Participatory Democracy, Open Governance & Efficient eGovernment Services (PADOS) –Capacity Building Support to Eastern Partnership Countries* by Finland & Estonia (*Armenia,

Azerbaidzan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine). Kick-off conference 1-2.4.2015 in Helsinki

How to cut the developmental curve of Western European countries

with limited human and financial resources?

The case of Estonian governance reforms 1992-2015:

better regulation and control of corruption measures

Aare Kasemets Estonian Academy of Security Sciences

?

Selected slides:1. Estonian regulatory governance reforms in context

2. Good governance, better regulation and regulatory

impact assessment (competence & training areas for middle

managers and advisers in the ministries dealing with policy &

budget planning, draft legislation and public service design).

3. Good governance and anti-corruption policy measures

(Which countries are successful and why? What Works?)

4. Estonian ‘drivers of governance change’ 1991+

5. Some additional sources (articles, guidelines, BIO, etc)

https://e-estonia.com/ * http://www.visitestonia.com/en/

Estonia: restored independence in 1991; parliamentary democracy;

population 1.3Mil (e.g. ca 25% Russian speaking population);

territory 45,227 km2 ; capital Tallinn. In 01.03.2015 Estonia had

general elections of the 13th Riigikogu. 3 party coalition

1. Estonian transition in context

Some guiding questions behind the Estonian

regulatory reforms 1992-2004 and 2005-2015

(1) How to lead the country out from the Soviet regime and to

reach more quickly the developed OECD / EU countries?

How to "cut the curve of developmental sinosoid” learning from

successes and failures of other countries, usinf new ICT, etc?

(2) How to optimize the public sector services and organization

(ca 70 strategies, etc) and how to compensate for the limited

human and financial resources? This has been an existential

question for smaller states like Estonia?

(3) „What works?!“ How to design and implement the strategies to

achieve the strategic aims on (g)local grass-roots level?

(4) ……..

Comparison of Finnish and Estonian public service

shows that Estonia has similar list of functions,

challenges, EU duties, etc, but many times smaller

population, less of civil servants, budgetary resources

etc, and very different historical starting point.

Estonian public service web

Estonia as a transition country: context• Transition of governance regime from totalitarian Soviet Union

regime to free open access regime: Estonia 1991-2004 +

• Institutionalization* of good governance, better regulation,

control of corruption etc concepts/tools in terms of *values,

organisational culture, top+mid-level managers thinking and

decision-making routines (e.g use of impact assessment, etc).

• Estonia restored its independence in 1991 (UN) and joined

to European Union 2004

NATO 2004

OECD 2010

EURO zone 2011

• Development periods: 1992-1995; 1996-2004; 2005-2010;

2011-2015 (e.g. stagnation > need for new reforms); 2015+

OECD (2012) http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/ria.htm

Trends: adoption of regulatory impact analysis

(RIA) system across OECD juridistictions

RIA seminar in Tallinn, 1998

Estonia joined to OECD: 2010

Estonian regulatory and legal policy reforms:

long (r)evolution and current situation

• OECD has since 1980’s had the leading role in enhancing principles of better regulation and quality standards for regulations.

• Estonia joined to the ‘3rd wave’ of regulatory reforms in OECD/EUcountries (1998+) and in many aspects this wave is still on the way:the use of of impact assessment methods has been not systematic.

• To answer those challenges:

The Concept of Regulatory Impact Assessment 2007–09 (MoJ, 2010)

The Development Plan for Legal Policy until 2018 (Parliament, 2011).

• Since 2011 the amount of knowledge-based regulatory initiatives(e.g. draft laws) is rising step by step. The Ministry of Justice in co-op with Ministry of Finance and Cabinet Office has the key role.

