Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Corruption Perceptions Index 2010
Corruption Perceptions Index 2010
INTERNATIONAL
the global coalition against corruption
CORRUPTION
PERCEPTIONS
INDEX 2010
www.transparency.org
Transparency International (TI) is the global civil society organisation leading CONTENTS
the fight against corruption. Through more than 90 chapters worldwide and an
international secretariat in Berlin, TI raises awareness of the damaging effects 2010 RESULTS 2
of corruption and works with partners in government, business and civil society
WHAT IS THE CORRUPTION PERCEPTIONS INDEX? 4
to develop and implement effective measures to tackle it.
2010 FACTS 5
RESULTS BY REGION
AMERICAS 8
ASIA PACIFIC 9
EASTERN EUROPE AND CENTRAL ASIA 10
EUROPEAN UNION AND WESTERN EUROPE 11
MIDDLE EAST AND NORTH AFRICA 12
SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA 13
www.transparency.org
Every effort has been made to verify the accuracy of the information contained in this report. All information was
believed to be correct as of October 2010. Nevertheless, Transparency International cannot accept responsibility
for 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 Everett
Printed on 100% recycled paper.
TRANSPARENCY AND
ACCOUNTABILITY ARE
CRITICAL TO RESTORING
TRUST AND TURNING
BACK THE TIDE OF Very
2010 CPI Score
9.0 - 10.0
CORRUPTION
Clean
8.0 - 8.9
7.0 - 7.9
6.0 - 6.9
5.0 - 5.9
With governments committing huge sums to tackle the 4.0 - 4.9
world’s most pressing problems, from the instability 3.0 - 3.9
of financial markets to climate change and poverty, 2.0 -2.9
corruption remains an obstacle to achieving much 1.0 - 1.9
Highly
needed progress. Corrupt 0.0 - 0.9
No data
The 2010 Corruption Perceptions Index shows that
nearly three quarters of the 178 countries in the index
score below five, on a scale from 10 (very clean) to
0 (highly corrupt). These results indicate a serious COUNTRY/ COUNTRY/ COUNTRY/
corruption problem. RANK TERRITORY SCORE RANK TERRITORY SCORE RANK TERRITORY SCORE
1 Denmark 9.3 30 Spain 6.1 59 Tunisia 4.3 91 Bosnia and 116 Mozambique 2.7 146 Libya 2.2
To address these challenges, governments need to 1 New Zealand 9.3 32 Portugal 6.0 62 Croatia 4.1 Herzegovina 3.2 116 Tanzania 2.7 146 Nepal 2.2
integrate anti-corruption measures in all spheres, from 1 Singapore 9.3 33 Botswana 5.8 62 FYR Macedonia 4.1 91 Djibouti 3.2 116 Vietnam 2.7 146 Paraguay 2.2
their responses to the financial crisis and climate2010
change Finland 9.2 33 Puerto Rico 5.8 91 Gambia 3.2
CPI Score4 62 Ghana 4.1
91 Guatemala 3.2
123 Armenia 2.6 146 Yemen 2.2
to commitments by the international community to 4 Sweden 9.2 33 Taiwan 5.8 62 Samoa 4.1 123 Eritrea 2.6 154 Cambodia 2.1
Very 9.0 - 10.0 6 Canada 8.9 36 Bhutan 5.7 66 Rwanda 4.0 91 Kiribati 3.2 123 Madagascar 2.6 154 Central African 2.1
eradicate poverty. Transparency International advocates
Clean 7 Netherlands 8.8 37 Malta 5.6 67 Italy 3.9 91 Sri Lanka 3.2 123 Niger 2.6 Republic
stricter implementation of the UN Convention against8.0 - 8.9 91 Swaziland 3.2 154 Comoros 2.1
8 Australia 8.7 38 Brunei 5.5 68 Georgia 3.8 127 Belarus 2.5
Corruption, the only global initiative that provides a 7.0 - 7.9 8 Switzerland 8.7 39 Korea (South) 5.4 69 Brazil 3.7 98 Burkina Faso 3.1 127 Ecuador 2.5 154 Congo-Brazzaville 2.1
framework for putting an end to corruption. 10 Norway 8.6 39 Mauritius 5.4 69 Cuba 3.7 98 Egypt 3.1 127 Lebanon 2.5 154 Guinea-Bissau 2.1
6.0 - 6.9
11 Iceland 8.5 41 Costa Rica 5.3 69 Montenegro 3.7 98 Mexico 3.1 127 Nicaragua 2.5 154 Kenya 2.1
Denmark, New Zealand and Singapore are tied at the5.0 - 5.9 11 Luxembourg 8.5 41 Oman 5.3 101 Dominican Republic 3.0 154 Laos 2.1
69 Romania 3.7 127 Syria 2.5
top of the list with a score of 9.3, followed closely by 4.0 - 4.9 13 Hong Kong 8.4 41 Poland 5.3 73 Bulgaria 3.6 101 Sao Tome & Principe 3.0 127 Timor-Leste 2.5 154 Papua New Guinea 2.1
Finland and Sweden at 9.2. At the bottom is Somalia 14 Ireland 8.0 44 Dominica 5.2 73 El Salvador 3.6 101 Tonga 3.0 127 Uganda 2.5 154 Russia 2.1
3.0 - 3.9 101 Zambia 3.0 154 Tajikistan 2.1
