{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01694915254237288, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.5369127516778525, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Romania’s Anti-Corruption Policy: Results, Prospects and Experience for Ukraine

The article analyzes the results and prospects of anti-corruption policy in Romania. Using the method of a logical chain model for evaluating government programs and projects made it possible to prove that two competing approaches have emerged in Romania regarding the appropriateness of the forms and methods of this process: the first of them is focused on the quantitative result of anti-corruption policy, which is achieved despite numerous procedural violations of the legal procedure; the second emphasizes the need and importance of ensuring and strict observance of procedural guarantees and legal decisions focused on the quality of the results of anti-corruption activities of special anti-corruption structures. It was found that the growth of the institutional and organizational potential of anti-corruption structures in Romania led to a quantitative increase in the effectiveness of anti-corruption policy, while reducing its qualitative indicators, reflected in the procedural characteristics of the implementation of anti-corruption policy. Such a ratio of quantitative and qualitative results of anti-corruption policy indicates a certain imbalance in the activities of the structures of the anti-corruption activity system and requires a political adjustment of anti-corruption policy. It has been substantiated that the most important aspect of anti-corruption practices that can be used in Ukraine is the public consensus on the ratio of quantitative and qualitative indicators of the effectiveness and efficiency of the implementation of anti-corruption policy. It is noted that the pursuit of quantitative indicators, however, as well as neglect of them, will inevitably form a public discourse about the organizational necessity / importance of the national system of anti-corruption institutions and the principles of anti-corruption policy.