Home   About Us   Contact Us
 

Public Sector Governance

Transparency International Surveys

On this page


 

The 2011 Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index

Transparency International released its CPI on December 1, 2011.

The index scores 183 countries and territories from 0 (highly corrupt) to 10 (very clean) based on perceived levels of public sector corruption. It uses data from 17 surveys that look at factors such as enforcement of anti-corruption laws, access to information and conflicts of interest. Two thirds of ranked countries score less than 5.

 

Country Rank

Country / Territory

CPI 2011 Score

1

New Zealand

9.5

2

Denmark

9.4

2

Finland

9.4

4

Sweden

9.3

5

Singapore

9.2

6

Norway

9.0

7

Netherlands

8.9

8

Australia

8.8

8

Switzerland

8.8

10

Canada

8.7

11

Luxembourg

8.5

12

Hong Kong

8.4

13

Iceland

8.3

14

Germany

8.0

14

Japan

8.0

16

Austria

7.8

16

Barbados

7.8

16

United Kingdom

7.8

19

Belgium

7.5

19

Ireland

7.5

21

Bahamas

7.3

22

Chile

7.2

22

Qatar

7.2

24

United States

7.1

25

France

7.0

25

Saint Lucia

7.0

25

Uruguay

7.0

28

United Arab Emirates

6.8

29

Estonia

6.4

30

Cyprus

6.3

31

Spain

6.2

32

Botswana

6.1

32

Portugal

6.1

32

Taiwan

6.1

35

Slovenia

5.9

36

Israel

5.8

36

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

5.8

38

Bhutan

5.7

39

Malta

5.6

39

Puerto Rico

5.6

41

Cape Verde

5.5

41

Poland

5.5

43

Korea (South)

