Home   About Us   Contact Us
MENU
News
Ethics & Employees
Corporate Governance
Corporate Social Responsibility
Public Sector Governance
Links and Meetings
 
 

Public Sector Governance

Transparency International's
Corruption Perception Index 2005

On this page

* * *

Transparency International released its Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), October 18, 2005, with:

Top 4 Ranked Countries (total of 159 countries in Index):

1. Iceland (9.7 score out of a perfect 10.0)

2. Finland (9.6)

3. New Zealand (9.6)

4. Denmark (9.5)

Lowest 4 Ranked Countries:

155. Myanmar (1.8) & Turkmenistan (1.8)

158. Bangladesh (1.7) & Chad (1.7).

Perceptions: this is an index of perceptions, based on multiple surveys of opinion. Perceptions matter, but they are not an exact scientific tool.

 

Caution - there is not sufficient data available for all of the more than 200 sovereign countries in the world and thus the CPI only embraces 159 countries (a record total - the largest CPI ever published). It is quite probable that a number of those not included are perceived to be just as corrupt as those at the foot of the TI list, if not more so. Given this fact it is inaccurate to assert that the country at the bottom of the TI list is the most corrupt country in the world, as is often suggested in the media. Nevertheless, given the very low score of the last country -- and indeed for dozens in the latter part of the list - there can be no doubt that corruption runs rampant in many parts of the world.