with a score of 1.1, slightly trailing Myanmar and 15 Austria 7.9 45 Cape Verde 5.1 73 Panama 3.6 134 Azerbaijan 2.4
2.0 -2.9 105 Algeria 2.9 164 Democratic Republic 2.0
Afghanistan at 1.4 and Iraq at 1.5. 15 Germany 7.9 46 Lithuania 5.0 73 Trinidad and Tobago 3.6 134 Bangladesh 2.4 of the Congo
17 Barbados 7.8 46 Macau 5.0 73 Vanuatu 3.6 105 Argentina 2.9 134 Honduras 2.4
1.0 - 1.9 164 Guinea 2.0
Notable among decliners over the past year Highly
are some 17 Japan 7.8 48 Bahrain 4.9 78 China 3.5 105 Kazakhstan 2.9 134 Nigeria 2.4 164 Kyrgyzstan 2.0
of the countries most affected by a financial crisis 0.0 - 0.9
Corrupt 19 Qatar 7.7 49 Seychelles 4.8 78 Colombia 3.5 105 Moldova 2.9 134 Philippines 2.4 164 Venezuela 2.0
105 Senegal 2.9
precipitated by transparency and integrity deficits. No data 20 United Kingdom 7.6 50 Hungary 4.7 78 Greece 3.5 134 Sierra Leone 2.4 168 Angola 1.9
21 Chile 7.2 50 Jordan 4.7 78 Lesotho 3.5 110 Benin 2.8 134 Togo 2.4
Among those improving in the past year, the general 110 Bolivia 2.8
168 Equatorial Guinea 1.9
22 Belgium 7.1 50 Saudi Arabia 4.7 78 Peru 3.5 134 Ukraine 2.4 170 Burundi 1.8
absence of OECD states underlines the fact that 110 Gabon 2.8
22 United States 7.1 53 Czech Republic 4.6 78 Serbia 3.5 134 Zimbabwe 2.4 171 Chad 1.7
all nations need to bolster their good governance 24 Uruguay 6.9 54 Kuwait 4.5 78 Thailand 3.5 110 Indonesia 2.8 143 Maldives 2.3 172 Sudan 1.6
mechanisms. 25 France 6.8 54 South Africa 4.5 85 Malawi 3.4 110 Kosovo 2.8 143 Mauritania 2.3 172 Turkmenistan 1.6
26 Estonia 6.5 56 Malaysia 4.4 85 Morocco 3.4 110 Solomon Islands 2.8 143 Pakistan 2.3
The message is clear: across the globe, transparency 172 Uzbekistan 1.6
27 Slovenia 6.4 56 Namibia 4.4 87 Albania 3.3 116 Ethiopia 2.7 146 Cameroon 2.2 175 Iraq 1.5
and accountability are critical to restoring trust and 28 Cyprus 6.3 56 Turkey 4.4 87 India 3.3 116 Guyana 2.7 146 Côte d'Ivoire 2.2 176 Afghanistan 1.4
turning back the tide of corruption. Without them, 28 United Arab Emirates 6.3 59 Latvia 4.3 87 Jamaica 3.3 116 Mali 2.7 146 Haiti 2.2 176 Myanmar 1.4
global policy solutions to many global crises are at risk. 30 Israel 6.1 59 Slovakia 4.3 87 Liberia 3.3 116 Mongolia 2.7 146 Iran 2.2 178 Somalia 1.1
PERCEPTIONS INDEX? The 2010 CPI covers two countries fewer than last
year’s edition. The slight change resulted from individual
sources adjusting the range of countries they assess.
These adjustments in coverage made it possible to
Transparency International (TI) defines corruption as the abuse of entrusted
include Kosovo for the first time, but led to the exclusion
power for private gain. This definition encompasses corrupt practices in both
of Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and
the public and private sectors. The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) ranks
Suriname, for which only two sources of information were
countries according to perception of corruption in the public sector. The CPI
available this year.
is an aggregate indicator that combines different sources of information about
corruption, making it possible to compare countries. Given its methodology, the CPI is not a tool that is
suitable for trend analysis or for monitoring changes in the
The 2010 CPI draws on different assessments and business opinion surveys
perceived levels of corruption over time for all countries.
carried out by independent and reputable institutions1. It captures information
Year-to-year changes in a country/territory’s score can
about the administrative and political aspects of corruption. Broadly speaking,
result from a change in the perceptions of a country’s
the surveys and assessments used to compile the index include questions
performance, a change in the ranking provided by original
relating to bribery of public officials, kickbacks in public procurement,
sources or changes in the methodology resulting from TI’s
embezzlement of public funds, and questions that probe the strength and
efforts to improve the index.
effectiveness of public sector anti-corruption efforts.