• The key question is why many regulatory reforms tend to fail?>Sources: Kasemets & Talmar 2014; Kasemets, Sepp &Traat 2014

‘Ancor law’: 12 preconditions for knowledge-based

smart regulatory reforms, e.g. impact assessment* 1. Legitimacy of political institutions and constitutional laws2. Political commitment in regulatory policy aims and use of IA*3. Legal basis for better regulation (e.g. IA*, consultations, supervision)

4. Coordination and regulatory management capacity (EU+ Cabinet Office + Ministry A, B, C, D + Parliamentary research service, etc)

5.Methodological guidelines and programmes

6. Analytical capacity and data collecting strategies of ministries

7. Systematic involvement of experts and interest groups (stakeholders)

8. Simplification of regulations & services (e.g. marketing, service design)

9. Transparency and accessibility of law-drafing & IA* data

10. Systematic training of ministerial officials and policy analysts

11. Basic quality control and surveillance mechanisms

12. Links between decisions, laws & possibility of negative sanctions.Based on OECD reports 1995-2003, A.Kasemets 2006

Theoretical approaches1: levels of analysis and action

Table. Institutions operate at different levels of jurisdiction, fromthe world system to localized interpersonal relationships.

Level Examples

World system OECD and EU countries: values, concepts, rules,norms, routines, artefacts etc

Societal Estonia: values, concepts, rules, norms, routinesetc (see Scott 2001: 77)

Organisationalfield

The public sector (e.g. Government, Parliament,State Audit Office, Court, ministries etc): values,concepts, rules, routines, etc >>

Organisationalpopulation

Politicians and civil servants, contractual experts

Organisation Ministries, e.g. The Ministry of the Interior

Organisationalsubsystems

Ministerial departments and agenciesSource: R.W.Scott 2001:48; adopted by Kasemets 2005, 2012

Theoretical approaches1: institutional theoryand institutional carriersThe institutional theory is providing various opportunities for

the explanation of politico-administrative behaviour. It may

also explain why actors who identify the opportunities to

improve regulatory management may be unwilling to do so in

Practice (OECD 2000: 70-72).

W.R.Scott (2001:77) identifies 4 types of institutional carriers:

symbolic systems (rules, laws, values, expectations, terms, ..)

relational systems (governance regimes, authorities, identities)

routines (protocols, standard procedures, jobs, roles, …)

artefacts (objects with mandated specifications, standards, ..).

Theoretical approaches2: legitimacy and certainty

• The legitimacy of rule-making and rules is especially important

in the social, economic, security etc policy fields which are

directly linked to peoples basic needs and constitutional rights.

2 frameworks:

• Positivist realistic legisprudence framework: one function of

better regulation programs could be the increase of legitimacy and

acceptance of the proposed rules. These in turn are preconditions

for a state based on the rule of law (OECD 1995, Tala 2010, etc).

• Political economy framework: the system of better regulation has

mainly two roles in OECD countries – political control over

bureaucracy and minimization of uncertainty (Radaelli 2010, etc).

Basically, the minimization of uncertainty and related legitimate

expectations are central for both approaches looking for the roles

of better regulation measures (e.g. impact assessment tools, etc).

2. Good Governance, Better Regulation &

Regulatory Impact AssessmentThe competence requirements and training areas for middle

managers and advisers in the ministries. Some topics.

OECD regulatory reform ‘classics’: concepts• Since 1995 the Recommendation of the Council of the OECD (EU) on

Improving the Quality of Government Regulation, e.g. checklist.

• The checklist covers a number of the relevant questions that policy

makers should ask themselves when evaluating policy options...

• As an aid to decision making Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA)

includes an evaluation of possible alternative regulatory and non-

regulatory approaches with the overall aim of ensuring that the final

selected regulatory approach provides the greatest net public benefit.

