Peer Reviewer 1:
I was in the fortunate position to review the country reports of Armenia and Georgia both last and this year. I have therefore been able to make a few observations using a comparative-based approach:
First, due to the fact that reporters focus on only one country without being able to compare the situation with 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. Yet even then, 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 Reporters 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 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 of their own country but also of neighboring countries so that they can compare; 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 2:
The article starts with a misleading statement about 59-year-old Zita Mamajanova, suggesting that the issues considered in this piece will center around the problems that ethnic minorities encounter when trying to receive free medical care. However, the rest of the article seems to discuss the problems that all Georgian citizens face when attempting to take advantage of government-supported medical services, most specifically prenatal care. The reference to Ms. Mamajanova does not fit the content of the article, and it is unclear as to the purpose that it was designed to serve.
I liked the link that the author tried to draw between corruption in the medical sector and high infant mortality rates in Georgia, but it was not done explicitly enough to be easily seen by the reader. The same can be said about linking the existing corruption to low wages, high inflation, and the low information level of the population. I also liked the fact that the author attempted to depict both petty and grand corruption in the medical sector.
As for Georgias political life, it must be mentioned that it is grand corruption that still pervades it (the author did get to this point at the end, when referring to the IRI survey, but I think that was a bit too late).
It would have been useful if the author had dealt with the implementation of the poverty reduction and the presidents employment programs by the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, which have been marred by allegations of improper carrying-out and even corruption.
My final comment is about the organization of the article. Every paragraph provided valuable information, but they were not well-connected. The thread connecting the first paragraph to the final paragraph is missing, which makes it difficult for the reader to glean the main points. I suggest that the author not dwell as much on the numbers and just tell the story of corruption or lack of corruption in Georgias health sector.
Peer Reviewer 3:
Comments: 1. I agree that health care and social welfare systems are problematic in Georgia but more attention should be paid to those institutional settings that are designed to implement the provisions of the law. The reformed Ministry of Internal Affairs and the General Prosecutors Office have performed better in minimizing petty corruption, but at the same time there are problems regarding the control over these institutions. There are cases showing elite corruption and power abuse in law enforcement agencies. 2. More attention should also be paid to the judiciary system. It is obvious that the level of independence of the courts is very low and the judiciary is vulnerable to political influence. 3. There should be an assessment of the anti-corruption capacity of both media and the civil society sector. Unfortunately, Georgian media and civil society are highly politicized and there is little chance for conducting independent and impartial investigations into corruption issues.
Global Integrity uses a