p. 1

transparency international the global coalition against corruption corruption perceptions index 2010 www.transparency.org

[close]

p. 2

transparency international ti is the global civil society organisation leading the fight against corruption through more than 90 chapters worldwide and an international secretariat in berlin ti raises awareness of the damaging effects of corruption and works with partners in government business and civil society to develop and implement effective measures to tackle it contents 2010 results 2 4 5 6 what is the corruption perceptions index 2010 facts visualising the corruption perceptions index results by region americas 8 9 asiapacific easterneuropeandcentralasia middleeastandnorthafrica sub-saharanafrica 10 11 12 13 15 europeanunionandwesterneurope annex a shortmethodologicalnote annex b sourcesofinformation 16 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.

[close]

p. 3

transparency and accountability are critical to restoring trust and turning back the tide of corruption with governments committing huge sums to tackle the world s most pressing problems from the instability of financial markets to climate change and poverty corruption remains an obstacle to achieving much needed progress 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 corruption problem 2010 cpi score very clean 9.0 10.0 8.0 8.9 7.0 7.9 6.0 6.9 5.0 5.9 4.0 4.9 3.0 3.9 2.0 -2.9 highly corrupt 1.0 1.9 0.0 0.9 no data country rank territory score country rank territory score country rank territory score 1 to address these challenges governments need to 1 integrate anti-corruption measures in all spheres from 1 their responses to the financial crisis and climate change score4 2010 cpi 4 to commitments by the international community to very 9.0 10.0 6 eradicate poverty transparency international advocates clean 7 8.0 stricter implementation of the un convention against 8.9 8 corruption the only global initiative that provides a 7.0 7.9 8 framework for putting an end to corruption 10 6.0 6.9 11 denmark new zealand and singapore are tied at the 5.9 5.0 11 top of the list with a score of 9.3 followed closely by 4.0 4.9 13 finland and sweden at 9.2 at the bottom is somalia 14 3.0 3.9 with a score of 1.1 slightly trailing myanmar and 15 2.0 -2.9 15 afghanistan at 1.4 and iraq at 1.5 17 1.0 1.9 highly notable among decliners over the past year are some 17 corrupt 19 of the countries most affected by a financial crisis 0.0 0.9 20 precipitated by transparency and integrity deficits no data 21 among those improving in the past year the general 22 absence of oecd states underlines the fact that 22 all nations need to bolster their good governance 24 mechanisms 25 26 the message is clear across the globe transparency 27 and accountability are critical to restoring trust and 28 turning back the tide of corruption without them 28 global policy solutions to many global crises are at risk 30 denmark new zealand singapore finland sweden canada netherlands australia switzerland norway iceland luxembourg hong kong ireland austria germany barbados japan qatar united kingdom chile belgium united states uruguay france estonia slovenia cyprus united arab emirates israel 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.2 9.2 8.9 8.8 8.7 8.7 8.6 8.5 8.5 8.4 8.0 7.9 7.9 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.6 7.2 7.1 7.1 6.9 6.8 6.5 6.4 6.3 6.3 6.1 30 32 33 33 33 36 37 38 39 39 41 41 41 44 45 46 46 48 49 50 50 50 53 54 54 56 56 56 59 59 spain portugal botswana puerto rico taiwan bhutan malta brunei korea south mauritius costa rica oman poland dominica cape verde lithuania macau bahrain seychelles hungary jordan saudi arabia czech republic kuwait south africa malaysia namibia turkey latvia slovakia 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.3 5.3 5.3 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.3 4.3 59 62 62 62 62 66 67 68 69 69 69 69 73 73 73 73 73 78 78 78 78 78 78 78 85 85 87 87 87 87 tunisia croatia fyr macedonia ghana samoa rwanda italy georgia brazil cuba montenegro romania bulgaria el salvador panama trinidad and tobago vanuatu china colombia greece lesotho peru serbia thailand malawi morocco albania india jamaica liberia 4.3 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.0 3.9 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 91 91 91 91 91 91 91 98 98 98 101 101 101 101 105 105 105 105 105 110 110 110 110 110 110 116 116 116 116 bosnia and herzegovina djibouti gambia guatemala kiribati sri lanka swaziland burkina faso egypt mexico dominican republic sao tome principe tonga zambia algeria argentina kazakhstan moldova senegal benin bolivia gabon indonesia kosovo solomon islands ethiopia guyana mali mongolia 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.1 3.1 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 116 116 116 123 123 123 123 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 134 143 143 143 146 146 146 146 mozambique tanzania vietnam armenia eritrea madagascar niger belarus ecuador lebanon nicaragua syria timor-leste uganda azerbaijan bangladesh honduras nigeria philippines sierra leone togo ukraine zimbabwe maldives mauritania pakistan cameroon côte d ivoire haiti iran 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 146 146 146 146 154 154 154 154 154 154 154 154 154 154 164 164 164 164 168 168 170 171 172 172 172 175 176 176 178 libya nepal paraguay yemen cambodia central african republic comoros congo-brazzaville guinea-bissau kenya laos papua new guinea russia tajikistan democratic republic of the congo guinea kyrgyzstan venezuela angola equatorial guinea burundi chad sudan turkmenistan uzbekistan iraq afghanistan myanmar somalia 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.1 2 transparency international corruption perceptions index 2010 3