TI 2005 Corruption Perceptions Index
Country rank
Country
2005 CPI score*
Confidence range**
Surveys used***
1
Iceland
9.7
9.5 - 9.7
8
2
Finland
9.6
9.5 - 9.7
9
New Zealand
9.6
9.5 - 9.7
9
4
Denmark
9.5
9.3 - 9.6
10
5
Singapore
9.4
9.3 - 9.5
12
6
Sweden
9.2
9.0 - 9.3
10
7
Switzerland
9.1
8.9 - 9.2
9
8
Norway
8.9
8.5 - 9.1
9
9
Australia
8.8
8.4 - 9.1
13
10
Austria
8.7
8.4 - 9.0
9
11
Netherlands
8.6
8.3 - 8.9
9
United Kingdom
8.6
8.3 - 8.8
11
13
Luxembourg
8.5
8.1 - 8.9
8
14
Canada
8.4
7.9 - 8.8
11
15
Hong Kong
8.3
7.7 - 8.7
12
16
Germany
8.2
7.9 - 8.5
10
17
USA
7.6
7.0 - 8.0
12
18
France
7.5
7.0 - 7.8
11
19
Belgium
7.4
6.9 - 7.9
9
Ireland
7.4
6.9 - 7.9
10
21
Chile
7.3
6.8 - 7.7
10
Japan
7.3
6.7 - 7.8
14
23
Spain
7.0
6.6 - 7.4
10
24
Barbados
6.9
5.7 - 7.3
3
25
Malta
6.6
5.4 - 7.7
5
26
Portugal
6.5
5.9 - 7.1
9
27
Estonia
6.4
6.0 - 7.0
11
28
Israel
6.3
5.7 - 6.9
10
Oman
6.3
5.2 - 7.3
5
30
United Arab Emirates
6.2
5.3 - 7.1
6
31
Slovenia
6.1
5.7 - 6.8
11
32
Botswana
5.9
5.1 - 6.7
8
Qatar
5.9
5.6 - 6.4
5
Taiwan
5.9
5.4 - 6.3
14
Uruguay
5.9
5.6 - 6.4
6
36
Bahrain
5.8
5.3 - 6.3
6
37
Cyprus
5.7
5.3 - 6.0
5
Jordan
5.7
5.1 - 6.1
10
39
Malaysia
5.1
4.6 - 5.6
14
40
Hungary
5.0
4.7 - 5.2
11
Italy
5.0
4.6 - 5.4
9
South Korea
5.0
4.6 - 5.3
12
43
Tunisia
4.9
4.4 - 5.6
7
44
Lithuania
4.8
4.5 - 5.1
8
45
Kuwait
4.7
4.0 - 5.2
6
46
South Africa
4.5
4.2 - 4.8
11
47
Czech Republic
4.3
3.7 - 5.1
10
Greece
4.3
3.9 - 4.7
9
Namibia
4.3
3.8 - 4.9
8
Slovakia
4.3
3.8 - 4.8
10
51
Costa Rica
4.2
3.7 - 4.7
7
El Salvador
4.2
3.5 - 4.8
6
Latvia
4.2
3.8 - 4.6
7
Mauritius
4.2
3.4 - 5.0
6
55
Bulgaria
4.0
3.4 - 4.6
8
Colombia
4.0
3.6 - 4.4
9
Fiji
4.0
3.4 - 4.6
3
Seychelles
4.0
3.5 - 4.2
3
59
Cuba
3.8
2.3 - 4.7
4
Thailand
3,8
3.5 - 4.1
13
Trinidad and Tobago
3,8
3.3 - 4.5
6
62
Belize
3.7
3.4 - 4.1
3
Brazil
3,7
3.5 - 3.9
10
64
Jamaica
3.6
3.4 - 3.8
6
65
Ghana
3.5
3.2 - 4.0
8
Mexico
3.5
3.3 - 3.7
10
Panama
3.5
3.1 - 4.1
7
Peru
3.5
3.1 - 3.8
7
Turkey
3.5
3.1 - 4.0
11
70
Burkina Faso
3.4
2.7 - 3.9
3
Croatia
3.4
3.2 - 3.7
7
Egypt
3.4
3.0 - 3.9
9
Lesotho
3.4
2.6 - 3.9
3
Poland
3.4
3.0 - 3.9
11
Saudi Arabia
3.4
2.7 - 4.1
5
Syria
3.4
2.8 - 4.2
5
77
Laos
3.3
2.1 - 4.4
3
82
China
3.2
2.9 - 3.5
14
Marocco
3.2
2.8 - 3.6
8
Senegal
3.2
2.8 - 3.6
6
Sri Lanka
3.2
2.7 - 3.6
7
Suriname
3.2
2.2 - 3.6
3
83
Lebanon
3.1
2.7 - 3.3
4
Rwanda
3.1
2.1 - 4.1
3
85
Dominican Republic
3.0
2.5 - 3.6
6
Mongolia
3.0
2.4 - 3.6
4
Romania
3.0
2.6 - 3.5
11
88
Armenia
2.9
2.5 - 3.2
4
Benin
2.9
2.1 - 4.0
5
Bosnia and Herzegovina
2.9
2.7 - 3.1
6
Gabon
2.9
2.1 - 3.6
4
India
2.9
2.7 - 3.1
14
Iran
2.9
2.3 - 3.3
5
Mali
2.9
2.3 - 3.6
8
Moldova
2.9
2.3 - 3.7
5
Tanzania
2.9
2.6 - 3.1
8
97
Algeria
2.8
2.5 - 3.3
7
Argentina
2.8
2.5 - 3.1
10
Madagascar
2.8
1.9 - 3.7
5
Malawi
2.8
2.3 - 3.4
7
Mozambique
2.8
2.4 - 3.1
8
Serbia and Montenegro
2.8
2.5 - 3.3
7
103
Gambia
2.7
2.3 - 3.1
7
Macedonia
2.7
2.4 - 3.2
7
Swaziland
2.7
2.0 - 3.1
3
Yemen
2.7
2.4 - 3.2
5
107
Belarus
2.6
1.9 - 3.8
5
Eritrea
2.6
1.7 - 3.5
3
Honduras
2.6
2.2 - 3.0
7
Kazakhstan
2.6
2.2 - 3.2
6
Nicaragua
2.6
2.4 - 2.8
7
Palestine
2.6
2.1 - 2.8
3
Ukraine
2.6
2.4 - 2.8
8
Vietnam
2.6
2.3 - 2.9
10
Zambia
2.6
2.3 - 2.9
7
Zimbabwe
2.6
2.1 - 3.0
7
117
Afghanistan
2.5
1.6 - 3.2
3
Bolivia
2.5
2.3 - 2.9
6
Ecuador
2.5
2.2 - 2.9
6
Guatemala
2.5
2.1 - 2.8
7
Guyana
2.5
2.0 - 2.7
3
Libya
2.5
2.0 - 3.0
4
Nepal
2.5
1.9 - 3.0
4
Philippines
2.5
2.3 - 2.8
13
Uganda
2.5
2.2 - 2.8
8
126
Albania
2.4
2.1 - 2.7
3
Niger
2.4
2.2 - 2.6
4
Russia
2.4
2.3 - 2.6
12
Sierra Leone
2.4
2.1 - 2.7
3
130
Burundi
2.3
2.1 - 2.5
3
Cambodia
2.3
1.9 - 2.5
4
Congo, Republic of
2.3
2.1 - 2.6
4
Georgia
2.3
2.0 - 2.6
6
Kyrgyzstan
2.3
2.1 - 2.5
5
Papua New Guinea
2.3
1.9 - 2.6
4
Venezuela
2.3
2.2 -2.4
10
137
Azerbaijan
2.2
1.9 - 2.5
6
Cameroon
2.2
2.0 - 2.5
6
Ethiopia
2.2
2.0 - 2.5
8
Indonesia
2.2
2.1 - 2.5
13
Iraq
2.2
1.5 - 2.9
4
Liberia
2.2
2.1 - 2.3
3
Uzbekistan
2.2
2.1 - 2.4
5
144
Congo, Democratic Republic
2.1
1.8 - 2.3
4
Kenya
2.1
1.8 - 2.4
8
Pakistan
2.1
1.7 - 2.6
7
Paraguay
2.1
1.9 - 2.3
7
Somalia
2.1
1.6 - 2.2
3
Sudan
2.1
1.9 - 2.2
5
Tajikistan
2.1
1.9 - 2.4
5
151
Angola
2.0
1.8 - 2.1
5
152
Cote d'Ivoire
1.9
1.7 - 2.1
4
Equatorial Guinea
1.9
1.6 - 2.1
3
Nigeria
1.9
1.7 - 2.0
9
155
Haiti
1.8
1.5 - 2.1
4
Myanmar
1.8
1.7 - 2.0
4
Turkmenistan
1.8
1.7 - 2.0
4
158
Bangladesh
1.7
1.4 - 2.0
7
Chad
1.7
1.3 - 2.1
6


