Corruption in transition: reflections & implications from governance empirics Daniel Kaufmann, Brookings Institution Presentation at the opening plenary session on Measurement & Consequences of Corruption at the Economic Research Forum (ERF) 18 th Annual Conference, Cairo, Egypt, March 25 th, 2012
Issues in brief Corruption: not subject to measurement? Is it all-pervasive in emerging economies? The crucial determinant of under-development? Fighting corruption by fighting corruption? Democratic transitions lead to control of corruption? Does International Donor Assistance help democratic transitions & anti-corruption? Insidious form of political corruption: State Capture
A Taxonomy of Corruption Indicators: Who (reports data) & What Type? -- rules vs outcomes-based Whose Opinion? About What? Rules Outcomes Experts Lawyers Commercial Risk Rating Agencies Non-Governmental Organizations Broad Specific Broad Specific DB EIU, PRS, WMO, PRC GII FRH/CCR GII Governments & Multilaterals AfDB, ASD, CPIA IFD Academics Survey Respondents IPD Firms GCS, WCY, WBES, ES, BEEPS Individuals AFR, LBO, GWP, VAB WVS, GCB Aggregate Indicators Combining Respondents TI, WGI, IIAG
Measurement is possible: corruption and beyond, with caution Many measures of corruption exist today Different characteristics, virtues and challenges Advantages and Disadvantages of aggregating and constructing composites The WGI in brief
WGI: The Six Indicators of Governance Governance: Set of institutions by which authority in a country is exercised specifically: Political cluster: the process by which those in authority are selected and replaced 1. VOICE AND DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY 2. POLITICAL STABILITY & ABSENCE OF VIOLENCE/TERRORISM Economic cluster: the capacity of government to implement policies and provide public services 3. GOVERNMENT EFFECTIVENESS 4. REGULATORY QUALITY Institutional cluster, the respect for institutions governing interactions among citizens & the state 5. RULE OF LAW 6. CONTROL OF CORRUPTION 6
Main Features of the WGI Data on six dimensions of governance covering 213 countries over the period 1996-2010 Synthesis of hundreds of underlying indicators taken from over 30 different organizations & data sources Aggregate and individual indicators interactively available at www.govindicators.org, large database Unobserved Component Model (UCM): for aggregation Result of longstanding research project, featuring the Governance Matters series, plus new analytical report, by D. Kaufmann, A. Kraay & M. Mastruzzi: Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology & Analytical Issues Transparency & precision about imprecision: full disclosure of limitations of data: the WGI quantify this imprecision w/ margins of error (likely range of governance scores for each country) 7
Individual sources for constructing the WGI Cross-Country Surveys of Firms: Global Competitiveness Survey, World Competitiveness Yearbook, BEEPS Cross-Country Surveys of Individuals: Gallup World Poll, Global Corruption Barometer, Latinobarometro, Afrobarometer Expert Assessments from Commercial Risk Rating Agencies: Global Insight, Political Risk Services, Economist Intelligence Unit, IJET Travel, Asia Risk Consultancy Expert Assessments from NGOs, Think Tanks: Reporters Without Borders, Heritage Foundation, Freedom House, Bertelsmann Foundation, Amnesty International, IREEP, IREX, Global Integrity, Binghamton University, International Budget Project Expert Assessments from Governments, Multilaterals: World Bank CPIA, EBRD, AFDB, ADB, State Dept., IFAD 8
SOMALIA ZIMBABWE ANGOLA IRAQ LIBYA VENEZUELA RUSSIA SYRIA IRAN ECUADOR DOMINICAN REP. PARAGUAY INDONESIA CHINA EGYPT INDIA BOLIVIA ARGENTINA ALBANIA COLOMBIA MEXICO MOROCCO TUNISIA GREECE TURKEY BRAZIL SOUTH AFRICA SAUDI ARABIA S. KOREA ESTONIA BOTSWANA UAE USA UK CHILE QATAR DENMARK Control of Corruption in Select Countries, 2010 Good Corruption Control 2.5 1.5 0.5 Governance Level Margin of Error -0.5-1.5-2.5 Source: WGI: A Summary of Data, Methodology and Analytical Issues, by D. Kaufmann, A.Kraay and M. Mastruzzi, October 2011 www.govindicators.org; Dark red indicates countries in the bottom 10 th percenti8le rank; light red between 10 th and 25 th percentile rank; orange between 25 th and 50 th ; yellow between 50 th and 75 th ; light 9 green between 75 th and 90 th and Dark green between 90 th and 100 th percentile (exemplary governance)
Figure 3. Control of Corruption in the Arab world, 2010 Source: WGI: A Summary of Data, Methodology and Analytical Issues, by D. Kaufmann, A.Kraay and M. Mastruzzi, October 2011 www.govindicators.org 90 th -100 th percentile 75 th -90 th percentile 50 th -75 th percentile 25 h -50 th percentile 10 th -25 th percentile 0 th -10 th percentile 10
Does Governance & Corruption Matter?
