The European Union (EU) has long been lauded as a champion in public integrity. However, corruption in Europe remains a persistent challenge. This report presents an evidence-based assessment of corruption trends across EU Member States (EUMS), accession candidates (EUCC), and neighboring countries (EUN), identifying key risks and proposing targeted policy interventions.
KEY FINDINGS
Defining corruption as a policy problem:
The report defines corruption as a policy problem, highlighting the various forms it might take—state capture, favoritism in public procurement, or undue influence over policy decisions. Traditional expert perception-based indices are often non-specific, necessitating a shift toward objective, fact-based indicators, such as the Index of Public Integrity (IPI) and its components.
The North-South divide fallacy:
- While Northwestern Europe scores well on governance indices, companies from these “clean” states have been caught bribing officials in newer EU members and accession countries.
- Non-EU states (Norway, Switzerland, UK) outperform most EU members, while Turkey and Bosnia lag furthest behind.
- Accession countries and new MS perform well on transparency indicators, sometimes better than more developed countries.
- Oligarchization is on the rise, especially in Turkey, Cyprus and Hungary.
Systemic favoritism is growing
- Public procurement lacks competition, especially in Poland, Romania, and Hungary.
- Oligarchic influence is rising in Turkey, Cyprus, and Hungary.
EU Funds are fueling corruption risks
- Weak transparency systems and uneven institutional quality allow misuse of EU subsidies.
- Accession countries often outperform EU members in administrative transparency
Judges and journalists under attack
- Judicial independence is eroding in Eastern Europe, undermining accountability.
- Media freedom—critical for exposing graft—is declining, particularly in Turkey.
More laws ≠ Less corruption
- Heavy regulation (financial disclosures, political finance conflict-of-interest rules) does not guarantee integrity.
- De facto corruption persists even where de jure safeguards exist.
The report concludes with a risk classification of the 41 countries in a matrix form with four quadrants rather than a ranking to highlight where the disequilibrium is and what countries could do to balance their control of corruption. It argues that corrupt behavior in the EUMS and candidate countries has increased due to a rise in corruption opportunities following the economic crises and the Covid-19 pandemic.
What should the EU do?
To strengthen corruption prevention, the EU should integrate national-level data across Member and candidate states, enabling cross-border tracking of individuals and companies involved in corruption through unified risk indicators. A pan-European disbarment system should be established to prevent chronic-offender favorite companies from accessing public contracts, shifting the focus from punitive measures to proactive prevention. Additionally, public procurement risk should be managed at the contracting authority level, with officials held accountable for transparency and integrity benchmarks, as addressing systemic favoritism requires real-time oversight rather than relying solely on criminal prosecutions.
Read the full study here
Leave a Reply