At the same time, we should extend and expand survey work, increasing the focus on petty corruption in infrastructure and grand corruption in construction. Accuracy will be improved if surveys are either limited to or large enough to be representative for a particular subsector, clients of a particular firm or suppliers to a particular ministry or department (indeed BEEPS have doubled in size since the 1999 survey used in this paper).<sup>32</sup> With petty corruption, the role for increased use of consumer scorecards and other consumer survey methods is considerable. There may also be a role for survey/interview instruments aimed at international infrastructure providers that might allow for anonymous data collection regarding grand corruption in infrastructure provision itself.

Even with more survey work, however, it is likely that if want measures for ‘progress’ in sector level anti-corruption efforts aimed at grand corruption in infrastructure in particular we should also use more easily measured output indicators which have been related to corruption variables rather than the variables themselves (measures such as percentage of roads in good condition, transmission and distribution losses). Output measures may better indicate reduction in _development impact_ of corruption in infrastructure and greater ease of measurement for such indicators will allow for more accurate determination of change over time.

# **What Does This Mean for Anti-Corruption Policy?**

Robust general findings from surveys which apply to the infrastructure sector are useful for general policy advice. For example, firm survey data tend to suggest that companies that face more red tape and/or spend more time dealing with government pay more in bribes (Gaviria, 2002, Henderson and Kuncoro, 2006, Renikka and Svensson, 2006). Again, BEEPS data suggests that bribery was more common to get connected to electricity and telecommunications for firms in less democratic slow-growing countries with less-developed infrastructure, public ownership of utilities and limited competition (Clarke and Xu, 2002). These results match broader findings regarding where corruption is likely to be more common, and might suggest broad reform approaches to reduce the extent and impact of corruption -transparency, participation, competition, reduced discretionary powers, removal of unnecessary regulation, improved financial management and extended auditing (Cavill and Sohail, 2007, Seldadyo and de Haan, 2005, Lederman et. al., 2005).<sup>33</sup> 32 In order to gauge and improve accuracy approaches might include: surveys should ask directly comparable questions (not switching between ‘firms like yours’ and ‘your industry,’ for example); they should ensure specificity if necessary through careful definition as part of the question; question order should vary between firms; there should be multiple approaches to asking the same question in different ways (including ‘anchored’ and ‘unanchored’ responses); and interviewers should re-survey some respondent after the passage of time and ask multiple respondents from the same firm (again, done with subsequent BEEPS). One might want to vary questions between banded and exact response rates, although exact response questions are likely to illicit lower levels of response (Lynn et. al., 2005).

33 Estache et. al. (2006) suggest the conditional impact of reform (privatization and independent regulation) is to reduce the impact of perceived corruption on energy access (although it has no effect on water).

21