Corruption Perceptions Index

The Corruption Perceptions Index (english Corruption Perceptions Index, abbreviated CPI, short and corruption index) is, since 1995 by Transparency International, a non-governmental organization, the world dedicated to the fight against corruption in 180 countries collected (as of 2009).

Spiritus rector of the directory is Johann Graf Lambsdorff, a professor of economic theory at the University of Passau, who conceived the index in 1995 and has since created on behalf of Transparency International.

The CPI in this case indicates the perception of corruption. It ranks countries according to the degree to which corruption is perceived there exist among public officials and politicians. It is a composite index, drawing on different polls and surveys carried out by more than ten independent institutions. There were business people and country analysts consulted and involved surveys with experts at home and abroad. The index goes from 0 to 10, where 10 indicates the lowest perception of corruption and therefore is the best possible result.

Methodology

Information from multiple, independent sources are included in the directory. These are especially surveys of local or foreign business persons ( for example, by the World Economic Forum ) and systematic evaluations by risk agencies, based on country reports from local correspondents.

Research

The corruption index has frequently found its way into academic research. The negative effects of corruption are thus assigned as follows: Foreign direct investment go back, the quality of the cultural offer, the decreases education and health system, decreasing productivity, pollution rises, military spending is rising, economy and rising inflation, income and wealth are unequally distributed and the subjective perception of happiness of individuals decreases.

The causes of corruption following were identified: high raw material deposits, restrictions on competition, arbitrary and contradictory state intervention in economic activity, lack of press freedom, acceptance of hierarchies and a tendency to reciprocity.

History

2004

The CPI 2004 showed that reached 106 out of 146 countries less than 5 out of 10 possible points. Sixty countries are even below the value 3 of 10 possible points, indicating a deep-rooted corruption.

2005

In the CPI 2005 159 countries were examined. At the top (score greater than 9 ) are the 2005 version again especially economically strong countries such as Iceland ( 1 ), Finland ( 2 ), New Zealand ( 2 ), Denmark ( 4 ), Singapore ( 5 ), Sweden ( 6 ) or Switzerland ( 7 ). At the very bottom (less than two points) are particularly economically weak countries like Chad last position 158, Bangladesh ( also 158 ), Turkmenistan ( 155 ) Myanmar ( also 155 ), Haiti ( also 155 ), Nigeria (152. ), Equatorial Guinea ( 152 ), Ivory Coast ( 152 ) and Angola ( 152 ). Austria ranks 10th (8.7 ), Germany ranked 16th (8.2 ) of the index in 2005.

2006

In the CPI 2006 163 countries were examined. On the top rank 1 with a score of 9.6 points are Finland, Iceland and New Zealand. Behind it are Denmark, Singapore, Sweden and Switzerland, all still with a score above 9 Austria reached 8.6 points and thus achieved 11th place with 8 points, Germany ranks as the year in 16th place, just behind Hong Kong (8.3 points) and ahead of Japan ( 7.6 points). The United States clearly show together with Chile and Belgium rank 20th The last ranks with 2 or fewer points occupy Bangladesh, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Sudan, Guinea, Iraq, Myanmar and recently ranked 163 Haiti.

120 countries are below the threshold of 5 points, of which 71 are even less than 3 points. 43.6 % of all participating countries suffer from deep-rooted corruption.

Knowledge 2006: It can be discovered a correlation between corruption and poverty. Many of the poorest countries occupy the bottom positions. But some poorer countries such as Barbados, Botswana, Bhutan, Chile, Jordan and Uruguay show that poorer countries can do relatively well. In contrast, many resource-rich countries are assessed, despite a high per capita income as a relatively corrupt.

A sharp deterioration in part to the previous years was observed in the countries of Brazil, Israel, Jordan, Cuba, Laos, Seychelles, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, and the United States. Countries in which improvements were perceived, are Algeria, India, Japan, Latvia, Lebanon, Mauritius, Paraguay, Slovenia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Czech Republic and Uruguay.

2007

In 2007, Somalia, Myanmar and Iraq were reported as most corrupt countries; the least corruption existed in Denmark, Finland and New Zealand. Switzerland remains unchanged at the 7th place, together with the Netherlands. Germany remained stable on a 16th place and therefore is considered to be uncorrupt. Austria is located in front of number 15 and has deteriorated so since 2006 to 4 places.

2008

In 2008, occupied Somalia, Myanmar and Iraq the last places on the International Corruption Index. As the least corrupt countries, with an index value of 9.3 each, Denmark, Sweden and New Zealand, closely followed by Singapore were. The Switzerland improved to rank 5, Austria took place 12, Germany Place 14.

2009

In 2009, Somalia, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Sudan and Iraq occupied the lowest ranks. The perception by the slightest corruption existed in New Zealand, Denmark, Singapore, Sweden. The Switzerland finished 9.0 points back to 5th place, Austria deteriorated again and is now at 7.9 points at number 16 Transparency International speaks in this regard of a " significant deterioration within several years." While the Alpine republic has so far been in this decade clearly superior midfield developed industrial democracies, it threatens to fall back now sustainable. For the first time since 1999, Austria is in the rankings, behind Germany, which with 8.0 points (previous year: 7.9 points ) again landed at No. 14.

2010

Three quarters of the 178 countries surveyed scored 2010 on a scale of zero ( perceived as very corrupt ) to ten ( perceived as less corrupt ) less than five points. Laggards were again Iraq, Afghanistan, Myanmar and Somalia; little better was the situation in Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Sudan. The first place was shared again the countries of Denmark, New Zealand and Singapore, which each received 9.3 points. Finland and Sweden (9.2 points) followed on the next places. Germany lost a place and was together with Austria in 15th place ( 7.9 points ). The Switzerland fared better with 8.7 points and rank 8.

2011

In 2011, a total of 183 countries were examined. Laggards were Somalia and North Korea; followed by Myanmar, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Sudan and Iraq. In the first place went to New Zealand, followed by Denmark and Finland. The Switzerland was together with Australia at number 8, Germany and Japan shared 14th place Austria was ranked 16th

2012

Among the 176 countries that were examined in 2012, Denmark, Finland and New Zealand occupy the first rank, followed by Sweden and Singapore. Switzerland was able to improve by two ranks and landed at number six. Germany also improved by a space and is newly available on place 13. Austria has slipped from rank 16 to 25, Afghanistan, North Korea and Somalia share the last 174 rank.

2013

Denmark, New Zealand and Finland achieve again the best values ​​. Germany loses a point, but still ends up with it to a place higher than last year. Austria achieved as in the previous 69 points, but that deteriorated again slightly on rank 26, Somalia, North Korea and Afghanistan share as the year before the last rank.