TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL. the global coalition against corruption CORRUPTION PERCEPTIONS INDEX

Transcription

1 TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL the global coalition against corruption CORRUPTION PERCEPTIONS INDEX

2 Transparency International (TI) is the global civil society organisation leading the fight against corruption. Through more than 90 chapters worldwide and an international secretariat in Berlin, TI raises awareness of the damaging effects of corruption and works with partners in government, business and civil society to develop and implement effective measures to tackle it. CONTENTS 2010 RESULTS 2 WHAT IS THE CORRUPTION PERCEPTIONS INDEX? FACTS 5 VISUALISING THE CORRUPTION PERCEPTIONS INDEX 6 RESULTS BY REGION AMERICAS 8 ASIA PACIFIC 9 EASTERN EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA 10 EUROPEAN UNION AND WESTERN EUROPE 11 MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA 12 SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA 13 ANNEX A: SHORT METHODOLOGICAL NOTE 15 ANNEX B: SOURCES OF INFORMATION 16 Every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of the information contained in this report. All information was believed to be correct as of October Nevertheless, Transparency International cannot accept responsibility for the consequences of its use for other purposes or in other contexts. ISBN: Transparency International. All rights reserved. Design: Sophie Everett Printed on 100% recycled paper.

3 TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ARE CRITICAL TO RESTORING TRUST AND TURNING BACK THE TIDE OF CORRUPTION With governments committing huge sums to tackle the world s most pressing problems, from the instability of financial markets to climate change and poverty, corruption remains an obstacle to achieving much needed progress. The 2010 Corruption Perceptions Index shows that nearly three quarters of the 1 countries in the index score below five, on a scale from 10 (very clean) to 0 (highly corrupt). These results indicate a serious corruption problem CPI Score Very Clean Highly Corrupt No data COUNTRY/ TERRITORY 1 To address these challenges, governments need to 1 integrate anti-corruption measures in all spheres, from 1 their responses to the financial crisis and climate2010 change CPI Score4 4 to commitments by the international community to Very eradicate poverty. Transparency International advocates Clean 7 stricter implementation of the UN Convention against Corruption, the only global initiative that provides a framework for putting an end to corruption Denmark, New Zealand and Singapore are tied at the top of the list with a score of 9.3, followed closely by Finland and Sweden at 9.2. At the bottom is Somalia with a score of 1.1, slightly trailing Myanmar and Afghanistan at 1.4 and Iraq at Highly Notable among decliners over the past year are some 17 Corrupt 19 of the countries most affected by a financial crisis precipitated by transparency and integrity deficits. No data 21 Among those improving in the past year, the general 22 absence of OECD states underlines the fact that 22 all nations need to bolster their good governance 24 mechanisms The message is clear: across the globe, transparency 27 and accountability are critical to restoring trust and 28 turning back the tide of corruption. Without them, 28 global policy solutions to many global crises are at risk COUNTRY/ TERRITORY SCORE Denmark New Zealand Singapore Finland Sweden Canada Netherlands Australia Switzerland Norway Iceland Luxembourg Hong Kong Ireland Austria Germany Barbados Japan Qatar United Kingdom Chile Belgium United States Uruguay France Estonia Slovenia Cyprus United Arab Emirates Israel Spain Portugal Botswana Puerto Rico Taiwan Bhutan Malta Brunei Korea (South) Mauritius Costa Rica Oman Poland Dominica Cape Verde Lithuania Macau Bahrain Seychelles Hungary Jordan Saudi Arabia Czech Republic Kuwait South Africa Malaysia Namibia Turkey Latvia Slovakia Transparency International COUNTRY/ TERRITORY SCORE Tunisia Croatia FYR Macedonia Ghana Samoa Rwanda Italy Georgia Brazil Cuba Montenegro Romania Bulgaria El Salvador Panama Trinidad and Tobago Vanuatu China Colombia Greece Lesotho Peru Serbia Thailand Malawi Morocco Albania India Jamaica Liberia Corruption Perceptions Index Bosnia and Herzegovina Djibouti Gambia Guatemala Kiribati Sri Lanka Swaziland Burkina Faso Egypt Mexico Dominican Republic Sao Tome & Principe Tonga Zambia Algeria Argentina Kazakhstan Moldova Senegal Benin Bolivia Gabon Indonesia Kosovo Solomon Islands Ethiopia Guyana Mali Mongolia Mozambique Tanzania Vietnam Armenia Eritrea Madagascar Niger Belarus Ecuador Lebanon Nicaragua Syria Timor-Leste Uganda Azerbaijan Bangladesh Honduras Nigeria Philippines Sierra Leone Togo Ukraine Zimbabwe Maldives Mauritania Pakistan Cameroon Côte d'ivoire Haiti Iran SCORE Libya Nepal Paraguay Yemen Cambodia Central African Republic Comoros Congo-Brazzaville Guinea-Bissau Kenya Laos Papua New Guinea Russia Tajikistan Democratic Republic of the Congo Guinea Kyrgyzstan Venezuela Angola Equatorial Guinea Burundi Chad Sudan Turkmenistan Uzbekistan Iraq Afghanistan Myanmar Somalia

