Corruption Perceptions Index 2011 is out!
… and it seems that not much has changed.
Here’s a more detailed look. The numbers shown below follow the format of “score (rank)”.
Corruption perceptions in ASEAN: more of the same.
As I said before, not much has changed. ASEAN remains just about as corrupt (or non-corrupt) as it was last year. Some minor changes in ranks and in scores, but is probably attributable to the methodological tweaks that Transparency International makes from year to year (they even write disclaimers on their reports to that effect). The full report is available here.
So, what does this lack of significant movement imply for the countries and the region? For individual countries, it could mean that anti-corruption policies are not working as well as the governments expect. It could also be used to explain the successes or failures in implementing public policies over the past year.
Perhaps, the best use of this year’s CPI is as a warning to citizens in Myanmar, Laos, Cambodia, Philippines, Vietnam and Indonesia, as well as potential investors into the region: “Brace yourselves. It hasn’t gotten better in the last year, and it probably won’t get much better soon.”
Can you please tell me how to describe the perception of corruption?? for example like Cambodia-2.1(164), 2011?? what does it mean??
Ratha, sure thing.
The first number is the CPI score, which is on a scale of 1-10, with higher numbers indicating a lower perceived incidence of corruption. Thus, Singapore (with a score of 9.3) is perceived as being less corrupt or having less corruption than Myanmar (with a low score of 1.4).
The second number is just the global rank (out of the total number of countries included in the index).
Hope this helps.
The CPI is collated based on newspaper reports of corruption in each given country. The local Transparency International chapter will observe cases of corruption in the public space which will form the score assigned by the TI office in Berlin. Many have questioned the methodology while other have stated its utility in ensuring corruption remains in the public consciousness with the hope of curbing its growth.