Explanatory notes
* CPI Score relates to perceptions of the degree of corruption as seen by business people and country analysts and ranges between 10 (highly clean) and 0 (highly corrupt).
** Confidence range provides a range of possible values of the CPI score. This reflects how a country's score may vary, depending on measurement precision. Nominally, with 5 percent probability the score is above this range and with another 5 percent it is below. However, particularly when only few sources (n) are available an unbiased estimate of the mean coverage probability is lower than the nominal value of 90%.
*** Surveys used refers to the number of surveys that assessed a country's performance. 18 surveys and expert assessments were used and at least 3 were required for a country to be included in the CPI.

Back to Top

The Context of the CPI

The first TI CPI was published in 1995 and immediately created enormous interest around the world. In the following years it became front page news in scores of countries, the subject of intense political debate, the topic of controversy among researchers who questioned the methodology, and a central issue of discussion among anti-corruption experts. TI responded with clarity and diverse constructive approaches. It established a working group of experts to review the methodology, which led to improvements and to a significant expansion of the explanatory notes published by TI. Public officials who questioned the TI CPI found themselves engaged in serious discussions with TI officials that often led to meaningful awareness raising. The media increasingly found TI a valuable source of anti-corruption information and regularly turned to the CPI when reporting on countries.

Lambsdorff & Eigen: Credit for the CPI, at the start and ever since, is due to Dr. Johann Graf Lambsdorff, professor of economic theory at the University of Passau, Germany. He suggested the CPI to TI, developed the first index and has been the leading academic force in TI in the evolution of the CPI. Credit is also due to TI chairman Peter Eigen, who has presented the CPI and discussed it publicly across the world, often facing deep criticism of the index. For some critics the CPI is seen as sensational and they object strongly to the numeroical ranking of countries, especially given that the point score differences between one ranking and another can be very small and the standard deviations in some cases can be substantial. But the CPI's strength rests in part in the numeroical ranking, which captures the public and the media imagination far more than the presentation of grouopings of countries in general ranges of perceived corruption.

Back to Top

Why is the CPI Important?

An exclusive article for Ethicsworld by CPI creator Professor Dr. Johann Graf Lambsdorff

The new CPI index is out today: and judging from history, there will soon be a wave of international
anti-corruption he new CPI index is out today: and judging from history, there will soon be a wave of international anti-corruption investigations and new research based on its work.  

In the past ten years the CPI has been used in over ninety academic and technical studies. The unequivocal message from these investigations: corruption is disastrous to societies.  The very people who deserve our help are the most victimized: the honest, the poor and the powerless. The honest are
deprived because they do not participate in the shady deals; the poor are worse off because they cannot
afford the costly bribes; the powerless are victimized because they cannot escape the extortionate demands of a greedy environment. 

