Peer Reviewer 1:
Overall, the Reporters Notebook provides a good overview of the situation in Armenia. The author uses important sources and quotes key people to render a logical expose about processes and sums. However, having in mind the limitations of any report, I think it is necessary to mention the following:
- Drivers are not always victims--very often they are initiators. Lawlessness cultivates impunity in Armenia, and many drivers are sure that if they break the law the worst that can happen to them is a situation in which they must bribe the police inspector. - Law is enforced selectively. It is very uncommon to see road police inspectors stop municipal transportation vehicles, cars with so-called good numbers or press stickers, etc. - Road police mainly act in a punitive, not preventive way. One of the most common complaints is that police inspectors wait until the drivers do something wrong and penalize them, instead of assisting those drivers who find themselves in difficult situations. - Traffic corruption is also determined by the bad condition of road signs and lane identification. Inspectors know where signs are invisible because of trees or other objects, where lane identification is not adequate, etc., and they extort drivers who become vulnerable in such situations. - There is systematic corruption in the State Traffic Inspection Agency, informally known as GAI . There is not only increasing corruption (inspectors sharing the money collected with the people at the top) but also decreasing corruption. The best illustration of decreasing corruption in the system is the following situation: one of the biggest taxi services in Yerevan belongs to an STIA high-ranking official, and the drivers of this taxi service are very rarely stopped. Moreover, one of the drivers employed there told me that a lot of his colleagues dink alcohol freely before their shifts, as they are sure they will not be stopped and punished. - There is a stratified system of informal punishments. Road inspectors know that while they can let a drunken driver free for 50,000 drams (US$150), the bribe considerably increases if the driver is from the Islamic Republic of Iran (according to Iranian laws, this is a very serious violation), etc. - Apart from the corrupt way of obtaining a driving license that is presented in the Reporters Notebook, there is another fraudulent way, which very often turns to a chain of bribing, extortion and nepotism. Armenia, like other former communist countries, has inherited from Soviet times an organization similar to U.S. scouts, the Voluntary Society of Assistance to the Army, the Air Force and the Navy. This society prepares young people, mostly boys, for the military service, and it has special driving classes. A lot of young men go there and pay bribes to obtain their driving licenses, after which they also bribe the officials in the military Commissariat in order to be able to serve as drivers (in Armenia the military service is obligatory for every male and serving as a driver is considered easy and safe). Sometimes these people have problems in the military divisions where they are sent, and instead of directly bribing the local military authority they serve as personal drivers using their own cars.
I understand that in the frame of the Reporters Notebook it is impossible to cover all these issues, but everything I mentioned above is very important and worth tackling. Maybe an effective way of obtaining such data could be through collecting oral accounts from drivers.
Peer Reviewer 2:
I was in the fortunate position to review the country reports of Armenia and Georgia both last and this year. I am therefore able to make a few observations on a comparative basis.
First, due to the fact that reporters focus on one country only without being able to compare the situation to that in other countries, it would be extremely difficult to make any cross-country comparisons as the Global Integrity 2006 Index does (http://www.globalintegrity.org/reports/2006/index.cfm). The questions allow the reporter too much room for interpretation, causing personal biases to have a large impact on the scores. For instance, whereas last year's Georgia reporter appeared overly pro-government, this year's reporter has certainly not been very kind with the Saakashvili government (despite the obvious progress that has been made under the new president). The opposite appears to be almost true in regard to Armenia. I would therefore suspect that last year's ranking is likely to be reversed with Armenia leading Georgia in the integrity score. Obviously, such dramatic changes can hardly be justified on empirical grounds but can only be explained by pointing towards methodological flaws. Having conducted research in both countries, I thought that last year's score was overly flattering for Georgia and unduly harsh for Armenia. While Georgia is certainly less corrupt than Armenia (at least today under Saakashvili), the gap is certainly not as wide as the 2006 Index suggests. Maybe this year's index might correct the picture. Even then, however, the methodological problems remain.
Second, given all the methodological flaws, not even a comparison over time is possible. Changing the reporter from one year to another might lead to dramatic changes of some (if not all) scores. The Notebook could compensate this problem if the reporter provided an analysis of the developments. As entertaining as the stories presented in the notebooks are, I don't find them particularly useful for either researchers or policy-makers. I would find it more useful if the reporter told us more about progress or setback that has been made in the past few years. This reflective exercise might also help the reporter to put his/her scores in a better perspective.
I would therefore suggest the following steps to improve the Index: a) Do not use locals. Of course, paying for foreigners' transportation and room/board is expensive. Yet don't forget the impact of this Index (e.g. being considered for U.S. government funding decisions). There are also many expats in the countries under review. They might do the job as well but for less money. b) If you have to use locals, make sure that they are not only experts on their own country but also of neighboring countries so that they can provide comparative analysis. c) Be careful about changing reporters from one year to the next. This is probably unavoidable but be alerted if scores suddenly change dramatically from one year to the next. d) Demand more of the reporters concerning the notebooks. This shouldn't be the place to just tell stories.
Peer Reviewer 3:
The unfortunate fact is that in reality corruption is not combated in Armenia at all. Since 2004, when the national anti-corruption program was endorsed in Armenia, the so-called struggle against corruption has been merely limited to amendments to certain laws. One year after the other, recommendations from international organizations did not go further than that. A nation that developed for 70 years in conditions of pseudo-state organization and pseudo-socialism does not need abundance of laws and their continuous amending. What it needs is enforcement of the existing laws or such regulatory traditions that would be sufficient for creating laws in future.
The parliamentary elections of 2007 were recognized by the international community as a leap towards democracy, whereas instead of oppression and tyranny the authorities used the method of mass-bribing and administrative leverage (multiple publications of May 13, 2007: Haykakan Zhamanak, Aravot, Zhamanak Yerevan and Hayk). Claiming from such a government to combat corruption or at least not to stand in the way of those who do so, would be totally worthless.
Peer Reviewer 4:
This is a very accurate report in terms of depicting the reality in Armenia. The core issue raised by the journalist is one of the most frustrating and widely discussed topics in the country. I personally know many people who dream of having a drivers license and truly want to learn normal driving, but training centers will offer a maximum of several rides with the instructor and no regular theory classes or exams. As a result, even if there are no bribe-givers and bribe-takers, there is no normal training program in place for those who really care for their and others safety.
New trends in Armenia have opened yet another opportunity to make a gesture: wealthy parents are eligible to get a drivers license along with a new luxurious car for their childrens birthdays, especially for when they come to age at 18.
As far as traffic safety is concerned, it is true that people do not fasten their seatbelts. Drivers are sometimes fined, especially on the highways and on the condition that the car has a registration plate from another region. Sometimes they pay the official fine, but most often they just give bribes equivalent to the official amount. Another interesting habit drivers have developed is making signs to one another when a police patrol is around.
I would not be so optimistic about Georgia, as I personally have the experience of traveling to Tbilisi. Usually the host organization sends a car to pick me up at the border with Armenia. I have never been asked to fasten my seatbelt, nor have seen any driver do so. Another important thing to mention was that one of the drivers drank alcohol and then took some of the guests from the restaurant to the hotel. A situation like this would have never occurred with an Armenian driver working for a similar organization. Overall, I am afraid the bribes are just higher in Georgia.
Global Integrity uses a