Regional Corruption Report (Kazakhstan, Russian Federation, and Ukraine) - Essay Example

?Regional Corruption Report: Kazakhstan, Russian Federation and Ukraine Table of Contents Country Profiles………………………………………………………………….2-13 I. Summary/Overview………………………………………………………14 II. International………………………………………………………………16 A. Kazakhstan……………………………………………………………16 B. The Russian Federation……………………………………………….17 C. Ukraine………………………………………………………………..18 III. National Government……………………………………………………..19 A. Kazakhstan……………………………………………………………19 B. The Russian Federation……………………………………………….20 C. Ukraine………………………………………………………………..21 IV. Private Sector……………………………………………………………..23 V. Civil Society………………………………………………………………24 VI. Access to Information…………………………………………………….25 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………..27 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………..29 Appendix…………………………………………………………………………32 Country Profile: Kazakhstan1 Geography Capital: Astana Largest City: Almaty Location: Central Asia, NW of China, West of Ural River in East Europe. Size: 2.7 Million Sq Km. People Population: 15.7 million as at 2010 Languages (main): Kazakh, Russian Religion (main): Islam, Christianity Life expectancy at birth: Men/60 years, Women/72 years Birth rate: 16.65 births/1,000 population Death rate: 9.38 deaths/1000 population Government Government type: Republic; authoritarian presidential rule President: Nursultan Abishuly Nazabayev (Since 24 April 1991) Elected by 91.5% Vote in an election with no opposing candidate Prime Minister: Karim Massimov Since 10 January 2007. Economy Monetary Currency: 1 Kazakh tenge =100 tiyn Primary Exports: Uranium, ferrous/noferrous metals, oil, machines, grain, wool, mean, chemicals, coal GNI per capita: US $6, 740 Ratings Corruption Perceptions Index 20102 Rank 105, Score 2.9 Index of Economic Freedom 20113 Rank 78, Score 62.1 Global Competitiveness Index 20104 Rank 72, Score 4.13 Freedom House 20105 Political Rights Score: 6; Civil Liberties Score: 5; Status: Not Free. Human Development Index 20106 Rank 66 World Bank Ease of Doing Business Index 20107 Rank 59. Map of Kazakhstan taken from http://www.bjchinesetranslation.com/maps_of_the_world/map_of_kazakhstan.htm (Retrieved 2 May 2011). Flag of Kazakhstan Taken From: http://www.mapsofworld.com/flags/kazakhstan-flag.html (Retrieved 2 May 2011). Country Profile: Russian Federation8 Geography Capital: Moscow Location: North Asia, on the borders with Artic Ocean and Europe and the North Pacific Ocean. Size: 17 Million sq. km Government Federation, Presidential head of state President: Dmitriy Medvedev (Elected 2 March 2008 with 70. 28% vote). Prime Minister: Vladimir Putin (Appointed since 8 May 2008). People Population: 140.3 million as at 2010. Main Language: Russian Main religions: Christianity, Islam Live Expectancy: Men, 62 years; women, 74 years. Death Rate: 16.04/1,000 population Birth Rate: 11.05/1000 population Economy Monetary currency: 1 rouble = 100 kopecks Major exports: oil, gas, wood, metals, chemicals, weapons and military equipment. GNE per capita: US$9,370 Ratings Corruption Perceptions Index 20109 Rank 154, Score 2.1 Index of Economic Freedom Rank 143, Score 50.5 Global Competitiveness Index 201010 Rank 63, Score 4.24 Freedom House 201011 Political Rights Score: 6; Civil Liberties Score: 5; Status: Not Free. Human Development Index 201012 Rank, 65. World Bank Ease of Doing Business Index 201013 Rank 123 Map of Russia Taken from: http://www.map-of-russia.org/ Flag of Russia Taken from: http://www.olstars.com/en/flag/Russia Country Profile: Ukraine14 Geography Population: 45.4 million as at 2010. Capital: Kiev Size: 603, 700 Sq. km. Location: East Europe, borders the Black Sea, sits between Poland, Moldova and Romania from the West and Russia from the East. Government: Republic, Presidential rule. President: Viktor Yanukovych (Elected 17 January 2010 by 48.95 % of votes). Prime Minister: Mykola Azarov (appointed March 2010). People Main Languages: Ukrainian, Russian Main Religion: Christianity Life Expectancy: Men 64 years; Women 74 years. Death Rate: 15.74 deaths/1000 population. Birth Rate: 9.62 births/1000 population. Economy Monetary currency: 1 hryvnya = 100 kopiykas Major exports: military equipment, pipes, machines, metals, petroleum, textiles, agriculture. GNI per capita: US $2,800 Ratings Corruption Perceptions Index 201015 Rank 134, Score 2.4 Index of Economic Freedom16 Rank 164, Score 45.8 Global Competitiveness Index 201017 Rank 89, Score 3.90 Freedom