Corruption Perceptions Index

The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) is an index that ranks countries "by their perceived levels of public sector^[1] corruption, as determined by expert assessments and opinion surveys."^[2] The CPI generally defines corruption as an "abuse of entrusted power for private gain".^[3] The index is published annually by the non-governmental organisation Transparency International since 1995.^[4]

The 2023 CPI, published in January 2024, currently ranks 180 countries "on a scale from 100 (very clean) to 0 (highly corrupt)" based on the situation between 1 May 2022 and 30 April 2023. Denmark, Finland, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, and Sweden are perceived as the least corrupt nations in the world, ranking consistently high among international financial transparency, while the most apparently corrupt are Syria, South Sudan, and Venezuela (scoring 13), as well as Somalia (scoring 11).^[5]

Methods[edit]

Since 2012 CPI takes into account 13 different surveys and assessments^[6] from 12 different institutions.^[7] The institutions are:

• African Development Bank (based in Côte d'Ivoire)
• Bertelsmann Foundation (based in Germany)
• Economist Intelligence Unit (based in the UK)
• Freedom House (based in the US)
• Global Insight (based in the US)
• International Institute for Management Development (based in Switzerland)
• Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (based in Hong Kong)
• The PRS Group, Inc., (based in the US)
• World Bank
• World Economic Forum
• World Justice Project (based in the US)

Countries need to be evaluated by at least three sources to appear in the CPI.^[8] The CPI measures perception of corruption due to the difficulty of measuring absolute levels of corruption.^[9] Transparency International commissioned the University of Passau's Johann Graf Lambsdorff to produce the CPI.^[10] Early CPIs used public opinion surveys.^[8]

Validity[edit]

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 an overabundance of regulation.^[11]

All three metrics also had a highly significant correlation with the real gross domestic product per capita (RGDP/Cap); the Corruption Perceptions Index correlation with RGDP/Cap was the strongest, explaining over three-quarters of the variance.^[11] (Note that a lower rating on this scale reflects greater corruption so that countries with higher RGDPs generally had less corruption.)

Alex Cobham of the Center for Global Development reported in 2013 that "many of the staff and chapters" at Transparency International, the publisher of the Corruption Perceptions Index, "protest internally" over concerns about the index. The original creator of the index, Johann Graf Lambsdorff, withdrew from work on the index in 2009, stating "In 1995 I invented the Corruption Perceptions Index and have orchestrated it ever since, putting TI on the spotlight of international attention. In August 2009 I have informed Cobus de Swardt, managing director of TI, that I am no longer available for doing the Corruption Perceptions Index."^[12]

Economic implications[edit]

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,^[13] as well as an increase in GDP growth of 1.7% for every unit increase in a country's CPI score.^[14] Also shown was a power-law dependence linking higher CPI score to higher rates of foreign investment in a country.

Assessments[edit]

The Index was methodologically criticized in the past,^[15] i.e. questioned based on its methodology.

According to political scientist Dan Hough, three flaws in the Index include:^[16]

• Corruption is too complex a concept to be captured by a single score. For instance, the nature of corruption in rural Kansas will be different from that 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 existing stereotypes and cliches.
• The Index only measures public sector corruption, ignoring the private sector. This, for instance, means the well-publicized Libor scandal, Odebrecht case and the VW emissions scandal are not counted as corrupt actions.

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".^[17]

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."^[18]

Recent econometric analyses that have exploited the existence of natural experiments on the level of corruption and compared the CPI with other subjective indicators have found that, while not perfect, the CPI is argued to be broadly consistent with one-dimensional measures of corruption.^[19]

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.^[20]

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.^[18]

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.^[21]

Rankings[edit]

Legend:

2020–2023[edit]

Corruption Perceptions Index table:^[22]

