{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014985590778097982, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.888888888888889, '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}}
Correlation between unification and differentiation of anti-corruption regulation with regards to public officials


 The subject of this research is critical analysis of the differences and similarities of anti-corruption measures established by legislation on corruption prevention in relation to different categories of public officials. A comparison of such positions held is carried out. The goal of this work consists in the assessment of anti-corruption requirements, restrictions, prohibitions, and obligations imposed on various officials, as well as in determination of whether they should be differentiated or unified. The author examines the impact of unification and differentiation upon the development of anti-corruption legislation, and makes proposals on the improvement of anti-corruption regulation. The conclusion is made that the optimal mechanism for anti-corruption regulation should be based on a combination of differentiation and unification with prevalence of the latter. The need for differentiation of anti-corruption restrictions and mechanisms for their implementation should be substantiated by the peculiarities of the status of category of a public official. All amendments to anti-corruption legislation should be examined from the perspective of application of unification requirement, as well as any differentiation should be justified. The acquired results allow formulating recommendations for the improvement of legislation on corruption prevention. For systematization of legislation and its analysis for appropriate application of differentiation or unification of anti-corruption regulation, the author offers an algorithm for assessing substantive and procedural anti-corruption regulation.