House 201018 Political Rights Score 3; Civil Liberties Score 2; Status; Free. Human Development Index 201019 Rank 69. World Bank Ease of Doing Business 201020 Rank 143. Map of Ukraine Taken from: http://www.aboutromania.com/maps176.html Flag of Ukraine Taken from: http://www.mapsofworld.com/images/world-countries-flags/ukraine-flag.gif I. Summary/Overview: Transparency International reports that according to its 2010 Corruption Perceptions Index, approximately three fourths of 178 states score less than five on a scale form 0 (highly corrupt) to 10 (highly clean).21 On Transparency International’s 2010 Corruption Perceptions Index, Kazakhstan’s score is 2.9; Russia’s score is 2.1 and Ukraine’s score is 2.4. On a scale from 0 to 10, these scores are very low and fall close to the highly corrupt mark. The World Bank reports that corruption is declining in Eastern Europe countries.22 Therefore, as low as Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine scored on the 2010 Corruption Perceptions Index, this was an improvement over previous years. The problem for the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) dates back to the fall of the Berlin Wall. It was at this time that these countries have been transitioning from socialist and centrally oriented states to “multiparty democracies and market-based economic system”.23 Many of these countries did not have and continue to struggle with maintaining legal and political frameworks necessary for supporting open market economies.24 Thus, these transitioning states became breeding groups for corruption.25 The World Bank reports that the decline in corruption corresponds with the strengthening of legal and political regimes in the CIS.26 All indications are that corruption appears to continue to be problematic in Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. As of 2011, reports reveal trends that require purposeful action. Nichol informs that as states in transition, the increasing influx of foreign funds relative to foreign investment in oil and gas, together with lower wages among government officials and weak legal and political institutions are favourable to corruption. In fact, the increases in gas and oil exports in Kazakhstan have only increased the corruption trends.27 TORO, the contact for Transparency International in Ukraine wrote to the President of the European Council expressing concern on behalf of Transparency International for the “high level of corruption in Ukraine”.28 Similar concerns were expressed of the level of corruption in Russia by the Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer at the 3rd Russia and CIS Summit on Anti-Corruption in March 2011.29 This report will examine the steps taken internationally and locally to address the endemic corruption in Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. This report also examines corruption in the context of the private sector, civil society and access to information relative to Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine. This report focuses on corruption in these three CIS states for the period from March 2010 to April 2011. II. International A. Kazakhstan On June 24, 2010, Kazakhstan hosted a “conference on international best practices and tools to combat corruption” and to enhance the legal framework for Kazakhstan’s anti-corruption legal regime.30 Previously, Kazakhstan had signed the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Istanbul Action Plan in 2005 and the UN Convention against Corruption in 2009. In March 2011, Kazakhstan hosted another international conference on combatting corruption.31 In more recent times, Kazakhstan announced that it would sign the Council of Europe’s Group of States against Corruption as well as the Council of Europe’s anti-corruption conventions.32 The Embassy of Kazakhstan, at the Hague, held a ROI Roundtable conference on Anti-corruption in Kazakhstan. Present were a number of Dutch government officials, Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), businesses and interested members of the public. It was reported that Kazakhstan has currently committed itself to cooperation internationally via 12 anti-corruption agreements. It is also in the process of signing similar agreements with Austria, Belgium, Great Britain, Greece, Italy, Spain, Canada, the Netherlands and Norway. In addition, Kazakhstan is working closely with the UN, OSCE, the OECD, Transparency International and the International Center for Tax and Investments.33 The