The CPI has become an important tool in fighting corruption.  It has placed the fight against corruption
firmly on the public agenda.  It has helped spark major legislative reform.  And it has helped change
the popular perception that corruption was always"someone else's problem": Firms point to politicians
as causing corruption; politicians mention unscrupulous private interests as being at the core of
the problem; rich countries delegate responsibility to corrupt leaders of less developed countries; for poor countries the problem rests with bribe-willing multinationals. By putting countries in an integrity-
league the CPI provides a simple sports-like logic.

Whatever one may think about other countries in the league, one's home country is placed in a sequence of countries rather than being on top by force of xenophobic prejudice. 

International investors also dislike countries perceived to be corrupt, fearing arbitrary decision
making and a poor protection of their property. Countries with a higher score in the CPI, to the
contrary, suffer less from capital flight and are preferred as safe havens. According to recent
research, if a country were to improve its score in the CPI by 1 point (out of 10), foreign direct investment would increase by 15 percent. 

Here is the bad news:  the following countries, some of them very high-income, have deteriorated in the
CPI since 1995. A reduction in the score (in descending order of significance) was observed in
Poland, Argentina, Philippines, Zimbabwe, Canada, Indonesia, Ireland, Malaysia, Israel, Slovenia, Czech Republic, United Kingdom and Venezuela. 

Prosperity is no guarantee against corruption. This is best seen in the oil-rich countries, scoring poorly in the CPI. For example, this year, for the first time, Equatorial Guinea enters the index. Its recent boom
in oil extraction contrasts to its 152 position in the CPI, one of the lowest this year. This underpins that
high income from natural resources produces ample opportunities for corruption, rather than helping
development. 

But there is hope. Corruption is not a fate. It prospers where business, society and politics turn a blind eye to its damaging effects. 

Here is the good news; countries can improve their ranking in the CPI. They can "compete for integrity". 
The South Korea government had announced its goal to belong to the top-ten countries in the CPI.  They improved their ranking from 47 in 2004 to 40 this year. This is one of the starkest improvements - and evidence that the right type of competition has been initiated by the CPI. 

There are other signs of positive change, recent research at the University of Passau indicates
significant improvements between 1995 and 2005 occurred (in descending order of significance) in
Estonia, Italy, Spain, Colombia, Finland, Bulgaria, Hong Kong, Australia, Taiwan, Iceland, Austria,
Mexico, New Zealand and Germany.  These are the places to look at when seeking good
precedent. Given the international attention and support given to anti-corruption programs, the
prospects of a sustainable reduction of corruption are higher than ever. Some poorer countries in the CPI are already indicative that poverty need no longer place a country in a downward spiral. Countries such as Chile, Barbados, Uruguay, Jordan and Botswana score rather well in this year's index. They are also prime candidates for improved economic and social development 

In a recent study two authors, Lee and Ng, show that firms from countries scoring badly in the CPI are
valued lower by international investors. If a country improves by 1 point in the CPI, the valuation of
stocks of its domestic firms increases by roughly 10 percent. This illustrates that fighting corruption is not only a moral obligation - it is increasingly part of good business. 