4 2010 FACTS The 2010 CPI measures the degree to which public sector corruption is perceived to exist in 1 countries around the world. It scores countries on a scale from 10 (very clean) to 0 (highly corrupt). The 2010 results are drawn from 13 surveys and assessments published between January 2009 and September WHAT IS THE CORRUPTION PERCEPTIONS INDEX? The 2010 CPI covers two countries fewer than last year s edition. The slight change resulted from individual sources adjusting the range of countries they assess. These adjustments in coverage made it possible to include Kosovo for the first time, but led to the exclusion of Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Suriname, for which only two sources of information were available this year. Transparency International (TI) defines corruption as the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. This definition encompasses corrupt practices in both the public and private sectors. The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) ranks countries according to perception of corruption in the public sector. The CPI is an aggregate indicator that combines different sources of information about corruption, making it possible to compare countries. Given its methodology, the CPI is not a tool that is suitable for trend analysis or for monitoring changes in the perceived levels of corruption over time for all countries. Year-to-year changes in a country/territory s score can result from a change in the perceptions of a country s performance, a change in the ranking provided by original sources or changes in the methodology resulting from TI s efforts to improve the index. The 2010 CPI draws on different assessments and business opinion surveys carried out by independent and reputable institutions1. It captures information about the administrative and political aspects of corruption. Broadly speaking, the surveys and assessments used to compile the index include questions relating to bribery of public officials, kickbacks in public procurement, embezzlement of public funds, and questions that probe the strength and effectiveness of public sector anti-corruption efforts. If a country is featured in one or more specific data sources for both of the last two CPIs (2009 CPI and 2010 CPI), those sources can be used to identify whether there has been a change in perceived levels of corruption in that particular country compared to the previous year. TI has used this approach in 2010 to assess country progress over the past year and to identify what can be considered to be a change in perceptions of corruption. These assessments use two criteria: For a country or territory to be included in the index a minimum of three of the sources that TI uses must assess that country. Thus inclusion in the index depends solely on the availability of information. Perceptions are used because corruption whether frequency or amount is to a great extent a hidden activity that is difficult to measure. Over time, perceptions have proved to be a reliable estimate of corruption. Measuring scandals, investigations or prosecutions, while offering non-perception data, reflect less on the prevalence of corruption in a country and more on other factors, such as freedom of the press or the efficiency of the judicial system. TI considers it of critical importance to measure both corruption and integrity, and to do so in the public and private sectors at global, national and local levels.2 The CPI is therefore one of many TI measurement tools that serve the fight against corruption. (a) there is a year-on-year change of at least 0.3 points in a country s CPI score, and (b) the direction of this change is confirmed by more than half of the data sources evaluating that country. Based on these criteria, the following countries showed an improvement from 2009 to 2010: Bhutan, Chile, Ecuador, FYR Macedonia, Gambia, Haiti, Jamaica, Kuwait and Qatar. The following countries showed deterioration from 2009 to 2010: the Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Madagascar, Niger and the United States. For detailed information on the sources of information please see Annex B and visit our website at www. transparency.org/cpi 2 Examples include National Integrity System assessments, which evaluate the degree of integrity, transparency and accountability in a country s anti-corruption institutions, and the Bribe Payers Index, which evaluates expert views of the supply of foreign bribery. 1 4 Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index

