (IDB-WP-125), 2009.
2. Bastida F., Benito B. Central Government Budget Practices and Transparency: an International Comparison // Public Ad ministration. 2007. No. 85 (3). P. 667–716.
3. Ben Ali M. S., Sassi S. The Role of ICT Adoption in Curbing Corruption in Developing Countries. Chapter 4. 2017.
4. Bertot J. C., Jaeger P. T., Grimes J. M. Using ICTs to Create a Culture of Transparency: E-government and Social Media as Openness and Anti-corruption Tools for Societies // Governmen t Information Quarterly. 2010. No. 27. P. 264–271.
5. Bhattacherjee A., Shrivastava U. The Effects of ICT Use and ICT Laws on Corruption: A General Deterrence Theory Perspective // Governmen t Information Quarterly. 2018. No. 35 (4). P. 703–712.
6. Bolgov R., Karachay V. E-Governance In stitutions Development in the Eurasian Economic Union: Case of the Russian Federation // ACM In ternational Conference Proceeding Series. 9th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance. ICEGOV 2016. P. 374–375.
7. Brusca I., Rossi F. M., Aversano N. Accountability and Transparency to Fight against Corruption: An International Comparative Analysis // Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice. 2018. No. 20 (5). P. 486–504. DOI: 10.1080/13876988.2017.1393951
8. Chugunov A., Bolgov R., Kabanov Y. [et al.] Preface. 1st International Conference on Digital Transformation and Global Society. DTGS 2016. Communication s in Computer and Information Science (CCIS). 2016, 674, III–VI. DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-49700-6
9. Cimpoeru V. M. Budget Transparency — Supporting Factor in the Causal Relationship between Global Competitiveness and Control of Corruption // Ecoforum. 2015. No. 4 (1). P. 180–186.
10. Cohen N. The Power of Expertise? Politician-Bureaucrat Interactions, National Budget Transparency and the Israeli Health Care Policy // Policy Studies. 2013. No. 34 (5–6). P. 638–654.
11. Davis T., Fumega S. Mixed Incen tives: Adopting ICT Innovation in the Fight Against Corruption. Practical Participation. Draft Working Paper for U4 Anti-corruption Resource Centre, 2013.
12. Grimmelikhuijsen S. G., Meijer A. J. The Effects of Transparency on the Perceived Trustworthiness of a Government Organization: Evidence from an Online Experiment // Jou rnal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2014. No. 24 (1). P. 137–157.
13. Gronlund A. Using ICT to Combat Corruption // Increasin g Transparency and Fighting Corruption through ICT: Empowering People and Communities. SPIDER ICT 4D Series 3. 2010. P. 7–31.
14. Harrison T. M., Sayogo D. S. Open Budgets and Open Government: Beyond Disclosure in Pursuit of Transparency, Participation and Accountability // dg.o’13: Proceedings of the 14th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research. 2013. P. 235–244.
15. Hulstijn J., Darusalam D., Janssen M. Open Data for Accountability in the Fight Against Corruption // CEUR Workshop Proceedings. 2018. Vol. 2051. P. 52–66.
16. Ivanov O. Open Municipal Budget of Khanty-Ugra // Finances. 2012. No. 12. P. 77–80.
17. Khagram S., de Renzio P., Fung A. Overview and Synthesis: The Political Economy of Fiscal Transparency, Participation, and Accountability around the World. 2012. URL: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/press/books/2012/openbudgets/openbudgets_chapter.pdf (accessed: 22.09.2023).
18. Kolstad I., Wiig A. Is Transparency the Key to Reducing Corruption in Resource-Rich Countries? // World Development. 2009. No. 37 (3). P. 521–532.
19. Kossow N., Dykes V. Embracing Digitalisation : How to Use ICT to Strengthen Anti-Corruption. Deutsche Gesellschaft fuer Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ), 2018.
20. Lindgren T., Ekenberg L., Nouri J. [et al.] Open Government Ideologies in Post-soviet Countries // International Jou rnal of Electronic Governance. 2016. No. 8 (3). P. 256–272.
21. Machova R. Measuring the Effects of Open Data on the Level of Corruption // Proceedings of the 21th International Conference “Current Trends in Public Sector Research”. 2017. P. 58–66.
22. Parkhimovich O., Vlasov V., Mouromtsev D. Ontology Development of Open Government Data on Example of St. Petersburg Bu dget Expenditures // Scientific and Technical Journal of Information Technologies, Mechanics and Optics. 2012. No. 6 (82). P. 141–146.
23. Rajshree N., Srivastava B. Open Government Data for Tackling Corruption — A Perspective // Semantic Cities. AAAI Technical Report WS-12-13, 2012.
24. Ruijer E., Grimmelikhuijsen S., Meijer A. Open Data for Democracy: Developing a Theoretical Framework for Op en Data Use // Governmen t Information Quarterly. 2017. No. 34 (1). P. 45–52.
25. Sedmihradska L., Haas J. Budget Transparency and Performance: Do Open Budgets Matter? MPRA Paper No. 42260. Mun ich Personal RePEc Archive, 2012.
26. Ear-Dupuy H., Serrat O. Fighting Corru ption with ICT: Strengthening Civil Society’s Role // Knowled ge Solutions. 2017. P. 797–811. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-10-0983-9_86
27. Styrin E., Dmitrieva N., Zhulin A. Openn ess Evaluation Framework for Public Agencies // Proceedin gs of the 7th International Con ference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, ICEGOV 2013. P. 370–371.
28. Twinomurinzi H., Ghartey-Tagoe K. B. Corruption in Developing Countries and ICT: The Urgent Need for Work Systems to Precede E-government // Proceedings of the 11th International Conferen ce on Social Implications of Computers in Developing Countries. Kathmandu, Nepal, 2011.
29. Williams A. A Global Index of Information and Political Transparency. Discussion paper 14.07. Business School, University of Western Australia, 2014.
Review
For citations:
Bolgov R.V. Open Budget Effect on Corruption in the EAEU Countries. EURASIAN INTEGRATION: economics, law, politics. 2023;17(4):43-51. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22394/2073-2929-2023-04-43-51
Views:
278
Email this article 