• RIA is a key tool for evidence based options analysis, risk assessment,

cost-benefit analysis, effective consultations with stakeholders, etc

OECD (2008) BUILDING AN INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS. Paris

See also s33-38 and the Glossary of EC/OECD report : http://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/44952782.pdf

Knowledge-based public policy, betterregulation and administration (good

governance) links

15

Good = knowledge-

based policy & RIA

Quality of legislation

(better regulation)

The quality of implementation

(good public administration)

Clear description of

strategic objectives

(desired impacts )

The legislative process

is transparent (incl. RIA,

involvement information)

Ensuring customer-centric

approach (focus: expectations,

needs, interests of groups)

S

O

C

I

Honest evaluation of

problems and ex ante

analysis of regulatory

impacts (ex-ante)

The offered educational,

legal, administrative,

financial actions are

optimal

Indicators for measurement of

a legal act/service quality;

monitoring and ex post RIA

T

Y

L

Clear measurable

impacts description for

those affected by the

policy (to ensure

stakeholder support)

Minimum expenditure (of

the State, LocGovs) for

citizens and businesses

Motivated and well trained

staff. Readiness for

implementation of public

policies (incl. laws & services).

I

F

E

H.Brinkmann (EIPA 2008), adopted by A.Kasemets (Better regulation trainings, 2010, 2015)

Strategies, laws, services and …impacts

If we are hearing/watching politiciansspeaking on good governance, policy, law

and/or public administration …

… then we could ask every time in public (or in our mind), for whom,

how and to what extent the given policy, law and/or public service

is good = valuable and profitable?• Individual persons? • Families?• Experts, emplyees?• Top and middle managers? • Owners?• Industry? Shops? Banks?• Non-profit Organistaions?• Political Parties?• Politicians? Civil servants?• Ministries?• Local Authorities?

• Child, adult or retired?

• Woman or men?

• Family with children or not?

• Relatively rich or pure?

• Living in city or in village?

• In own or in rent house/flat?

• Ethnic identity, language?

• With PC & internet or not?

• Educational level?

• (……)

IMPACT ANALYSIS HELPS TO BE HONEST

and to see the grass-root level of society

The stages of policy development and use of IA

1. to determine that a problem 1+n exists and to define the problems properly (part of IA),

2. to consult and involve the interest groups (part of IA),

3. to decide that Government action is needed,

4. to idenyify the options: to decide the proper form that Government action should take (legislation or other alternatives including taking no action)

5. to determine, if action is taken, what impact it will have on the economy, society and the environment,

6. to communicate the policy (partly based on IA)

7. to implement the policy (training, administration, networking)

8. to evaluate the policy and related regulations (ex post IA).Source: OECD Sigma 2004; Staranova, Kovaczy, Kasemets 2006

NB! During the training seminars usually the concrete policy initiatives,* related target groups, problems, etc are analysed. *The cases could be found from ministerial work’ plans:)

Definitions/tools: better regulationKey areas of better regulation (basic structure):1) policy implementation options to consider by

policymakers

2) impact assessment (IA) is providing a structured

framework for handling policy problems

3) consultation is a key for open governance

4) simplification to update and simplify existing regulations

5) access - those affected by EU or national regulation have

the right to be able to access and understand it;

6) supporting responsible structures

7) effective implementation of EU and national regulation.Source: EU Commission, Mandelkern Group Report 2001, pp 13-52

NB! The content analysis of policy documents focused on areas 1-5

Main areas of impact assessment

1. Socio-demographic impacts, e.g. impact on civil society

2. Economic impacts, e.g. Impact on consumers behaviour,

small- and medium size enterprises, IT, agriculture, etc

3. Environmental impacts

4. Regional impacts

5. Impacts on internal security and cooperation with

international organizations

6. Administrative impacts, e.g impact on human resource

management and work organization (state and local level)

7. Budgetary impacts (state ja local municipalities level)

Source: Estonian regulatory impact assessment guidelines 2001, 2011

Example. Linking better regulation and

internal security policy areas

1. Policy implementation

objectives and options

2. Impact assessment (IA)

3. Consultation

4. Simplification

5. Access to regulation

----

6. Supporting structures

7. Implementation of

regulation (e.g. ex post IA)

Terrorism

Serious and organised crime

Political corruption

Drug trafficking. Cyber-crime

Trafficking in human beings

Sexual exploitation of minors

Child pornography

Economic crime and corruption

Trafficking in arms

Cross-border crime

Natural and man-made disasters, e.g.:

fires, earthquakes, floods, storms,

toxic elements in food, water

etc, etc

Better regulation

measures (main structure)

(In+)formal regulations

(see substudies)

Internal security policy

(e.g. regulation) areas

Internal security policy

strategies, e.g. resources

Law-making

and laws

Institutions: symbolic and relational systems, working routines...