5 VISUALISING THE CORRUPTION PERCEPTIONS INDEX DENMARK NEW ZEALAND SINGAPORE FINLAND SWEDEN CANADA NETHERLANDS AUSTRALIA SWITZERLAND NORWAY ICELAND LUXEMBOURG HONG KONG IRELAND AUSTRIA GERMANY BARBADOS JAPAN QATAR UNITED KINGDOM CHILE BELGIUM UNITED STATES URUGUAY FRANCE ESTONIA SLOVENIA CYPRUS UNITED ARAB EMIRATES ISRAEL SPAIN PORTUGAL BOTSWANA PUERTO RICO TAIWAN BHUTAN MALTA BRUNEI KOREA(SOUTH) MAURITIUS COSTA RICA OMAN POLAND DOMINICA CAPE VERDE LITHUANIA MACAU BAHRAIN SEYCHELLES HUNGARY JORDAN SAUDI ARABIA CZECH REPUBLIC KUWAIT SOUTH AFRICA MALAYSIA NAMIBIA TURKEY LATVIA SLOVAKIA TUNISIA CROATIA FYR MACEDONIA GHANA SAMOA RWANDA ITALY GEORGIA BRAZIL CUBA MONTENEGRO ROMANIA BULGARIA EL SALVADOR PANAMA TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO VANUATU CHINA COLOMBIA GREECE LESOTHO PERU SERBIA THAILAND MALAWI MOROCCO ALBANIA INDIA JAMAICA LIBERIA BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA DJIBOUTI GAMBIA GUATEMALA KIRIBATI SRI LANKA SWAZILAND BURKINA FASO EGYPT MEXICO DOMINICAN REPUBLIC SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE TONGA ZAMBIA ALGERIA ARGENTINA KAZAKHSTAN MOLDOVA SENEGAL BENIN BOLIVIA GABON INDONESIA KOSOVO SOLOMON ISLANDS ETHIOPIA GUYANA MALI MONGOLIA MOZAMBIQUE TANZANIA VIETNAM ARMENIA ERITREA MADAGASCAR NIGER BELARUS ECUADOR LEBANON NICARAGUA SYRIA TIMOR-LESTE UGANDA AZERBAIJAN BANGLADESH HONDURAS NIGERIA PHILIPPINES SIERRA LEONE TOGO UKRAINE ZIMBABWE MALDIVES MAURITANIA PAKISTAN CAMEROON CÔTE D IVOIRE HAITI IRAN LIBYA NEPAL PARAGUAY YEMEN CAMBODIA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC COMOROS CONGO-BRAZZAVILLE GUINEA-BISSAU KENYA LAOS PAPUA NEW GUINEA RUSSIA TAJIKISTAN DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO GUINEA KYRGYZSTAN VENEZUELA Very Clean Highly Corrupt 2010 CPI Score ANGOLA EQUATORIAL GUINEA BURUNDI CHAD SUDAN TURKMENISTAN UZBEKISTAN IRAQ AFGHANISTAN MYANMAR SOMALIA Countries appear in order of rank. Please see country listing on p. 2 for exact country scoring and ranking. 6 Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index

6 embargo until at 10:00 CET RESULTS BY REGION: AMERICAS ASIA PACIFIC COUNTRY / TERRITORY CPI 2010 SCORE 90% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL* SURVEYS USED 6 1 Canada Barbados Chile United States Uruguay Puerto Rico Costa Rica Dominica Brazil Cuba El Salvador Panama Trinidad and Tobago Colombia Peru Jamaica Guatemala Mexico Dominican Republic Argentina Bolivia Guyana Ecuador 5 23 Nicaragua 6 25 Honduras 6 26 Haiti Paraguay Venezuela *The confidence intervals reflect the precision of the CPI scores. They indicate the range within which the most accurate value of the CPI score is most likely to fall. The wider a confidence interval is, the less precise the score. 1 1 New Zealand Singapore Australia Hong Kong Japan Taiwan Bhutan Brunei Korea (South) Macau Malaysia Samoa Vanuatu China Thailand India Kiribati Sri Lanka Tonga Indonesia Solomon Islands Mongolia Vietnam Timor-Leste 5 25 Bangladesh Philippines Maldives Pakistan Nepal Cambodia Laos Papua New Guinea Afghanistan Myanmar Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index