5.4

44

Brunei

5.2

44

Dominica

5.2

46

Bahrain

5.1

46

Macau

5.1

46

Mauritius

5.1

49

Rwanda

5.0

50

Costa Rica

4.8

50

Lithuania

4.8

50

Oman

4.8

50

Seychelles

4.8

54

Hungary

4.6

54

Kuwait

4.6

56

Jordan

4.5

57

Czech Republic

4.4

57

Namibia

4.4

57

Saudi Arabia

4.4

60

Malaysia

4.3

61

Cuba

4.2

61

Latvia

4.2

61

Turkey

4.2

64

Georgia

4.1

64

South Africa

4.1

66

Croatia

4.0

66

Montenegro

4.0

66

Slovakia

4.0

69

Ghana

3.9

69

Italy

3.9

69

FYR Macedonia

3.9

69

Samoa

3.9

73

Brazil

3.8

73

Tunisia

3.8

75

China

3.6

75

Romania

3.6

77

Gambia

3.5

77

Lesotho

3.5

77

Vanuatu

3.5

80

Colombia

3.4

80

El Salvador

3.4

80

Greece

3.4

80

Morocco

3.4

80

Peru

3.4

80

Thailand

3.4

86

Bulgaria

3.3

86

Jamaica

3.3

86

Panama

3.3

86

Serbia

3.3

86

Sri Lanka

3.3

91

Bosnia and Herzegovina

3.2

91

Liberia

3.2

91

Trinidad and Tobago

3.2

91

Zambia

3.2

95

Albania

3.1

95

India

3.1

95

Kiribati

3.1

95

Swaziland

3.1

95

Tonga

3.1

100

Argentina

3.0

100

Benin

3.0

100

Burkina Faso

3.0

100

Djibouti

3.0

100

Gabon

3.0

100

Indonesia

3.0

100

Madagascar

3.0

100

Malawi

3.0

100

Mexico

3.0

100

Sao Tome & Principe

3.0

100

Suriname

3.0

100

Tanzania

3.0

112

Algeria

2.9

112

Egypt

2.9

112

Kosovo

2.9

112

Moldova

2.9

112

Senegal

2.9

112

Vietnam

2.9

118

Bolivia

2.8

118

Mali

2.8

120

Bangladesh

2.7

120

Ecuador

2.7

120

Ethiopia

2.7

120

Guatemala

2.7

120

Iran

2.7

120

Kazakhstan

2.7

120

Mongolia

2.7

120

Mozambique

2.7

120

Solomon Islands

2.7

129

Armenia

2.6

129

Dominican Republic

2.6

129

Honduras

2.6

129

Philippines

2.6

129

Syria

2.6

134

Cameroon

2.5

134

Eritrea

2.5

134

Guyana

2.5

134

Lebanon

2.5

134

Maldives

2.5

134

Nicaragua

2.5

134

Niger

2.5

134

Pakistan

2.5

134

Sierra Leone

2.5

143

Azerbaijan

2.4

143

Belarus

2.4

143

Comoros

2.4

143

Mauritania

2.4

143

Nigeria

2.4

143

Russia

2.4

143

Timor-Leste

2.4

143

Togo

2.4

143

Uganda

2.4

152

Tajikistan

2.3

152

Ukraine

2.3

154

Central African Republic

2.2

154

Congo  Republic

2.2

154

Côte d´Ivoire

2.2

154

Guinea-Bissau

2.2

154

Kenya

2.2

154

Laos

2.2

154

Nepal

2.2

154

Papua New Guinea

2.2

154

Paraguay

2.2

154

Zimbabwe

2.2

164

Cambodia

2.1

164

Guinea

2.1

164

Kyrgyzstan

2.1

164

Yemen

2.1

168

Angola

2.0

168

Chad

2.0

168

Democratic Republic of the Congo

2.0

168

Libya

2.0

172

Burundi

1.9

172

Equatorial Guinea

1.9

172

Venezuela

1.9

175

Haiti

1.8

175

Iraq

1.8

177

Sudan

1.6

177

Turkmenistan

1.6

177

Uzbekistan

1.6

180

Afghanistan

1.5

180

Myanmar

1.5

182

Korea (North)

1.0

182

Somalia

1.0

 

2011 – a crisis in governance: Protests that marked 2011 show anger at corruption in politics and public sector

Berlin TI Press Release -- 1 December 2011 – Corruption continues to plague too many countries around the world, according to Transparency International’s 2011 Corruption Perceptions Index released today. It shows some governments failing to protect citizens from corruption, be it abuse of public resources, bribery or secretive decision-making.

Transparency International warned that protests around the world, often fuelled by corruption and economic instability, clearly show citizens feel their leaders and public institutions are neither transparent nor accountable enough. “This year we have seen corruption on protestors’ banners be they rich or poor. Whether in a Europe hit by debt crisis or an Arab world starting a new political era, leaders must heed the demands for better government,” said Huguette Labelle, Chair of Transparency International.

 “2011 saw the movement for greater transparency take on irresistible momentum, as citizens around the world demand accountability from their governments. High-scoring countries show that over time efforts to improve transparency can, if sustained, be successful and benefit their people,” said Transparency International Managing Director, Cobus de Swardt.

Most Arab Spring countries rank in the lower half of the index, scoring below 4. Before the Arab Spring, a Transparency International warned that nepotism, bribery and patronage were so deeply engrained in daily life in the region that even existing anti-corruption laws had little impact.  Eurozone countries suffering debt crises, partly because of public authorities’ failure to tackle the bribery and tax evasion that are key drivers of debt crisis, are among the lowest-scoring EU countries.

 

 

* * *

Transparency International’s Bribe Payers Index 2011
Companies from emerging giants China and Russia most likely to bribe abroad


Bribing public officials when doing business abroad is a regular occurrence, according to a survey of 3,000 business executives from developed and developing countries.

Transparency International’s 2011 Bribe Payers’ Index (BPI) ranks 28 leading international and regional exporting countries by the likelihood of their firms to bribe abroad. Companies from Russia and China, who invested US $120 billion overseas in 2010, are seen as most likely to pay bribes abroad. Companies from the Netherlands and Switzerland are seen as least likely to bribe.  

 Scores based on business executives’ responses when asked how often firms, with which they have a business relationship, from a given country engage in bribery (0=always, 10=never)


 Rank

Country/Territory

Bribe Payers Index 2011 score

 

 

1

Netherlands

8.8

 

1

Switzerland

8.8

 

3

Belgium

8.7

 

4

Germany

8.6

 

4

Japan

8.6

 

6

Australia

8.5

 

6

Canada

8.5

 

8

Singapore

8.3

 

8

UK

8.3

 

10

USA

8.1

 

11

France

8.0

 

11

Spain

8.0

 

13

South Korea

7.9

 

14

Brazil

7.7

 

15

Hong Kong

7.6

 

15

Italy

7.6

 

15

Malaysia

7.6

 

15

South Africa

7.6

 

