Paper/Speech Details of Conference Program for the 21st NISPAcee Annual Conference Program Overview Civil Service Author(s) Maria Batishcheva Lomonosov Moscow State University Moscow Russian Federation Vorontsov Viacheslav, Title Whistleblowing across Europe: It seems a «gradient» from West to East, from North to South. What lessons to be learned? File Paper files are available only for conference participants, please login first. Presenter Maria Batishcheva Abstract The main objective of the article is to make an attempt to look over the peculiarities of the whistleblowing functioning in Europe as a whole – Western Europe, CEE Region and Russia, – tracing the impact of the cultural dimensions and framework of civil service in diverse European countries on the development of the whistleblowing legislation. The paper is based on three hypotheses: (H.1) There is a special comprehensive legislative whistleblowing framework in Western European countries. Moving to the East of Europe, it is gradually observed that a whislteblowing mechanism does not enjoy wide popularity. We suggest to call it as a «whistleblowing's gradient». - UK, being a leader in whistleblower protection in Europe, adhers to the Anglo-Saxon model of civil service. It also grabbed attention as the most integrated and effective legislation: the Public Interest Disclosure Act of 1998, for instance, formed the basis of the similar whistleblower legislation in Ireland, Israel and South Africa. - Across the countries in CEE region, it is observed three trends in the development of the whistleblowing legislation: - presence of thorough special whistleblowing legislation, like in Romania (all employees of public authorities or institutions of central and local public administration are protected (Whistleblower’s Law 571/2004)); - availability of general legal provisions concerning whistleblowing, as in Bulgaria (Law on Conflict of Interest); - absence of a comprehensive legislation regulating whistleblowing and whistleblower protection, like in Czech Republic or Lithuania. On the other hand, the article 22 of the European Council’s Criminal Law Convention on Corruption commits the signatory the EU countries to implementing whistleblower legislation. - In Russia, as the easternmost country in Europe, there is no a clear set of whistleblower protection procedures and the prerequisites for its implementation do not track up. (H.2) Differences in the whistleblowing functioning on diverse poles of Europe, the so-called «whistleblowing's gradient», based on the following statements: - Differences in types of culture: collectivism vs. individualism; West vs. East. An intention of taking advantage of the social environment’s possibilities is typical for West. Whereas, an intention of reaching harmony with the social environment is an important point for the Eastern perception. - Different types of civil service may affect deeply on the functioning of the whistleblowing legislation: whether it is a Continental model (rational centralized and closed), or an Anglo-Saxon one (empirical and decentralized). - Social attitudes of civil servants in Eastern/Western Europe. (H.3) It is possible to point to the tendency of erasing of sociocultural and institutional distinctivenesses in European countries caused by the growing of the European Integration, globalization in whole, unification of legislation and etc. Based on this issue, it is probable to conclude about the gradual and occurring everywhere of whistleblowing practices. To sum up, in spite of the obstacles for implementation of whistleblowing legislation in Western and Eastern Europe, the whistleblowing practice – as a tool of transparency of civil service and its accountability to the public interests – has a fair chance to become widespread in diverse cultures. In that case, we can argue that the contrasts in «whistleblowing's gradient» will be whittled with the lapse of time.