latest developments indicate that Kazakhstan is in the process of ratifying the Convention of Council of Europe on Criminal Liability for Corruption and is now considering ratifying the Convention for the Suppression of Counterfeiting Currency and the Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime.34 B. The Russian Federation On 1st March 2011, the Russian Federation announced that it had completed all of its domestic requirements for approving the Agreement for the Establishment of the International Anti-Corruption Academy which had been signed by Russia on 29 December 2010. The International Anti-Corruption Academy is a global organization against corruption and was established by 53 states including the Russian Federation, Brazil, Great Britain, Indonesia and Austria as well as a number of international bodies.35 Although Russia is a signatory to the UN Convention against Corruption and the Council of Europe’s Criminal Law Convention on Corruption, it is not a signatory to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.36 However, Russia is only just now drafting laws that will meet the international standards for accession the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention.37 C. Ukraine According to Worldwide New, the International Association of Anti-Corruption Authorities, a non-governmental organization reported that in 2010, Ukraine had made “significant progress in building an effective national anti-corruption mechanism”.38 However, this report is contradicted by the OECD Anti-Corruption Network in a report monitoring Ukraine’s progress relative to its Action Plan under the Istanbul Anti-Corruption Plan.39 The OECD reports that although the government of Ukraine has promised to introduce an anti-corruption policy that comports with international standards, it has failed to do so. A new law was introduced in Parliament in 2009 but at the time of its 2010 report, the new laws had not been passed and have been slated for implementation in 2011.40 An update is provided by Worldwide News in an article published at its website in March 2011. According to Worldwide News, the Law on Principles of Prevention and Corruption was passed by legislators by a vote of 330 out of 450. However, a number of the provisions were not ratified. It is unclear which provisions were not passed into law. However, the new law was intended to bring Ukraine into compliance with the United Nations Convention against Corruption, the Council of Europe Criminal Law Convention on Corruption and the Council of Europe Civil Law Convention on Corruption.41 III. National Government A. Kazakhstan William Courtney former US Ambassador to Kazakhstan and Georgia reports that there are thousands of skilled young persons in Kazakhstan with high expectations for participating in their country’s politics and economy. However, those expectations are compromised by “political stasis and debilitating greed.”42 The OECD which monitors Kazakhstan’s progress pursuant to its commitments to bring national laws up to international standards under the OECD’s Istanbul Action Plan, notes that Kazakhstan has not satisfactorily amended its anti-corruption laws to reflect receiving and promising bribes.43 According to the OECD, Kazakhstan merely responded that including these two elements in its national legislation would create difficulties in practice. The Kazakh government announced its approval of a “four-year anti-corruption programme” in March 2011.44 The announcement indicated that technology in computers and telecommunications, numerous types of surveys, “seminars and training” will be utilized to “fight corruption”.45 Other measures will include bringing income up to international standards, the reduction of cash transactions and the transference of government services to electronic methods.46 However, it was noted that of the 34 recommendations by the OECD for improving anti-corruption legislation, Kazakhstan had only successfully fulfilled 13. B. Russian Federation On 4th February 2011, the Kremlin announced that it was establishing a “telephone hotline” as well as a website so that its citizens could make formal corruption complaints.47 In addition, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev issued a call for anti-corruption practices that would require that all officials file tax returns and for reformation of the judicial system including law enforcement.48 At this point it is hardly surprising that corruption remains a problem in Russia when as late