[close]

p. 4

2010 facts the 2010 cpi measures the degree to which public sector corruption is perceived to exist in 178 countries around the world it scores countries on a scale from 10 very clean to 0 highly corrupt what is the corruption perceptions index transparency international ti defines corruption as the abuse of entrusted power for private gain this definition encompasses corrupt practices in both the public and private sectors the corruption perceptions index cpi ranks countries according to perception of corruption in the public sector the cpi is an aggregate indicator that combines different sources of information about corruption making it possible to compare countries the 2010 cpi draws on different assessments and business opinion surveys carried out by independent and reputable institutions1 it captures information about the administrative and political aspects of corruption broadly speaking the surveys and assessments used to compile the index include questions relating to bribery of public officials kickbacks in public procurement embezzlement of public funds and questions that probe the strength and effectiveness of public sector anti-corruption efforts for a country or territory to be included in the index a minimum of three of the sources that ti uses must assess that country thus inclusion in the index depends solely on the availability of information perceptions are used because corruption ­ whether frequency or amount ­ is to a great extent a hidden activity that is difficult to measure over time perceptions have proved to be a reliable estimate of corruption measuring scandals investigations or prosecutions while offering `non-perception data reflect less on the prevalence of corruption in a country and more on other factors such as freedom of the press or the efficiency of the judicial system ti considers it of critical importance to measure both corruption and integrity and to do so in the public and private sectors at global national and local levels.2 the cpi is therefore one of many ti measurement tools that serve the fight against corruption for detailed information on the sources of information please see annex b and visit our website at www transparency.org/cpi 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 bribe payers index which evaluates expert views of the supply of foreign bribery 1 the 2010 results are drawn from 13 surveys and assessments published between january 2009 and september 2010 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 include kosovo for the first time but led to the exclusion of saint lucia saint vincent and the grenadines and suriname for which only two sources of information were available this year given its methodology the cpi is not a tool that is suitable for trend analysis or for monitoring changes in the perceived levels of corruption over time for all countries year-to-year changes in a country/territory s score can result from a change in the perceptions of a country s performance a change in the ranking provided by original sources or changes in the methodology resulting from ti s efforts to improve the index if a country is featured in one or more specific data sources for both of the last two cpis 2009 cpi and 2010 cpi those sources can be used to identify whether there has been a change in perceived levels of corruption in that particular country compared to the previous year ti has used this approach in 2010 to assess country progress over the past year and to identify what can be considered to be a change in perceptions of corruption these assessments use two criteria a there is a year-on-year change of at least 0.3 points in a country s cpi score and b the direction of this change is confirmed by more than half of the data sources evaluating that country based on these criteria the following countries showed an improvement from 2009 to 2010 bhutan chile ecuador fyr macedonia gambia haiti jamaica kuwait and qatar the following countries showed deterioration from 2009 to 2010 the czech republic greece hungary italy madagascar niger and the united states 4 transparency international corruption perceptions index 2010 5

[close]

