Transparency International
Corruption Perceptions Index 2005
http://ww1.transparency.org/cpi/2005/cpi2005_infocus.html#cpi
The TI Corruption Perceptions Index is a composite survey, reflecting the perceptions of business people and country analysts, both resident and non-resident. It draws on 16 different polls from 10 independent institutions. For a country to be included, it must feature in at least 3 polls. As a result, a number of countries – including some which could be among the most corrupt – are missing because not enough survey data is available.
The Corruption Perceptions Index provides a snapshot, with less capacity to offer year-to-year trends. Nevertheless, time-series data for the CPI have been analysed for the first time this year by Professor Johann Graf Lambsdorff at Passau University in Germany. TI is advised in relation to the CPI by a group of international specialists. The statistical work on the index was coordinated by Professor Graf Lambsdorff.
Details are available at:
www.transparency.org/surveys/index.html#cpi
Corruption still rampant in 70 countries, says Corruption Perceptions Index 2005
London / Berlin, 18 October 2005 --- More than two-thirds of the 159 nations surveyed in Transparency International’s 2005 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) scored less than 5 out of a clean score of 10, indicating serious levels of corruption in a majority of the countries surveyed.
Corruption continues to threaten development
The 2005 Index bears witness to the double burden of poverty and corruption borne by the world’s least developed countries.
“Corruption is a major cause of poverty as well as a barrier to overcoming it,” said Transparency International Chairman Peter Eigen. “The two scourges feed off each other, locking their populations in a cycle of misery. Corruption must be vigorously addressed if aid is to make a real difference in freeing people from poverty.”
Despite progress on many fronts, including the imminent entry into force of the United Nations Convention against Corruption, seventy countries - nearly half of those included in the Index - scored less than 3 on the CPI, indicating a severe corruption problem. Among the countries included in the Index, corruption is perceived as most rampant in Chad, Bangladesh, Turkmenistan, Myanmar and Haiti – also among the poorest countries in the world.
The world has set its sights on halving extreme poverty by 2015. Corruption hampers achievement of the Millennium Development Goals by undermining the economic growth and sustainable development that would free millions from the poverty trap. Fighting corruption must be central to plans to increase resources to achieve the goals, whether via donor aid or in-country domestic action.
Moreover, extensive research shows that foreign investment is lower in countries perceived to be corrupt, which further thwarts their chance to prosper. When countries improve governance and reduce corruption, they reap a “development dividend” that, according to the World Bank Institute, can include improved child mortality rates, higher per capita income and greater literacy.
Nineteen of the world’s poorest countries have been granted debt service relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative, testifying to their economic reform achievements. Not one of these countries, however, scored above 4 on the CPI, indicating serious to severe levels of corruption. These countries still face the grave risk that money freed from debt payments now entering national budgets will be forfeited to greed, waste or mismanagement. The commitment and resources devoted to qualifying for HIPC must also be applied to winning the fight against corruption.
Stamping out corruption and implementing recipient-led reforms are critical to making aid more effective, and to realising the crucial human and economic development goals that have been set by the international community.
“Corruption isn’t a natural disaster: it is the cold, calculated theft of opportunity from the men, women and children who are least able to protect themselves,” said David Nussbaum, TI’s Chief Executive. ”Leaders must go beyond lip service and make good on their promises to provide the commitment and resources to improve governance, transparency and accountability.”
Progress has been made against corruption
An increase in perceived corruption from 2004 to 2005 can be measured in countries such as Costa Rica, Gabon, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, Russia, Seychelles, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Trinidad & Tobago and Uruguay. Conversely, a number of countries and territories show noteworthy improvements – a decline in perceptions of corruption – over the past year, including Estonia, France, Hong Kong, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, Qatar, Taiwan and Turkey.
