Corruption Perceptions Index

The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) is an index published annually by Transparency International since 1995 which ranks countries "by their perceived levels of public sector[1] corruption, as determined by expert assessments and opinion surveys."[2] The CPI generally defines corruption as "the misuse of public power for private benefit".[3]

Map showing countries/territories by Corruption Perceptions Index, 2019
  >80
  70–79
  60–69
  50–59
  40–49
  30–39
  20–29
  10–19
  <10
  Data unavailable

The 2019 CPI, published in January of 2020, currently ranks 180 countries "on a scale from 100 (very clean) to 0 (highly corrupt)."[4] Denmark, New Zealand and Finland are perceived as the least corrupt nations in the world, ranking consistently high among international financial transparency, while the most perceived corrupt country in the world is Somalia, scoring 8–10 out of 100 since 2012.[5] South Sudan is also perceived as one of the most corrupted countries in the world due to constant social and economic crises, ranking an average score of 13 out of 100 in 2018.[6]

Methods
Political corruption
Concepts
Corruption by country
Africa
Asia
Europe
North America
Oceania
South America

Transparency International commissioned the University of Passau's Johann Graf Lambsdorff to produce the CPI.[7] The 2012 CPI takes into account 16 different surveys and assessments from 12 different institutions.[8] The 13 surveys/assessments are either business people opinion surveys or performance assessments from a group of analysts.[3] Early CPIs used public opinion surveys.[9] The institutions are:

Countries need to be evaluated by at least three sources to appear in the CPI.[9] The CPI measures perception of corruption due to the difficulty of measuring absolute levels of corruption.[11]

Validity

A study published in 2002 found a "very strong significant correlation" between the Corruption Perceptions Index and two other proxies for corruption: black market activity and an overabundance of regulation.[12]

All three metrics also had a highly significant correlation with real gross domestic product per capita (RGDP/Cap); the Corruption Perceptions Index correlation with RGDP/Cap was the strongest, explaining over three fourths of the variance.[12] (Note that a lower index on this scale reflects greater corruption, so that countries with higher RGDPs generally had less corruption.)

Economic implications

Research papers published in 2007 and 2008 examined the economic consequences of corruption perception, as defined by the CPI. The researchers found a correlation between a higher CPI and higher long-term economic growth,[13] as well as an increase in GDP growth of 1.7% for every unit increase in a country's CPI score.[14] Also shown was a power-law dependence linking higher CPI score to higher rates of foreign investment in a country.

Rankings

Legend:

Scores Perceived as less corrupt Perceived as more corrupt
100–090 089–080 079–070 069–060 059–050 049–040 039-030 029–020 019–010 009–000