p. 5

visualising the corruption perceptions index denmark new zealand singapore finland sweden canada netherlands australia switzerland norway iceland luxembourg hong kong ireland austria germany barbados japan qatar united kingdom chile belgium united states uruguay france estonia slovenia cyprus united arab emirates israel spain portugal botswana puerto rico taiwan bhutan malta brunei koreasouth mauritius costa rica oman poland dominica cape verde lithuania macau bahrain seychelles hungary jordan saudi arabia czech republic kuwait south africa malaysia namibia turkey latvia slovakia tunisia croatia fyr macedonia ghana samoa rwanda italy georgia brazil cuba montenegro romania bulgaria el salvador panama trinidad and tobago vanuatu china colombia greece lesotho peru serbia thailand malawi morocco albania india jamaica liberia bosnia and herzegovina djibouti gambia guatemala kiribati sri lanka swaziland burkina faso egypt mexico dominican republic sao tome and principe tonga zambia algeria argentina kazakhstan moldova senegal benin bolivia gabon indonesia kosovo solomon islands ethiopia guyana mali mongolia mozambique tanzania vietnam armenia eritrea madagascar niger belarus ecuador lebanon nicaragua syria timor-leste uganda azerbaijan bangladesh honduras nigeria philippines sierra leone togo ukraine zimbabwe maldives mauritania pakistan cameroon cÔte d´ivoire haiti iran libya nepal paraguay yemen cambodia central african republic comoros congo-brazzaville guinea-bissau kenya laos papua new guinea russia tajikistan democratic republic of the congo guinea kyrgyzstan venezuela angola equatorial guinea burundi chad sudan turkmenistan uzbekistan iraq afghanistan myanmar somalia 2010 cpi score very clean 9.0 10.0 8.0 8.9 7.0 7.9 6.0 6.9 5.0 5.9 4.0 4.9 3.0 3.9 2.0 -2.9 highly corrupt 1.0 1.9 0.0 0.9 countries appear in order of rank please see country listing on p 2 for exact country scoring and ranking 6 transparency international corruption perceptions index 2010 7

[close]

p. 6

results by region americas rank regional rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9 11 11 11 14 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 23 25 26 26 28 asia pacific surveys used rank regional rank 1 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 14 16 17 17 19 20 20 22 22 24 25 25 27 27 29 30 30 30 33 33 country territory cpi 2010 score 90 confidence interval lower bound upper bound country territory cpi 2010 score 90 confidence interval lower bound upper bound surveys used 6 17 21 22 24 33 41 44 69 69 73 73 73 78 78 87 91 98 101 105 110 116 127 127 134 146 146 164 canada barbados chile united states uruguay puerto rico costa rica dominica brazil cuba el salvador panama trinidad and tobago colombia peru jamaica guatemala mexico dominican republic argentina bolivia guyana ecuador nicaragua honduras haiti paraguay venezuela 8.9 7.8 7.2 7.1 6.9 5.8 5.3 5.2 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.2 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.2 2.0 8.7 7.1 7.0 6.5 6.5 5.3 4.7 4.7 3.2 2.6 3.4 3.2 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.1 1.9 1.8 9.0 8.5 7.4 7.7 7.1 6.4 6.0 5.8 4.3 5.1 3.8 4.1 4.3 4.0 3.6 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.1 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.3 2.5 2.1 6 4 7 8 5 4 5 3 7 3 5 5 4 7 7 5 5 7 5 7 6 4 5 6 6 3 5 7 1 1 8 13 17 33 36 38 39 46 56 62 73 78 78 87 91 91 101 110 110 116 116 127 134 134 143 143 146 154 154 154 176 176 new zealand singapore australia hong kong japan taiwan bhutan brunei korea south macau malaysia samoa vanuatu china thailand india kiribati sri lanka tonga indonesia solomon islands mongolia vietnam timor-leste bangladesh philippines maldives pakistan nepal cambodia laos papua new guinea afghanistan myanmar 9.3 9.3 8.7 8.4 7.8 5.8 5.7 5.5 5.4 5.0 4.4 4.1 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.0 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.4 1.4 9.2 9.2 8.3 8.1 7.5 5.5 5.1 4.7 5.1 3.4 3.9 3.4 2.3 3.0 3.2 3.0 2.3 2.9 2.6 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.1 1.9 2.1 1.7 2.1 1.9 1.9 1.6 1.8 1.2 0.9 9.5 9.4 9.0 8.7 8.2 6.2 6.2 6.1 5.7 5.8 4.9 4.7 5.8 4.0 3.9 3.5 4.7 3.6 3.3 3.2 3.4 3.0 3.1 2.8 3.0 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.5 2.2 2.6 2.5 1.6 1.9 6 9 8 8 8 9 4 3 9 3 9 3 3 9 9 10 3 7 3 9 3 6 9 5 7 9 3 7 6 9 4 5 4 3 the confidence intervals reflect the precision of the cpi scores they indicate the range within which the most accurate value of the cpi score is most likely to fall the wider a confidence interval is the less precise the score 8 transparency international corruption perceptions index 2010 9