as 2011, the President is only speaking of judicial and law enforcement reform. It calls into question whether or not corruption is seriously pursued and brings to mind, the World Bank’s observation that in countries where anti-corruption laws are the strongest, corruption is less prevalent.49 With the judiciary and law enforcement in need of reform and with officials still not required to file tax returns, it is hardly surprising that corruption remains characterized as endemic in Russia.50 Moreover, government officials have unfettered discretion which makes anti-corruption initiative entirely ineffective. The fact is, despite Medvedev’s promise that he would make anti-corruption a priority, nothing much has changed, except corruption itself. Two years after taking office, Medvedev’s Russia saw Russia “the situation is worse than ever”, with Russia scoring only 2.1 on Transparency’s 2010 Corruption Perceptions Index.51 It places Russia at 154th out of 178 states. This is Russia’s “worst ever”.52 C. Ukraine Ukraine passed the Law on Principles of Prevention and Combating Corruption in April 2011. The new law obliges government officers and their families to publically declare their respective income.53 When the OECD revised Ukraine’s law pursuant to its commitments under the Istanbul Action Plan in 2010, this law had not yet passed. However, the OECD’s disenchantment with Ukraine’s progress in criminalizing and protecting against corruption will likely remain the same as the new law fails to adopt several of its provisions.54 The OECD was particularly concerned that although Ukraine has paid lip service to its intention to fight corruption it has failed to do so effectively. The government’s 2006 “Towards Integrity” campaign set out a sound anti-corruption plan but failed to make provision for monitoring its progress and enforcement. It also appears that in 2010, the government had systematically abandoned the plan, claiming that it was in the process of revising the plan and implementing a new one. Moreover, the OECD notes that: While many corruption surveys were conducted in Ukraine, the government has played little role in commissioning and designing such studies, and their findings are yet to be used for the development and monitoring of the new strategy.55 The OECD notes that in February 2010, Ukraine did establish the National Anti-Corruption Committee at an advisory level. However, the Committee has failed to provide any information of significance relevant to the “anti-corruption activities in practice”.56 Therefore all indications are that Ukraine, like Russia does nothing more than pay lip service to its drive to root out and combat corruption. Laws are being implemented in Ukraine, but those laws are not being enforced. Nor are they monitoring progress as witnessed by the lack of input from the National Anti-Corruption Committee. In June 2010 however, a Bureau on Anti-Corruption Policy was established to compliment the Office of the Government Agent on Anti-Corruption Policy which was established in 2008. However, the OECD is concerned that neither or these authorities have enough power to be effective. There are no assurances that these bodies can prevent government corruption.57 IV. Private Sector Illustrating the lack of anti-corruption laws and protection in the Federation of Russia, foreign companies situated in Russia agreed to sign an anti-corruption alliance on April 22, 2011. The foreign companies were members of the Russian-German Trade Chamber. Thus far 40 companies have signed the agreement. One of the companies signing the agreement was Siemens who had been previously involved in a bribery claim in Russia worth US$1.3 million. The agreement commits the signatories to prohibit bribery among their officers and within their companies operating in Russia.58 Safeguarding against bribery, the companies have undertaken not to make donations to or provide support to political authorities or parties.59 The Kazakhstan Institute of Directors adapted the Center for International Private Enterprise’s Combating Corruption: Private Sector Perspectives and Solutions. The resulting adaptation was redistributed among 65 private companies in Kazakhstan under the title: Corporate Governance: Kazakhstan Context. The document was also distributed among Vice-ministers, insurance companies and Kazakhtelecom. 