The recent ratification of the United Nations Convention against Corruption established a global legal framework for sustainable progress against corruption. The Convention, which will enter into force in December 2005, will accelerate the retrieval of stolen funds, push banking centres to take action against money laundering, allow nations to pursue foreign companies and individuals that have committed corrupt acts on their soil, and prohibit bribery of foreign public officials. Low-income countries that embrace and implement the Convention will have a head start in the race for foreign investment and economic growth.
Wealth does not determine progress against corruption
Wealth is not a prerequisite for successful control of corruption. New long-term analysis of the CPI carried out by Prof. Dr. Johann Graf Lambsdorff shows that the perception of corruption has decreased significantly in lower-income countries such as Estonia, Colombia and Bulgaria over the past decade.
In the case of higher-income countries such as Canada and Ireland, however, there has been a marked increase in the perception of corruption over the past ten years, showing that even wealthy, high-scoring countries must work to maintain a climate of integrity.
Similarly, the responsibility in the fight against corruption does not fall solely on lower-income countries. Wealthier countries, apart from facing numerous corruption cases within their own borders, must share the burden by ensuring that their companies are not involved in corrupt practices abroad. Offenders must be prosecuted and debarred from public bidding. The opportunity for ensuring sustainable progress also lies in the hands of the World Trade Organization, which needs to actively promote transparency and anti-corruption in global trade.
The lessons are clear: risk factors such as government secrecy, inappropriate influence of elite groups and distorted political finance apply to both wealthy and poorer countries, and no rich country is immune to the scourge of corruption.
Transparency International urges the following actions:
By lower-income countries
Increase resources and political will for anti-corruption efforts.
Enable greater public access to information about budgets, revenue and expenditure.
By higher-income countries
Combine increased aid with support for recipient-led reforms.
Reduce tied aid, which limits local opportunities and ownership of aid programmes.
By all countries
Promote strong coordination among governments, the private sector and civil society to increase efficiency and sustainability in anti-corruption and good governance efforts.
Ratify, implement and monitor existing anti-corruption conventions in all countries to establish international norms. These include, the UN Convention against Corruption, the OECD Anti-bribery Convention, and the regional conventions of the African Union and the Organization of American States.
http://ww1.transparency.org/cpi/2005/cpi2005_infocus.html#cpi
The TI Corruption Perceptions Index is a composite survey, reflecting the perceptions of business people and country analysts, both resident and non-resident. It draws on 16 different polls from 10 independent institutions. For a country to be included, it must feature in at least 3 polls. As a result, a number of countries – including some which could be among the most corrupt – are missing because not enough survey data is available.
The Corruption Perceptions Index provides a snapshot, with less capacity to offer year-to-year trends. Nevertheless, time-series data for the CPI have been analysed for the first time this year by Professor Johann Graf Lambsdorff at Passau University in Germany. TI is advised in relation to the CPI by a group of international specialists. The statistical work on the index was coordinated by Professor Graf Lambsdorff.
Details are available at:
www.transparency.org/surveys/index.html#cpi
Corruption still rampant in 70 countries, says Corruption Perceptions Index 2005
London / Berlin, 18 October 2005 --- More than two-thirds of the 159 nations surveyed in Transparency International’s 2005 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) scored less than 5 out of a clean score of 10, indicating serious levels of corruption in a majority of the countries surveyed.
Corruption continues to threaten development
The 2005 Index bears witness to the double burden of poverty and corruption borne by the world’s least developed countries.
“Corruption is a major cause of poverty as well as a barrier to overcoming it,” said Transparency International Chairman Peter Eigen. “The two scourges feed off each other, locking their populations in a cycle of misery. Corruption must be vigorously addressed if aid is to make a real difference in freeing people from poverty.”
Despite progress on many fronts, including the imminent entry into force of the United Nations Convention against Corruption, seventy countries - nearly half of those included in the Index - scored less than 3 on the CPI, indicating a severe corruption problem. Among the countries included in the Index, corruption is perceived as most rampant in Chad, Bangladesh, Turkmenistan, Myanmar and Haiti – also among the poorest countries in the world.