2012–2019
2012–2019 Corruption Perceptions Index table[15][16]
Rank Nation
or
Territory		 2019[17] 2018[18] 2017[19] 2016[20] 2015[21] 2014[22] 2013[23] 2012[24]
Score Change in score from previous year Score Change in score from previous year Score Change in score from previous year Score Change in score from previous year Score Change in score from previous year Score Change in score from previous year Score Change in score from previous year Score
1 New Zealand
87
87
 2
89
 1
90
 1
91
91
91
 1
90
1 Denmark
87
 1
88
88
 2
90
 1
91
 1
92
 1
91
 1
90
3 Finland
86
 1
85
85
 4
89
 1
90
 1
89
89
 1
90
4 Sweden
85
85
 1
84
 4
88
 1
89
 2
87
 2
89
 1
88
4  Switzerland
85
85
85
 1
86
86
86
 1
85
 1
86
4 Singapore
85
85
 1
84
84
 1
85
 1
84
 2
86
 1
87
7 Norway
84
84
 1
85
85
 2
87
 1
86
86
 1
85
8 Netherlands
82
82
82
 1
83
 4
87
 4
83
83
 1
84
9 Luxembourg
80
 1
81
 1
82
 1
81
81
 1
82
 2
80
80
9 Germany
80
80
 1
81
81
81
 2
79
 1
78
 1
79
11 Iceland
78
 2
76
 1
77
 1
78
 1
79
79
 1
78
 4
82
12 Canada
77
 4
81
 1
82
82
 1
83
 2
81
81
 3
84
12 United Kingdom
77
 3
80
 2
82
 1
81
81
 3
78
 2
76
 2
74
12 Australia
77
77
77
 2
79
79
 1
80
 1
81
 4
85
12 Austria
77
 1
76
 1
75
75
 1
76
 4
72
 3
69
69
16 Hong Kong
76
76
 1
77
77
 2
75
 1
74
 1
75
 2
77
17 Belgium
75
75
75
 2
77
77
 1
76
 1
75
75
18 Ireland
74
 1
73
 1
74
 1
73
 2
75
 1
74
 2
72
 3
69
18 Estonia
74
 1
73
 2
71
 1
70
70
 1
69
 1
68
 4
64
20 Japan
73
73
73
 1
72
 3
75
 1
76
 2
74
74
21 Uruguay
71
 1
70
70
 1
71
 3
74
 1
73
73
 1
72
21 United Arab Emirates
71
 1
70
 1
71
 5
66
 4
70
70
 1
69
 1
68
23 France
69
 3
72
 2
70
 2
69
 1
70
 1
69
 2
71
71
23 United States
69
 2
71
 4
75
 1
74
 2
76
 2
74
 1
73
73
25 Bhutan
68
68
 1
67
 2
65
65
65
 2
63
63
26 Chile
67
67
67
 1
66
 4
70
 3
73
 2
71
 1
72
28 Taiwan
65
 2
63
63
 2
61
 1
62
 1
61
61
61
29 Bahamas
64
 1
65
65
 1
66
71
71
71
30 Spain
62
 4
58
 1
57
 1
58
58
 2
60
 1
59
 6
65
30 Barbados
62
 6
68
68
 7
61
74
 1
75
 1
76
30 Portugal
62
 2
64
 1
63
 1
62
 1
63
63
 1
62
 1
63
30 Qatar
62
62
 1
63
 2
61
 10
71
 2
69
 1
68
68
34 Botswana
61
61
61
 1
60
 3
63
63
 1
64
 1
65
35 Brunei
60
 3
63
 1
62
 4
58
60
 5
55
35 Israel
60
 1
61
 1
62
 2
64
 3
61
 1
60
 1
61
 1
60
35 Slovenia
60
60
 1
61
61
 1
60
 2
58
 1
57
 4
61
35 Lithuania
60
 1
59
59
59
 2
61
 3
58
 1
57
 3
54
39 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
59
 1
58
58
 2
60
67
 5