60 The new corporate governance document was only just distributed this year. Therefore any progress in preventing corruption among private enterprises is not known or reported on thus far. The Ukraine continues to receive criticism from the OECD. The OECD’s latest report indicates that procurement by government officials of private businesses continues to be a concern. This is gleaned from the fact that the OECD urges Ukraine to strengthen its procurement laws as a means of preventing bribery of the private sector.61 V. Civil Society Although Medvedev announced a commitment to anti-corruption and introduced a new law in 2008, the reality is that none of the initiatives empower civil society nor does it empower the private sector relative to resisting corruption or circumventing opportunities for corruption.62 It therefore follows that Russia’s civil society remains vulnerable to the political and economic difficulties that attend corruption. To start with, when corruption is rampant as it is in Russia and to a lesser degree in Kazakhstan and Ukraine, civil society loses confidence in the authorities. As a result they are less likely to report or seek to enforce any law, including bribery.63 Each time NGOs attempt to canvas for any reforms, these States typically use those movements to promote an anti-Western ideology.64 For example in an interview with Michael McFaul, chairman of US Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission’s Civil Society Working Group in January 2010, McFaul answered questions about a meeting with representatives of Russia’s government. The interview revealed that from the Russian government’s perspective, its corruption rating by Transparency International could not be trusted as Transparency International was stereotyped.65 NGOs with the support of some politicians, the press and other civil society groups in Ukraine are taking credit for Ukraine’s passing of the law On Access to Public Information.66 Civil society is also playing a role in forcing the government’s hand toward fighting corruption in Kazakhstan. Prime Minister Massimov noted that as the country moves forward with anti-corruption policies, it is also building a civil society. Without civil society, fighting corruption is difficult. It is civil society that perpetuates corruption as a live issue.67 VI. Access to Information In 2011, Ukraine passed the Law on Access to Public Information which gave citizens an extended right to have access to information relative to state bodies and rendered increased protection to the media.68 This is a very important step forward for Ukraine in anti-corruption practices and policies, provided it is enforced and monitored. When citizens have access to free information relative to the state, and the press is accorded specific freedom and protection to make that information public, the government becomes accountable. With accountability, the risk of corruption is minimized. However, the Law on Access to Public Information was only implemented this year. It remains to be seen whether or not the OECD’s monitoring committee will be satisfied with Ukraine’s commitment to enforcing the new law. There is no statutory right to access to public information in Kazakhstan. However, the UN Development Programme in Kazakhstan announced that there were plans, orchestrated the UN Development Programme in Kazakhstan and a number of NGOs to convene a conference in Kazakhstan for the purpose of making proposals to Kazakhstan’s government officials for the passage of a transparency or access to information law.69 However, this is just a start and whether or not the conference will be fruitful will not be known anytime soon. Russia’s Constitution ensures its citizens’ access to public information. However, there are problems with enforcement of this law as evidenced by the fact that the Institute for Information Freedom Development, a NGO, actively investigates, identifies and attempts to solve problems relative to access to socially important information. Essentially, the NGO monitor’s websites for government agencies and takes actions to court for citizens to ensure that they gain access to information as provided for by the Constitution.70 Conclusion Kazakhstan, Russian Federation and Ukraine are coping with three factors that are conducive to corruption. The opening of the market to foreign investors, thus the influx of foreign funds and the transitioning of legal and political institutions together with relatively low wages to government officials have all combined to perpetuate corruption. Although legislators have implemented laws to comply with various international