Lex localis - Journal of Local Self-Government_11(1)_January

168 L EX LOCALIS - J OURNAL OF L OCAL S ELF -G OVERNMENT J. Fedran, B.Dobovšek, B. Ažman & M. Bren: Integrity Plan: A Useful Measure for Curbing Corruption at National and Local Level 1 Introduction According to the European Commission Report (Europen Commision 2014), at the European level, three quarters of respondents (76%) think, that corruption is widespread in their own country, while, contrary to expectations, only around one in twelve Europeans (8%) say they have personally experienced or witnessed a case of corruption in the past 12 months. At this early point, one should take into account that our perception is often heavily influenced by recent scandals as well as by the financial and economic crisis reflecting, in general, in respondents’ negative overall impression of corruption. Corruption being an illegal, underground, and well concealed activity difficult to measure, we had to, for lack of a more objective measuring tool, resort to the concept its perception. Therefore, one needs to point out that that perception of corruption cannot be construed as, or equated with, personal experience of corruption. Accordingly, these two aspects must be taken into consideration when discussing corruption. Further, the 2014 Corruption Perception Index or CPI (Transparency International 2014) shows that no region or country in the world is immune to the damages caused by corruption. For example, one cannot ignore the fact that in several member states of GRECO, as well as in numerous other parts of the world, people have gone to the street to protest vehemently against corruption and bad governance (Council of Europe 2014). The report of the Slovenian Commission for the prevention of corruption shows that there are strong indications that Slovenia has problems with systemic corruption (Slak, Dobovšek, and Ažman 2012). In any case, corruption is a widespread deviant social phenomenon, which has its finger in every pie. This is why anti- corruption efforts, especially those aimed at prevention, are of utmost importance. Anti-corruption efforts entail not only making governments or aid programmes more effective but also people more honest, not to mention raising people’s consciousness to a new level (Sampson 2005). Sampson (2005) acknowledges, “Integrity, ethics, and responsibility have become integral parts of public policy, but the key to integrity is accountability.” The anti-corruption movement has entered the sphere of integrity and accountability. Similarly, Strategy 2015 (Transparency International 2011) highlights integrity, transparency, and accountability. Accountability is a concept according to which individuals, agencies, and organizations are held responsible for executing their power properly (Transparency International 2009). Graycar and Villa (2011), among others, focus on it and argue that if there is no accountability, the potential for corruption is outstanding. This finding goes back more than twenty years. Robert Klitgaard’s famous formula C (Corruption) = M (Monopoly) + D (Discretion) – A (Accountability) provides a solid base for developing sound culture and work activities (Klitgaard 2014). Holloway (n.d.) argues this memorable formula means that “If someone has