62
62
39 South Korea
59
 2
57
 3
54
 1
53
 3
56
 1
55
55
 1
56
41 Poland
58
 2
60
60
 2
62
62
 1
61
 1
60
 2
58
41 Cyprus
58
 1
59
 2
57
 2
55
 6
61
 2
63
63
 3
66
41 Cape Verde
58
 1
57
 2
55
 4
59
 4
55
 2
57
 1
58
 2
60
44 Czech Republic
56
 3
59
 2
57
 2
55
 1
56
 5
51
 3
48
 1
49
44 Georgia
56
 2
58
 2
56
 1
57
 5
52
52
 3
49
 3
52
44 Latvia
56
 2
58
58
 1
57
 2
55
55
 2
53
 4
49
44 Costa Rica
56
56
 3
59
 1
58
 3
55
 1
54
 1
53
 1
54
48 Dominica
55
 2
57
57
 2
59
58
58
58
48 Saint Lucia
55
55
55
 5
60
71
71
50 Malta
54
54
 2
56
 1
55
 1
56
 1
55
 1
56
 1
57
51 Rwanda
53
 3
56
 1
55
 1
54
54
 5
49
 4
53
53
51 Grenada
53
 1
52
52
 4
56
51 Italy
53
 1
52
 2
50
 3
47
 3
44
 1
43
43
 1
42
51 Saudi Arabia
53
 4
49
49
 3
46
 6
52
 3
49
 3
46
 2
44
51 Malaysia
53
 6
47
47
 2
49
 1
50
 2
52
 2
50
 1
49
56 Namibia
52
 1
53
 2
51
 1
52
 1
53
 4
49
 1
48
48
56 Oman
52
52
 8
44
 1
45
45
45
 2
47
47
56 Mauritius
52
 1
51
 1
50
 4
54
 1
53
 1
54
 2
52
 5
57
59 Slovakia
50
50
50
 1
51
51
 1
50
 3
47
 1
46
60 Jordan
48
 1
49
 1
48
48
 5
53
 4
49
 4
45
 3
48
60 Cuba
48
 1
47
47
47
47
 1
46
46
 2
48
60 Greece
48
 3
45
 3
48
 4
44
 2
46
 3
43
 3
40
 4
36
63 Croatia
47
 1
48
 1
49
49
 2
51
 3
48
48
 2
46
64 São Tomé and Príncipe
46
46
46
46
 4
42
42
42
42
66 Montenegro
45
45
 1
46
 1
45
 1
44
 2
42
 2
44
 3
41
66 Senegal
45
45
45
45
 1
44
 1
43
 2
41
 5
36
66 Belarus
45
 1
44
44
 4
40
 8
32
 1
31
 2
29
 2
31
66 Argentina
45
 5
40
 1
39
 3
36
 4
32
 2
34
34
 1
35
70 Romania
44
 3
47
 1
48
48
 2
46
 3
43
43
 1
44
70 South Africa
44
 1
43
43
 2
45
 1
44
44
 2
42
 1
43
70 Suriname
44
 1
43
 2
41
 4
45
 9
36
36
36
 1
37
70 Hungary
44
 2
46
 1
45
 3
48
 3
51
 3
54
54
 1
55
74 Jamaica
43
 1
44
44
 5
39
 2
41
 3
38
38
38
74 Tunisia
43
43
 1
42
 1
41
 3
38
 2
40
 1
41
41
74 Bulgaria
43
 1
42
 1
43
 2
41
41
 2
43
 2
41
41
77 Solomon Islands
42
 2
44
 5
39
 3
42
77 Bahrain
42
 6
36
36
 7
43
 8
51
 2
49
 1
48
 3
51
77 Armenia
42
 7
35
35
 2
33
 2
35
 2
37
 1
36
 2
34
80 Morocco
41
 2
43
 3
40
 3
37
 1
36
 3
39
 2
37
37
80 India
41
41
 1
40
40
 2
38
38
 2
36
36
80 Ghana
41
41
 1
40
 3
43
 4
47
 1
48
 2
46
 1
45
80 Benin
41
 1
40
 1
39
 3
36
 1
37
 2
39
 3
36
36
80 China
41
 2
39
 2
41
 1
40
 3
37
 1
36
 4
40
 1
39
85 Burkina Faso
40
 1
41
 1
42
42
 4
38
38
38
38
85 Kuwait
40
 1
41
 2
39
 2
41
 8
49
 5
44
 1
43
 1
44
85 Indonesia
40
 2
38
 1
37
37
 1
36
 2
34
 2
32
32
