This report outlines the results of a recent survey within the ANTICORRP project led by WP5, a survey intended to capture the ‘quality of government’ (QOG) – e.g. quality, level of corruption (perceived and experienced) and the extent to which public services are allocated impartially in 20 EU countries Turkey, Serbia, and Ukraine. The purpose of the survey is to aid scholars, practitioners and policy-makers interested in going beyond comparisons and analyses at the national level, and to compare QoG across and within countries. Thus the survey focuses primarily – yet not exclusively – on public services such as education, health and law enforcement, which are often administered by sub-national authorities.
The questions were aimed at the consumers of everyday public services – ordinary European residents – to which over 400 responded per NUTS 1 or 2 regions (Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics). With a total sample of more than 85,000 respondents, it is currently the largest multi-country governance survey aimed at capturing regional variation and its explanations. Questions focus not only on perceptions, but also on citizens’ experience of services and their level of satisfaction, as well as on individual opinions regarding quality of public services, media, elections, social trust and the perceived and experienced meritocracy of the public and private sector.
In addition to a descriptive analysis of the survey, its methodology and individual question results, this report will highlight the building and results of a regional index of quality of government – the ‘European Quality of Government Index ‘EQI’), methodology, and sensitivity of the index. The EQI is built on a previous round in collaboration with funding from the EU Commission (REGIO).
This report highlights the survey question as well as the findings of the survey. Many of the results are highlighted at the regional as well as those from the national level. Individual (micro) and regional level data will be published freely at both the individual level and aggregated regional level, thus users may take the level of analysis that most suits their research needs. The following is a descriptive report and not an analytical one, thus the ‘why’ questions (why certain countries or regions rate higher in QoG than others) are left for future research.