Contextualizing the quality evaluation of corruption surveys

This paper discusses how to identify and address the methodological gaps in existing corruption surveys by acknowledging the importance of data quality and contextual peculiarities. This study draws on the results of previous research developing an original framework for evaluating the methodological quality of corruption surveys (Mugellini et al. 2021), and it tailors its six dimensions (relevance, accuracy/validity, reliability, periodicity, accessibility, and comparability) to specific regional and national contexts. This study also conducts additional proof testing of the framework by evaluating and comparing the quality of sixty-three cross-national and national corruption surveys and identifying contextual and local priorities. The results of the methodological exercise show that the operationalization of some quality dimensions needs to be contextualized to the region/country covered by the surveys. For example, in order to evaluate the accessibility of survey documents in specific countries, it is fundamental to consider not only the availability of these documents but also the language/s in which these documents have been published. The quality assessment shows that, in general, the main challenges for corruption surveys concern their validity, comparability, periodicity, and raw data accessibility. However, the seriousness of these challenges consistently varies across countries. In terms of methodological contribution, this paper facilitates secondary data use by analyzing the content and quality of existing surveys. It also supports the ex-post harmonization of survey data necessary to compare survey results across countries. Furthermore, it provides a repository of information on sixty-three corruption surveys and raises awareness among potential users of the existing data richness. From a more practical point of view, results can support policy-makers in identifying the current shortcomings of existing national surveys, beyond the UN-SDGs requirements, and provide suggestions on how to overcome them by looking at international guidelines but especially considering national priorities.