85 Guyana
40
 3
37
 1
38
 4
34
 5
29
 1
30
 3
27
 1
28
85 Lesotho
40
 1
41
 1
42
 3
39
 5
44
 5
49
49
 4
45
85 Trinidad and Tobago
40
 1
41
41
 6
35
 4
39
 1
38
38
 1
39
91 Serbia
39
39
 2
41
 1
42
 2
40
 1
41
 1
42
 3
39
91 Turkey
39
 2
41
 1
40
 1
41
 1
42
 3
45
 5
50
 1
49
93 East Timor
38
 3
35
 3
38
 3
35
 7
28
28
 2
30
 3
33
93 Sri Lanka
38
38
38
 2
36
 1
37
 1
38
 1
37
 3
40
93 Ecuador
38
 4
34
 2
32
 1
31
 1
32
 1
33
 2
35
 3
32
96 Vietnam
37
 4
33
 2
35
 2
33
 2
31
31
31
31
96 Colombia
37
 1
36
 1
37
37
37
37
 1
36
36
96 Tanzania
37
 1
36
36
 4
32
 2
30
 1
31
 2
33
 2
35
96 Ethiopia
37
 3
34
 1
35
 1
34
 1
33
33
33
33
96 Gambia
37
37
 7
30
 4
26
 2
28
 1
29
 1
28
 6
34
101 Bosnia and Herzegovina
36
 2
38
38
 1
39
 1
38
 1
39
 3
42
42
101 Panama
36
 1
37
37
 1
38
 1
39
 2
37
 2
35
 3
38
101 Kosovo
36
 1
37
 2
39
 3
36
 3
33
33
33
 1
34
101 Thailand
36
36
 1
37
 2
35
 3
38
38
 3
35
 2
37
101 Peru
36
 1
35
 2
37
 2
35
 1
36
 2
38
38
38
105 Egypt
35
35
 3
32
 2
34
 2
36
 1
37
 5
32
32
106 Ivory Coast
35
35
 1
36
 2
34
 2
32
32
 5
27
 2
29
106 Mongolia
35
 2
37
 1
36
 2
38
 1
39
39
 1
38
 2
36
106 North Macedonia
35
 2
37
 2
35
 2
37
 5
42
 3
45
 1
44
 1
43
106 Albania
35
 1
36
 2
38
 1
39
 3
36
 3
33
 2
31
 2
33
106 Brazil
35
35
 2
37
 3
40
 2
38
 5
43
 1
42
 1
43
106 Algeria
35
35
 2
33
 1
34
 2
36
36
36
 2
34
113 Philippines
34
 2
36
 2
34
 1
35
35
 3
38
 2
36
 2
34
113 Zambia
34
 1
35
 2
37
 1
38
38
38
38
 1
37
113 El Salvador
34
 1
35
 2
33
 3
36
 3
39
39
 1
38
38
113 Kazakhstan
34
 3
31
31
 2
29
 1
28
 1
29
 3
26
 2
28
113   Nepal
34
 3
31
31
 2
29
 2
27
 2
29
 2
31
 4
27
119 Sierra Leone
33
 3
30
30
30
 1
29
 2
31
 1
30
 1
31
120 Niger
32
 2
34
 1
33
 2
35
 1
34
 1
35
 1
34
 1
33
120 Pakistan
32
 1
33
 1
32
32
 2
30
 1
29
 1
28
 1
27
120 Moldova
32
 1
33
 2
31
 1
30
 3
33
 2
35
35
 1
36
123 Bolivia
31
 2
29
 4
33
33
 1
34
 1
35
 1
34
34
123 Malawi
31
 1
32
 1
31
31
31
 2
33
 4
37
37
123 Gabon
31
31
 1
32
 3
35
 1
34
 3
37
 3
34
 1
35
126 Djibouti
30
 1
31
31
 1
30
 4
34
34
 2
36
36
126 Ukraine
30
 2
32
 2
30
 1
29
 2
27
 1
26
 1
25
 1
26
126 Azerbaijan
30
 5
25
 6
31
 1
30
 1
29
29
 1
28
 1
27
126 Kyrgyzstan
30
 1
29
29
 1
28
28
 1
27
 3
24
24
130 Myanmar
29
29
 1
30
 2
28
 6
22
 1
21
21
 6
15
130 Mexico
29
 1
28
 1
29
 1
30
 5
35
35
 1
34
34
130 Mali
29
 3
32
 1
31
 1
32
 3
35
 3
32
 4
28
 6
34
130 Maldives
29
 2
31
 2
33
 3
36
130 Togo
