Corruption Perceptions Index

A world map of the 2015 Corruption Perceptions Index by Transparency International which measures "the degree to which corruption is perceived to exist among public officials and politicians". High numbers (blue) indicate less perception of corruption, whereas lower numbers (red) indicate higher perception of corruption.

Transparency International (TI) has published the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) since 1995, 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 177 countries "on a scale from 100 (very clean) to 0 (highly corrupt)."

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

2015

	2015		2014		2013		2012
Rank	Country or Territory	Score	Change in score from previous year	Score	Change in score from previous year	Score	Change in score from previous year	Score
1	Denmark	92	1	93	1	92	2	90
2	Finland	91	2	89	0	89	1	90
3	Sweden	89	2	87	2	89	1	88
4	New Zealand	88	3	91	0	91	1	90
5	Netherlands	87	4	83	0	83	1	84
5	Norway	87	1	86	0	86	1	85
7	Switzerland	86	0	86	1	85	1	86
8	Singapore	85	1	84	2	86	1	87
9	Canada	84	3	81	0	81	3	84
10	Germany	81	2	79	1	78	1	79
10	Luxembourg	81	1	82	2	80	0	80
10	United Kingdom	81	3	78	2	76	2	74
13	Australia	79	1	80	1	81	4	85
13	Iceland	79	0	79	1	78	4	82
15	Belgium	77	1	76	1	75	0	75
16	Austria	76	4	72	3	69	0	69
16	United States	76	2	74	1	73	0	73
18	Hong Kong	75	1	74	1	75	2	77
18	Ireland	75	1	74	2	72	3	69
18	Japan	75	1	76	2	74	0	74
21	Uruguay	74	1	73	0	73	1	72
22	Chile	73	2	75	2	73	4	69
23	France	72	1	73	2	71	2	69
23	Estonia	70	1	69	1	68	4	64
23	Qatar	70	1	69	2	71	0	71
23	United Arab Emirates	70	0	70	1	69	1	68
27	Bhutan	65	0	65	2	63	0	63
28	Botswana	63	0	63	1	64	1	65
28	Portugal	63	0	63	1	62	1	63
30	Poland	62	1	61	1	60	2	58
30	Taiwan	62	1	61	0	61	0	61
32	Cyprus	61	2	63	0	63	3	66
32	Israel	61	1	60	1	61	1	60
32	Lithuania	61	3	58	1	57	3	54
35	Slovenia	60	2	58	1	57	4	61
36	South Korea	58	3	55	1	54	4	59
37	Czech Republic	56	5	51	3	48	1	49
37	Spain	56	1	55	1	56	3	59
37	Malta	56	1	55	1	56	1	57
40	Cape Verde	55	2	57	1	58	2	60
40	Costa Rica	55	1	54	1	53	1	54
40	Latvia	55	0	55	2	53	4	49
40	Seychelles	55	0	55	1	54	2	52
44	Rwanda	54	5	49	4	53	0	53
45	Jordan	53	4	49	4	45	3	48
45	Mauritius	53	1	54	2	52	5	57
45	Namibia	53	4	49	1	48	0	48
48	Georgia	52	0	52	3	49	3	52
48	Saudi Arabia	52	3	49	3	46	2	44
50	Bahrain	51	2	49	1	48	3	51
50	Croatia	51	3	48	0	48	2	46
50	Hungary	51	3	54	0	54	1	55
50	Slovakia	51	1	50	3	47	1	46
54	Malaysia	50	2	52	2	50	1	49
55	Kuwait	49	5	44	1	43	1	44
56	Cuba	47	1	46	0	46	2	48
56	Ghana	47	1	48	2	46	1	45
58	Greece	46	3	43	3	40	4	36
58	Romania	46	3	43	0	43	1	44
60	Oman	45	0	45	2	47	0	47
61	Italy	44	1	43	0	43	1	42
61	Lesotho	44	5	49	0	49	4	45
61	Montenegro	44	2	42	2	44	3	41
61	Senegal	44	1	43	2	41	5	36
61	South Africa	44	0	44	2	42	1	43
66	São Tomé and Príncipe	42	0	42	0	42	0	42
66	North Macedonia	42	3	45	1	44	1	43
66	Turkey	42	3	45	5	50	1	49
69	Bulgaria	41	2	43	2	41	0	41
69	Jamaica	41	3	38	0	38	0	38
71	Serbia	40	1	41	1	42	3	39