#	Nation or Territory	2023[5]		2022[23]		2021[24]		2020[25]
		Score	Δ[i]	Score	Δ[i]	Score	Δ[i]	Score	Δ[i]
1	Denmark	90		90		88		88
2	Finland	87		87	1	88	2	85
3	New Zealand	85	1	87	1	88		88
4	Norway	84		84		85	3	84
5	Singapore	83		83	1	85	1	85	1
6	Sweden	82	1	83	1	85	1	85	1
6	Switzerland	82	1	82		84	4	85	1
8	Netherlands	79		80		82		82
9	Germany	78		79	1	80	1	80
9	Luxembourg	78	1	77	1	81		80
11	Ireland	77	1	77	3	74	7	72	2
12	Canada	76	2	74	1	75	2	77	1
12	Estonia	76	2	74	1	74	4	75	1
14	Australia	75	1	75	5	73	7	77	1
14	Hong Kong	75	2	76		76	1	77	5
16	Belgium	73	2	73		73	3	76	2
16	Japan	73	2	73		73	1	74	1
16	Uruguay	73	2	74	4	73	3	71
19	Iceland	72	5	74	1	74	4	75	6
20	Austria	71	2	71	9	74	2	76	3
20	France	71	1	72	1	71	1	69
20	Seychelles	71	3	70		70	4	66
20	United Kingdom	71	2	73	7	78		77	1
24	Barbados	69	5	65		65		64	1
24	United States	69		69	3	67	2	67	2
26	Bhutan	68	1	68		68	1	68	1
26	United Arab Emirates	68	1	67	3	69	3	71
28	Taiwan	67	3	68		68	3	65
29	Chile	66	2	67		67	2	67	1
30	Bahamas	64		64		64		63	1
30	Cape Verde	64	5	60	4	58	2	58
32	South Korea	63	1	63	1	62	1	61	6
33	Israel	62	2	63	5	59	1	60
34	Lithuania	61	1	62	1	61	1	60
34	Portugal	61	1	62	1	62	1	61	3
36	Latvia	60	3	59	3	59	6	57	2
36	Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	60	1	60	1	59	4	59	1
36	Spain	60	1	60	1	61	2	62	2
—	Brunei Darussalam	—		—		—		60
39	Botswana	59	4	60	10	55	10	60	1
40	Qatar	58		58	9	63	1	63
41	Czechia	57		56	8	54		54	5
42	Dominica	56		55		55	3	55
42	Italy	56	1	56	1	56	10	53	1
42	Slovenia	56	1	56		57	6	60
45	Costa Rica	55	3	54	9	58	3	57	2
45	Saint Lucia	55		55	3	56	3	56	3
47	Poland	54	2	55	3	56	3	56	4
47	Slovakia	54	2	53	7	52	4	49	1
49	Cyprus	53	2	52	1	53	10	57	1
49	Georgia	53	8	56	4	55		56	1
49	Grenada	53	2	52	1	53		53	1
49	Rwanda	53	5	51	2	53	3	54	2
53	Fiji	52	4	53	4	55	10	—
53	Saudi Arabia	52	1	51	2	53		53	1
55	Malta	51	1	51	5	54	3	53	2
55	Mauritius	51	2	50	8	54	3	53	4
57	Croatia	50		50	6	47		47
57	Malaysia	50	4	47	1	48	5	51	6
59	Greece	49	8	52	7	49	1	50	1
59	Namibia	49		49	1	49	1	51	1
61	Vanuatu	48	1	48	6	45	9	43	11
62	Armenia	47	1	46	5	49	2	49	17
63	Kuwait	46	14	42	4	43	5	42	7
63	Jordan	46	2	47	3	49	2	49
63	Montenegro	46	2	45	1	46	3	45	1
63	Romania	46		46	3	45	3	44	1
67	Bulgaria	45	5	43	6	42	9	44	5
67	São Tomé and Príncipe	45	2	45	1	45	3	47	1
69	Jamaica	44		44	1	44	1	44	5
70	Ghana	43	2	43	1	43	2	43	5
70	Benin	43	2	43	6	42	5	41	3
70	Oman	43	1	44	13	52	7	54	7
70	Senegal	43	2	43	1	43	6	45	1
70	Solomon Islands	43	7	42	4	43	5	42	1
70	Timor-Leste	43	7	42	5	41	4	40	7
76	Bahrain	42	7	44	9	42		42	1
76	China	42	11	45	1	45	12	42	2
76	Cuba	42	11	45	1	46	1	47	3
76	Hungary	42	1	42	4	43	4	44	1
76	Moldova	42	15	39	14	36	10	34	5
76	North Macedonia	42	9	40	2	39	24	35	5
76	Trinidad and Tobago	42	1	42	5	41	4	40	1
83	Burkina Faso	41	6	42	1	42	8	40	1
83	Kosovo	41	1	41	3	39	17	36	3
83	South Africa	41	11	43	2	44	1	44	1
83	Vietnam	41	6	42	10	39	17	36	8
87	Colombia	40	4	39	4	39	5	39	4
87	Guyana	40	2	40	2	39	4	41	2
87	Ivory Coast	40	12	37	6	36	1	36	2
87	Suriname	40	2	40	2	39	7	38	24
87	Tanzania	40	7	38	7	39	7	38	2
87	Tunisia	40	2	40	15	44	1	44	5
93	Kazakhstan	39	8	36	1	37	8	38	19
93	India	39	8	40		40	1	40	6
93	Lesotho	39	6	37	3	38	13	41	2
93	Maldives	39	8	40		40	10	43	55
97	Morocco	38	3	38	7	39	1	40	6
98	Argentina	37	4	38	2	38	18	42	12
98	Albania	37	3	36	9	35	6	36	2
98	Belarus	37	7	39	9	41	19	47	3
98	Ethiopia	37	4	38	7	39	7	38	2
98	Gambia	37	12	34	8	37		37	6
98	Zambia	37	18	33	1	33		33	4
104	Algeria	36	12	33	1	33	13	36	2
104	Brazil	36	10	38	2	38	2	38	12
104	Serbia	36	3	36	5	38	2	38	3
104	Ukraine	36	12	33	6	32	5	33	9
108	Bosnia and Herzegovina	35	2	34		35	1	35	10
108	Dominican Republic	35	15	32	5	30	9	28
108	Egypt	35	22	30	13	33		33	11
108	Nepal	35	2	34	7	33		33	4
108	Panama	35	7	36	4	36	6	35	10
108	Sierra Leone	35	2	34	5	34	2	33	2
108	Thailand	35	7	36	9	35	6	36	3
115	Ecuador	34	14	36	4	36	13	39	1
115	Indonesia	34	5	34	14	38	6	37	17
115	Malawi	34	5	34		35	19	30	6
115	Philippines	34	1	33	1	33	2	34	2
115	Sri Lanka	34	14	36