29
 1
30
 2
32
32
32
 3
29
29
 1
30
130 Guinea
29
 1
28
 1
27
27
 2
25
25
 1
24
24
130 Laos
29
29
29
 1
30
 5
25
25
 1
26
 5
21
137 Liberia
28
 4
32
 1
31
 6
37
37
37
 1
38
 3
41
137 Dominican Republic
28
 2
30
 1
29
 2
31
 2
33
 1
32
 3
29
 3
32
137 Paraguay
28
 1
29
29
 1
30
 3
27
 3
24
24
 1
25
137 Russia
28
28
 1
29
29
29
 2
27
 1
28
28
137 Lebanon
28
28
28
28
28
 1
27
 1
28
 2
30
137 Papua New Guinea
28
28
 1
29
 1
28
 3
25
25
25
25
137 Mauritania
28
 1
27
 1
28
 1
27
 4
31
 1
30
30
 1
31
137 Uganda
28
 2
26
26
 1
25
25
 1
26
26
3
29
137 Kenya
28
 1
27
 1
28
 2
26
 1
25
25
 2
27
27
146 Honduras
26
 3
29
29
 1
30
 1
31
 2
29
 3
26
 2
28
146 Iran
26
 2
28
 2
30
 1
29
 2
27
27
 2
25
 3
28
146 Guatemala
26
 1
27
 1
28
28
28
 4
32
 3
29
 4
33
146 Nigeria
26
 1
27
27
 1
28
 2
26
 1
27
 2
25
 2
27
146 Mozambique
26
 3
23
 2
25
 2
27
 4
31
31
 1
30
 1
31
146 Bangladesh
26
26
 2
28
 2
26
 1
25
25
 2
27
 1
26
146 Angola
26
 7
19
19
 1
18
 3
15
 4
19
 4
23
 1
22
153 Comoros
25
 2
27
27
 3
24
 2
26
26
 2
28
28
153 Uzbekistan
25
 2
23
 1
22
 1
21
 2
19
 1
18
 1
17
17
153 Tajikistan
25
25
 4
21
 4
25
 1
26
 3
23
 1
22
22
153 Central African Republic
25
 1
26
 3
23
 3
20
 4
24
24
 1
25
 1
26
153 Cameroon
25
25
25
 1
26
 1
27
27
 2
25
 1
26
158 Madagascar
24
 1
25
 1
24
 2
26
 2
28
28
28
 4
32
158 Zimbabwe
24
 2
22
22
22
 1
21
21
21
 1
20
160 Eritrea
23
 1
24
 4
20
 2
18
18
18
 2
20
 5
25
161 Nicaragua
22
 3
25
 1
26
26
 1
27
 1
28
28
 1
29
162 Cambodia
20
20
 1
21
21
21
21
 1
20
 2
22
162 Chad
20
 1
19
 1
20
20
 2
22
22
 3
19
19
162 Iraq
20
 2
18
18
 1
17
 1
16
16
16
 2
18
165 Turkmenistan
19
 1
20
 1
19
 3
22
 4
18
 1
17
17
17
165 Republic of the Congo
19
19
 2
21
 1
20
 3
23
23
 1
22
 4
26
165 Burundi
19
 2
17
 5
22
 2
20
 1
21
 1
20
 1
21
 2
19
168 Haiti
18
 2
20
 2
22
 2
20
 3
17
 2
19
19
19
168 DR Congo
18
 1
19
 2
21
21
 1
22
22
22
 1
21
168 Guinea-Bissau
18
 9
28
 1
27
 11
16
 1
17
 2
19
19
 6
25
168 Libya
18
 1
17
17
 3
14
 2
16
 2
18
 3
15
 6
21
172 North Korea
17
 3
14
 3
17
 9
08
08
08
08
08
173 Venezuela
16
 2
18
18
 1
17
17
 2
19
 1
20
 1
19
173 Afghanistan
16
16
 1
15
15
 4
11
 1
12
 4
08
08
173 Sudan
16
16
16
 2
14
 2
12
 1
11
11
 2
13
176 Yemen
15
 1
14
 2
16
 2
14
 4
18
 1
19
 1
18
 5
23
177 Syria
13
13
 1
14
 1
13
 5
18
 2
20
 3
17
 9
26
178 South Sudan
12
 1
13
 1
12
 1
11
 4
15
15
 1
14
179 Somalia
09
 1
10
 1
09
 1
10
 2
08
08
08
08

