Methodology
A tailor-made methodology aiming to assess the level of alignment of the legal frameworks with relevant international standards.
This visualisation platform is based on the findings of the comparative legal study on building integrity in the Western Balkans.
The study uses a tailor-made methodology, aiming to assess the level of alignment of the legal framework of each country with relevant international standards in 6 different integrity-related areas: HRM, conflict of interest, access to information, public procurement, protection of whistleblowers and improper superior’s orders.
The study aims to assess the level of alignment of the legal framework in the respective areas of three regulatory regimes:
- Civil service (generally applicable to public administration)
- Defence sector and
- The police.
In order to provide a benchmark for the assessment, the study identifies key international standards and indicators in the given area. Indicators were developed for each standard in order to facilitate both assessment.
The formulation of the standards and indicators is inspired and informed by the SIGMA Principles of Public Administration, UNCAC,Council of Europe Code of Conduct, RTI rating methodology, other relevant hard and soft law instruments developed on supranational level (UN, EU, CoE) and best practices.
The assessment takes into account the provisions of national constitutions, primary and secondary legislation,without going into the actual practices which, naturally do not depend solely on the quality of the legal framework, but perhaps even more so on the social context and political culture of each country.
The methodology consists of two layers of quantified assessment.
The first layer includes assessment per indicator within each standard. Each standard includes one or more indicators. Within this assessment, points are awarded to each indicator on a 0-3 scale. The 0-3 scale was chosen given that the indicators are, for the most part, defined in rather straightforward terms and often do not allow for a nuanced approach to the assessment of compliance with the relevant standard..
Points awarded per indicator
| Point | Point description |
|---|---|
| 0 | Not in line with standards |
| 1 | Mostly not in line with standards |
| 2 | Mostly in line with standards |
| 3 | Fully in line with standards |
The second layer of assessment is done once all the indicators within one standard are awarded their respective points. Then, the average point is calculated per standard,by dividing the sum of all points awarded by the number of indicators for the given standard. The average point for the standard is then translated to a quantified standard value on a 0-5 scale, as per the Table 2. Since standards, as a rule, comprise two or more indicators (with some exceptions), and were purposefully defined to be more complex, the selected six-tier scale allows for nuances to be assessed and identified when it comes to compliance or departures from the standard.
Standard values
| Average point | Standard value | Description of standard value |
|---|---|---|
| 0 – 0.50 | 0 | Not in line with standard |
| 0.51 – 1.00 | 1 | Mostly not in line with standard |
| 1.01 – 1.50 | 2 | Significant departures from standard |
| 1.51 – 2.00 | 3 | Some departures from standard |
| 2.01 – 2.50 | 4 | Mostly in line with standard |
| 2.51 – 3 | 5 | In line with standard |