[close]

p. 7

eastern europe and central asia rank regional rank 1 2 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 9 11 12 13 14 14 16 16 18 19 19 european union and western europe surveys used rank regional rank 1 2 2 4 5 6 7 7 9 10 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 27 28 29 30 country territory cpi 2010 score 90 confidence interval lower bound upper bound country territory cpi 2010 score 90 confidence interval lower bound upper bound surveys used 56 62 62 68 69 78 87 91 105 105 110 123 127 134 134 154 154 164 172 172 turkey croatia fyr macedonia georgia montenegro serbia albania bosnia and herzegovina kazakhstan moldova kosovo armenia belarus azerbaijan ukraine russia tajikistan kyrgyzstan turkmenistan uzbekistan 4.4 4.1 4.1 3.8 3.7 3.5 3.3 3.2 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.1 2.1 2.0 1.6 1.6 4.0 3.7 3.7 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.0 2.8 2.2 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.8 1.4 1.5 4.8 4.5 4.5 4.7 4.3 3.9 3.6 3.5 3.7 3.2 3.1 2.8 3.1 2.7 2.6 2.3 2.5 2.3 1.8 1.7 7 8 5 7 5 6 6 7 8 6 3 7 3 7 8 8 7 7 3 6 1 4 4 7 8 10 11 11 14 15 15 20 22 25 26 27 28 30 32 37 41 46 50 53 59 59 67 69 73 78 denmark finland sweden netherlands switzerland norway iceland luxembourg ireland austria germany united kingdom belgium france estonia slovenia cyprus spain portugal malta poland lithuania hungary czech republic latvia slovakia italy romania bulgaria greece 9.3 9.2 9.2 8.8 8.7 8.6 8.5 8.5 8.0 7.9 7.9 7.6 7.1 6.8 6.5 6.4 6.3 6.1 6.0 5.6 5.3 5.0 4.7 4.6 4.3 4.3 3.9 3.7 3.6 3.5 9.1 9.1 9.1 8.7 8.3 8.1 7.7 8.0 7.7 7.4 7.5 7.3 6.9 6.4 6.1 5.9 6.0 5.7 5.4 5.3 5.0 4.4 3.9 4.1 3.7 3.8 3.5 3.3 3.2 3.1 9.4 9.3 9.4 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.2 8.9 8.3 8.4 8.3 7.9 7.2 7.2 6.8 6.8 6.6 6.5 6.7 5.8 5.5 5.5 5.5 5.1 4.8 4.9 4.4 4.2 4.0 3.9 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 8 8 4 6 6 3 8 8 8 8 6 8 6 8 8 6 10 transparency international corruption perceptions index 2010 11

[close]

p. 8

middle east and north africa rank regional rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 14 16 16 16 19 sub-saharan africa surveys used rank regional rank 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 14 15 15 17 18 18 20 20 20 20 24 24 24 27 28 28 28 28 32 33 33 country territory cpi 2010 score 90 confidence interval lower bound upper bound country territory cpi 2010 score 90 confidence interval lower bound upper bound surveys used 19 28 30 41 48 50 50 54 59 85 91 98 105 127 127 146 146 146 175 qatar united arab emirates israel oman bahrain jordan saudi arabia kuwait tunisia morocco djibouti egypt algeria lebanon syria iran libya yemen iraq 7.7 6.3 6.1 5.3 4.9 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.3 3.4 3.2 3.1 2.9 2.5 2.5 2.2 2.2 2.2 1.5 6.6 5.4 5.7 4.1 4.1 4.0 3.3 3.3 3.0 2.9 2.1 2.9 2.6 2.0 2.1 1.6 2.0 2.0 1.2 8.6 7.3 6.6 6.4 5.7 5.5 6.0 5.9 5.6 3.9 4.7 3.4 3.2 2.9 2.8 3.1 2.4 2.5 1.9 7 5 6 5 5 7 5 5 6 6 3 6 6 4 5 4 6 4 3 33 39 45 49 54 56 62 66 78 85 87 91 91 98 101 101 105 110 110 116 116 116 116 123 123 123 127 134 134 134 134 143 146 146 botswana mauritius cape verde seychelles south africa namibia ghana rwanda lesotho malawi liberia gambia swaziland burkina faso sao tome and principe zambia senegal benin gabon ethiopia mali mozambique tanzania eritrea madagascar niger uganda nigeria sierra leone togo zimbabwe mauritania cameroon côte d´ivoire 5.8 5.4 5.1 4.8 4.5 4.4 4.1 4.0 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.2 5.4 4.9 4.1 3.0 4.1 3.9 3.4 3.2 2.8 2.8 2.7 1.9 3.1 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.3 2.1 2.4 2.2 2.4 2.4 1.7 2.2 2.3 2.1 2.2 2.1 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.0 1.9 6.2 5.9 6.1 6.8 4.8 4.9 4.7 5.1 4.4 3.9 3.9 4.4 3.4 3.8 3.3 3.3 3.1 3.3 3.3 2.9 3.2 3.0 2.9 3.7 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.7 2.6 3.0 3.0 2.7 2.4 2.5 6 6 4 3 8 6 7 5 6 7 4 5 4 6 3 7 7 6 3 7 6 7 7 4 6 4 7 7 5 4 7 6 7 7 sub-saharan africa continued on next page 12 transparency international corruption perceptions index 2010 13