2011

The 20 top countries or regions that were ranked as having the lowest perceived levels of corruption were (note scale of 10 to 1):

#CountryScore#Country/RegionScore
1 New Zealand9.511 Luxembourg8.5
2 Denmark9.412 Hong Kong8.4
 Finland13 Iceland8.3
4 Sweden9.314 Germany8.0
5 Singapore9.2 Japan
6 Norway9.016 Austria7.8
7 Netherlands8.9 Barbados
8 Australia8.8 United Kingdom
  Switzerland19 Belgium7.5
10 Canada8.7 Ireland
Source:[25]

The 20 bottom countries that were ranked as having the highest perceived levels of corruption were:

#CountryScore#CountryScore
182 Somalia1.0172 Equatorial Guinea1.9
 North Korea Burundi
180 Myanmar1.5168 Libya2.0
 Afghanistan DR Congo
177 Uzbekistan1.6 Chad
 Turkmenistan Angola
 Sudan164 Yemen2.1
175 Iraq1.8 Kyrgyzstan
 Haiti Guinea
172 Venezuela1.9 Cambodia
Source:[25]

2010

The 20 top countries or regions that were ranked as having the lowest perceived levels of corruption were (note scale of 10 down to 1):

#CountryScore#Country/RegionScore
1 Denmark9.311 Iceland8.5
 New Zealand Luxembourg
 Singapore13 Hong Kong8.4
4 Finland9.214 Ireland8.0
 Sweden15 Austria7.9
6 Canada8.9 Germany
7 Netherlands8.817 Barbados7.8
8 Australia8.7 Japan
  Switzerland19 Qatar7.7
10 Norway8.620 United Kingdom7.6
Source:[26]

The 20 bottom countries that were ranked as having the highest perceived levels of corruption were:

#CountryScore#CountryScore
178 Somalia1.1168 Angola1.9
176 Myanmar1.4164 Venezuela2.0
 Afghanistan Kyrgyzstan
175 Iraq1.5 Guinea
172 Uzbekistan1.6 DR Congo
 Turkmenistan159 Tajikistan2.1
 Sudan Russia
171 Chad1.7 Papua New Guinea
170 Burundi1.8 Laos
168 Equatorial Guinea1.9 Kenya
Source:[26]

Criticism and limitations

The Index has been criticized on the basis of its methodology.[27]

According to political scientist Dan Hough, three flaws in the Index include:[28]

  • Corruption is too complex a concept to be captured by a single score. For instance, the nature of corruption in rural Kansas will be different from that in the city administration of New York, yet the Index measures them in the same way.
  • By measuring perceptions of corruption, as opposed to corruption itself, the Index may simply be reinforcing existing stereotypes and cliches.
  • The Index only measures public sector corruption, ignoring the private sector. This, for instance, means the well-publicized Libor scandal or the VW emissions scandal are not counted as corrupt actions.

Media outlets frequently use the raw numbers as a yardstick for government performance, without clarifying what the numbers mean. The local Transparency International chapter in Bangladesh disowned the index results after a change in methodology caused the country's scores to increase; media reported it as an "improvement".[29]

In a 2013 article in Foreign Policy, Alex Cobham suggested that CPI should be dropped for the good of Transparency International. It argues that the CPI embeds a powerful and misleading elite bias in popular perceptions of corruption, potentially contributing to a vicious cycle and at the same time incentivizing inappropriate policy responses. Cobham writes, "the index corrupts perceptions to the extent that it's hard to see a justification for its continuing publication."[30]

However, recent econometric analyses that have exploited the existence of natural experiments on the level of corruption and compared the CPI with other subjective indicators have found that, while not perfect, the CPI is argued to be broadly consistent with one-dimensional measures of corruption.[31]

In the United States, many lawyers advise international businesses to consult the CPI when attempting to measure the risk of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations in different nations. This practice has been criticized by the Minnesota Journal of International Law, which wrote that since the CPI may be subject to perceptual biases it therefore should not be considered by lawyers to be a measure of actual national corruption risk.[32]

Transparency International also publishes the Global Corruption Barometer, which ranks countries by corruption levels using direct surveys instead of perceived expert opinions, which has been under criticism for substantial bias from the powerful elite.[30]

Transparency International has warned that a country with a clean CPI score may still be linked to corruption internationally. For example, while Sweden had the 3rd best CPI score in 2015, one of its state-owned companies, TeliaSonera, was facing allegations of bribery in Uzbekistan.[33]

gollark: I agree, except for the part where it would be good.
gollark: Something being good in a hypothetical world which could not actually happen and would break rapidly if it did isn't actually very good.
gollark: I'm gollark!
gollark: If people just sit there militarylessly, they will be invaded whenever some sufficiently mean person realizes that they can have a military.
gollark: It's not a stable state.