anti-corruption laws, the economic and political institutions do not support the new laws. The corruption report from 2010 to 2011 demonstrates that the governments of Kazakhstan, Russian Federation and Ukraine have continued to pay lip service to a commitment to anti-corruption laws but have thus far, done little more than pass laws, announce policies and promise to do more. However, enforcement and monitoring continues to be a problem and corruption continues to be a problem. Ukraine has taken more fundamental steps by implementing the new Access to Information Law earlier this year. Whether or not this law will be monitored and enforced remains to be seen. Kazakhstan and Russia however, have shown no serious signs of paying specific attention to transparency. Unless transparency or access to information is taking seriously, corruption will continue to be a problem. When governments are not required to share public information with citizens, they are not accountable. As long as governments are unaccountable, they can act in secret and may disregard the rule of law. At this point, civil society groups are monitoring the governments of Russia and Kazakhstan and in the case of Russia ensuring the existing access to information laws are enforced. However, the mere fact that a civil society group is involved in enforcing a fundamental human right against the government demonstrates that the government is lawless and corruption will continue to thrive under a lawless government. Bibliography BBC News. “Kazakhstan Country Profile.” 5 April 2011. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/country_profiles/1298071.stm (Retrieved 8 April 2011). BBC News, “Russia Country Profile,” 29 March 2011. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/1102275.stm (Retrieved 8 April, 2011). BBC News, “Ukraine Country Profile,” 29 March 2011. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/1102303.stm (Retrieved 8 April 2011). Center for International Private Enterprise, “Weekly Update”, Week 8, 2011, CIPE. http://www.cipe.org/weeklyReports/2011/040811/040811.pdf (Retrieved 27 April 2011). CNTV, “Kazakhstan Hosts International Anti-Corruption Conference,” 11 March 2011. http://english.cntv.cn/20110311/101213.shtml (Retrieved 17 April 2011). Courtney, William. “The Father of Kazakhstan.” New York Times, 5 April 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/opinion/06iht-edcourtney06.html (Retrieved 16 April 2011). Embassy of Kazakhstan – ROI Roundtable, “Anti-Corruption System in Kazakhstan: Fighting Corruption – Kazakhstan Experience”, Conference Report, The Hague, 7 June 2010. http://www.roi-international.org/images/ACR.pdf (Retrieved 26 April 2011). Foster, Ryan. “Russia’s Big Problems Need Big Solutions.” Center for International Private Enterprise, 22 November 2010. http://www.cipe.org/blog/?p=6828 (Retrieved 27 April 2011). Freedom House 2010. http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&country=7850&year=2010 (Retrieved 2 May 2011). Global Competitiveness Index 2010 http://www.weforum.org/issues/global-competitiveness (Retrieved 2 May 2011). Great Britain: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, Trade and Investment for Growth, London: The Stationery Shop, 2011. Human Development Index 2010. http://hdr.undp.org/en/data/profiles/ (Retrieved 2 May 2011). Index of Economic Freedom 2011 http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking (Retrieved 2 May 2011). Iradian, G. “Rapid Growth in Transition Economies: Panel Regression Approach”, IMF Working Paper WP/07/170, 1-42. Kazinform, “Weekly Review: Kazakhstan to Continue Combating Corruption with Participating of Civil Society”, 25 March 2011. http://www.inform.kz/eng/article/2363371 (Retrieved 27 April 2011). Nichol, Jim. “Central Asia’s Security: Issues and Implications for U.S. Interests”, Congressional Research Service, No. 7-5700, (2010). OECD, “OECD Anti-Corruption Network for Eastern Europe and Central Europe: Second Round of Monitoring”. Monitoring Report, 8 December 2010, 2-71. OECD. ADB/OECD Anti-Corruption Initiative for Asia and the Pacific. (OECD Publications 2011). OECD, “OECD Urges Ukraine to Put Anti-Corruption Declarations into Action,” OECD 50. 13 January 2011. http://www.oecd.org/document/9/0,3746,en_21571361_44315115_46882633_1_1_1_1,00.html (Retrieved 27 April 2011). Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. “ OSCE Centre Helps Promote International Anti-Corruption Standards in Kazakhstan.” 