Methodology

This is the second corruption survey produced by Integrity Watch Afghanistan (IWA) in a continuous effort to increase transparency, integrity and accountability through policy-oriented research. The survey was conducted at the end of 2009 in 32 provinces of Afghanistan and is the first truly national corruption survey. Previous surveys, both by IWA and other agencies, have covered only parts of Afghanistan’s population and geography. IWA’s first corruption survey, published in 2007, covered 13 provinces; data were collected in these provinces in autumn 2006. The choice of a limited number of provinces at that time resulted from a lack of funding.

IWA has paid special attention to generating comparable data and analysis and highlighting commonalities or differences between the results of the two surveys throughout this report, bearing in mind the difference in geographical coverage. However, because of the refined methodology of the more recent survey, the stronger focus on experiences rather than perceptions and the wider thematic scope (among other changes), comparisons are not always possible.

The present survey, which covered 6,500 respondents, a representative sample of the overall population of Afghanistan, assesses the impact of corruption on the relationship between Afghan citizens and the state, the trust in state and non-state institutions, the perceived support of the international community for anti-corruption efforts and the links of corruption and perceptions of corruption with insurgency and conflict. While the previous survey focused on perceptions of corruption, the current survey provides a far more comprehensive account of Afghan experiences of corruption. Like the previous survey, the current survey is focused on petty or administrative corruption, which has the most direct and widespread effects on Afghan citizens. Issues related to grand corruption and political corruption, as well as organized crime, are only partially addressed. As this survey is mainly concerned with experiences of administrative corruption, particular attention has been paid to the provision of public services. This survey also introduces a distinction between households and individuals as a unit of analysis. While the perceptions are often those of individual respondents, the experiences often arise within households.