The 300% Development Dividend From Improving Governance & Controlling Corruption $30,000 $3,000 $300 High Corruption Medium Corruption Low Corruption Data Source for calculations: KK 2004. Y-axis measures predicted GDP per capita on the basis of Instrumental Variable (IV) results for 12 each of the 3 categories. Estimations based on various authors studies, including Kaufmann and Kraay.
Global Competitiveness Index, 2011 Source: EOS firm survey, WEF Global Competitiveness Survey 2011 & ' Worldwide Governance Indicators, by D. Kaufmann, A.Kraay and M. Mastruzzi, October 2011 www.govindicators.org Control of Corruption and WEF GCR Competitiveness, 2010 High 100 r = 0.79 80 CHL 60 BRA CRI 40 SLV 20 DOM JAM Low 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 Low Control of Corruption, 2010 High
Corruption: fundamental driver, symptom, or proximate cause?
Voice and Accountability Source: WGI: A Summary of Data, Methodology and Analytical Issues, by D. Kaufmann, A.Kraay and M. Mastruzzi, October 2011 www.govindicators.org. 90 th -100 th percentile 75 th -90 th percentile 50 th -75 th percentile 25 h -50 th percentile 10 th -25 th percentile 0 th -10 th percentile 16
WGI Control of Corruption, 2010 Freedom of the Press associated w/ better Control of Corruption (& civil liberties more generally is associated with better performance of World Bank-funded projects see WBER article 1997) Good 1.0 0.5 0.0-0.5-1.0 Not Free Partly Free Free Source: WGI: A Summary of Data, Methodology and Analytical Issues, by D. Kaufmann, A.Kraay and M. Mastruzzi, October 2011 www.govindicators.org. & Freedom House, Press Freedom, 2011. Terciles according the Press Freedom criteria free press (rating of 30 18 or below), partly free (ratings between 30 and 60) and not free (rating above 60).
Effect of Media Freedom on Control of Corruption (when Low Rule of Law) 2.0 1.0 0.0-1.0-2.0 Low Press Freedom/Low Rule of Law High Press Freedom/Low Rule of Law Sources: Kaufmann D., A. Kraay, M. Mastruzzi (2010), The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology and Analytical Issues, September 2010; Freedom House, Freedom of the Press, 2005-2009 editions
2.0 Effect of Media Freedom and Rule of Law on Control of Corruption 1.0 0.0-1.0-2.0 Low Press Freedom/Low Rule of Law High Press Freedom/Low Rule of Law Low Press Freedom/Hight Rule of Law High Press Freedom/High Rule of Law Sources: Kaufmann D., A. Kraay, M. Mastruzzi (2010), The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology and Analytical Issues, September 2010; Freedom House, Freedom of the Press, 2005-2009 editions
Democratic Transitions, and Corruption
Net Democracy Scores Pre-Transition & during Initial Transition Average Polity Scores for 91 countries T-5 T-4 T-3 T-2 T-1 T 10 Transition Period 5 0-5 -10 Source: Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800-2010. In T-5 the sample consists of 92 countries.
T-5 T-4 Net Democracy Scores Pre-, During & Post-Transition Average Polity Scores for 77 countries T-3 T-2 T-1 T T+1 T+2 T+3 T+4 T+5 T+6 T+7 T+8 T+9 T+10 T+11 T+12 T+13 T+14 T+15 T+16 T+17 10 Transition Period 5 0-5 -10 Source: Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800-2010. In T-5 the sample consists of 92 countries.
Net Democracy Scores for Transitioning Countries, by Democratic Performance Groups (Polity) T-5 T-4 T-3 T-2 T-1 T T+1 T+2 T+3 T+4 T+5 T+6 T+7 T+8 T+9 T+10 T+11 T+12 T+13 T+14 T+15 T+16 T+17 10 5 Transition Period T T+7 Improving/ Performing (44) 0 T+15 Stagnating (31) -5 Deteriorating (17) -10 Source: Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800-2010. There are 44 countries in the improving/performing category; 31 in the stagnating category and 17 in the deteriorating category
Institutional Performance: Select Countries from Improving/Performing Group, 1985-2010 10 5 Chile Slovenia Liberia 0-5 -10 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Source: Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800-2010.
Institutional Performance: Select Countries from Stagnating Group, 1985-2010 10 5 Russia Ethiopia 0 Tanzania Togo -5-10 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Source: Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800-2010.
10 Institutional Performance: Select Countries from Deteriorating Group, 1985-2010 5 0-5 Venezuela Congo (Brzz) Iran -10 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Source: Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800-2010.