Back to Top

==================================

TI 2004 Corruption Perceptions Index

Country Rank

Country

2004 CPI Score*

Confidence Range**

Surveys Used***

1

Finland

9,7

9.5 - 9.8

9

2

New Zealand

9,6

9.4 - 9.6

9

3

Denmark

9,5

9.3 - 9.7

10

Iceland

9,5

9.4 - 9.7

8

5

Singapore

9,3

9.2 - 9.4

13

6

Sweden

9,2

9.1 - 9.3

11

7

Switzerland

9,1

8.9 - 9.2

10

8

Norway

8,9

8.6 - 9.1

9

9

Australia

8,8

8.4 - 9.1

15

10

Netherlands

8,7

8.5 - 8.9

10

11

United Kingdom

8,6

8.4 - 8.8

12

12

Canada

8,5

8.1 - 8.9

12

13

Austria

8,4

8.1 - 8.8

10

Luxembourg

8,4

8.0 - 8.9

7

15

Germany

8,2

8.0 - 8.5

11

16

Hong Kong

8,0

7.1 - 8.5

13

17

Belgium

7,5

7.1 - 8.0

10

Ireland

7,5

7.2 - 7.9

10

USA

7,5

6.9 - 8.0

14

20

Chile

7,4

7.0 - 7.8

11

21

Barbados

7,3

6.6 - 7.6

3

22

France

7,1

6.6 - 7.6

12

Spain

7,1

6.7 - 7.4

11

24

Japan

6,9

6.2 - 7.4

15

25

Malta

6,8

5.3 - 8.2

4

26

Israel

6,4

5.6 - 7.1

10

27

Portugal

6,3

5.8 - 6.8

9

28

Uruguay

6,2

5.9 - 6.7

6

29

Oman

6,1

5.1 - 6.8

5

United Arab Emirates

6,1

5.1 - 7.1

5

31

Botswana

6,0

5.3 - 6.8

7

Estonia

6,0

5.6 - 6.7

12

Slovenia

6,0

5.6 - 6.6

12

34

Bahrain

5,8

5.5 - 6.2

5

35

Taiwan

5,6

5.2 - 6.1

15

36

Cyprus

5,4

5.0 - 5.8

4

37

Jordan

5,3

4.6 - 5.9

9

38

Qatar

5,2

4.6 - 5.6

4

39

Malaysia

5,0

4.5 - 5.6

15

Tunisia

5,0

4.5 - 5.6

7

41

Costa Rica

4,9

4.2 - 5.8

8

42

Hungary

4,8

4.6 - 5.0

12

Italy

4,8

4.4 - 5.1

10

44

Kuwait

4,6

3.8 - 5.3

5

Lithuania

4,6

4.0 - 5.4

9

South Africa

4,6

4.2 - 5.0

11

47

South Korea

4,5

4.0 - 4.9

14

48

Seychelles

4,4

3.7 - 5.0

3

49

Greece

4,3

4.0 - 4.8

9

Suriname

4,3

2.1 - 5.8

3

51

Czech Republic

4,2

3.7 - 4.9

11

El Salvador

4,2

3.3 - 5.1

7

Trinidad and Tobago

4,2

3.6 - 5.2

6

54

Bulgaria

4,1

3.7 - 4.6

10

Mauritius

4,1

3.2 - 4.8

5

Namibia

4,1

3.5 - 4.6

7

57

Latvia

4,0

3.8 - 4.3

8

Slovakia

4,0

3.6 - 4.5

11

59

Brazil

3,9

3.7 - 4.1

11

60

Belize

3,8

3.4 - 4.1

3

Colombia

3,8

3.4 - 4.1

10

62

Cuba

3,7

2.2 - 4.7

4

Panama

3,7

3.4 - 4.2

7

64

Ghana

3,6

3.1 - 4.1

7

Mexico

3,6

3.3 - 3.8

11

Thailand

3,6

3.3 - 3.9

14

67

Croatia

3,5

3.3 - 3.8

9

Peru

3,5

3.3 - 3.7

8

Poland

3,5

3.1 - 3.9

13

Sri Lanka

3,5

3.1 - 3.9

8

71

China

3,4

3.0 - 3.8

16

Saudi Arabia

3,4

2.7 - 4.0

5

Syria

3,4

2.8 - 4.1

5

74

Belarus

3,3

1.9 - 4.8

5

Gabon

3,3

2.1 - 3.7

3

Jamaica

3,3

2.8 - 3.7

6

77

Benin

3,2

2.0 - 4.3

3

Egypt

3,2

2.7 - 3.8

8

Mali

3,2

2.2 - 4.2

5

Morocco

3,2

2.9 - 3.5

7

Turkey

3,2

2.8 - 3.7

13

82

Armenia

3,1

2.4 - 3.7

5

Bosnia and Herzegovina

3,1

2.7 - 3.5

7

Madagascar

3,1

1.8 - 4.4

4

85

Mongolia

3,0

2.6 - 3.2

3

Senegal

3,0

2.5 - 3.5

6

87

Dominican Republic

2,9

2.4 - 3.3

6

Iran

2,9

2.2 - 3.4

5

Romania

2,9

2.5 - 3.4

12

90

Gambia

2,8

2.2 - 3.4

5

India

2,8

2.6 - 3.0

15

Malawi

2,8

2.2 - 3.7

5

Mozambique

2,8

2.4 - 3.1

7

Nepal

2,8

1.6 - 3.4

3

Russia

2,8

2.5 - 3.1

15

Tanzania

