Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
5Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
2010 Corruption Perceptions Index

2010 Corruption Perceptions Index

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,317 |Likes:
Published by José Pedro Gomes
Corruption Perceptions Index 2010
Short methodological note

Data Sources:

· The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) 2010 is an aggregate indicator that brings
together data from sources that cover the past two years. For the CPI 2010, this includes
surveys published between January 2009 and September 2010.
· The CPI 2010 is calculated using data from 13 sources by 10 independent institutions.
All sources measure the overall extent of corruption (frequency and/or size of bribes) in
the public and political sectors, and all sources provide a ranking of countries, i.e. include
an assessment of multiple countries.
· Evaluation of the extent of corruption in countries/territories is done by two groups:
country experts, both residents and non-residents, and business leaders. In the CPI
2010, the following seven sources provided data based on expert analysis: African
Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, Bertelsmann Foundation, Economist
Intelligence Unit, Freedom House, Global Insight and the World Bank. Three sources for
the CPI 2010 reflect the evaluations by resident business leaders of their own country,
IMD, Political and Economic Risk Consultancy, and the World Economic Forum.
· For CPI sources that are surveys, and where multiple years of the same survey are
available, data for the past two years is included.
· For sources that are scores provided by experts (risk agencies/country analysts), only
the most recent iteration of the assessment is included, as these scores are generally
peer reviewed and change very little from year to year.

Steps to calculate the CPI:

1. The first step to calculate the CPI is to standardise the data provided by the individual
sources (that is, translate them into a common scale). We use what is called a matching
percentiles technique that takes the ranks of countries reported by each individual
source. This method is useful for combining sources that have different distributions.
While there is some information loss in this technique, it allows all reported scores to
remain within the bounds of the CPI, i.e. to remain between 0 and 10.
2. The second step consists of performing what is called a beta-transformation on the
standardized scores. This increases the standard deviation among all countries included
in the CPI and makes it possible to differentiate more precisely countries that appear to
have similar scores.
3. Finally, the CPI scores are determined by averaging all of the standardised values for
each country.

Results:

· The CPI score and rank are accompanied by the number of sources, the highest and
lowest values given to every country by the data sources, the standard deviation and the
confidence range for each country.
· The confidence range is determined by what is called a bootstrap (non-parametric)
methodology, which allows inferences to be drawn on the underlying precision of the
results. A 90 percent confidence range is then established, where there is only a five
percent probability that the value is below and a five per cent probability that the value is
above this confidence range.

For a more detailed explanation of the CPI method please visit www.transparency.org/cpi

© 2010 Transparency International. All rights reserved.
Corruption Perceptions Index 2010
Short methodological note

Data Sources:

· The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) 2010 is an aggregate indicator that brings
together data from sources that cover the past two years. For the CPI 2010, this includes
surveys published between January 2009 and September 2010.
· The CPI 2010 is calculated using data from 13 sources by 10 independent institutions.
All sources measure the overall extent of corruption (frequency and/or size of bribes) in
the public and political sectors, and all sources provide a ranking of countries, i.e. include
an assessment of multiple countries.
· Evaluation of the extent of corruption in countries/territories is done by two groups:
country experts, both residents and non-residents, and business leaders. In the CPI
2010, the following seven sources provided data based on expert analysis: African
Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, Bertelsmann Foundation, Economist
Intelligence Unit, Freedom House, Global Insight and the World Bank. Three sources for
the CPI 2010 reflect the evaluations by resident business leaders of their own country,
IMD, Political and Economic Risk Consultancy, and the World Economic Forum.
· For CPI sources that are surveys, and where multiple years of the same survey are
available, data for the past two years is included.
· For sources that are scores provided by experts (risk agencies/country analysts), only
the most recent iteration of the assessment is included, as these scores are generally
peer reviewed and change very little from year to year.

Steps to calculate the CPI:

1. The first step to calculate the CPI is to standardise the data provided by the individual
sources (that is, translate them into a common scale). We use what is called a matching
percentiles technique that takes the ranks of countries reported by each individual
source. This method is useful for combining sources that have different distributions.
While there is some information loss in this technique, it allows all reported scores to
remain within the bounds of the CPI, i.e. to remain between 0 and 10.
2. The second step consists of performing what is called a beta-transformation on the
standardized scores. This increases the standard deviation among all countries included
in the CPI and makes it possible to differentiate more precisely countries that appear to
have similar scores.
3. Finally, the CPI scores are determined by averaging all of the standardised values for
each country.

