Eurobarometer 88.2 (2017)

Since the early 1970s the European Commission´s Standard & Special Eurobarometer are regularly monitoring the public opinion in the European Union member countries. Principal investigators are the Directorate-General Communication and on occasion other departments of the European Commission or the European Parliament. Over time, candidate and accession countries were included in the Standard Eurobarometer Series. Selected questions or modules may not have been surveyed in each sample. Please consult the basic questionnaire for more information on country filter instructions or other questionnaire routing filters. In this study the following modules are included: 1. Integration of immigrants in the European Union, 2. Corruption.<br>Topics: 1. Integration of immigrants in the European Union: estimated share of legal immigrants compared to the share of illegal immigrants in the own country; assessment of legal immigration from outside the EU as opportunity or as a problem for own country; proportion of immigrants in the total national population (in percent); self-rated knowledge about immigration and integration matters; frequency of interaction with immigrants in selected situations: workplace, educational institutions, public services, neighbourhood, leisure activities, household services; comfort with immigrants as: own manager, own work colleague, own doctor, own family member, own friend; friends and / or family members who are immigrants living in respondent’s country; success of integration of immigrants living in: own city, own country; attitude towards the following statements on the impact of immigrants on the society in the own country: overall positive effect on national economy, burden on welfare system, take jobs away, fill unpopular jobs, boost innovation, enrich national cultural life, worsen crime problems; importance of each of the following aspects with regard to successful integration into the country of residence: share cultural traditions, feel like a member of society, speak national language, accept values and norms of society, participate in cultural and political life, contribute to welfare system, have friends, sufficient educational qualifications, acquire national citizenship; assessment of the following obstacles to successful integration: discrimination, limited efforts of immigrants to integrate, access to long term residence permits, finding a job, limited access to education as well as to healthcare and social protection, limited interaction between immigrants and national citizens, negative portrayal in the media, bringing family members; assessment of the usefulness of selected measures to support integration: provide integration measures in countries of origin, better preparing local community, better integration programmes upon arrival, language courses upon arrival, mandatory participation in integration programmes and language courses upon arrival, support enrolment of children in pre-school, support in finding a job, ensure equality, promote intermingling of people, right to vote, tackle discrimination, more financial support to civil society organisations that promote integration; importance of each of the following actors for successful integration: immigrants, citizens, national government, EU institutions, local and regional authorities, media, educational institutions, civil society actors, employers; responsibility of immigrants and / or of society; attitude towards the following statements on integration: necessary investment for own country, sufficient measures of national government; assessment of the presentation of matters regarding immigrants in the national media as positive; importance of each of the following measures with regard to the integration of immigrants in EU member states: share best practices, better cooperation between responsible actors, financial support to governments and civil society organisations, common EU policies; country of birth of: respondent, parents, grandparents.

2. Corruption: visits to a doctor or a public healthcare institution in the last twelve months; obligation to give extra payments or gifts; detailed description of what happened; acceptability of giving the following kinds of bribes: money, gift, favour; assessment of corruption in the own country as a widespread problem; development of the extent of corruption in the own country in the last three years; estimated extent of bribery with regard to the following authorities in the own country: police and customs, tax authorities, courts, social security, public prosecution service, politicians, political parties, officials awarding public tenders, officials issuing building permits, officials issuing business permits, healthcare system, education sector, inspectors, private companies, banks and financial institutions; acquainted person involved in bribery; contact with the aforementioned authorities in the last twelve months; expected bribes and amount; awareness of authorities to report cases of corruption to; most trustworthy authorities: police, justice, NGOs, media, national ombudsman, political representative, specialized anti-corruption agency, trade unions, EU institutions, other; personally experienced and reported corruption in the last twelve months; reasons for not reporting; attitude towards selected statements on corruption in the own country: existence in local and regional public institutions, existence in national public institutions, part of business culture, personally affected in daily life, successful prosecutions deter people from corrupt practices, insufficient pursuing of high-level corruption cases, effective governmental efforts, too close links between business and politics lead to corruption, bribery and the use of connections is the easiest way to obtain certain public services, sufficient transparency and supervision of the funding of political parties, only way to succeed in business is to have political connections, favouritism and corruption hamper business competition, measures against corruption are applied impartially and without ulterior motives.

Demography: nationality; left-right self-placement; marital status; sex; age; age at end of education; occupation; professional position; type of community; household composition and household size; own a mobile phone and fixed (landline) phone; possession of durable goods (entertainment electronics, internet connection, possession of a car, a flat/a house have finished paying for or still paying for); financial difficulties during the last year; internet use (at home, at work, at school); self-reported belonging to the working class, the middle class or the upper class of society; life satisfaction; expected development of personal living conditions in the next five years; frequency of discussions about political matters on national, European, and local level; own voice counts in the own country and in the EU; general direction things are going in the own country and in the EU; opinion leadership; EU image.

Additionally coded was: respondent ID; country; interview ID; date of interview; time of the beginning of the interview; duration of the interview; number of persons present during the interview; respondent cooperation; size of locality; region; language of the interview; nation group; weighting factor.