72	El Salvador	39	0	39	1	38	0	38
72	Mongolia	39	0	39	1	38	2	36
72	Panama	39	2	37	2	35	3	38
72	Trinidad and Tobago	39	1	38	0	38	1	39
76	Bosnia and Herzegovina	38	1	39	3	42	0	42
76	Argentina	38	4	42	1	41	1	42
76	Burkina Faso	38	0	38	0	38	0	38
76	India	38	0	38	2	36	0	36
76	Thailand	38	0	38	3	35	2	37
76	Tunisia	38	2	40	1	41	0	41
76	Zambia	38	0	38	0	38	1	37
83	Benin	37	2	39	3	36	0	36
83	China	37	1	36	4	40	1	39
83	Colombia	37	0	37	1	36	0	36
83	Liberia	37	0	37	1	38	3	41
83	Sri Lanka	37	1	38	1	37	3	40
88	Albania	36	3	33	2	31	2	33
88	Algeria	36	0	36	0	36	2	34
88	Egypt	36	1	37	5	32	0	32
88	Indonesia	36	2	34	2	32	0	32
88	Morocco	36	3	39	2	37	0	37
88	Peru	36	2	38	0	38	0	38
88	Suriname	36	0	36	0	36	1	37
95	Armenia	35	2	37	1	36	2	34
95	Mali	35	3	32	4	28	6	34
95	Mexico	35	0	35	1	34	0	34
95	Philippines	35	3	38	2	36	2	34
99	Bolivia	34	1	35	1	34	0	34
99	Djibouti	34	0	34	2	36	0	36
99	Gabon	34	3	37	3	34	1	35
99	Niger	34	1	35	1	34	1	33
103	Dominican Republic	33	1	32	3	29	3	32
103	Ethiopia	33	0	33	0	33	0	33
103	Kosovo	33	0	33	0	33	1	34
103	Moldova	33	2	35	0	35	1	36
107	Vietnam	32	0	32	0	32	0	32
107	Belarus	32	1	31	2	29	2	31
107	Ivory Coast	32	0	32	5	27	2	29
107	Ecuador	32	1	33	2	35	3	32
107	Togo	32	3	29	0	29	1	30
112	Honduras	31	2	29	3	26	2	28
112	Malawi	31	2	33	4	37	0	37
112	Mauritania	31	1	30	0	30	1	31
112	Mozambique	31	0	31	1	30	1	31
112	Brazil	31	10	41	8	49	5	54
117	Pakistan	30	1	29	1	28	1	27
117	Tanzania	30	1	31	2	33	2	35
119	Azerbaijan	29	0	29	1	28	1	27
119	Guyana	29	1	30	3	27	1	28
119	Russia	29	2	27	1	28	0	28
119	Sierra Leone	29	2	31	1	30	1	31
123	Gambia	28	1	29	1	28	6	34
123	Guatemala	28	4	32	3	29	4	33
123	Kazakhstan	28	1	29	3	26	2	28
123	Kyrgyzstan	28	1	27	3	24	0	24
123	Lebanon	28	1	27	1	28	2	30
123	Madagascar	28	0	28	0	28	4	32
123	Timor-Leste	28	0	28	2	30	3	33
130	Cameroon	27	0	27	2	25	1	26
130	Iran	27	0	27	2	25	3	28
130	Nepal	27	2	29	2	31	4	27
130	Nicaragua	27	1	28	0	28	1	29
130	Paraguay	27	3	24	0	24	1	25
130	Ukraine	27	1	26	1	25	1	26
136	Comoros	26	0	26	2	28	0	28
136	Nigeria	26	1	27	2	25	2	27
136	Tajikistan	26	3	23	1	22	0	22
139	Bangladesh	25	0	25	2	27	1	26
139	Guinea	25	0	25	1	24	0	24
139	Kenya	25	0	25	2	27	0	27
139	Laos	25	0	25	1	26	5	21
139	Papua New Guinea	25	0	25	0	25	0	25
139	Uganda	25	1	26	0	26	3	29
145	Central African Republic	24	0	24	1	25	1	26
146	Democratic Republic of the Congo	23	0	23	1	22	4	26
147	Chad	22	0	22	3	19	0	19
147	Republic of the Congo	22	0	22	0	22	1	21
147	Myanmar	22	1	21	0	21	6	15
150	Burundi	21	1	20	1	21	2	19
150	Cambodia	21	0	21	1	20	2	22
150	Zimbabwe	21	0	21	0	21	1	20
153	Uzbekistan	19	1	18	1	17	0	17
154	Eritrea	18	0	18	2	20	5	25
154	Syria	18	2	20	3	17	9	26
154	Turkmenistan	18	1	17	0	17	0	17
154	Yemen	18	1	19	1	18	5	23
158	Haiti	17	2	19	0	19	0	19
158	Guinea-Bissau	17	2	19	0	19	6	25
158	Venezuela	17	2	19	1	20	1	19
161	Iraq	16	0	16	0	16	2	18
161	Libya	16	2	18	3	15	6	21
163	Angola	15	4	19	4	23	1	22
163	South Sudan	15	0	15	1	14	0	—
165	Sudan	12	1	11	0	11	2	13
166	Afghanistan	11	1	12	-4	8	0	8
167	North Korea	4	2	6	2	8	0	8

