Corruption Perceptions Index Since the turn of the new millennium, Transparency
International has published the Corruption Perceptions Index annually ranking countries
"by their perceived levels of corruption, as determined by expert assessments and opinion
surveys."
The CPI generally defines corruption as "the misuse of public power for private benefit."
The CPI currently ranks 176 countries "on a scale from 100 (very clean) to 0 (highly
corrupt)."
Transparency International also publishes the Global Corruption Barometer, which ranks
countries by corruption levels using direct surveys instead of perceived expert opinions,
which has been under criticism for substantial bias from the powerful elite.
Methods Transparency International commissioned Johann
Graf Lambsdorff of the University of Passau to produce the Corruption Perceptions Index
(CPI).
The 2012 CPI draws on 13 different surveys and assessments from 12 different institutions.
The institutions are the African Development Bank, the Bertelsmann Foundation, the Economist
Intelligence Unit, Freedom House, Global Insight, International Institute for Management Development,
Political and Economic Risk Consultancy, Political Risk Services, the World Economic Forum, the
World Bank and the World Justice Project.
Countries must be assessed by at least three sources to appear in the CPI.
The 13 surveys/assessments are either business people opinion surveys or performance assessments
from a group of analysts.
Early CPIs used public opinion surveys.
The CPI measures perception of corruption due to the difficulty of measuring absolute
levels of corruption.
Validity A study published in 2002 found a "very strong
significant correlation" between the Corruption Perceptions Index and two other proxies for
corruption: Black Market activity and overabundance of regulation.
All three metrics also had a highly significant correlation with real gross domestic product
per capita (RGDP/Cap).
The Corruption Perceptions Index correlation with RGDP/Cap was the strongest.
Reports 2013
The 20 top countries that were ranked as having the lowest perceived levels of corruption
were: The 20 bottom countries that were ranked as
having the highest perceived levels of corruption were:
2012 The 20 top countries that were ranked as having
the lowest perceived levels of corruption were:
The 20 bottom countries that were ranked as having the highest perceived levels of corruption
were: 2011
The 20 top countries that were ranked as having the lowest perceived levels of corruption
were: The 20 bottom countries that were ranked as
having the highest perceived levels of corruption were:
2010 The 20 top countries that were ranked as having
the lowest perceived levels of corruption were:
The 20 bottom countries that were ranked as having the highest perceived levels of corruption
were: Economic implications
Research papers published in 2007 and 2008 examined the economic consequences of corruption
perception, as defined by the CPI.
The researchers found a correlation between a higher CPI and higher long-term economic
growth, as well as an increase in GDP growth of 1.7% for every unit increase in a country's
CPI score.
Also shown was a power-law dependence linking higher CPI score to higher rates of foreign
investment in a country.
Criticism Because corruption is willfully hidden, it
is impossible to measure directly; instead, proxies for corruption are used.
Media outlets frequently use the raw numbers as a yardstick for government performance,
without clarifying what the numbers mean.
The local Transparency International chapter in Bangladesh disowned the index results after
a change in methodology caused the country's scores to increase; media reported it as an
"improvement".
In a 2013 article in Foreign Policy, Alex Cobham suggested that CPI should be dropped
for the good of Transparency International.
It argues that the CPI embeds a powerful and misleading elite bias in popular perceptions
of corruption, potentially contributing to a vicious cycle and at the same time incentivizing
inappropriate policy responses.
Cobham resumes: "the index corrupts perceptions to the extent that it's hard to see a justification
for its continuing publication."
In the United States, many lawyers advise international businesses to consult the CPI
when attempting to measure the risk of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations in different
nations.
This practice has been criticized by the Minnesota Journal of International Law, which wrote
that since the CPI may be subject to perceptual biases it therefore should not be considered
by lawyers to be a measure of actual national corruption risk.