Interview of A.V.Sharov, Director of the Department for State Regulation in the Economy, by the newspaper Moskovsky Komsomolets, ?Medicine for Greed?, 26.10.05 

2005-10-27

Source: newspaper

The country corruption rating published by Transparency International this year puts Russia in 126th place out of 158. We share it with Niger, Albania and Sierra Leone.

MK learned about how the national authorities are going to fight corruption from director of the MEDT Department for State Regulation in the Economy Andrei SHAROV.

The first thrust is an anticorruption probe into draft regulatory acts. Any document that affects the rights and freedom of citizens or introduces business-regulation measures will have to be vetted for obvious corruption loopholes. For example, a fine is to be imposed from 10 to 100 times the minimum wage amount. Why does an official need such a range of punishment? This is already an invitation to corruption.

And what's in it for third-party experts tasked with such a probe?

The professional community is at the forefront of those who are motivated to have fair, transparent and least corruption-prone regulations. What is more, such vetting will be done in the public eye. This, incidentally, goes hand in hand with the law on the framework for state regulation of entrepreneurial activities, which we also have on the drawing board. Our job is to make sure that private business doesn't have to face any out-of-the-blue decisions. Because experience shows that the decisions that business dislikes most is those that come like a bolt from the blue.

The second step: a probe into "armchairs"?

We are indeed developing a procedure for evaluating the corruption potential of positions or functions. Which ones are the greatest hazard here. Suppose we identify 20 "risky" positions in an agency. Then we look into the powers of the public officials in question (to see whether the procedures are laid down in detail). And we tweak the legal framework to reduce the risk. In addition to that, officials will also be put under surveillance.

CCT?

This measure would only pay off when there is a continuous stream of visitors, making their contact with the official a short one. As it is, for example, at the customs. In our case it means making decision-making more of a public process. Plus detailed checks of the income declarations of officials.

As early as 2006 we must achieve that corruption-driven behaviour becomes associated with great risks and costs. But it is also necessary to encourage honest behaviour: the key staff and those who face great temptations will be offered an employment contract with a sufficiently high salary. It doesn't make sense for a person who allocates colossal resources to receive peanuts in compensation. And when it is a case of "many a little makes a mickle", it will take us, I think, 3 to 4 year to break the back of the situation.

And when it's once in a while but a small fortune?

In this case other factors come into play such as reputation, professional ethics and business practices. The world of such businessmen and civil servants is a small one, with everybody knowing everybody else. If both camps factor in corruption as a way to settle their problems, such hand-in-glove arrangement will be a hard nut to crack.

MK: FYI. WHERE ARE THE PALMS GREASED THE BEST?

The most corrupt country in the world is declared to be the Republic of Chad; the most corruption-free country is Iceland.