19

Taiwan

7.5

 

19

India

7.5

 

19

Turkey

7.5

 

22

Saudi Arabia

7.4

 

23

Argentina

7.3

 

23

UAE

7.3

 

25

Indonesia

7.1

 

26

Mexico

7.0

 

27

China

6.5

 

28

Russia

6.1

 

 

Average

7.8

 

 

Perceptions of Foreign Bribery by Sector

Scores based on business executives’ responses when asked how often firms, with which they do business, from a given sector engage in bribery (0=always, 10=never)

Rank

Sector

Sector score

 

 

1

Agriculture

7.1

 

1

Light Manufacturing

7.1

 

3

Civilian Aerospace

7.0

 

3

Information Technology

7.0

 

5

Banking and Finance

6.9

 

5

Forestry

6.9

 

7

Consumer Services

6.8

 

8

Telecommunications

6.7

 

8

Transportation and Storage

6.7

 

10

Arms, Defence and Military

6.6

 

10

Fisheries

6.6

 

12

Heavy Manufacturing

6.5

 

13

Pharmaceutical and Healthcare

6.4

 

13

Power Generation and Transmission

6.4

 

15

Mining

6.3

 

16

Oil and Gas

6.2

 

17

Real Estate, Property, Business and Legal Services

6.1

 

17

Utilities

6.1

 

19

Public Works Contracts and Construction

5.3

 

 

Average

6.6

 

 

Posted November 3, 2011

* * *

The 2010 Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer

Corruption has increased over the last three years, say six out of 10 people around the world. One in four people report paying bribes in the last year. These are the findings of the 2010 Global Corruption Barometer.

The 2010 Barometer captures the experiences and views of more than 91,500 people in 86 countries and territories, making it the only world-wide public opinion survey on corruption.

Views on corruption were most negative in Western Europe and North America, where 73 per cent and 67 per cent of people respectively thought corruption had increased over the last three years.

"The fall-out of the financial crises continues to affect people's opinions of corruption, particular in North America and Western Europe. Institutions everywhere must be resolute in their efforts to restore good governance and trust," said Huguette Labelle, Chair of Transparency International.

In the past 12 months one in four people reported paying a bribe to one of nine institutions and services, from health to education to tax authorities. The police are cited as being the most frequent recipient of bribes, according to those surveyed. About 30 per cent of those who had contact with the police reported having paid a bribe.

More than 20 countries have reported significant increases in petty bribery since 2006. The biggest increases were in Chile, Colombia, Kenya, FYR Macedonia, Nigeria, Poland, Russia, Senegal and Thailand. More than one in two people in Sub-Saharan Africa reported paying a bribe - more than anywhere else in the world.

Poorer people are twice as likely to pay bribes for basic services, such as education, than wealthier people. A third of all people under the age of 30 reported paying a bribe in the past 12 months, compared to less than one in five people aged 51 years and over.

Most worrying is the fact that bribes to the police have almost doubled since 2006, and more people report paying bribes to the judiciary and for registry and permit services than five years ago.

Sadly, few people trust their governments or politicians. Eight out of 10 say political parties are corrupt or extremely corrupt, while half the people questioned say their government's action to stop corruption is ineffective.

"The message from the 2010 Barometer is that corruption is insidious. It makes people lose faith. The good news is that people are ready to act," said Labelle. "Public engagement in the fight against corruption will force those in authority to act - and will give people further courage to speak out and stand up for a cleaner, more transparent world."
posted 15/12/2010

* * *

2010 Transparency International

 

Posted 10/26/2010

 

* * *

2009 Corruption Perceptions Index

Transparency International

*Surveys used refers to the number of surveys that assessed a country’s performance. 13 surveys and expert assessments were used and at least 3 were required for a country to be included in the CPI.

Statement issued by Transparency International, November 17, 2009 -

– As the world economy begins to register a tentative recovery and some nations continue to wrestle with ongoing conflict and insecurity, it is clear that no region of the world is immune to the perils of corruption, according to Transparency International’s 2009 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), a measure of domestic, public sector corruption released today.

“At a time when massive stimulus packages, fast-track disbursements of public funds and attempts to secure peace are being implemented around the world, it is essential to identify where corruption blocks good governance and accountability, in order to break its corrosive cycle” said Huguette Labelle, Chair of Transparency International (TI).
The vast majority of the 180 countries included in the 2009 index score below five on a scale from 0 (perceived to be highly corrupt) to 10 (perceived to have low levels of corruption). The CPI measures the perceived levels of public sector corruption in a given country and is a composite index, drawing on 13 different expert and business surveys.