The world has set its sights on halving extreme poverty by 2015. Corruption hampers achievement of the Millennium Development Goals by undermining the economic growth and sustainable development that would free millions from the poverty trap. Fighting corruption must be central to plans to increase resources to achieve the goals, whether via donor aid or in-country domestic action.
Moreover, extensive research shows that foreign investment is lower in countries perceived to be corrupt, which further thwarts their chance to prosper. When countries improve governance and reduce corruption, they reap a “development dividend” that, according to the World Bank Institute, can include improved child mortality rates, higher per capita income and greater literacy.
Nineteen of the world’s poorest countries have been granted debt service relief under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative, testifying to their economic reform achievements. Not one of these countries, however, scored above 4 on the CPI, indicating serious to severe levels of corruption. These countries still face the grave risk that money freed from debt payments now entering national budgets will be forfeited to greed, waste or mismanagement. The commitment and resources devoted to qualifying for HIPC must also be applied to winning the fight against corruption.
Stamping out corruption and implementing recipient-led reforms are critical to making aid more effective, and to realising the crucial human and economic development goals that have been set by the international community.
“Corruption isn’t a natural disaster: it is the cold, calculated theft of opportunity from the men, women and children who are least able to protect themselves,” said David Nussbaum, TI’s Chief Executive. ”Leaders must go beyond lip service and make good on their promises to provide the commitment and resources to improve governance, transparency and accountability.”
Progress has been made against corruption
An increase in perceived corruption from 2004 to 2005 can be measured in countries such as Costa Rica, Gabon, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, Russia, Seychelles, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Trinidad & Tobago and Uruguay. Conversely, a number of countries and territories show noteworthy improvements – a decline in perceptions of corruption – over the past year, including Estonia, France, Hong Kong, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Nigeria, Qatar, Taiwan and Turkey.
The recent ratification of the United Nations Convention against Corruption established a global legal framework for sustainable progress against corruption. The Convention, which will enter into force in December 2005, will accelerate the retrieval of stolen funds, push banking centres to take action against money laundering, allow nations to pursue foreign companies and individuals that have committed corrupt acts on their soil, and prohibit bribery of foreign public officials. Low-income countries that embrace and implement the Convention will have a head start in the race for foreign investment and economic growth.
Wealth does not determine progress against corruption
Wealth is not a prerequisite for successful control of corruption. New long-term analysis of the CPI carried out by Prof. Dr. Johann Graf Lambsdorff shows that the perception of corruption has decreased significantly in lower-income countries such as Estonia, Colombia and Bulgaria over the past decade.
In the case of higher-income countries such as Canada and Ireland, however, there has been a marked increase in the perception of corruption over the past ten years, showing that even wealthy, high-scoring countries must work to maintain a climate of integrity.
Similarly, the responsibility in the fight against corruption does not fall solely on lower-income countries. Wealthier countries, apart from facing numerous corruption cases within their own borders, must share the burden by ensuring that their companies are not involved in corrupt practices abroad. Offenders must be prosecuted and debarred from public bidding. The opportunity for ensuring sustainable progress also lies in the hands of the World Trade Organization, which needs to actively promote transparency and anti-corruption in global trade.
The lessons are clear: risk factors such as government secrecy, inappropriate influence of elite groups and distorted political finance apply to both wealthy and poorer countries, and no rich country is immune to the scourge of corruption.
Transparency International urges the following actions:
By lower-income countries
Increase resources and political will for anti-corruption efforts.
Enable greater public access to information about budgets, revenue and expenditure.
By higher-income countries
Combine increased aid with support for recipient-led reforms.
Reduce tied aid, which limits local opportunities and ownership of aid programmes.
By all countries
Promote strong coordination among governments, the private sector and civil society to increase efficiency and sustainability in anti-corruption and good governance efforts.
Ratify, implement and monitor existing anti-corruption conventions in all countries to establish international norms. These include, the UN Convention against Corruption, the OECD Anti-bribery Convention, and the regional conventions of the African Union and the Organization of American States.
