Transparency International measures global corruption

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_row_inner][vc_column_inner width=”1/1″][vc_column_text]

Transparency International issued its 2013 version of the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) on December 2, 2013. The CPI contained a few surprises, like Australia (#9) being named one of the biggest decliners, along with Syria (#181), but overall the CPI contained few surprises. Denmark (#1) and New Zealand (#1) are tied as being perceived as the least corrupt countries, while China (#80) remains in the middle of the pack and Russia (#127) is down near the bottom, with, North Korea(#175), Afghanistan(#175) and Somalia(#175) all tied for the title of most corrupt countries in the world.  Well perceived to be the most corrupt, per the CPI.

The Guardian article, “Is Transparency International’s measure of corruption still valid“, provided in full below, contains the entire list and appropriately calls into question whether the CPI remains a valid measure today in 2013, as it was some 20 years ago when it was first issued. We at Prevendra view the CPI as one data set which must be included in any assessment by any entity thinking of engaging in business outside of their own country, especially if the company is a U.S. company or a company doing business in the U.S.  Companies falling into this described demographic will find themselves subject to the Foreign Corrupt Practice Act (FCPA). The FCPA purpose of “purpose of making it unlawful for certain classes of persons and entities to make payments to foreign government officials to assist in obtaining or retaining business. Specifically, the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA prohibit the willful use of the mails or any means of instrumentality of interstate commerce corruptly in furtherance of any offer, payment, promise to pay, or authorization of the payment of money or anything of value to any person, while knowing that all or a portion of such money or thing of value will be offered, given or promised, directly or indirectly, to a foreign official to influence the foreign official in his or her official capacity, induce the foreign official to do or omit to do an act in violation of his or her lawful duty, or to secure any improper advantage in order to assist in obtaining or retaining business for or with, or directing business to, any person.” Quite the mouthful, but one with significant teeth.

One needs only review the DOJ list of 2013 FCPA and related law enforcement actions, to understand following the advice of “When in Rome, do as the Romans” may land one’s company in hot water, as the “business norm” may well be a violation of the FCPA.

The take away for every U.S. company contemplating doing business abroad, if the country is not in the top 50 of the CPI, then one should institute even more stringent internal checks and balances to ensure any business is conducted in a pristine manner.

[divider style=”solid”][/divider]

[divider style=”solid”][/divider]

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column_inner][/vc_row_inner][vc_column_text]

---

This article titled “Is Transparency International’s measure of corruption still valid?” was written by Claire Provost, for theguardian.com on Tuesday 3rd December 2013 12.44 UTC

How can you measure the level of corruption in a country? If the abuse of public office for private gain is typically done in secret, under the table or behind closed doors, how can you systematically – and credibly – capture its scale and depth?

For nearly 20 years, campaigning NGO Transparency International has scored and ranked countries according to how corrupt their public sectors are perceived to be. The 2013 edition of its Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) was published on Tuesday.

Drawing on 13 data sources, and based on the perceptions of businesspeople and country experts, the 2013 CPI gives 177 countries a score from zero to 100, where zero is a perception that the country’s public sector is “highly corrupt” and 100 is “very clean”.

Denmark and New Zealand top the list as the countries with the lowest perceived levels of public sector corruption; Afghanistan, North Korea and Somalia are the bottom three. More than two-thirds of the 177 countries examined scored below 50, a proportion similar to previous years.

Australia is labelled one of “the biggest decliners”, alongside countries such as Syria, Libya, Mali, Spain, Mauritius, Iceland and Guatemala. The biggest improvers include Burma, Senegal, Nepal, Greece, and Lesotho.

Transparency International trumpets the CPI as “the most widely used indicator of corruption worldwide”. The high-profile and widely reported index has, however, amassed its fair share of critics over the last two decades.

Some have attacked the CPI’s reliance on the opinions of a small group of experts and businesspeople. This, says Alex Cobham, fellow at the Centre for Global Development, “embeds a powerful and misleading elite bias in popular perceptions of corruption” and can lead to inappropriate policy responses.

In an article for Foreign Policy, entitled Corrupting Perceptions, Cobham suggested earlier this year that Transparency International should drop the CPI and said it would be more useful to collect better evidence of actual corruption or information about how corruption is or isn’t affecting citizens. “The index corrupts perceptions to the extent that it’s hard to see a justification for its continuing publication,” he said.

Others argue it is simply impossible to relay in a single number the scale and depth of a complex issue like corruption, and compare countries accordingly. “The index gets much-needed attention, but it overshadows [Transparency International’s] other activities and exposes it to criticism,” said the Economist in a 2010 article that dubbed the CPI the “murk meter”.

Transparency International has defended its approach, arguing that capturing experts’ perceptions is the most reliable method of comparing relative corruption levels across countries.

“Corruption generally comprises illegal activities, which are deliberately hidden and only come to light through scandals, investigations or prosecutions,” says the NGO. “There is no meaningful way to assess absolute levels of corruption in countries or territories on the basis of hard empirical data. Possible attempts to do so, such as by comparing bribes reported, the number of prosecutions brought or studying court cases directly linked to corruption, cannot be taken as definitive indicators of corruption levels. Instead, they show how effective prosecutors, the courts or the media are in investigating and exposing corruption.”