24 June 2010, OSCE. http://www.osce.org/astana/69490 (Retrieved 24 April 2011). President of Russia, “The Agreement Establishing the International Anti-Corruption Academy (IACA) Will come into Force March 8, 2011” (5 March 2011). http://eng.state.kremlin.ru/face/1900 (Retrieved 27 April 2011). Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty, “Interview: McFaul on US Russian Stereotypes and His Controversial Co-Chair.” 28 January 2010. http://www.rferl.org/content/Interview_Michael_McFaul_On_The_Surkov_Controversy_And_The_Importance_Of_Engagement/1942014.html (Retrieved 27 April 2011). Remnek, Miranda. The Space of the Book: Print culture in the Russian Social Imagination. (London, Canada: University of Toronto Press Incorporated, 2011). Russia Briefing, “Foreign Companies Working in Russia Sign Anti-Corruption Pact.” 22 April 2011. http://russia-briefing.com/news/foreign-companies-working-in-russia-sign-anti-corruption-pact.html/ (Retrieved 27 April 2011). Staff Writer, “Biden Urges Russia to Tackle Corruption.” BBC News, 9 March 2011. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12692618 (Retrieved 27 April 2011). Staff Writer. “Kazakhstan Approves Anti-Corruption Program”. China Daily, 34 March 2011. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/xinhua/2011-03-24/content_2109838.html (Retrieved 26 April 2011). Staff Writer. “World News: Russia Starts Anti-Corruption Hotline”. UPI.Com, (4th February 2011). http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2011/02/04/Russia-starts-anti-corruption-hotline/UPI-97101296839022/ (Retrieved 27 April 2011). Taylor, B. State Building in Putin’s Russia: Policing and Coercion After Communism. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2011). Topidi, K. and Morawa, Alexander H.E. Constitutional Evolution in Central and Eastern Europe. (Surrey, England: Ashgate Publishing Limited 2011). Transparency International, Corruption Perceptions Index 2010 Results. http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results (Retrieved 8 April 2011). Transparency International, “Ukraine: An Open Letter to the President of the European Council”, (4 November 2010). http://www.transparency.org/news_room/latest_news/press_releases_nc/2010/2010_11_04_ukraine_open_letter (Retrieved 10 April 2011). United Nations Kazakhstan “Access to Information in the Republic of Kazakhstan,” 23 Sept. 2010. http://www.undp.kz/en/articles/1/68.jsp (27 April 2011). United States Department of Justice. Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Criminal Division Speaks at the 3rd Russia and Commonwealth of Independent States Summit on Anti-Corruption, Moscow, 16 March, 2011. http://www.justice.gov/criminal/pr/speeches/2011/crm-speech-110316.html (Retrieved 18 April 2011). United States Agency International Development, “Memorandum”. 17 January 2011, USAID, 1-5 US Department of State. “2011 Investment Climate - Russia”. (2011) http://www.state.gov/e/eeb/rls/othr/ics/2011/157348.htm (Retrieved 27 April 2011). World Bank Ease of Doing Business Index 2010. http://www.doingbusiness.org/rankings (Retrieved 2 May 2011). World Bank Study, “Trends in Corruption and Regulatory Burden in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.” (2011) The World Bank, Washington, DC, 1-102. Worldwide News Ukraine, “International Anti-Corruption Body Commends Ukraine for Fighting Corruption.” 14 April 2011. http://wnu-ukraine.com/news/?id=258 (Retrieved 27 April 2011). Worldwide News Ukraine, “Ukraine to Close Negotiations with the EU on Free Trade Zone Agreement and Visa-Free Travel.” 22 March 2011. http://wnu-ukraine.com/news/?id=205 (Retrieved 27 April 2011). Appendix Explanatory Notes for Country Profile Ratings Corruption Perceptions Index 2010: measures perceptions of corruption in the public sector in 178 countries. Index of Economic Freedom 2011: Measures freedoms such as trade, business, investment and property rights across 183 countries. Global Competitiveness Index 2010: Global competitiveness is measured by surveys and available data and compares 139 countries to generate rankings. Freedom House 2010: Measures political rights and civil liberties of all countries. Human Development Index 2010: The UN measures human development in 169 countries by reference to life expectancy, education and income. World Bank Ease of Doing Business Index 2010: The world bank ranks the ease of doing business from 1-183. The ranking is based on regulations and how well they permit starting and conducting businesses by local businesses. Read More