Policy

design

Policyimpacts

Main methods of regulatory impact analysis (‘your selection is your responsibility’)

1) Cost-benefit analysis – CBA (‘all costs and benefits in society’)2) Cost-effectivness analysis (‘more services for n EUR’)3) Compliance cost analysis (‘... with objective, law etc’)

4) Standard cost model (SCM) (‘time = money’)

5) Social impact analysis – SIA (‘focus on wellbeing of family’) >>6) Business impact analysis – BIA (‘...SMEs competitiveness’)

7) Environmental impact assessment – EIA (‘all living creatures[e.g. trees], ecosystems and natural resources [e.g. air, soil, oil]* ’) *8) Product lifecycle analysis (green public procurement)

9) Risk assessment (e.g IS); 10) Risk-risk assessment

11) Multicriterial impact analysis (mix of criterions and methods)

A. Trumm 2011, adopted by

A.Kasemets 201423

Example: main elements social impactassessment - SIA

• Identification of key problems in observed sectors

• Identification of main target and mediate groups (stakeholders)

• Identification of the factors that shape effects / impacts

• Institutions / organisations: assessment of roles and impacts

• Collection and systematisation of data and information

• Social impact analysis

• Adjustment of implemented measures and assessment of improvement’ possibilities

• Risk assessment of draft proposals for further decision-making.

Problems

Target groups

Factors

Roles

Data

Opportunities

Risks

Impact analysis

24

Example: budgetary assessment and the idea of systematic performance budgeting

In performance–oriented budgeting, performance targets and

performance information are employed as justification for the

preliminary decisions on outcome targets, operational

performance targets and related costs.

Basic performance criteria

1. Policy effectiveness (outcome targets)

2. Operational performance (output targets)

• Operational efficiency

• Outputs and quality management

• Human resource management (e.g. trainings)

See next figures

25

Basic performance criteria (true and fair information on outputs, outcomes and impacts)

Policy

effectiveness

Outputs and

quality

management:

-goods and

services

- service capacity

and quality

Operational

efficiency

-economy

- productivity

- profitability

- cost-equivalence

Human resource management

Outcome targets

Operational

performance

targets

Policy effectiveness:

outcomes

How operations and

finances have affected

policy effectiveness

Operational

results: outputs

(which can be

influenced through

management)

Finnish Model. Finnish and Estonian performance oriented budgeting seminar in Tallinn, 2009, adjusted by A.Kasemets 2015

Definitions/tools: civic engagement

+ The outputs of impact assessment (IA)

information (e.g re-use and -cycling of data:)

IA information(categories/structure): +Socio-demograpfic

+ Economic (CBA:

families, firms, NGOs)

+Environmental (e.g PP)

+Regional / Territorial

+ Security, risks (e.g IS)

+Administrative (HRM)

+ Budgetary (public

sector: state/local)

A.Kasemets 2011, 2015

1. Ex ante IA report on draft policy/act

2. Memo to the top managers of

Ministry, Minister, Parl.committee, etc

3. Planning of consultation, PR/media

4. Public intention of a draft policy, act

etc (e.g. additional IA plan, if needed)

5. Ministry: Report to the Cabinet

6. The explanatory memoranda of

draft strategy / act / programme, etc

7. Communication: website, press, etc

8. Cabinet: Report to the Parliament

9. Parliamentary committee: reports, ..

10+ Media+ NGOs+ Courts+ expost IA

3. Good governance and

anti-corruption policy measures

Corruption as a problem in our societiesExample: corruption and tax collection in EU