7 Note: all materials under strict embargo until at 10:00 CET EASTERN EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA EUROPEAN UNION AND WESTERN EUROPE 56 1 Turkey Croatia FYR Macedonia Georgia Montenegro Serbia Albania Bosnia and Herzegovina Kazakhstan Moldova Kosovo Armenia Belarus Azerbaijan 7 14 Ukraine Russia Tajikistan Kyrgyzstan Turkmenistan Uzbekistan Denmark Finland Sweden Netherlands Switzerland Norway Iceland Luxembourg Ireland Austria Germany United Kingdom Belgium France Estonia Slovenia Cyprus Spain Portugal Malta Poland Lithuania Hungary Czech Republic Latvia Slovakia Italy Romania Bulgaria Greece Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index

8 Note: all materials under strict embargo until at 10:00 CET MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA 19 1 Qatar United Arab Emirates Israel Oman Bahrain Jordan Saudi Arabia Kuwait Tunisia Morocco Djibouti Egypt Algeria Lebanon Syria 5 16 Iran Libya Yemen Iraq Botswana Mauritius Cape Verde Seychelles South Africa Namibia Ghana Rwanda Lesotho Malawi Liberia Gambia Swaziland Burkina Faso Sao Tome and Principe Zambia Senegal Benin Gabon Ethiopia Mali 6 20 Mozambique Tanzania Eritrea Madagascar Niger Uganda Nigeria 7 28 Sierra Leone Togo Zimbabwe Mauritania Cameroon Côte d Ivoire Sub-Saharan Africa continued on next page. 12 Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index

9 Note: all materials under strict embargo until at 10:00 CET SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA CONTINUED ANNEX A: SHORT METHODOLOGICAL NOTE 35 Central African Republic Comoros Congo-Brazzaville Guinea-Bissau Kenya Democratic Republic of the Congo Guinea Angola Equatorial Guinea Burundi Chad Sudan Somalia The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) 2010 is an aggregate indicator that brings together data from sources that cover the past two years. For the 2010 CPI, this includes surveys published between January 2009 and September DATA SOURCES: The 2010 CPI is calculated using data from 13 sources by 10 independent institutions. All sources measure the overall extent of corruption (frequency and/or size of bribes) in the public and political sectors, and all sources provide a ranking of countries, i.e. include an assessment of multiple countries. Evaluation of the extent of corruption in countries/ territories is done by two groups: country experts, both residents and non-residents, and business leaders. In the 2010 CPI, the following seven sources provided data based on expert analysis: African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, Bertelsmann Foundation, Economist Intelligence Unit, Freedom House, Global Insight and the World Bank. Three sources for the CPI 2010 reflect the evaluations by resident business leaders of their own country, IMD, Political and Economic Risk Consultancy, and the World Economic Forum. For CPI sources that are surveys, and where multiple years of the same survey are available, data for the past two years is included. For sources that are scores provided by experts (risk agencies/country analysts), only the most recent iteration of the assessment is included, as these scores are generally peer reviewed and change very little from year to year. STEPS TO CALCULATE THE CPI: 1. The first step to calculate the CPI is to standardise the data provided by the individual sources (that is, translate them into a common scale). We use what is called a matching percentiles technique that takes the ranks of countries reported by each individual source. This method is useful for combining sources that have different distributions. While there is some information loss in this technique, it allows all reported scores to remain within the bounds of the CPI, i.e. to remain between 0 and The second step consists of performing what is called a beta-transformation on the standardised scores. This increases the standard deviation among all countries included in the CPI and makes it possible to differentiate more precisely countries that appear to have similar scores. 3. Finally, the CPI scores are determined by averaging all of the standardised values for each country. RESULTS: The CPI score and rank are accompanied by the number of sources, the highest and lowest values given to every country by the data sources, the standard deviation and the confidence range for each country. The confidence range is determined by what is called a bootstrap (non-parametric) methodology, which allows inferences to be drawn on the underlying precision of the results. A 90 per cent confidence range is then established, where there is only a five per cent probability that the value is below and a five per cent probability that the value is above this confidence range. For a more detailed explanation of the CPI method please visit 14 Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index