How Well Do the Democratizing Transition do in Rule of Law & Control of Corruption (WGI 2010, by Polity Performance Category) 100 80 Rule of Law Control of Corruption 60 40 20 0 Polity Group:: Deteriorating Stagnating Improving/Performing Sources: Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800-2010; WGI: A Summary of Data, Methodology and Analytical Issues, by D. Kaufmann, A.Kraay and M. Mastruzzi, October 2011 www.govindicators.org
Probability of (Relatively) Successful Control of Corruption performance in 2010, by Polity-Democratic Performance Category 100% Control of Corruption 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Deteriorating Stagnating Improving/Performing Sources: Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800-2010; WGI: A Summary of Data, Methodology and Analytical Issues, by D. Kaufmann, A.Kraay and M. Mastruzzi, October 2011 www.govindicators.org
The International Community, Aid Effectiveness, and Transition
Voice & Accountability in the Arab World, 2010 LEBANON KUWAIT MOROCCO JORDAN UAE QATAR ALGERIA OMAN DJIBOUTI EGYPT YEMEN TUNISIA IRAN SAUDI ARABIA SYRIA LIBYA 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Source: WGI: A Summary of Data, Methodology and Analytical Issues, by D. Kaufmann, A.Kraay and M. Mastruzzi, October 2011 www.govindicators.org 90 th -100 th percentile 75 th -90 th percentile 50 th -75 th percentile 25 h -50 th percentile 10 th -25 th percentile 0 th -10 th percentile 32
Voice & Accountability in Arab World: 2000 (bottom bar) & 2010 (top bar) LEBANON KUWAIT MOROCCO JORDAN UAE QATAR ALGERIA OMAN DJIBOUTI EGYPT YEMEN TUNISIA IRAN SAUDI ARABIA SYRIA LIBYA 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Source: WGI: A Summary of Data, Methodology and Analytical Issues, by D. Kaufmann, A.Kraay and M. Mastruzzi, October 2011 www.govindicators.org 90 th -100 th percentile 75 th -90 th percentile 50 th -75 th percentile 25 h -50 th percentile 10 th -25 th percentile 0 th -10 th percentile 33
Net ODA (Billions USD) WGI VA (Percentile Rank) Figure 1. Evolution of Development Assistance versus Voice and Democratic Accountability in the Arab region, 2000-2010 10 Arab World ODA (excl. Iraq) Arab World V&A 100 8 80 6 60 4 40 2 20 0 2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 0 Note: WGI = Worldwide Governance Indicators; V&A: Voice and (democratic) Accountability; ODA = official development assistance. Iraq is excluded, representing a special case. Sources: D. Kaufmann, A. Kray and M. Mastruzzi, The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology and Analytical Issues, 2011, at www.govindicators.org; Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Development Assistance Committee Database.
Share of Aid to Recipients, By Recipient Category (1960-2010) 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% Fully Democratic Aid Stagnating- Democratic Aid Non- Democratic Aid 0% Source: Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800-2010; OECD, DAC, 2012 35
t-5 t-4 t-3 t-2 t-1 t t+1 t+2 t+3 t+4 t+5 t+6 t+7 t+8 t+9 t+10 t+11 t+12 t+13 t+14 t+15 t+16 t+17 t+18 Aid per Capita (USD) Aid per Capita To Transitioning Countries, by Performance Group (3-Year Moving Averages) 30 25 20 15 10 Deteriorating Stagnating Improving/ Progressing No Transition (All Years) 5 0 No Transition (2010) Source: Polity IV Project: Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800-2010; OECD, DAC, 2012 36
State Capture & Legal Corruption: A Worldwide Challenge
% Firms report 'corruption' 80 Bribery vs. Legal Corruption (& soft Capture), 2004 % Firms report corruption Nordic Countries 60 G-7 40 20 East Asia 'Tigers' (NICs) United States 0 Corporate Bribery Corporate "Legal Corruption" Source: Author s calculations based on EOS 2004.
% Firms report 'corruption' 80 Bribery vs. Legal Corruption (& soft Capture), 2004 % Firms report corruption Nordic Countries 60 G-7 40 20 East Asia 'Tigers' (NICs) United States 0 Corporate Bribery Corporate "Legal Corruption" Source: Author s calculations based on EOS 2004.
Six Implications - as contributions to debate 1. Governance can be measured: triangulation; transparency about imprecision, & interpretative caution 2. Governance and Corruption Matters 3. Aid strategies ought to support democratic governance 4. Transitions can succeed or fail, and controlling corruption is key, and difficult 5. But one does not fight corruption by fighting corruption : voice & democratic accountability, gender rights, transparency, rule of law, procurement systems, etc. 6. State Capture as a form of high level corruption & misgovernance 40