Results:

· The CPI score and rank are accompanied by the number of sources, the highest and
lowest values given to every country by the data sources, the standard deviation and the
confidence range for each country.
· The confidence range is determined by what is called a bootstrap (non-parametric)
methodology, which allows inferences to be drawn on the underlying precision of the
results. A 90 percent confidence range is then established, where there is only a five
percent probability that the value is below and a five per cent probability that the value is
above this confidence range.

For a more detailed explanation of the CPI method please visit www.transparency.org/cpi

© 2010 Transparency International. All rights reserved.

More info:

Categories:Types, Research
Published by: José Pedro Gomes on Oct 29, 2010
Copyright:Public Domain

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/12/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
CORRUPTIONPERCEPTIONSINDEX 2010
www.transparency.org
TRANSPARENCYINTERNATIONAL
 
the global coalition against corruption
 
www.transparency.org
Every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of the information contained in this report. All information wasbelieved to be correct as of October 2010. Nevertheless, Transparency International cannot accept responsibilityfor the consequences of its use for other purposes or in other contexts.ISBN: 978-3-935711-60-9©2010 Transparency International. All rights reserved.Design: Sophie EverettPrinted on 100% recycled paper.
CONTENTS
2010 RESULTS
2
WHAT IS THE CORRUPTION PERCEPTIONS INDEX?
4
2010 FACTS
5
 VISUALISING THE CORRUPTION PERCEPTIONS INDEX
6
RESULTS BY REGION
 AMERICAS8 ASIAPACIFIC9EASTERNEUROPEANDCENTRALASIA10EUROPEANUNIONANDWESTERNEUROPE11MIDDLEEASTANDNORTHAFRICA12SUB-SAHARANAFRICA13
 ANNEX A:
SHORTMETHODOLOGICALNOTE
 
15
 ANNEX B:
SOURCESOFINFORMATION16
Transparency International (TI) is the global civil society organisation leadingthe fight against corruption. Through more than 90 chapters worldwide and aninternational secretariat in Berlin, TI raises awareness of the damaging effectsof corruption and works with partners in government, business and civil societyto develop and implement effective measures to tackle it.
 
