Public Sector Governance

Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Indexes

On this page

• 2007 CPI
• Past CPI data (2006, 2005, 2004)
• The Context of the CPI - Background on how The CPI was started and its impact
• Exclusive EthicsWorld article - Viewpoint by CPI creator, Professor Lambsdorf
  
  

* * *

Transparency International’s 2007 Corruption Perceptions Index

“Despite some gains, corruption remains an enormous drain on resources sorely needed for education, health and infrastructure. Low scoring countries need to take these results seriously and act now to strengthen accountability in public institutions. But action from top scoring countries is just as important, particularly in cracking down on corrupt activity in the private sector.” 

 
“Partnering with civil society and citizens is an essential strategy for developing countries seeking to strengthen the accountability of government. Civil society organisations play a vital watchdog role, can help stimulate demand for reform and also bring in expertise on technical issues. But, increasingly, many governments are moving to restrict the operating space of civil society.”

The Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index ranks countries in terms of the degree to which corruption is perceived to exist among public officials and politicians. It is a composite index, a poll of polls, drawing on corruption-related data from 14 expert and business surveys carried out by a variety of independent institutions. The CPI reflects views from around the world. The TI CPI focuses on corruption in the public sector and defines corruption as for as the abuse of public office private gain.

See Transparency International's website for more information.

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 180 countries (a record total - the largest CPI ever released). 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.

A country or territory’s CPI Score indicates the degree of public sector corruption as perceived by business people and country analysts, and ranges between 10 (highly clean) and 0 (highly corrupt)

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.

* * *

Past CPI Data

2006 Transparency International CPI, released November 6, 2006

View complete 2006 Index

Top 4 Ranked Countries (total of 163 countries in Index):

1. Finland (9.6)
1. Iceland (9.6)
1. New Zealand (9.6)
4. Denmark (9.5)

Lowest 4 Ranked Countries:

163. Haiti (1.8)
160. Myanmar (1.9)
160. Iraq (1.9)
160. Guinea (1.9)

2005 Transparency International CPI, released October 18, 2005

View complete 2005 Index

Top 4 Ranked Countries (total of 159 countries):

1. Iceland (9.7)
2. Finland (9.6)
2. New Zealand (9.6)
4. Denmark (9.5)

Lowest 4 Ranked Countries:

155. Myanmar (1.8)
155. Turkmenistan (1.8)
158. Bangladesh (1.7)
158. Chad (1.7)

2004 Transparency International CPI

View complete 2004 Index

Top 4 Ranked Countries (total out of 149 countries):

1. Finland (9.7)
2. New Zealand (9.6)
3. Denmark (9.5)
3. Iceland (9.5)

Lowest 4 Ranked Countries:

142. Chad, Myanmar (1.7)
144. Nigeria (1.6)
145. Bangladesh (1.5)
145. Haiti (1.5)

See Transparency International's website for all past CPIs.

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?

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.