The 2009 edition scores 180 countries, the same number as the 2008 CPI.

Fragile, unstable states that are scarred by war and ongoing conflict linger at the bottom of the index. These are: Somalia, with a score of 1.1, Afghanistan at 1.3, Myanmar at 1.4 and Sudan tied with Iraq at 1.5. These results demonstrate that countries which are perceived as the most corrupt are also those plagued by long-standing conflicts, which have torn apart their governance infrastructure.

When essential institutions are weak or non-existent, corruption spirals out of control and the plundering of public resources feeds insecurity and impunity. Corruption also makes normal a seeping loss of trust in the very institutions and nascent governments charged with ensuring survival and stability.

Countries at the bottom of the index cannot be shut out from development efforts. Instead, what the index points to is the need to strengthen their institutions. Investors and donors should be equally vigilant of their operations and as accountable for their own actions as they are in demanding transparency and accountability from beneficiary countries.

“Stemming corruption requires strong oversight by parliaments, a well performing judiciary, independent and properly resourced audit and anti-corruption agencies, vigorous law enforcement, transparency in public budgets, revenue and aid flows, as well as space for independent media and a vibrant civil society,” said Labelle. “The international community must find efficient ways to help war-torn countries to develop and sustain their own institutions.”

 

 

* * *

Transparency International Releases 2009 Global Corruption Barometer

Critical Focus on Public Concern About Corporate Bribery

The private sector uses bribes to influence public policy, laws and regulations, believe over half of those polled for 2009 Global Corruption Barometer.

The Barometer, a global public opinion survey released today by Transparency International (TI), also found that half of respondents expressed a willingness to pay a premium to buy from corruption-free companies.

The Barometer, with more than 73,000 respondents drawn from 69 countries and territories around the world, also found the poor to be disproportionately burdened by bribe demands. And it found that government efforts to combat corruption are generally perceived as ineffective, in addition to high levels of perceived corruption in political parties, parliaments and the civil service.

According to Transparency International, the business-related findings of the Barometer send a powerful signal to the private sector and provide yet another incentive -in addition to the legal, reputational and financial risks of corruption- for companies to prove that they are clean and to communicate this clearly to the public. In Cambodia, Hong Kong, Liberia and Sierra Leone, as many as 4 in 5 respondents said they would pay a premium for products and services from corruption-free companies.

Asked specifically how corrupt they perceived different domestic institutions to be, half of respondents said they saw the private sector as corrupt, an increase of 8 percentage points over five years ago. And in roughly a fifth of the countries and territories surveyed, including countries home to some of the world’s major financial centres, such as Hong Kong, Luxembourg and Switzerland, respondents identified the private sector as the most corrupt institution.

Impact on Poverty

The 2009 Barometer shows that the poorest families continue to be punished by petty bribe demands. Across the board, low-income respondents were more likely to be met with bribe demands than high-income respondents. Additionally, petty bribery was found to be on the rise in Venezuela, Ghana, Indonesia, Cambodia Bolivia, Senegal, Russia and Kenya, compounding the already difficult situation of low-income households, as jobs and income dwindle in the economic downturn.

In Cameroon, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Uganda, more than 50 percent of respondents reported having to pay a bribe in the past 12 months. Looking at regions, however, the Middle East and North Africa registered the worst results, with 4 in 10 respondents reporting bribe payments in the past year. The police were identified as the most common source of bribe demands: globally, one in four of those who had contact with the police in the previous year paid a bribe.

Government anti-corruption efforts seen as ineffective


Only three in ten respondents believed their government’s efforts to fight corruption were effective, although opinion in Sub-Saharan Africa was notably more positive than in other regions.

Most of those polled also felt that existing channels for making corruption-related complaints were ineffective. Fewer than one in four who paid a bribe in the past year lodged a formal complaint, demonstrating serious deficits in the perceived legitimacy and effectiveness of channels for reporting and addressing bribery.

Echoing the findings of past editions of the Barometer, 68 percent of respondents saw political parties as corrupt, and 29 percent saw them as the single most corrupt institution in their country. The civil service and parliament trailed political parties, perceived by 63 and 60 percent of respondents respectively as being corrupt. The media, while not perceived as clean, scored best with just over 40 percent of respondents labelling the sector as corrupt and with only 6 percent seeing it as the single most corrupt domestic institution.