While the CPI may be Transparency International’s most famous product, the NGO acknowledges it cannot tell the full story and now produces a range of other measures, including the Global Corruption Barometer, which looks at citizens’ perceptions and experiences of corruption, and the Bribe Payers Index, which ranks exporting countries according to the perceived likelihood that their firms will bribe abroad.

The data from the 2013 CPI is below. What can you do with it?

Corruption perceptions index 2013

Country / Territory	CPI 2013 Score	Country Rank
Denmark	1	91
New Zealand	1	91
Finland	3	89
Sweden	3	89
Norway	5	86
Singapore	5	86
Switzerland	7	85
Netherlands	8	83
Australia	9	81
Canada	9	81
Luxembourg	11	80
Germany	12	78
Iceland	12	78
United Kingdom	14	76
Barbados	15	75
Belgium	15	75
Hong Kong	15	75
Japan	18	74
Uruguay	19	73
United States	19	73
Ireland	21	72
Bahamas	22	71
Chile	22	71
France	22	71
Saint Lucia	22	71
Austria	26	69
United Arab Emirates	26	69
Estonia	28	68
Qatar	28	68
Botswana	30	64
Bhutan	31	63
Cyprus	31	63
Portugal	33	62
Puerto Rico	33	62
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	33	62
Israel	36	61
Taiwan	36	61
Brunei	38	60
Poland	38	60
Spain	40	59
Cape Verde	41	58
Dominica	41	58
Lithuania	43	57
Slovenia	43	57
Malta	45	56
Korea (South)	46	55
Hungary	47	54
Seychelles	47	54
Costa Rica	49	53
Latvia	49	53
Rwanda	49	53
Mauritius	52	52
Malaysia	53	50
Turkey	53	50
Georgia	55	49
Lesotho	55	49
Bahrain	57	48
Croatia	57	48
Czech Republic	57	48
Namibia	57	48
Oman	61	47
Slovakia	61	47
Cuba	63	46
Ghana	63	46
Saudi Arabia	63	46
Jordan	66	45
Macedonia	67	44
Montenegro	67	44
Italy	69	43
Kuwait	69	43
Romania	69	43
Bosnia and Herzegovina	72	42
Brazil	72	42
Sao Tome and Principe	72	42
Serbia	72	42
South Africa	72	42
Bulgaria	77	41
Senegal	77	41
Tunisia	77	41
China	80	40
Greece	80	40
Swaziland	82	39
Burkina Faso	83	38
El Salvador	83	38
Jamaica	83	38
Liberia	83	38
Mongolia	83	38
Peru	83	38
Trinidad and Tobago	83	38
Zambia	83	38
Malawi	91	37
Morocco	91	37
Sri Lanka	91	37
Algeria	94	36
Armenia	94	36
Benin	94	36
Colombia	94	36
Djibouti	94	36
India	94	36
Philippines	94	36
Suriname	94	36
Ecuador	102	35
Moldova	102	35
Panama	102	35
Thailand	102	35
Argentina	106	34
Bolivia	106	34
Gabon	106	34
Mexico	106	34
Niger	106	34
Ethiopia	111	33
Kosovo	111	33
Tanzania	111	33
Egypt	114	32
Indonesia	114	32
Albania	116	31
Nepal	116	31
Vietnam	116	31
Mauritania	119	30
Mozambique	119	30
Sierra Leone	119	30
Timor-Leste	119	30
Belarus	123	29
Dominican Republic	123	29
Guatemala	123	29
Togo	123	29
Azerbaijan	127	28
Comoros	127	28
Gambia	127	28
Lebanon	127	28
Madagascar	127	28
Mali	127	28
Nicaragua	127	28
Pakistan	127	28
Russia	127	28
Bangladesh	136	27
Côte d´Ivoire	136	27
Guyana	136	27
Kenya	136	27
Honduras	140	26
Kazakhstan	140	26
Laos	140	26
Uganda	140	26
Cameroon	144	25
Central African Republic	144	25
Iran	144	25
Nigeria	144	25
Papua New Guinea	144	25
Ukraine	144	25
Guinea	150	24
Kyrgyzstan	150	24
Paraguay	150	24
Angola	153	23
Congo Republic	154	22
Democratic Republic of the Congo	154	22
Tajikistan	154	22
Burundi	157	21
Myanmar	157	21
Zimbabwe	157	21
Cambodia	160	20
Eritrea	160	20
Venezuela	160	20
Chad	163	19
Equatorial Guinea	163	19
Guinea-Bissau	163	19
Haiti	163	19
Yemen	167	18
Syria	168	17
Turkmenistan	168	17
Uzbekistan	168	17
Iraq	171	16
Libya	172	15
South Sudan	173	14
Sudan	174	11
Afghanistan	175	8
Korea (North)	175	8
Somalia	175	8

Download the data

• The full data: corruption perceptions index 2013

More data

• More data journalism and data visualisations from the Guardian

Development and aid data

• More global development data

Can you do something with this data?

• Please post your visualisations and mash-ups on our Flickr group

• Contact us at development@theguardian.com

• Follow the Guardian Global development team on Twitter

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010

Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]