See also

References
  1. "CORRUPTION PERCEPTIONS INDEX 2017". transparency.org. Retrieved 29 January 2019.
  2. Transparency International (2011). "Corruption Perceptions Index". Transparency International. Transparency International. Archived from the original on 13 December 2011. Retrieved 1 December 2011.
  3. CPI 2010: Long methodological brief, p. 2
  4. "Corruption Perceptions Index 2019". Transparency International.
  5. Transparency International (2017). "Corruption Perceptions Index 2017". Transparency International. Transparency International. Retrieved 14 August 2017.
  6. e.V, Transparency International. "Corruption Perceptions Index 2018". www.transparency.org. Retrieved 8 January 2020.
  7. "Frequently Asked Questions: TI Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI 2005)". Retrieved 22 November 2005.
  8. CPI 2010: Long methodological brief, p. 1
  9. CPI 2010: Long methodological brief, p. 7
  10. Transparency International (2010). Corruption Perceptions Index 2010: Sources of information (PDF) (Report). Transparency International. Retrieved 24 August 2011.
  11. Transparency International (2010). "Frequently asked questions (FAQs)". Corruption Perceptions Index 2010. Transparency International. Archived from the original on 2 September 2011. Retrieved 24 August 2011.
  12. Wilhelm, Paul G. (2002). "International Validation of the Corruption Perceptions Index: Implications for Business Ethics and Entrepreneurship Education". Journal of Business Ethics. Springer Netherlands. 35 (3): 177–189. doi:10.1023/A:1013882225402.
  13. Shao, J.; Ivanov, P. C.; Podobnik, B.; Stanley, H. E. (2007). "Quantitative relations between corruption and economic factors". The European Physical Journal B. 56 (2): 157. arXiv:0705.0161. Bibcode:2007EPJB...56..157S. doi:10.1140/epjb/e2007-00098-2.
  14. Podobnik, B.; Shao, J.; Njavro, D.; Ivanov, P. C.; Stanley, H. E. (2008). "Influence of corruption on economic growth rate and foreign investment". The European Physical Journal B. 63 (4): 547. arXiv:0710.1995. Bibcode:2008EPJB...63..547P. doi:10.1140/epjb/e2008-00210-2.
  15. "2016 official table". 25 January 2017. Retrieved 29 January 2017.
  16. "Official announcement". Transparency International. 25 January 2017. Retrieved 29 January 2017.
  17. "Corruption Perceptions Index 2019 – Transparency International". Transparency International. Retrieved 24 January 2020.
  18. "Corruption Perceptions Index 2018 – Transparency International". Transparency International. Archived from the original on 30 January 2019. Retrieved 29 January 2017.
  19. "Corruption Perceptions Index 2018 – Transparency International". Transparency International. Archived from the original on 30 January 2019. Retrieved 29 January 2017.
  20. "2016 table". Transparency International. Retrieved 29 January 2017.
  21. "2015 table". Transparency International. Retrieved 28 January 2016.
  22. "2014 table". Transparency International. Retrieved 16 December 2014.
  23. "2013 table". Transparency International. Retrieved 16 December 2014.
  24. "2012 table". Transparency International. Retrieved 16 December 2014.
  25. Corruption Perceptions Index 2011. Full table and rankings Archived 10 August 2012 at the Wayback Machine. Transparency International. Retrieved: 4 December 2013.
  26. Corruption Perceptions Index 2010. Full table and rankings Archived 22 January 2014 at Archive.today. Transparency International. Retrieved: 4 December 2013.
  27. "Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index: Whose Perceptions Are They Anyway?" (PDF). 2005.
  28. Hough, Dan (27 January 2016). "Here's this year's (flawed) Corruption Perception Index. Those flaws are useful". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved 27 January 2016.
  29. Werve, Jonathan (23 September 2008). "TI's Index: Local Chapter Not Having It". Global Integrity. Archived from the original on 14 May 2013.
  30. Cobham, Alex (22 July 2013). "Corrupting Perceptions". Foreign Policy.
  31. Hamilton, Alexander (2017). "Can We Measure the Power of the Grabbing Hand? A Comparative Analysis of Different Indicators of Corruption" (PDF). World Bank Policy Research Working Paper Series.
  32. Campbell, Stuart Vincent. "Perception is Not Reality: The FCPA, Brazil, and the Mismeasurement of Corruption" 22 Minnesota Journal of International Law 1, p. 247 (2013).
  33. CPI index 2015. Accessed 3 February 2016.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.