Sunday, 29 May 2011

Perception of Corruption

During a recent dataset trawling expedition for a statistics project, I came across the aggregate indictor of corruption- the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI). Transparency International (TI) defines corruption as ‘the abuse of entrusted power for private gain, whether it be in public or private sector’. The 2010 CPI measures the public sector corruption perceived to exist in 178 nation states, scoring countries on a scale of 0 (highly corrupt) to 10 (very sale), using sources such as Asian Development Bank, World Bank, Economist Intelligence Unit, Freedom House, Global Insight, IMD, and World Economic Forum. Only 26.40% of the countries ranked have an index score above 5; 62.93% have an index score below 4. The top 10 ranked countries are Denmark, New Zealand, Singapore, Finland, Sweden, Canada, Netherlands, Australia, Switzerland, and Norway. UK is ranked 20 (ranked 10th out of 30 EU countries), India is at 87 (also ranked 16th out of 33 Asia-Pacific countries), whilst Brazil is 69. The bottom-dwellers are Angola, Equatorial Guinea, Burundi, Chad, Sudan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Myanmar, and Somalia. The perceived corruption of 9 countries improved (i.e. corruption was perceived to have decreased) from 2009 to 2010, which includes Bhutan, Haiti, and Qatar. Interestingly, those which deteriorated include Greece, Hungary, Italy, and the United States. Corruption casts its shade on environmental matters as well, especially in public sector. Corrupt governmental officials might deliberate throw up complex bureaucratic bottlenecks unless appeased with green notes. In the case of illegal land encroachments, one often finds that high powers-that-be happily play along with this, for the simple reason that there is a new swimming pool in their backyard. It is not uncommon to see reroutement of funds too. Whether the CPI is a fool-proof indicator remains debatable since the countries are ranked according to the perception of corruption; such qualitative methodologies (conducted via questionnaires on the public seeking their perception of an activity which usually happens under wraps) can suffer from many biases. For instance, the perceived definition of ‘corruption’ would vary in each country (and possibly, each different parts of the country); what might seem corrupt in one country, might be acceptable elsewhere! Comparing CPI indexes of the past (available since 1995) is of no benefit in identifying perceived change in the perceptions of corruption, since it is probable that the data over the years may not be comparable, given the wide range of changes (and/or errors) in sampling, methodology, measuring, and sources (as is in the case of CPI). What it does provide is a rough overview of how matters are perceived as: the reality might be less melodramatic... or harsher.


David said...

Fascinating, especially the concept of perception of corruption. It would be interesting to compare to an objective measure, if one could ever be devised.

Anonymous said...

Is there one? I must put on my thinking cap.

Although it would be too big brotherly, one could scrutinise the bank accounts of the officials to look for unexplainable incoming capital? Having said that, cash could be credited in favour of one of their family members and 'gifts' are hard to track.


By using this blog, you signify your agreement to this disclaimer. Do not use this website if you do not agree to this disclaimer.

This blog is published by Sarah Stephen and Ruth Stephen, and reflects the personal views of the contributors, in their individual capacities as a concerned citizen of this planet. The term 'Ecoratorio', as well as every graphic, opinion, comment, and statement expressed in this blog are the exclusive property of the blog publishers and contributors (© 2009 - present), unless explicitly stated otherwise, and should not be disseminated without the written consent of the author(s). The views expressed in this blog are not necessarily representative of the views of any school, college, University, company, organisation, city, town, state, country, or church where the author(s) have studied, worked, worshipped, or lived, and is not sponsored or endorsed by them.

This blog and its contents does not receive any sponsorship, financial or otherwise, neither is it aimed at generating any money.

The matter on this blog has been prepared for informational purposes only, and the reader(s) should not solely rely upon this information for any purpose nor should he/she assume that this information applies to his/her specific situation. Furthermore, the matter on this blog may or may not reflect the current and future trends/developments, may or may not be general or specific, accordingly, information on this blog is not promised, or guaranteed, to be correct or complete. The publishers and author(s) explicitly disclaims all liability in respect to actions taken, or not taken, based on any, or all, the contents of this blog. Thus, the reader(s) is/are reading the posts and arriving at conclusions about the information, or about the author(s), or otherwise, at his/her own risk.

This blog may contain weblinks, which are provided solely for the reader(s) convenience. Such weblinks to another blog or website does not imply any relationship, affiliation, endorsement, responsibility, or approval of the linked resources or their contents (over which we have no control). Accessing these links will be at the reader(s)’s own risk.

The publishers and author(s) are not responsible for translation and interpretation of content. Occasionally, the blog might contain subjects which may be considered offensive from certain individuals’ points-of-view, and the author(s) refuses to accept any liability for any psychological, physical, and emotional reactions, short-term or long-term, which the posts might generate in the reader(s). However, each post in this blog is the individual opinion of the author(s) and is not intended to malign any city/town/village, state, country, continent, faith, religion, practice, ethnic group, club, organisation, company, or individual. Neither are the publishers and author(s) responsible for any statements bound to government, religious, or other laws from the reader(s)’s country of origin.

The publishers and author(s) reserves the right to update, edit, delete or otherwise remove, the posts or any comments, the latter of which might be deemed offensive or spam. The publishers and author(s) cannot warrant that the use of this blog will be uninterrupted or error-free, or that defects on this site will be corrected. The publishers and author(s) also reserves the right to publish in print media, in whole or part, any of the posts which might be an edited version. If the reader(s) has a problem with any post, the publishers and author(s) expects them to contact them, explaining the reasons for their discomfort. However, if the reader(s) choose to communicate with the publishers and author(s) by email, the reader(s) must note that since the security of unencrypted email is uncertain, sending sensitive or confidential emails holds the risks of such uncertainty and possible lack of confidentiality.

The publishers and author(s) reserve the right to change this Disclaimer, from time to time, in their sole and absolute discretion. If the reader(s) using this website after the institution of such changes, he/she is signifying their agreement to these changes. The publishers and author(s) also reserve the right to discontinue any aspect of this website at any time.