Posted 06/03/2009

* * *

Bribe Payer's Index

Transparency International Releases Global Survey on the Propensity of Corporations to Pay Bribes Internationally

For many years Transparency International has published an annual Corruption Perceptions Index that provides insights into the taking of bribes by public officials - but the bribery tango involves two parties and it is important to have better information on who is paying the bribes. This part of the equation has been subject to far less analysis than bribe-taking. TI commissioned Gallup International to undertake a major global survey and TI will be producing a series of reports that provide insights into many aspects of corporate cross-border corruption.

The 2008 BPI ranks 22 of the world’s wealthiest and economically dominant countries by the likelihood of their firms to bribe abroad. It is based on the informed observations of 2,742 senior business executives from companies in 26 developed and developing countries, selected on the size of their imports and inflows of foreign direct investment. Notes explaining the survey and its results can be found below the second chart he

bpi

According to senior business executives, companies in public works contracts/ construction, and real estate and property development, are the worst offenders. Fisheries and the banking and finance sector were identified as the cleanest sectors in this regard.

sector

NOTES:
The countries and territories included in the index are leading international or regional exporting nations, whose combined global exports of goods and services and outflows of foreign direct investment represented 75 percent of the world total in 2006 . Australia, Brazil, India and South Africa were included due to their position as major regional trading powers.

The 2008 BPI is derived from a survey of senior business executives in 26 countries: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Czech Republic, Egypt, France, Germany, Ghana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Russian Federation, Senegal, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, United Kingdom and the United States.
These countries were selected on the basis of their trade and Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) flows, using data from United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). The combined global imports of goods and services and inflows of foreign direct investment of the 26 countries represented 54 percent of the world total in 2006.
The 2008 Bribe Payers Index is based on responses to a survey of senior business executives, the 2008 Bribe Payers Survey, designed and commissioned by Transparency International. The Bribe Payers Survey covered a wide range of questions about the nature, scope and impact of bribery and corruption. Highlights from the survey can be found in an accompanying report to the release of the 2008 BPI: Transparency International Bribe Payers Index 2008: Overview Report: http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/bpi
The Bribe Payers Survey was carried out on Transparency International’s behalf by Gallup International between 5 August and 29 October 2008. Gallup International was responsible for the overall implementation of the survey and the data quality control process. It relied on a network of partner institutes to carry out the survey locally.
A total of 19 sectors have been evaluated in the Bribe Payers Survey. For the sectoral rankings on public sector bribery and on state capture, respondents were asked their views on up to five sectors with which they had business relationships. As with the BPI, these sectoral rankings therefore draw on the informed perceptions of senior business executives.

Transparency International is funded by various governmental agencies, international foundations and corporations. Ernst & Young, the Federal Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development in Germany and the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD) provided financial support for the Bribe Payers Survey and the 2008 BPI. In addition, since 2006, Transparency International’s corruption measurement instruments have been supported by Ernst & Young. TI does not endorse a company’s policies by accepting its financial support, and does not involve any of its supporters in the management of its projects. For details on Transparency International’s sources of funding, please see http://www.transparency.org/support_us

A detailed analysis of the methodologies used to develop the BPI can be found in Transparency International 2008 Bribe Payers Index: Overview Report: http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/bpi


United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) “Handbook of Statistics 2008”. http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=1890&lang=1

This survey company was selected by TI through a competitive public tendering process.


United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) “Handbook of Statistics 2008”. http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=1890&lang=1

 

Posted 12/11/2008

 

 

 

 

* * *

Transparency International's 2008 Corruption Perceptions Index

Frank Vogl, Transparency International co-founder and Board member writes - Out of 180 countries across the globe, these are seen as having the most corrupt governments:

Congo, Democratic Republic
Equatorial Guinea
Guinea
Chad
Sudan
Afghanistan
Haiti
Iraq
Myanmar
Somalia

Every day, as public officials steal and enrich themselves, the citizens of these countries are dying violent deaths. These cesspools of corruption are either in the midst of civil wars, and/or run by ruthless dictators. These are the kinds of countries where, as World Bank President Robert Zoellick said a few days ago, you find, "a witches' brew of ineffective government, poverty, and conflict."

