Porównaj metody
Przeglądaj wybrane metody obok siebie; wiersze, które się różnią, są wyróżnione.
| Regulatory Enforcement Analysis× | Corruption Perception Measurement× | |
|---|---|---|
| Dziedzina | Public Administration | Public Administration |
| Rodzina | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Rok powstania≠ | 1992 | 1995 |
| Twórca≠ | Ian Ayres & John Braithwaite | Transparency International |
| Typ≠ | Analytical / strategic framework | Composite perception index |
| Źródło pierwotne≠ | Ayres, I., & Braithwaite, J. (1992). Responsive Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN: 9780195070705 | Transparency International. Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI): methodology and annual results. Transparency International, Berlin. link ↗ |
| Inne nazwy | Responsive Regulation Analysis, Enforcement Pyramid Analysis, Compliance and Enforcement Analysis, Regulatory Strategy Analysis | Corruption Perceptions Index Method, Perceived Corruption Measurement, CPI Aggregation Method, Corruption Scoring |
| Pokrewne | 4 | 4 |
| Podsumowanie≠ | Regulatory enforcement analysis examines how regulators secure compliance — when they persuade, when they punish, and how they choose between the two. Its central framework is responsive regulation, set out by Ian Ayres and John Braithwaite in their 1992 book, which argues that enforcement should be tit-for-tat and proportionate: start with dialogue and persuasion, but escalate up an enforcement pyramid to warnings, civil penalties, licence suspension and ultimately prohibition for actors who persist in non-compliance. The analysis maps a regulator's strategies onto this pyramid and assesses how well its responses are matched to the motivations of the regulated. | Corruption perception measurement quantifies how corrupt the public sector of a country is perceived to be, since actual corruption is hidden and cannot be observed directly. The canonical instrument, Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), combines multiple independent expert assessments and business surveys into a single composite score per country. Each source is standardised onto a common scale and the rescaled scores are averaged, producing an index that ranks countries and tracks perceived integrity over time. The method explicitly reports uncertainty, echoing the aggregation logic of the World Bank's Worldwide Governance Indicators. |
| ScholarGateZbiór danych ↗ |
|
|