Report Corruption
email: ti@transparency.org
posted by Ben Rivard @ 3:24 PM
1 comments
1 Comments:
Here's my take: 'Greed is not good'
In Australia, we have had many privatisations and demutualisations in the last twenty years. The changes in corporate structure were made for good reasons. The problem was that the sleepy government organizations and mutuals were too ineffecient. Workers could be lazy, because their jobs were secure, and there was no great incentive to work hard. The workers weren't serving others, but serving themselves - by being lazy.
So the corporate structures were changed, and these changes worked. Corporations now work for the profit of owners, and this profit is shared with workers. This potential for profit has driven managers to squeeze out inefficiencies with a view to their own gain. So the problem of laziness is no longer the problem in corporate Australia. We have a different problem.
You see, what has not changed is the inclination of the workers and managers to serve themselves rather than others. The difference is that workers are now driven by greed. Rather than laziness, the Australian form of self-service is the chase after the dollar. More and more, the work-practice of our labour force expresses their belief that greed is good. This is a problem, because work is not meant to be about greed, it is meant to be for service.
If we agree that greed is not good, can we cure this plague? We can't cure the heart of greed by adding more rules - but can we do something at a structural level? Socialism and communism manifestly fail, partly because communism involves reverting to the old government owned and run corporate structures. If we reverted to these, laziness would again triumph as the expression of workers' self-interest. So what can we do to tame our current spiral into materialism? One answer is that our hearts need changing, so that we want to serve others. That is the primary answer. But our hearts will never be changed completely - there will always be the tendency for people to serve themselves rather than others. So what structural change might we make to help us defeat the greed-is-good brigade?
I want to make a suggestion. It is a little detailed, so strap in. But it is a test for you, the reader. The test is this: If you reject my suggestion as bad, do you reject it because you really think that greed is good? If that is your reason, then in my opinion, you have failed this test.
So why not structure society so that more work must is others-centred: The maximum take home pay in any year is set at about $50000 per person (adjusted for family size, marital status etc.). Any extra that you earn is set aside into a 'superannuation-style' account (owned by you, but not accessible until a later date). This account may be used in certain circumstances: It can be used by the owner whenever their earnings drop below $50000 that year. The owner may use the account to top up that year's earnings to the maximum $50000 figure. The account may also be used as a deposit on a house (up to say $150000 can be used in this way over a lifetime). It may be used to donate funds to causes deemed not in the direct interest of the owner. The owner chooses where these donations go. These donations would be vetted by a randomly selected person from the community (with recourse to a second person if the first says no). These 'checkers' will confirm that the donation is indeed others-centred.
This system works against both the evils I have mentioned above. We retain the capitalism where corporate structures allow people to push hard for personal profit. This leaves the incentive for people to work hard: If someone wants to earn their lifetime of wage income in five years, they can try. So those looking to provide for themselves will still be motivated to work hard. The same goes for those aiming to make money for the benefit of others - they can make bundles and give it all away. So the 'left-wing' evils of sleepy mutuals and government organizations are avoided.
On the other hand, citizens can no longer work to spend millions on their own pleasures. This will not be possible. So those at the top of our corporations will have severely restricted ability to sacrifice others for their own benefit. The 'right-wing' evils of money-hungry stop-at-nothing tyrant bosses will be avoided. And so the problems of today will be mitigated (although not removed)
The details need to be worked out, but the point is simple: our work would become biased towards others-centred service.
Note that it would still be possible to be paid a million dollars a year. Those who want to earn such large sums and give the money away will stay in our country. Those who want to spend it all on themselves will leave. I think we'll do better without them.
Note that this is not rejection of capitalism. We would still have private ownership, free markets, and laissez faireism - the defining features of capitalism.
I'd love readers to post problems with this political structure, and to make it better. However, I finish with my original challenge: do you reject this system because you believe greed is good? If you do, you fail my test. For greed is not good, it is killing our country (and it's killing yours too.)
Post a Comment
<< Home