Open main menu

Wikipedia β

Corruption Perceptions Index

Transparency International (TI) has published the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) since 1996, annually ranking countries "by their perceived levels of corruption, as determined by expert assessments and opinion surveys."[1] The CPI generally defines corruption as "the misuse of public power for private benefit".[2]

The CPI currently ranks 176 countries "on a scale from 100 (very clean) to 0 (highly corrupt)".[3]

Contents

MethodsEdit

Transparency International commissioned University of Passau's Johann Graf Lambsdorff to produce the CPI.[4]

The 2012 CPI takes into account 13 different surveys and assessments from 12 different institutions.[5] The 13 surveys/assessments are either business people opinion surveys or performance assessments from a group of analysts.[2] Early CPIs used public opinion surveys.[6] The institutions are:

Countries needs to be evaluated by at least three sources to appear in the CPI.[6]

The CPI measures perception of corruption due to the difficulty of measuring absolute levels of corruption.[8]

ValidityEdit

A study published in 2002 found a "very strong significant correlation" between the Corruption Perceptions Index and two other proxies for corruption: Black Market activity and overabundance of regulation.

All three metrics also had a highly significant correlation with real gross domestic product per capita (RGDP/Cap); the Corruption Perceptions Index correlation with RGDP/Cap was the strongest, explaining over three fourths of the variance.[9] (Note that a lower index on this scale reflects greater corruption, so that countries with higher RGDPs generally had less corruption.)

RankingsEdit

2016Edit

Legend:

Scores: Less corrupt More corrupt
100..90 89..80 79..70 69..60 59..50 49..40 39..30 29..20 19..10 9..0
2016 Corruption Perceptions Index table[10][11]
Rank Country
or
Territory
2016[12] 2015[13] 2014[14] 2013[15] 2012[16]
Score Change in score from previous year Score Change in score from previous year Score Change in score from previous year Score Change in score from previous year Score
1   Denmark
90
 -1
91
 -1
92
 1
91
 1
90
1   New Zealand
90
 2
88
 -3
91
 0
91
 1
90
3   Finland
89
 -1
90
 1
89
 0
89
 -1
90
4   Sweden
88
 -1
89
 2
87
 -2
89
 1
88
5    Switzerland
86
 0
86
 0
86
 1
85
 -1
86
6   Norway
85
 -2
87
 1
86
 0
86
 1
85
7   Singapore
84
 -1
85
 1
84
 -2
86
 -1
87
8   Netherlands
83
 -4
87
 4
83
 0
83
 -1
84
9   Canada
82
 -1
83
 2
81
 0
81
 -3
84
10   Germany
81
 0
81
 2
79
 1
78
 -1
79
10   Luxembourg
81
 0
81
 -1
82
 2
80
 0
80
10   United Kingdom
81
 0
81
 3
78
 2
76
 2
74
13   Australia
79
 0
79
 -1
80
 -1
81
 -4
85
14   Iceland
78
 -1
79
 0
79
 1
78
 -4
82
15   Belgium
77
 0
77
 1
76
 1
75
 0
75
15   Hong Kong
77
 2
75
 1
74
 -1
75
 -2
77
17   Austria
75
 -1
76
 4
72
 3
69
 0
69
18   United States
74
 -2
76
 2
74
 1
73
 0
73
19   Ireland
73
 -2
75
 1
74
 2
72
 3
69
20   Japan
72
 -3
75
 -1
76
 2
74
 0
74
21   Uruguay
71
 -3
74
 1
73
 0
73
 1
72
22   Estonia
70
 0
70
 1
69
 1
68
 4
64
23   France
69
 -1
70
 1
69
 -2
71
 0
71
24   Bahamas
66
 0  0
71
 0
71
 0
71
24   Chile
66
 -4
70
 -3
73
 2
71
 -1
72
24   United Arab Emirates
66
 -4
70
 0
70
 1
69
 1
68
27   Bhutan
65
 0
65
 0
65
 2
63
 0
63
28   Israel
64
 3
61
 1
60
 -1
61
 1
60
29   Poland
62
 0
62
 1
61
 1
60
 2
58
29   Portugal
62
 -1
63
 0
63
 1
62
 -1
63
31   Barbados
61
 0  0
74
 -1
75
 -1
76
31   Qatar
61
 -10
71
 2
69
 1
68
 0
68
31   Slovenia
61
 1
60
 2
58
 1
57
 -4
61
31   Taiwan
61
 -1
62
 1
61
 0
61
 0
61
35   Botswana
60
 -3
63
 0
63
 -1
64
 -1
65
35   Saint Lucia
60
 0  0  0
71
 0
71
35   Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
60
 0  0
67
 5
62
 0
62
38   Cape Verde
59
 4
55
 -2
57
 -1
58
 -2
60
38   Dominica
59
 0  0
58
 0
58
 0
58
38   Lithuania
59
 -2
61
 3
58
 1
57
 3
54
41   Brunei
58
 0  0  0
60
 5
55
41   Costa Rica
58
 3
55
 1
54
 1
53
 -1
54
41   Spain
58
 0
58
 -2
60
 1
59
 -6
65
44   Georgia
57
 5
52
 0
52
 3
49
 -3
52
44   Latvia
57
 2
55
 0
55
 2
53
 4
49
46   Grenada
56
 0  0  0  0
47   Cyprus
55
 -6
61
 -2
63
 0
63
 -3
66
47   Czech Republic
55
 -1
56
 5
51
 3
48
 -1
49
47   Malta
55
 -1
56
 1
55
 -1
56
 -1
57
50   Mauritius
54
 1
53
 -1
54
 2
52
 -5
57
50   Rwanda
54
 0
54
 5
49
 -4
53
 0
53
52   South Korea
53
 -3
56
 1
55
 0
55
 -1
56
53   Namibia
52
 -1
53
 4
49
 1
48
 0
48
54   Slovakia
51
 0
51
 1
50
 3
47
 1
46
55   Croatia
49
 -2
51
 3
48
 0
48
 2
46
55   Malaysia
49
 -1
50
 -2
52
 2
50
 1
49
57   Hungary
48
 -3
51
 -3
54
 0
54
 -1
55
57   Jordan
48
 -5
53
 4
49
 4
45
 -3
48
57   Romania
48
 2
46
 3
43
 0
43
 -1
44
60   Cuba
47
 0
47
 1
46
 0
46
 -2
48
60   Italy
47
 3
44
 1
43
 0
43
 1
42
62   São Tomé and Príncipe
46
 4
42
 0
42
 0
42
 0
42
62   Saudi Arabia
46
 -6
52
 3
49
 3
46
 2
44
64   Montenegro
45
 1
44
 2
42
 -2
44
 3
41
64   Oman
45
 0
45
 0
45
 -2
47
 0
47
64   Senegal
45
 1
44
 1
43
 2
41
 5
36
64   South Africa
45
 1
44
 0
44
 2
42
 -1
43
64   Suriname
45
 9
36
 0
36
 0
36
 -1
37
69   Greece
44
 -2
46
 3
43
 3
40
 4
36
70   Bahrain
43
 -8
51
 2
49
 1
48
 -3
51
70   Ghana
43
 -4
47
 -1
48
 2
46
 1
45
72   Burkina Faso
42
 4
38
 0
38
 0
38
 0
38
72   Serbia
42
 2
40
 -1
41
 -1
42
 3
39
72   Solomon Islands
42
 0  0  0  0
75   Bulgaria
41
 0
41
 -2
43
 2
41
 0
41
75   Kuwait
41
 -8
49
 5
44
 1
43
 -1
44
75   Tunisia
41
 3
38
 -2
40
 -1
41
 0
41
75   Turkey
41
 -1
42
 -3
45
 -5
50
 1
49
79   Belarus
40
 8
32
 1
31
 2
29
 -2
31
79   Brazil
40
 2
38
 -5
43
 1
42
 -1
43
79   India
40
 2
38
 0
38
 2
36
 0
36
79   China
40
 3
37
 1
36
 -4
40
 1
39
83   Albania
39
 3
36
 3
33
 2
31
 -2
33
83   Bosnia and Herzegovina
39
 1
38
 -1
39
 -3
42
 0
42
83   Jamaica
39
 -2