10 Note: all materials under strict embargo until at 10:00 CET ANNEX B: SOURCES OF INFORMATION NUMBER NUMBER ABBREVIATION ADB AFDB BTI ABBREVIATION CPIA EIU FH SOURCE Asian Development Bank African Development Bank Bertelsmann Foundation SOURCE World Bank (IDA and IBRD) Economist Intelligence Unit Freedom House NAME Country Performance Assessment Ratings Country Policy and Institutional Assessments Bertelsmann Transformation Index NAME Country Policy and Institutional Assessment Country Risk Service and Country Forecast Nations in Transit YEAR PUBLISHED YEAR PUBLISHED INTERNET WHO WAS SURVEYED? SUBJECT ASKED Reports/Country-Performance- Assessment-Exercise/default.asp Country teams, experts inside and outside the bank Transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector / D529957FAE040C00A 0C3D3A86 Country teams, experts inside and outside the bank Transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector Network of local correspondents and experts inside and outside the organisation The government s capacity to punish and contain corruption INTERNET WHO WAS SURVEYED? S2THWI1X60 Country teams, experts inside and outside the bank Expert staff assess ment index.php?option=com_ content&task=view&id=196 Assessment by experts originating from or resident in the respective country NUMBER OF REPLIES COVERAGE Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable 28 countries (eligible for ADF funding) 53 countries 128 less developed and transition countries SUBJECT ASKED Transparency, accountability, and corruption in the public sector The misuse of public office for private (or political party) gain: including corruption in public procurement, misuse of public funds, corruption in public service, and prosecution of public officials Extent of corruption as practiced in governments, as perceived by the public and as reported in the media, as well as the implementation of anti-corruption initiatives. NUMBER OF REPLIES Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable COVERAGE 77 countries (eligible for IDA funding) 135 countries 29 countries/territories 16 Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index

11 Note: all materials under strict embargo until at 10:00 CET NUMBER NUMBER ABBREVIATION GI IMD SOURCE Global Insight IMD International, Switzerland, World Competitiveness Center NAME Country Risk Ratings IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook YEAR PUBLISHED INTERNET ABBREVIATION WEF WEF SOURCE World Economic Forum NAME Global Competitiveness Report YEAR PUBLISHED INTERNET WHO WAS SURVEYED? Expert staff assessment Executives in top and middle management in domestic and international companies WHO WAS SURVEYED? Senior business leaders, domestic and international companies SUBJECT ASKED NUMBER OF REPLIES The likelihood of encountering corrupt officials, ranging from petty bureaucratic corruption to grand political corruption Not applicable 3,960 Category Institutional Framework - State Efficiency: Bribing and corruption exist/do not exist SUBJECT ASKED NUMBER OF REPLIES Undocumented extra payments or bribes connected with 1) exports and imports, 2) public utilities, 3) tax collection, 4) public contracts and 5) judicial decisions are common/never occur More than 12,000 More than 13,000 COVERAGE 133 countries 139 countries COVERAGE 201 countries 57 countries 58 countries NUMBER ABBREVIATION PERC SOURCE Political & Economic Risk Consultancy NAME Asian Intelligence Newsletter YEAR PUBLISHED INTERNET WHO WAS SURVEYED? SUBJECT ASKED NUMBER OF REPLIES Expatriate business executives How serious do you consider the problem of corruption to be in the public sector? 1,750 2,174 COVERAGE 16 countries 16 countries 18 Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index