“A simple estimate on the basis of regression analysis show

that if EU member states would all manage to control of

corruption at the Danish level, tax collection in the

Europe would bring in yearly about 323 billion EUR more,

so the double of EU budget for 2013.” *

* MUNGIU-PIPPIDI, A. and KUKUTSCHKA, R.M.B. (2013) European Union Member States. in A.Mungiu-

Pippidi (ed) “Controlling Corruption in Europe”. The Anticorruption Report 1, Barbara Budrich

Publishers, p 19. Via ANTICORRP: http://anticorrp.eu/publications/european-union-member-states-1

Transparency and e-government (EU 27)• Transparency, in a variety of areas (fiscal transparency; transparency of assets for public

officials; transparency of decision-making) is a key instrument for reducing administrative

discretion. The more states offer their services electronically, the more corruption

decreases. The effect is however mediated by a population able to use such e-services:

Source: Capgemini, IDC, Rand Europe, Sogeti and DTi for the European Commission, Directorate General for Information

Society and Media, “Digitizing Public Services in Europe: Putting ambition into action”, 9th Benchmark Measurement,

2010. http://anticorrp.eu/publications/european-union-member-states-1 (A.Mungiu-Pippidi et al 2013)

Examples: who are successful and why?

Why? Which kind of cultural,

political, legal, social,

economic, techological, etc

conditions ‘are working’?

Administrative discretion, SCM, “Red tape” vs corruption. There is a very strong association between minimization of administrative burdens (use

SCM=standard cost model etc ‘red tape’ methods) and corruption, as excessive regulation is the

main instrument used to increase administrative discretion and through it corruption. This

indicator is an objective assessment and not subjective, so examining its components leads

directly to the problem areas.

• :

• http://anticorrp.eu/publications/european-union-member-states-1 (A.Mungiu-Pippidi et al 2013)

Free media and well informed ‘critical citizens’

•

http://anticorrp.eu/publications/european-union-member-states-1 Mungiu-Pippidi et al 2013; Kasemets 2012)

The former Soviet Union: civil society vs corruptonRoxana Bratu (ERCAS) analysed the efforts to control corruption in 12

countries of the former Soviet Union: Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine,

Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan,

Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Russia.

http://anticorrp.eu/publications/the-former-soviet-union-controlling-corruption-in-

europe-the-anticorruption-report-volume-1-1 (R.Bratu, 2013)

Example: Estonian Internal Security Developmental Plan

2015-2020: decision-making levels and 8 programs

Internal Security and Control of Corruption Model

The control of corruption resources and constraintsSource: A.Mungiu-Pippidi (2011); B. Vaz Mondo (2011), adapted by A.Kasemets: EE is good=bold (2014)

MAIN RESOURCES OF CORRUPTION MAIN CONSTRAINTS OF CORRUPTION

A. POLITICAL POWER DISCRETION: A1. Yearof Independence (1992). System ofgovernment (parl. democracy). Restart of freeelections (1991). Authoritarian rule (SU 1945-91). A2. Background of political elites. Rulingparty and Coalition. Opposition. Alternationin power. Party competition. Separation ofpowers. Government tenure. Powerconcenration. Transparency andaccountability mechanisms, etc

C. REGULATORY [e.g. LEGAL] CONSTRAINTS:Anti-curruption regulations, e.g. UNCAC,GRECO, OECD, etc conventions, national anti-corruption strategies, laws, statutes, etc. OpenInformation Act. Political finance regulation.Public Service Act. Legal basis for regulatoryimpact analysis. Oversight institutions.Ombudsman. Prosecution for corruption.Judicial independence. Open Data,eGovernment etc conventions and standards; ..

B. MATERIAL RESOURCES: Natural resources(forest, oilshale). Government consumptionspending. State-owned companies, property(e.g. lack of transparent eGov). Publiccontracting (e.g. the lack of transparenteProcurement). Public employment.Privileges to private companies and loyalNGO-s. Public servises (e.g. lack of eServicestransparency). Foreign aid, EU funds, etc.