2014

The 20 top political entities that were ranked as having the lowest perceived levels of corruption were:

#	Country	Score	#	Country	Score
1	Denmark	92	11	Australia	80
2	New Zealand	91	12	Germany	79
3	Finland	89		Iceland
4	Sweden	87	14	United Kingdom	78
5	Norway	86	15	Belgium	76
	Switzerland			Japan
7	Singapore	84	17	United States	74
8	Netherlands	83		Hong Kong
9	Luxembourg	82		Ireland
10	Canada	81		Barbados
Source:

The 20 bottom countries that were ranked as having the highest perceived levels of corruption were:

#	Country	Score	#	Country	Score
174	Somalia	8	161	Yemen	19
	North Korea			Venezuela
173	Sudan	11		Haiti
172	Afghanistan	12		Guinea-Bissau
171	South Sudan	15		Angola
170	Iraq	16	159	Syria	20
169	Turkmenistan	17		Burundi
166	Uzbekistan	18	156	Zimbabwe	21
	Libya			Myanmar
	Eritrea			Cambodia
Source:

2013

The 20 top countries that were ranked as having the lowest perceived levels of corruption were:

#	Country	Score	#	Country	Score
1	Denmark	91	11	Luxembourg	80
	New Zealand		12	Germany	78
3	Finland	89		Iceland
	Sweden		14	United Kingdom	76
5	Norway	86	15	Barbados	75
	Singapore			Belgium
7	Switzerland	85		Hong Kong
8	Netherlands	83	18	Japan	74
9	Australia	81	19	United States	73
	Canada			Uruguay
Source:

The 20 bottom countries that were ranked as having the highest perceived levels of corruption were:

#	Country	Score	#	Country	Score
175	Somalia	8	167	Yemen	18
	North Korea		163	Haiti	19
	Afghanistan			Guinea-Bissau
174	Sudan	11		Equatorial Guinea
173	South Sudan	14		Chad
172	Libya	15	160	Venezuela	20
171	Iraq	16		Eritrea
168	Uzbekistan	17		Cambodia
	Turkmenistan		158	Zimbabwe	21
	Syria			Myanmar
Source:

2012

The 20 top countries that were ranked as having the lowest perceived levels of corruption were:

#	Country	Score	#	Country	Score
1	Denmark	90	11	Iceland	82
	Finland		12	Luxembourg	80
	New Zealand		13	Germany	79
4	Sweden	88	14	Hong Kong	77
5	Singapore	87	15	Barbados	76
6	Switzerland	86	16	Belgium	75
7	Australia	85	17	Japan	74
	Norway			United Kingdom
9	Canada	84	19	United States	73
	Netherlands		20	Chile	72
				Uruguay
Source:

The 20 bottom countries that were ranked as having the highest perceived levels of corruption were:

#	Country	Score	#	Country	Score
174	Somalia	8	165	Chad	19
	North Korea			Burundi
	Afghanistan		163	Zimbabwe	20
173	Sudan	11		Equatorial Guinea
172	Myanmar	15	160	Libya	21
170	Uzbekistan	17		Laos
	Turkmenistan			DR Congo
169	Iraq	18	157	Tajikistan	22
165	Venezuela	19		Cambodia
	Haiti			Angola
Source:

2011

The 20 top countries that were ranked as having the lowest perceived levels of corruption were:

#	Country	Score	#	Country	Score
1	New Zealand	95	11	Luxembourg	85
2	Denmark	94	12	Hong Kong	84
	Finland		13	Iceland	83
4	Sweden	93	14	Germany	80
5	Singapore	92		Japan
6	Norway	90	16	Austria	78
7	Netherlands	89		Barbados
8	Australia	88		United Kingdom
	Switzerland		19	Belgium	75
10	Canada	87		Ireland
Source:

The 20 bottom countries that were ranked as having the highest perceived levels of corruption were:

#	Country	Score	#	Country	Score
182	Somalia	10	172	Equatorial Guinea	19
	North Korea			Burundi
180	Myanmar	15	168	Niger	20
	Afghanistan			DR Congo
177	Uzbekistan	16		Chad
	Turkmenistan			Angola
	Sudan		164	Yemen	21
175	Iraq	18		Kyrgyzstan
	Haiti			Guinea
172	Venezuela	19		Cambodia
Source:

2010

The 20 top countries that were ranked as having the lowest perceived levels of corruption were:

#	Country	Score	#	Country	Score
1	Denmark	93	11	Iceland	85
	New Zealand			Luxembourg
	Singapore		13	Hong Kong	84
4	Finland	92	14	Ireland	80
	Sweden		15	Austria	79
6	Canada	89		Germany
7	Netherlands	88	17	Barbados	78
8	Australia	87		Japan
	Switzerland		19	Qatar	77
10	Norway	86	20	United Kingdom	76
Source:

The 20 bottom countries that were ranked as having the highest perceived levels of corruption were:

#	Country	Score	#	Country	Score
178	Somalia	11	168	Angola	19
176	Myanmar	14	164	Venezuela	20
	Afghanistan			Kyrgyzstan
175	Iraq	15		Guinea
172	Uzbekistan	16		DR Congo
	Turkmenistan		159	Tajikistan	21
	Sudan			Russia
171	Chad	17		Papua New Guinea
170	Burundi	18		Laos
168	Equatorial Guinea	19		Kenya
Source:

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.

The Index has been criticized on the basis of its methodology.

Political scientist Dan Hough pointed out three flaws in the Index:

• Corruption is too complex to be captured by a single score. The nature of corruption in rural Kansas will, for instance, be different than in the city administration of New York yet the Index measures them in the same way.
• By measuring perceptions of corruption, as opposed to corruption itself, the Index may simply be reinforcing stereotypes and cliches.
• The Index only measures public-sector corruption, leaving out private actors. This for instance means the Libor scandal or the VW emissions scandal are not counted.

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 writes, "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.

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.

Transparency International has warned that a country with a clean CPI score may still be linked to corruption internationally. For example, while Sweden had the 3rd best CPI score in 2015, one of its state-owned companies, TeliaSonera, was facing allegations of bribery in Uzbekistan.

External links

• Official site
• Transparency International (2010). Corruption Perceptions Index 2010: Long methodological brief (PDF) (Report). Transparency International. Retrieved 24 August 2011.
• Corruption Perceptions Index 2013
• Interactive world map of the Corruption Perception Index: 2000-2008
• A Users' Guide to Measuring Corruption critiques the CPI and similar indices.
• Global Integrity Index
• List of Global Development Indexes and Rankings