[close]

p. 9

sub-saharan africa continued rank regional rank 35 35 35 35 35 40 40 42 42 44 45 46 47 annex a short methodological note surveys used the corruption perceptions index cpi 2010 is an aggregate indicator that brings together data from sources that cover the past two years for the 2010 cpi this includes surveys published between january 2009 and september 2010 country territory cpi 2010 score 90 confidence interval lower bound upper bound 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 standardised 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 154 154 154 154 154 164 164 168 168 170 171 172 178 central african republic comoros congo-brazzaville guinea-bissau kenya democratic republic of the congo guinea angola equatorial guinea burundi chad sudan somalia 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.1 2.0 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.0 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.4 0.9 2.3 2.6 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.0 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.9 1.4 4 3 5 3 7 4 5 6 3 6 6 5 3 data sources · the 2010 cpi 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 2010 cpi 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 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 per cent confidence range is then established where there is only a five per cent 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 14 transparency international corruption perceptions index 2010 15

[close]

p. 10

annex b sources of information number abbreviation 1 adb 2 afdb 3 bti number abbreviation 4 cpia 5 eiu 6 fh source asian development bank country performance assessment ratings 2010 african development bank country policy and institutional assessments 2010 bertelsmann foundation bertelsmann transformation index 2009 source world bank ida and ibrd economist intelligence unit freedom house name year published name country policy and institutional country risk service assessment and country forecast 2010 2010 nations in transit year published 2010 internet www.adb.org/documents www.afdb.org/pls/portal/url/item www.bertelsmannreports/country-performance /5008432d529957fae040c00a transformation-index.de/english assessment-exercise/default.asp 0c3d3a86 country teams experts inside and outside the bank transparency accountability and corruption in the public sector not applicable 28 countries eligible for adf funding country teams experts inside and outside the bank network of local correspondents and experts inside and outside the organisation internet http go.worldbank.org s2thwi1x60 www.eiu.com www.freedomhouse.hu index.php?option=com content&task=view&id=196 who was surveyed subject asked number of replies coverage transparency accountability and the government s capacity to corruption in the public sector punish and contain corruption who was surveyed country teams experts inside and outside the bank expert staff assessment assessment by experts originating from or resident in the respective country not applicable not applicable 128 less developed and transition countries transparency accountability and corruption in the public sector 53 countries subject asked the misuse of public office for private or political party gain including corruption in public procurement misuse of public funds corruption in public service and prosecution of public officials extent of corruption as practiced in governments as perceived by the public and as reported in the media as well as the implementation of anti-corruption initiatives number of replies coverage not applicable not applicable not applicable 77 countries eligible for ida funding 135 countries 29 countries/territories 16 transparency international corruption perceptions index 2010 17

[close]

p. 11

number abbreviation source name year published internet who was surveyed 7 gi global insight country risk ratings 2010 www.globalinsight.com expert staff assessment 8 imd imd international switzerland world competitiveness center 9 number abbreviation source name 12 wef world economic forum global competitiveness report 2009 www.weforum.org 13 wef imd world competitiveness yearbook year published 2009 www.imd.ch/wcc executives in top and middle management in domestic and international companies 2010 2010 internet who was surveyed senior business leaders domestic and international companies subject asked the likelihood of encountering corrupt officials ranging from petty bureaucratic corruption to grand political corruption category institutional framework state efficiency bribing and corruption exist/do not exist subject asked undocumented extra payments or bribes connected with 1 exports and imports 2 public utilities 3 tax collection 4 public contracts and 5 judicial decisions are common/never occur number of replies 3,960 more than 12,000 more than 13,000 number of replies not applicable coverage 58 countries 133 countries 139 countries coverage 201 countries 57 countries number abbreviation source name year published internet who was surveyed subject asked number of replies coverage 10 perc political economic risk consultancy asian intelligence newsletter 2009 www.asiarisk.com expatriate business executives 11 2010 how serious do you consider the problem of corruption to be in the public sector 1,750 2,174 16 countries 16 countries 18 transparency international corruption perceptions index 2010 19

[close]

p. 12

transparency international international secretariat alt-moabit 96 10559 berlin germany phone +49 30 34 38 200 fax +49 30 34 70 39 12 ti@transparency.org www.transparency.org

[close]