Crooked World
October 16 2003
The world's businesspeople and analysts see corruption - defined as the abuse of public office for private gain - as rife in most parts of the globe, according to the 2003 'Corruption Perceptions Index' published by Transparency International. Seventy percent of the 133 countries covered score less than half marks, while half the developing countries in the survey score less than 3 out of 10.
The index provides a snapshot of the views of those who take key decisions on investment and trade. It builds public awareness of the corruption issue and draws the attention of governments to the negative image of their nation that low rankings in the CPI reflect, adding another reason for them to address the problem.
The Index measures the extent to which corruption is perceived to exist among public officials and politicians, and is a composite of 17 different polls and surveys from 13 independent institutions carried out among business people and country analysts, including surveys of residents, both local and expatriate. These cover issues including bribe-taking by public officials in public procurement, but do not distinguish between administrative and political corruption.
Corruption is perceived to be pervasive in Bangladesh, Nigeria, Haiti, Paraguay, Myanmar, Tajikistan, Georgia, Cameroon, Azerbaijan, Angola, Kenya, and Indonesia, countries with a score of less than 2 in the new index. Countries with a score of higher than 9, with very low levels of perceived corruption, are rich countries, namely Finland, Iceland, Denmark, New Zealand, Singapore and Sweden. Other leading economies / key DRNO audience countries fare as follows:
- Australia - 8th= with 8.8 out of 10.
- Canada, UK 11th= with 8.7 out of 10
- Germany 16th with 7.7 out of 10
- Ireland and the USA 18th= with 7.5 out of 10
- France and Spain 23rd= with 6.9 out of 10
- Italy 35th= [with Kuwait] with 5.3 out of 10
For other results see the TI Web site.
Making comparisons from one year to another is problematic and TI give many cautions, but there appear to be noteworthy downward trends, not resulting from technical factors, for Argentina, Belarus, Chile, Canada, Israel, Luxembourg, Poland, USA, and Zimbabwe; and improvements for Austria, Belgium, Colombia, France, Germany, Ireland, Malaysia, Norway and Tunisia.
In 2002, the CPI included only 102 countries. The large increase in coverage relates to the fact that more valid and reputable sources have been found that can be incorporated. TI requires at least three sources to be available for a country before considering the database sufficiently robust for that country to be ranked in the CPI. The following countries were in the CPI 2003, but not the CPI 2002: Algeria, Armenia, Bahrain, Belize, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Congo (Republic of), Cuba, Cyprus, Gambia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lebanon, Libya, Macedonia, Mali, Mozambique, Myanmar, Oman, Palestine, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Serbia & Montenegro, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Syria, Tajikistan, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.
Countries with only two sets of data include Afghanistan, Congo (Democratic Republic), Eritrea, Fiji, North Korea and Rwanda among others - these are not yet included in the Index. Those with only one set of data at present include Bhutan, Brunei, Cambodia and a large number of island states, smaller African nations and others.
TI also runs two other, related measures:
- a 'Global Corruption Barometer' (see www.transparency.org/surveys ) which is similar but based on the views of the general public regarding corruption, for example including a question on how significantly corruption affects their personal and family life. The resulting attitudes can vary considerably and do not necessarily correlate with levels of corruption. Respondents in some countries may be capable of living with high levels of corruption while for others even low levels of corruption provoke serious concerns.
- a Bribe Payers Index (BPI), which ranked exporting countries according to the propensity of companies from those countries to offer bribes abroad. The BPI is accessible on the internet at www.transparency.org/surveys/index.html#bpi.
TI is clear about the priorities for action based on the statistics. 'Rich countries must provide practical support to developing country governments that demonstrate the political will to curb corruption' according to Peter Eigen, Chairman of Transparency International (TI). 'In addition, those countries starting with a high degree of corruption should not be penalised, since they are in the most urgent need of support'.
'The new CPI points to high levels of corruption in many rich countries as well as poorer ones, making it imperative that developed countries enforce international conventions to curb bribery by international companies, and that private businesses fulfil their obligations under the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, namely to stop bribing public officials around the world' says Eigen, 'but nine out of ten developing countries score less than 5 against a clean score of 10 in the TI CPI 2003. Their governments must implement results-oriented programmes to fight corruption, but they also urgently require practical help tailored to the needs of their national anti-corruption strategies'.
'Today's CPI demonstrates that it is not only poor countries where corruption thrives', said Laurence Cockcroft, Chairman of TI (UK). 'Levels of corruption are worryingly high in European countries such as Greece and Italy, and in potentially wealthy oil-rich countries such as Nigeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Libya, Venezuela and Iraq'.
In July the Global Corruption Barometer showed that 'Political parties, the courts and the police were identified as the three areas most in need of reform, according to Cockcroft.
TI stresses that 'It is difficult to base comparative statements on the levels of corruption in different countries on hard empirical data, e.g. by comparing the number of prosecutions or court cases. Such cross-country data does not reflect actual levels of corruption; rather it highlights the quality of prosecutors, courts and/or the media in exposing corruption. The only method of compiling comparative data is therefore to build on the experience and perceptions of those who are most directly confronted with the realities of corruption'.
TI has this year added to the robustness of the results, working with Gallup International and Information International in emerging market economies and garnering results similar to those from other sources. To be included, data must be well documented, survey work performed with complete integrity and the methodologies used to analyse findings first-class. A more detailed description of methodology, which is reviewed by an expert steering committee, is available at
www.transparency.org/cpi/index.html#cpi or at
All articles 2006-23 written and edited by Mel Crowther and/or Nick Thomas unless otherwise stated.