----------ill
 
TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY ARECRITICAL TO RESTORINGTRUST AND TURNINGBACK THE TIDE OFCORRUPTION
9.0 - 10.08.0 - 8.97.0 - 7.96.0 - 6.95.0 - 5.94.0 - 4.93.0 - 3.92.0 -2.91.0 - 1.90.0 - 0.9No dataHighlyCorrupt VeryClean
2010 CPI Score
1
Denmark9.3
1
New Zealand9.3
1
Singapore9.3
4
Finland9.2
4
Sweden9.2
6
Canada8.9
7
Netherlands8.8
8
 Australia8.7
8
Switzerland8.7
10
Norway8.6
11
Iceland8.5
11
Luxembourg8.5
13
Hong Kong8.4
14
Ireland8.0
15
 Austria7.9
15
Germany7.9
17
Barbados7.8
17
Japan7.8
19
Qatar7.7
20
United Kingdom7.6
21
Chile7.2
22
Belgium7.1
22
United States7.1
24
Uruguay6.9
25
France6.8
26
Estonia6.5
27
Slovenia6.4
28
Cyprus6.3
28
United Arab Emirates6.3
30
Israel6.1
30
Spain6.1
32
Portugal6.0
33
Botswana5.8
33
Puerto Rico5.8
33
 Taiwan5.8
36
Bhutan5.7
37
Malta5.6
38
Brunei5.5
39
Korea (South)5.4
39
Mauritius5.4
41
Costa Rica5.3
41
Oman5.3
41
Poland5.3
44
Dominica5.2
45
Cape Verde5.1
46
Lithuania5.0
46
Macau5.0
48
Bahrain4.9
49
Seychelles4.8
50
Hungary4.7
50
Jordan4.7
50
Saudi Arabia4.7
53
Czech Republic4.6
54
Kuwait4.5
54
South Africa4.5
56
Malaysia4.4
56
Namibia4.4
56
 Turkey4.4
59
Latvia4.3
59
Slovakia4.3
91
Bosnia andHerzegovina3.2
91
Djibouti3.2
91
Gambia3.2
91
Guatemala3.2
91
Kiribati3.2
91
Sri Lanka3.2
91
Swaziland3.2
98
Burkina Faso3.1
98
Egypt3.1
98
Mexico3.1
101
Dominican Republic3.0
101
Sao Tome & Principe3.0
101
 Tonga3.0
101
Zambia3.0
105
 Algeria2.9
105
 Argentina2.9
105
Kazakhstan2.9
105
Moldova2.9
105
Senegal2.9
110
Benin2.8
110
Bolivia2.8
110
Gabon2.8
110
Indonesia2.8
110
Kosovo2.8
110
Solomon Islands2.8
116
Ethiopia2.7
116
Guyana2.7
116
Mali2.7
116
Mongolia2.7
116
Mozambique2.7
116
 Tanzania2.7
116
 Vietnam2.7
123
 Armenia2.6
123
Eritrea2.6
123
Madagascar2.6
123
Niger2.6
127
Belarus2.5
127
Ecuador2.5
127
Lebanon2.5
127
Nicaragua2.5
127
Syria2.5
127
 Timor-Leste2.5
127
Uganda2.5
134
 Azerbaijan2.4
134
Bangladesh2.4
134
Honduras2.4
134
Nigeria2.4
134
Philippines2.4
134
Sierra Leone2.4
134
 Togo2.4
134
Ukraine2.4
134
Zimbabwe2.4
143
Maldives2.3
143
Mauritania2.3
143
Pakistan2.3
146
Cameroon2.2
146
Côte d'Ivoire2.2
146
Haiti2.2
146
Iran2.2
146
Libya2.2
146
Nepal2.2
146
Paraguay2.2
146
 Yemen2.2
154
Cambodia2.1
154
Central AfricanRepublic2.1
154
Comoros2.1
154
Congo-Brazzaville2.1
154
Guinea-Bissau2.1
154
Kenya2.1
154
Laos2.1
154
Papua New Guinea2.1
154
Russia2.1
154
 Tajikistan2.1
164
Democratic Republicof the Congo2.0
164
Guinea2.0
164
Kyrgyzstan2.0
164
 Venezuela2.0
168
 Angola1.9
168
Equatorial Guinea1.9
170
Burundi1.8
171
Chad1.7
172
Sudan1.6
172
 Turkmenistan1.6
172
Uzbekistan1.6
175
Iraq1.5
176
 Afghanistan1.4
176
Myanmar1.4
178
Somalia1.1
RANKCOUNTRY/ TERRITORYSCORERANKCOUNTRY/ TERRITORY
59
 Tunisia4.3
62
Croatia4.1
62
FYR Macedonia4.1
62
Ghana4.1
62
Samoa4.1
66
Rwanda4.0
67
Italy3.9
68
Georgia3.8
69
Brazil3.7
69
Cuba3.7
69
Montenegro3.7
69
Romania3.7
73
Bulgaria3.6
73
El Salvador3.6
73
Panama3.6
73
 Trinidad and Tobago3.6
73
 Vanuatu3.6
78
China3.5
78
Colombia3.5
78
Greece3.5
78
Lesotho3.5
78
Peru3.5
78
Serbia3.5
78
 Thailand3.5
85
Malawi3.4
85
Morocco3.4
87
 Albania3.3
87
India3.3
87
Jamaica3.3
87
Liberia3.3
RANKCOUNTRY/ TERRITORYSCORESCORE
With governments committing huge sums to tackle theworld’s most pressing problems, from the instabilityof nancial markets to climate change and poverty,corruption remains an obstacle to achieving muchneeded progress. The 2010
Corruption Perceptions Index 
shows thatnearly three quarters of the 178 countries in the indexscore below ve, on a scale from 10 (very clean) to0 (highly corrupt). These results indicate a seriouscorruption problem. To address these challenges, governments need tointegrate anti-corruption measures in all spheres, fromtheir responses to the nancial crisis and climate changeto commitments by the international community toeradicate poverty. Transparency International advocatesstricter implementation of the UN Convention againstCorruption, the only global initiative that provides aframework for putting an end to corruption.Denmark, New Zealand and Singapore are tied at thetop of the list with a score of 9.3, followed closely byFinland and Sweden at 9.2. At the bottom is Somaliawith a score of 1.1, slightly trailing Myanmar and Afghanistan at 1.4 and Iraq at 1.5.Notable among decliners over the past year are someof the countries most affected by a nancial crisisprecipitated by transparency and integrity decits. Among those improving in the past year, the generalabsence of OECD states underlines the fact thatall nations need to bolster their good governancemechanisms. The message is clear: across the globe, transparencyand accountability are critical to restoring trust andturning back the tide of corruption. Without them,global policy solutions to many global crises are at risk.
23 Transparency InternationalCorruption Perceptions Index 2010

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->