41
 3
38
 0
38
 0
38
83   Lesotho
39
 -5
44
 -5
49
 0
49
 4
45
87   Mongolia
38
 -1
39
 0
39
 1
38
 2
36
87   Panama
38
 -1
39
 2
37
 2
35
 -3
38
87   Zambia
38
 0
38
 0
38
 0
38
 1
37
90   Colombia
37
 0
37
 0
37
 1
36
 0
36
90   Indonesia
37
 1
36
 2
34
 2
32
 0
32
90   Liberia
37
 0
37
 0
37
 -1
38
 -3
41
90   Morocco
37
 1
36
 -3
39
 2
37
 0
37
90   Macedonia
37
 -5
42
 -3
45
 1
44
 1
43
95   Argentina
36
 4
32
 -2
34
 0
34
 -1
35
95   Benin
36
 -1
37
 -2
39
 3
36
 0
36
95   El Salvador
36
 -3
39
 0
39
 1
38
 0
38
95   Kosovo
36
 3
33
 0
33
 0
33
 -1
34
95   Maldives
36
 0  0  0  0
95   Sri Lanka
36
 -1
37
 -1
38
 1
37
 -3
40
101   Gabon
35
 1
34
 -3
37
 3
34
 -1
35
101   Niger
35
 1
34
 -1
35
 1
34
 1
33
101   Peru
35
 -1
36
 -2
38
 0
38
 0
38
101   Philippines
35
 0
35
 -3
38
 2
36
 2
34
101   Thailand
35
 -3
38
 0
38
 3
35
 -2
37
101   Timor-Leste
35
 7
28
 0
28
 -2
30
 -3
33
101   Trinidad and Tobago
35
 -4
39
 1
38
 0
38
 -1
39
108   Algeria
34
 -2
36
 0
36
 0
36
 2
34
108   Ivory Coast
34
 2
32
 0
32
 5
27
 -2
29
108   Egypt
34
 -2
36
 -1
37
 5
32
 0
32
108   Ethiopia
34
 1
33
 0
33
 0
33
 0
33
108   Guyana
34
 5
29
 -1
30
 3
27
 -1
28
113   Armenia
33
 -2
35
 -2
37
 1
36
 2
34
113   Bolivia
33
 -1
34
 -1
35
 1
34
 0
34
113   Vietnam
33
 2
31
 0
31
 0
31
 0
31
116   Mali
32
 -3
35
 3
32
 4
28
 -6
34
116   Pakistan
32
 2
30
 1
29
 1
28
 1
27
116   Tanzania
32
 2
30
 -1
31
 -2
33
 -2
35
116   Togo
32
 0
32
 3
29
 0
29
 -1
30
120   Dominican Republic
31
 -2
33
 1
32
 3
29
 -3
32
120   Ecuador
31
 -1
32
 -1
33
 -2
35
 3
32
120   Malawi
31
 0
31
 -2
33
 -4
37
 0
37
123   Azerbaijan
30
 1
29
 0
29
 1
28
 1
27
123   Djibouti
30
 -4
34
 0
34
 -2
36
 0
36
123   Honduras
30
 -1
31
 2
29
 3
26
 -2
28
123   Laos
30
 5
25
 0
25
 -1
26
 5
21
123   Mexico
30
 -5
35
 0
35
 1
34
 0
34
123   Moldova
30
 -3
33
 -2
35
 0
35
 -1
36
123   Paraguay
30
 3
27
 3
24
 0
24
 -1
25
123   Sierra Leone
30
 1
29
 -2
31
 1
30
 -1
31
131   Iran
29
 2
27
 0
27
 2
25
 -3
28
131   Kazakhstan
29
 1
28
 -1
29
 3
26
 -2
28
131     Nepal
29
 2
27
 -2
29
 -2
31
 4
27
131   Russia
29
 0
29
 2
27
 -1
28
 0
28
131   Ukraine
29
 2
27
 1
26
 1
25
 -1
26
136   Guatemala
28
 0
28
 -4
32
 3
29
 -4
33
136   Kyrgyzstan
28
 0
28
 1
27
 3
24
 0
24
136   Lebanon
28
 0
28
 1
27
 -1
28
 -2
30
136   Myanmar
28
 6
22
 1
21
 0
21
 6
15
136   Nigeria
28
 2
26
 -1
27
 2
25
 -2
27
136   Papua New Guinea
28
 3
25
 0
25
 0
25
 0
25
142   Guinea
27
 2
25
 0
25
 1
24
 0
24
142   Mauritania
27
 -4
31
 1
30
 0
30
 -1
31
142   Mozambique
27
 -4
31
 0
31
 1
30
 -1
31
145   Bangladesh
26
 1
25
 0
25
 -2
27
 1
26
145   Cameroon
26
 -1
27
 0
27
 2
25
 -1
26
145   Gambia
26
 -2
28
 -1
29
 1
28
 -6
34
145   Kenya
26
 1
25
 0
25
 -2
27
 0
27
145   Madagascar
26
 -2
28
 0
28
 0
28
 -4
32
145   Nicaragua
26
 -1
27
 -1
28
 0
28
 -1
29
151   Tajikistan
25
 -1
26
 3
23
 1
22
 0
22
151   Uganda
25
 0
25
 -1
26
 0
26
 -3
29
153   Comoros
24
 -2
26
 0
26
 -2
28
 0
28
154   Turkmenistan
22
 4
18
 1
17
 0
17
 0
17
154   Zimbabwe
22
 1
21
 0
21
 0
21
 1
20
156   Cambodia
21
 0
21
 0
21
 1
20
 -2
22
156   Democratic Republic of the Congo
21
 -1
22
 0
22
 0
22
 1
21
156   Uzbekistan
21
 2
19
 1
18
 1
17
 0
17
159   Burundi
20
 -1
21
 1
20
 -1
21
 2
19
159   Central African Republic
20
 -4
24
 0
24
 -1
25
 -1
26
159   Chad
20
 -2
22
 0
22
 3
19
 0
19
159   Haiti
20
 3
17
 -2
19
 0
19
 0
19
159   Congo
20
 -3
23
 0
23
 1
22
 -4
26
164   Angola
18
 3
15
 -4
19
 -4
23
 1
22
164   Eritrea
18
 0
18
 0
18
 -2
20
 -5
25
166   Iraq
17
 1
16
 0
16
 0
16
 -2
18
166   Venezuela
17
 0
17
 -2
19
 -1
20
 1
19
168   Guinea-Bissau
16
 -1
17
 -2
19
 0
19
 -6
25
169   Afghanistan
15
 4
11
 -1
12
 4
8
 0
8
170   Libya
14
 -2
16
 -2
18
 3
15
 -6
21
170   Sudan
14
 2
12
 1
11
 0
11
 -2
13
170   Yemen
14
 -4
18
 -1
19
 1
18
 -5
23
173   Syria
13
 -5
18
 -2
20
 3
17
 -9
26
174   South Sudan
11
 -4
15
 0
15
 1
14
 0
175   Somalia
10
 2
8
 0
8
 0
8
 0
8
176   North Korea
8
 0
8
 0
8
 0
8
 0
8