The magnitude of perceived corruption in these 10 worst performers is staggering. On a scale of 10.0 to 0.1, Somalia scores 1.0 on the new Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index 2008, while each of the other nine worst countries score 1.7 or less.   

Some of these countries are major recipients of foreign aid from Western countries – countries that repeatedly turn a blind eye to the corruption of the national governments that receive the aid.

In each of the 10 worst performing countries the scale of human suffering of the vast majority of the citizens is staggering.  And those who dare to raise their voice in protest are imprisoned and often tortured. In a major speech in Geneva on September 11, Mr. Zoellick underscored the need to address simultaneously the issues of security, governance and economic development. For 15 years Transparency International has been the leader calling on Western leaders to raise their voice against the massive corruption seen in these 10 countries and to act forcefully to confront the thieves who hold power in these nations and in many others where corruption is widespread. TI is no less vigilant in calling for the full enforcement of criminal laws to punish those corporations that routinely bribe foreign government officials.

According to Huguette Labelle, Chair of Transparency International, “The continuing high levels of corruption and poverty plaguing many of the world’s societies amount to an ongoing humanitarian disaster and cannot be tolerated.  But even in more privileged countries, with enforcement disturbingly uneven, a tougher approach to tackling corruption is needed.”

Corruption is certainly not only a poor country’s problem.  The Index showed statistical backsliding in number of industrialized countries, including Norway and the United Kingdom.  A large contributor to this trend is the emergence of a number of foreign bribery scandals in the past year.  Examples such as Siemens, BAE Systems, and most recently a subsidiary of Halliburton all illustrate wealthy nations’ failure to live up to the promise of mutual accountability in the fight against corruption.

TI advocates that all nations strive to create stronger institutions of oversight, firm legal frameworks and more vigilant regulation in order to ensure more meaningful participation for all people in their societies, stronger development outcomes and a better quality of life for marginalized communities.

Read more from Transparency International.

The 2008 Index

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)

Posted 9/23/08

Back To Top

 

* * *

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.” 

-Huguette Labelle, Chair of Transparency International

 
“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.”

-Cobus de Swardt, Managing Director of Transparency International

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.


Top 4 Ranked Countries (total of 180 countries in Index):

1. New Zealand (9.4)
1. Denmark (9.4)
1. Finland (9.4)
4. Singapore (9.3)

Lowest 4 Ranked Countries:

177. Haiti (1.8)
178. Iraq (1.9)
179. Somalia (1.9)
179. Myanmar (1.9)


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)

Country Rank

Country /Territory

CPI Score 2007

Surveys Used**

1

New Zealand

9.4

6

 

Denmark

9.4

6

 

Finland

9.4

6

4

Singapore

9.3

9

 

Sweden

9.3

6

6

Iceland

9.2

6

7

Netherlands

9

6

 

Switzerland

9

6

9

Norway

8.7

6

 

Canada

8.7

6

11

Australia

8.6

8

12

Luxembourg

8.4

5

 

United Kingdom

8.4

6

14

Hong Kong

8.3

8

15

Austria

8.1

6

16

Germany

7.8

6

17

Japan

7.5

8

 

Ireland

7.5

6

19

France

7.3

6

20

USA

7.2

8

21

Belgium

7.1

6

22

Chile

7

7

23

Barbados

6.9

4

24

Saint Lucia

6.8

3

25

Uruguay

6.7

5

 

Spain

6.7

6

27

Slovenia

6.6

8

28

Estonia

6.5

8

 

Portugal

6.5

6

30

Israel

6.1

6

 

Saint Vincent and the Grenadines

6.1

3

32

Qatar

6

4

33

Malta

5.8

4

34

Macao

5.7

4

 

Taiwan

5.7

9

 

United Arab Emirates

5.7

5

37

Dominica

5.6

3

38

Botswana

5.4

7

39

Hungary

5.3

8

 

Cyprus

5.3

3

41

Czech Republic

5.2

8

 

Italy

5.2

6

43

Malaysia

5.1

9

 

South Korea

5.1

9

 

South Africa

5.1

9

46

Costa Rica

5

5

 

Bhutan

5

5

 

Bahrain

5

5

49

Slovakia

4.9

8

 

Cape Verde

4.9

3

51

Latvia

4.8

6

 

Lithuania

4.8

7

53

Oman

4.7

4

 

Jordan

4.7

7

 