D. NORMATIVE CONSTRAINTS: Civil society (e.g. an anti-corruption NGO-network). Autonomyand financing of NGO-s. Communicationinfrastructure (web). Media and press freedom.Indipendent anti-corruption research. Codes of conduct for MPs, civil service, Businesses, NGOs etc. Anti-corruption education. Politicalpluralism and participation (e.g. minorites, immigrants). Trust in political institutions, etc

4. Estonian drivers of change 1991+

(returne / transition to West)What makes governance regime based on particularism (e.g.

group interest) evolve to democratic open access order (based

on equal treatment and the rule of law) in the case of Estonia?

What kind of social forces and individuals have been behind the

Estonian relatively successful transition?

Drivers of change in 3 levels of observation:

A. External environment and foreign policy: EU and

Scandivanian influences, security issues (‘past fears’, NATO)

B. Internal policy environment: ‘idealistic’ politicians, good civil

servants, academics, free media and civic activists 1992+

C. Human resources management (HRM) in transition

A. External (foreign policy) environment: EU and

Scandivanian influences, security threats

• The goals of joining the European Union (EU), NATO and

OECD have had a major impact in stimulating good governance

efforts in Estonia.

• Common foreign policy objectives supported the mobilization

of additional human and financial resources and conditions for

personal & organisational learning.

• Nordic dimensions: Estonian cultural and political elites have

had the desire to be again a part of Nordic countries as

before the 2nd World War, when Estonia was richer than Finland.

• Also since 1960ies, during the Soviet era, the Finnish TV was a

window to see the magic Free Western World*** >

• ** Finland and Estonia are linked both economically (IT firms,

banks) and socially (language, a lot of social contacts), but

…keep in mind that Uslaner wrote (2008):

“…The close ties with Finland (and other Nordic countries) lead to a more

successful transition than most other countries… Yet, these ties do not

make Estonia a little Finland. Corruption still persists in Estonia, trust is

low***, inequality is higher than it was under Communism and middle-range

by world standards, and ethnic relations are very tense…” (Eric M. “Corruption,

Ineqality and the Rule of Law” – Cambridege University Press)

• Since 2004 there is also a third, semi-external factor – the

membership of EU (see sources in the end)

• Most security threats and social fears are related to Russia*** Different studies (e.g EBRD 2010) show that it is true in comparision with Finland but not in

comparision with Western Europe, or other transition countries

External (foreign policy) environment … 2

5.1. Some sources: regulatory reformsKASEMETS, A. and TALMAR-PERE, A. (2014) Implementation of Better Regulation Measures in the Internal Security

Draft Legislation: the case of Estonia - European Journal of Law Reform, Vol 16, issue 1, 80-103; < I can send it)

STARANOVA, K.; KOVACSY, Z. and KASEMETS, A. (2006) ’Comparing Experience of Introducing Impact Assessment

Requirement to Draft Legislation in CEE: The Case of Slovakia, Hungary and Estonia’ – in Katarina Staroňová,

William N. Dunn, Sergei Pushkarev (eds), Implementation - the Missing Link in Public Administration Reform in

Central and Eastern Europe (NISPAcee 2006), 165-197 (I can send it via e-mail)

EU COMMMISSION Impact Assessment Guidelines http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/index_en.htm

http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/impact/commission_guidelines/docs/iag_2009_en.pdf

OECD: http://www.oecd.org/regreform/regulatory-policy/recommendations-guidelines.htm > e.g. (1997) Policy

Recommendations on Regulatory Reform. Regulatory Impact Analysis: Best Practices in OECD Countries; (2008)

Building an Institutional Framework for Regulatory Impact Analysis: Guidance for Policy Makers; (2001) ’Citizens as

Partners. OECD Handbook on Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-making’,

COUNCIL OF THE EU. Internal Security Strategy for the European Union. Brussels. 25.2.2010. 6870/10.