If a country is featured in one or more specific data
For a country or territory to be included in the index a minimum of three of
sources for both of the last two CPIs (2009 CPI and 2010
the sources that TI uses must assess that country. Thus inclusion in the index
CPI), those sources can be used to identify whether there
depends solely on the availability of information.
has been a change in perceived levels of corruption in
Perceptions are used because corruption – whether frequency or amount that particular country compared to the previous year.
– is to a great extent a hidden activity that is difficult to measure. Over time, TI has used this approach in 2010 to assess country
perceptions have proved to be a reliable estimate of corruption. Measuring progress over the past year and to identify what can be
scandals, investigations or prosecutions, while offering ‘non-perception’ data, considered to be a change in perceptions of corruption.
reflect less on the prevalence of corruption in a country and more on other These assessments use two criteria:
factors, such as freedom of the press or the efficiency of the judicial system. (a) there is a year-on-year change of at least 0.3 points in
TI considers it of critical importance to measure both corruption and integrity, a country’s CPI score, and
and to do so in the public and private sectors at global, national and local
(b) the direction of this change is confirmed by more than
levels.2 The CPI is therefore one of many TI measurement tools that serve
half of the data sources evaluating that country.
the fight against corruption.
Based on these criteria, the following countries showed
an improvement from 2009 to 2010: Bhutan, Chile, Ecuador,
1
For detailed information on the sources of information please see Annex B
FYR Macedonia, Gambia, Haiti, Jamaica, Kuwait and
and visit our website at www. transparency.org/cpi
Qatar. The following countries showed deterioration from
2
Examples include National Integrity System assessments, which evaluate the degree of
integrity, transparency and accountability in a country’s anti-corruption institutions, and the 2009 to 2010: the Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary,
Bribe Payers Index, which evaluates expert views of the supply of foreign bribery. Italy, Madagascar, Niger and the United States.
NUMBER 1 2 3 NUMBER 4 5 6
SOURCE Asian Development Bank African Development Bank Bertelsmann Foundation World Bank Economist
SOURCE Freedom House
(IDA and IBRD) Intelligence Unit
www.adb.org/Documents/ www.afdb.org/pls/portal/url/ITEM
www.bertelsmann-
INTERNET Reports/Country-Performance- /5008432D529957FAE040C00A www.freedomhouse.hu/
transformation-index.de/english http://go.worldbank.org/
Assessment-Exercise/default.asp 0C3D3A86 INTERNET www.eiu.com index.php?option=com_
S2THWI1X60
content&task=view&id=196
Network of local correspondents
WHO WAS Country teams, experts inside Country teams, experts inside
and experts inside and outside
SURVEYED? and outside the bank and outside the bank
the organisation Assessment by experts
WHO WAS Country teams, experts inside Expert staff
originating from or resident
Transparency, accountability, SURVEYED? and outside the bank assessment
Transparency, accountability, and The government’s capacity to in the respective country
SUBJECT ASKED and corruption in the public
corruption in the public sector punish and contain corruption
sector
The misuse of public
NUMBER
Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable office for private (or
OF REPLIES political party) gain:
Extent of corruption as practiced in
including corruption
Transparency, accountability, governments, as perceived by the public
28 countries 128 less developed and in public procurement,
COVERAGE 53 countries SUBJECT ASKED and corruption in the public and as reported in the media, as well as
(eligible for ADF funding) transition countries misuse of public
sector the implementation of anti-corruption
funds, corruption in
initiatives.
public service, and
prosecution of public
officials
NUMBER
Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable
OF REPLIES
WHO WAS
WHO WAS Executives in top and middle management Senior business leaders, domestic and international companies
Expert staff assessment SURVEYED?
SURVEYED? in domestic and international companies
The likelihood of encountering Undocumented extra payments or bribes connected with 1) exports and imports, 2) public utilities,
SUBJECT ASKED
corrupt officials, ranging from Category Institutional Framework - 3) tax collection, 4) public contracts and 5) judicial decisions are common/never occur
SUBJECT ASKED
petty bureaucratic corruption State Efficiency: “Bribing and corruption exist/do not exist”
to grand political corruption
NUMBER
More than 12,000 More than 13,000
OF REPLIES
NUMBER
Not applicable 3,960
OF REPLIES
COVERAGE 133 countries 139 countries
NUMBER 10 11
ABBREVIATION PERC
INTERNET www.asiarisk.com
WHO WAS
Expatriate business executives
SURVEYED?
SUBJECT ASKED How serious do you consider the problem of corruption to be in the public sector?
NUMBER
1,750 2,174
OF REPLIES