2011Edit

The 20 top countries that were ranked as having the lowest perceived levels of corruption were (note scale of 10 to 1):

# Country Score # Country Score
1   New Zealand 9.5 11   Luxembourg 8.5
2   Denmark 9.4 12   Hong Kong 8.4
  Finland 13   Iceland 8.3
4   Sweden 9.3 14   Germany 8.0
5   Singapore 9.2   Japan
6   Norway 9.0 16   Austria 7.8
7   Netherlands 8.9   Barbados
8   Australia 8.8   United Kingdom
   Switzerland 19   Belgium 7.5
10   Canada 8.7   Ireland
Source:[17]

The 20 bottom countries that were ranked as having the highest perceived levels of corruption were:

# Country Score # Country Score
182   Somalia 1.0 172   Equatorial Guinea 1.9
  North Korea   Burundi
180   Myanmar 1.5 168   Libya 2.0
  Afghanistan   DR Congo
177   Uzbekistan 1.6   Chad
  Turkmenistan   Angola
  Sudan 164   Yemen 2.1
175   Iraq 1.8   Kyrgyzstan
  Haiti   Guinea
172   Venezuela 1.9   Cambodia
Source:[17]

2010Edit

The 20 top countries that were ranked as having the lowest perceived levels of corruption were (note scale of 10 down to 1):

# Country Score # Country Score
1   Denmark 9.3 11   Iceland 8.5
  New Zealand   Luxembourg
  Singapore 13   Hong Kong 8.4
4   Finland 9.2 14   Ireland 8.0
  Sweden 15   Austria 7.9
6   Canada 8.9   Germany
7   Netherlands 8.8 17   Barbados 7.8
8   Australia 8.7   Japan
   Switzerland 19   Qatar 7.7
10   Norway 8.6 20   United Kingdom 7.6
Source:[18]

The 20 bottom countries that were ranked as having the highest perceived levels of corruption were:

# Country Score # Country Score
178   Somalia 1.1 168   Angola 1.9
176   Myanmar 1.4 164   Venezuela 2.0
  Afghanistan   Kyrgyzstan
175   Iraq 1.5   Guinea
172   Uzbekistan 1.6   DR Congo
  Turkmenistan 159   Tajikistan 2.1
  Sudan   Russia
171   Chad 1.7   Papua New Guinea
170   Burundi 1.8   Laos
168   Equatorial Guinea 1.9   Kenya
Source:[18]

Economic implicationsEdit

Research papers published in 2007 and 2008 examined the economic consequences of corruption perception, as defined by the CPI. The researchers found a correlation between a higher CPI and higher long-term economic growth,[19] as well as an increase in GDP growth of 1.7% for every unit increase in a country's CPI score.[20] Also shown was a power-law dependence linking higher CPI score to higher rates of foreign investment in a country.

Criticism and limitationsEdit

Because corruption is willfully hidden, it is impossible to measure directly; instead, proxies for corruption are used. Seligson states that corruption is a very “difficult phenomenon to measure,” there have been many attempts to solve this problem but they’ve all come up with limitations.[21]

The Index has been criticized on the basis of its methodology.[22]

According to political scientist Dan Hough, three flaws in the Index include:[23]

  • Corruption is too complex to be captured by a single score. The nature of corruption in rural Kansas will, for instance, be different than in the city administration of New York yet the Index measures them in the same way.
  • By measuring perceptions of corruption, as opposed to corruption itself, the Index may simply be reinforcing stereotypes and cliches.
  • The Index only measures public-sector corruption, leaving out private actors. This for instance means the Libor scandal or the VW emissions scandal are not counted.

Media outlets frequently use the raw numbers as a yardstick for government performance, without clarifying what the numbers mean. The local Transparency International chapter in Bangladesh disowned the index results after a change in methodology caused the country's scores to increase; media reported it as an "improvement".[24]

In a 2013 article in Foreign Policy, Alex Cobham suggested that CPI should be dropped for the good of Transparency International. It argues that the CPI embeds a powerful and misleading elite bias in popular perceptions of corruption, potentially contributing to a vicious cycle and at the same time incentivizing inappropriate policy responses. Cobham writes, "the index corrupts perceptions to the extent that it's hard to see a justification for its continuing publication."[25]

In the United States, many lawyers advise international businesses to consult the CPI when attempting to measure the risk of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations in different nations. This practice has been criticized by the Minnesota Journal of International Law, which wrote that since the CPI may be subject to perceptual biases it therefore should not be considered by lawyers to be a measure of actual national corruption risk.[26]

Transparency International also publishes the Global Corruption Barometer, which ranks countries by corruption levels using direct surveys instead of perceived expert opinions, which has been under criticism for substantial bias from the powerful elite.[25]

Transparency International has warned that a country with a clean CPI score may still be linked to corruption internationally. For example, while Sweden had the 3rd best CPI score in 2015, one of its state-owned companies, TeliaSonera, was facing allegations of bribery in Uzbekistan.[27]

ReferencesEdit

  1. ^ Transparency International (2011). "Corruption Perceptions Index". Transparency International. Transparency International. Retrieved 1 December 2011. 
  2. ^ a b CPI 2010: Long methodological brief, p. 2
  3. ^ Transparency International (2016). "Corruption Perceptions Index 2016". Transparency International. Transparency International. Retrieved 14 August 2017. 
  4. ^ "Frequently Asked Questions: TI Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI 2005)". Retrieved 22 November 2005. 
  5. ^ CPI 2010: Long methodological brief, p. 1
  6. ^ a b CPI 2010: Long methodological brief, p. 7
  7. ^ Transparency International (2010). Corruption Perceptions Index 2010: Sources of information (PDF) (Report). Transparency International. Retrieved 24 August 2011. 
  8. ^ Transparency International (2010). "Frequently asked questions (FAQs)". Corruption Perceptions Index 2010. Transparency International. Retrieved 24 August 2011. 
  9. ^ Wilhelm, Paul G. (2002). "International Validation of the Corruption Perceptions Index: Implications for Business Ethics and Entrepreneurship Education". Journal of Business Ethics. Springer Netherlands. 35 (3): 177–189. doi:10.1023/A:1013882225402. 
  10. ^ "2016 official table". 25 January 2017. Retrieved 29 January 2017. 
  11. ^ "Official announcement". Transparency International. 25 January 2017. Retrieved 29 January 2017. 
  12. ^ "2016 table". Transparency International. Retrieved 29 January 2017.