2,8

2.4 - 3.2

7

97

Algeria

2,7

2.3 - 3.0

6

Lebanon

2,7

2.1 - 3.2

5

Macedonia

2,7

2.3 - 3.2

7

Nicaragua

2,7

2.5 - 3.0

7

Serbia and Montenegro

2,7

2.3 - 3.0

7

102

Eritrea

2,6

1.6 - 3.4

3

Papua New Guinea

2,6

1.9 - 3.4

4

Philippines

2,6

2.4 - 2.9

14

Uganda

2,6

2.1 - 3.1

7

Vietnam

2,6

2.3 - 2.9

11

Zambia

2,6

2.3 - 2.9

6

108

Albania

2,5

2.0 - 3.0

4

Argentina

2,5

2.2 - 2.8

11

Libya

2,5

1.9 - 3.0

4

Palestinian Authority

2,5

2.0 - 2.7

3

112

Ecuador

2,4

2.3 - 2.5

7

Yemen

2,4

1.9 - 2.9

5

114

Congo, Republic of

2,3

2.0 - 2.7

4

Ethiopia

2,3

1.9 - 2.9

6

Honduras

2,3

2.0 - 2.6

7

Moldova

2,3

2.0 - 2.8

5

Sierra Leone

2,3

2.0 - 2.7

3

Uzbekistan

2,3

2.1 - 2.4

6

Venezuela

2,3

2.2 - 2.5

11

Zimbabwe

2,3

1.9 - 2.7

7

122

Bolivia

2,2

2.1 - 2.3

6

Guatemala

2,2

2.0 - 2.4

7

Kazakhstan

2,2

1.8 - 2.7

7

Kyrgyzstan

2,2

2.0 - 2.5

5

Niger

2,2

2.0 - 2.5

3

Sudan

2,2

2.0 - 2.3

5

Ukraine

2,2

2.0 - 2.4

10

129

Cameroon

2,1

1.9 - 2.3

5

Iraq

2,1

1.3 - 2.8

4

Kenya

2,1

1.9 - 2.4

7

Pakistan

2,1

1.6 - 2.6

7

133

Angola

2,0

1.7 - 2.1

5

Congo, Democratic Republic

2,0

1.5 - 2.2

3

Cote d�Ivoire

2,0

1.7 - 2.2

5

Georgia

2,0

1.6 - 2.3

7

Indonesia

2,0

1.7 - 2.2

14

Tajikistan

2,0

1.7 - 2.4

4

Turkmenistan

2,0

1.6 - 2.3

3

140

Azerbaijan

1,9

1.8 - 2.0

7

Paraguay

1,9

1.7 - 2.2

7

142

Chad

1,7

1.1 - 2.3

4

Myanmar

1,7

1.5 - 2.0

4

144

Nigeria

1,6

1.4 - 1.8

9

145

Bangladesh

1,5

1.1 - 1.9

8

Haiti

1,5

1.2 - 1.9

5

Explanatory notes
*CPI Score relates to perceptions of the degree of corruption as seen by business people and country analysts and ranges between 10 (highly clean) and 0 (highly corrupt).
** Confidence range provides a range of possible values of the CPI score. This reflects how a country's score may vary, depending on measurement precision. Nominally, with 5 percent probability the score is above this range and with another 5 percent it is below. However, particularly when only few sources (n) are available an unbiased estimate of the mean coverage probability is lower than the nominal value of 90%.
*** Surveys used refers to the number of surveys that assessed a country's performance. 18 surveys and expert assessments were used and at least 3 were required for a country to be included in the CPI.

Surveys used in developing the CPI:
BEEPS:
Business Environment and Enterprise Performance Survey
CU:
Columbia University
EIU:
Economist Intelligence Unit
FH:
Freedrom House, Nations in Transit
II:
Information International
IMD:
World Competitiveness Report of the Institute for Management Development
MDB:
A Multinational Development Bank
MIG:
Merchant International Group
PERC:
Political and Economic Risk Consultancy, Hong Kong
TI/GI:
Gallup International on behalf of Transparency International
WEF:
Global Competitiveness Report of the World Economic Forum
WMRC:
World Markets Research Centre

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


Useful Sites...


ethics

l


Transparency International

ethics

More Links...