KASEMETS, A., ORUMAA, E.; TABUR, L. (2011) The sociological family photo of Ministry of the Interior 2011:

readiness for changes - Proceedings of Estonian Academy of Security Sciences 10, pp 90-109 (In EE, sum in EN)

KASEMETS, A. and OPPI, T (2013) Internal Security, Search for the Ideal Human Resource Managers and the Need

for Further Training – Riigikogu Toimetised 28 (Journal of Estonian Parliamentary Proceedings), pp 140-158 (EE,

sum in EN: http://www.riigikogu.ee/rito/index.php?id=16498 Kasemets & Oppi).

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE (2011) Regulatory Impact Assessment concept paper. Brief overview [20 pages]

+ BIO / publications / education: http://aare-kasemets.branded.me/

5.2. Some sources: control of corruptionKASEMETS, A. (2012) The Long Transition to Good Governance: the case of Estonia. Looking

at the changes in the governance regime and anti-corruption policy 1992-2012. IPSA,

Madrid 2012. Panel ‘Corruption and Democratic Governance’ Discussion paper via ERCAS

web site: http://www.againstcorruption.eu/?post_type=reports (see Report No 32)

MUNGIU-PIPPIDI, A. and KUKUTSCHKA, R.M.B. (2013) European Union Member States - in

A.Mungiu-Pippidi (ed) “Controlling Corruption in Europe”. The Anticorruption Report 1,

Barbara Budrich Publishers, pp 14-39.** (available also via ANTICORRP web)

KASEMETS, A. (2013) Top of the Class: The Case of Estonia - in A.Mungiu-Pippidi (ed)

Controlling Corruption in Europe. The Anticorruption Report Vol 1, .[…] pp 68-73.

MUNGIU-PIPPIDI, A. et al (NORAD, 2011). Contextual Choices in Fighting Corruption:

Lessons Learned, NORAD, Report 4/2011, p. xiii: http://www.norad.no/en/tools-and-

publications/publications/publication?key=383808

SÖÖT, M.-L. and ROOTALU, K. (2012). Institutional trust and opinions of corruption - Public

Administration Development, 32: 82–95

EBRD (2011) Nations in Trans.: http://www.ebrd.com/downloads/research/surveys/LiTS2ee.pdf

ANTICORRP (2012-2017). EU 7FP project "Anti-Corruption Policies Revisited: Global Trends

and European Responses ….“ - ** See Publications; http://anticorrp.eu/publications

MICHAEL, B. and KASEMETS, A. (2007). The Role of Incentive Design in Parliamentarian

Anti-Corruption Programmes. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 13(2), 280 - 300

5.3. BIO & contact informationHi! My professional ‘lifelong learning’ has been related to public sector and civil society capacity building in the context of Estonian transitional reforms. Many in Estonian social sciences and public administration community regard me as a mediator between public policy design and social science research. In addition to leadership and research duties I have been a trainer of … sociology of law, good Governance & better regulation, parliamentary research service, impact assessment, civic engagement, public service design, rural sociology, green public procurement, internal security indicators and also control of corruption.

I have over 15 years of experience in public sector services including leadership positions as the head of research unit at the Estonian Parliament [Riigikogu] (1995-2013), the head of strategy bureau at The Ministry of Environment (2004-08), the vice director of EuroCollege at the University of Tartu (2008-10), and the head of research groups at Estonian Academy of Security Sciences (under the Ministry of Interior, 2010-16).

When in Estonia I'm primarily known as a policy- and lawmaking expert, then internationally most recent projects have been related to the control of corruption issues, e.g. as a research correspondent of the PwC & DG HOME anticorruption project EUROVISION (2012-16), a research fellow of EU FP7 project ANTICORRP (Hertie School of Governance, 2012-15) and anexpert of Estonian-Danish-Spanish-Latvian private-to-private corruption project PRIVACOR (MoJ 2015-16), connecting regulatory governance and control of corruption measures.*

Best wishes,

Aare

*CV: http://www.etis.ee (people > aare kasemets). EUAid CV via aarek@ut.ee or aare1skype