Mauritius

4.7

6

56

Greece

4.6

6

57

Namibia

4.5

7

 

Seychelles

4.5

4

 

Samoa

4.5

3

60

Kuwait

4.3

5

61

Cuba

4.2

4

 

Poland

4.2

8

 

Tunisia

4.2

6

64

Bulgaria

4.1

8

 

Croatia

4.1

8

 

Turkey

4.1

7

67

El Salvador

4

5

68

Colombia

3.8

7

69

Ghana

3.7

7

 

Romania

3.7

8

71

Senegal

3.6

7

72

Morocco

3.5

7

 

China

3.5

9

 

Suriname

3.5

4

 

India

3.5

10

 

Mexico

3.5

7

 

Peru

3.5

5

 

Brazil

3.5

7

79

Serbia

3.4

6

 

Georgia

3.4

6

 

Grenada

3.4

3

 

Trinidad and Tobago

3.4

4

 

Saudi Arabia

3.4

4

84

Bosnia and Herzegovina

3.3

7

 

Montenegro

3.3

4

 84

Maldives

3.3

4

 

Jamaica

3.3

5

 

Kiribati

3.3

3

 

Gabon

3.3

5

 

Swaziland

3.3

5

 

Thailand

3.3

9

 

Lesotho

3.3

6

 

FYR Macedonia

3.3

6

94

Madagascar

3.2

7

 

Sri Lanka

3.2

7

 

Panama

3.2

5

 

Tanzania

3.2

8

98

Vanuatu

3.1

3

99

Dominican Republic

3

5

 

Armenia

3

7

 

Lebanon

3

4

 

Mongolia

3

6

 

Algeria

3

6

 

Belize

3

3

105

Argentina

2.9

7

 

Djibouti

2.9

3

 

Albania

2.9

6

 

Burkina Faso

2.9

7

 

Bolivia

2.9

6

 

Egypt

2.9

7

111

Moldova

2.8

7

 

Eritrea

2.8

5

 

Guatemala

2.8

5

 

Rwanda

2.8

5

 

Solomon Islands

2.8

3

 

Mozambique

2.8

8

 

Uganda

2.8

8

118

Mali

2.7

8

 

Malawi

2.7

8

 

Sao Tome and Principe

2.7

3

 

Ukraine

2.7

7

 

Benin

2.7

7

123

Guyana

2.6

4

 

Zambia

2.6

8

 

Comoros

2.6

3

 

Nicaragua

2.6

6

 

Viet Nam

2.6

9

 

Mauritania

2.6

6

 

Niger

2.6

7

 

Timor-Leste

2.6

3

131

Nepal

2.5

7

 

Yemen

2.5

5

131 

Philippines

2.5

9

 

Burundi

2.5

7

 

Libya

2.5

4

 

Iran

2.5

4

 

Honduras

2.5

6

138

Pakistan

2.4

7

 

Ethiopia

2.4

8

 

Paraguay

2.4

5

 

Cameroon

2.4

8

 

Syria

2.4

4

143

Gambia

2.3

6

 

Indonesia

2.3

11

 

Togo

2.3

5

 

Russia

2.3

8

147

Angola

2.2

7

 

Nigeria

2.2

8

 

Guinea-Bissau

2.2

3

150

Sierra Leone

2.1

5

 

Kazakhstan

2.1

6

 

Belarus

2.1

5

 

Zimbabwe

2.1

8

 

Côte d´Ivoire

2.1

6

 

Tajikistan

2.1

8

 

Liberia

2.1

4

 

Congo, Republic

2.1

6

 

Ecuador

2.1

5

 

Azerbaijan

2.1

8

 

Kenya

2.1

8

 

Kyrgyzstan

2.1

7

162

Bangladesh

2

7

 

Papua New Guinea

2

6

 

Turkmenistan

2

5

 

Central African Republic

2

5

 

Cambodia

2

7

 

Venezuela

2

7

168

Laos

1.9

6

 

Equatorial Guinea

1.9

4

 

Guinea

1.9

6

 

Congo, Democratic. Republic

1.9

6

172

Afghanistan

1.8

4

 

Sudan

1.8

6

 

Chad

1.8

7

175

Uzbekistan

1.7

7

 

Tonga

1.7

3

177

Haiti

1.6

4

178

Iraq

1.5

4

179

Somalia

1.4

4

 

Myanmar

1.4

4

 

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?

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

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.