Measuring the perceived levels of public-sector corruption in a particular country, TI’s CPI is a composite index, drawing on different expert and business surveys. The 2008 CPI scores 180 countries on a scale from zero (highly corrupt) to ten (highly clean).

The 2008 results

This year’s index sees Somalia with the lowest score at 1.0, slightly behind Iraq and Myanmar at 1.3 and Haiti at 1.4, reinforcing just how deadly the link between poverty, failed institutions and graft can be. And although European countries rank at the top of the 2008 CPI, notable declines in the scores of some countries shed an unfavourable light on government commitment to keep in check the questionable methods of their companies in acquiring and managing overseas business.

“The continuing high levels of corruption and poverty plaguing many of the world’s societies amount to an ongoing humanitarian disaster and cannot be tolerated. But even in more privileged countries, with enforcement disturbingly uneven, a tougher approach to tackling corruption is needed,” said Huguette Labelle, Chair of TI.

While low-income countries are often afflicted by corrupt judiciaries and ineffective parliamentary oversight, some wealthy countries show evidence of insufficient regulation of the private sector, in terms of addressing overseas bribery by their countries, and weak oversight of financial institutions and transactions.

"Ongoing humanitarian disaster"

In low-income countries, epidemic corruption threatens the global fight against poverty and endangers the realisation of the UN Millennium Development Goals(MDGs). The half-way mark for achieving the MDGs has passed, and yet preventable deaths still occur simply because public institutions and the provision of health and education services do not function.

“In the poorest countries, corruption levels can mean the difference between life and death, when money for hospitals or clean water is in play,” said Labelle.

Furthermore, global development processes are still often undermined by inefficiency, corruption and disorder. According to TI’s 2008 Global Corruption Report, unrestrained levels of corruption would add US $50 billion (€35 billion) - or nearly half of annual global aid outlays – to the cost of achieving the MDG on water and sanitation alone.

The responsibility ultimately lies at home and low-income countries need to step up existing efforts, but the global donor community also has a crucial part to play in ensuring that development assistance is designed to strengthen institutions of governance and oversight in recipient countries, and that aid flows themselves are reinforced against abuse and graft.

Scandals and double standards

The continuing emergence of foreign bribery scandals, together with the weakening performance of some wealthy exporting countries in the 2008 CPI, raises concerns about the strength of oversight mechanisms and government commitment to promises of mutual accountability in the fight against corruption.

“This sort of double standard is unacceptable and disregards international legal standards,” said Labelle. “Beyond its corrosive effects on the rule of law and public confidence, this lack of resolution undermines the credibility of the wealthiest nations in calling for greater action to fight corruption by low-income countries.”

Looking ahead

Lower levels of corruption, more meaningful participation for all people in their societies, stronger development outcomes and a better quality of life for marginalised communities can be achieved with stronger institutions of oversight, firm legal frameworks and more vigilant regulation.