New index highlights worldwide corruption crisis, says Transparency International. he Corruption Perceptions Index 2001 ranks 91 countries

Almost two-thirds of the countries ranked in the new index score less than 5 out of a clean score of 10

Issued by Transparency International Secretariat



Translations: ES


"There is no end in sight to the misuse of power by those in public office - and corruption levels are perceived to be as high as ever in both the developed and developing worlds," said Peter Eigen, Chairman of Transparency International, speaking today on the launch of the Corruption Perceptions Index 2001. "There is a worldwide corruption crisis. That is the clear message from the year 2001 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), which reflects the degree to which corruption is perceived to exist among public officials and politicians. Scores of less than 5 out of a clean score of 10 are registered by countries on every continent," he said on the publication today of the CPI by Transparency International (TI).

This year's index, published by the world's leading non- governmental organisation fighting corruption, ranks 91 countries. Some of the richest countries in the world - Finland, Denmark, New Zealand, Iceland, Singapore and Sweden - scored 9 or higher out of a clean score of 10 in the new CPI, indicating very low levels of perceived corruption. But 55 countries - many of which are among the world's poorest - scored less than 5, suggesting high levels of perceived corruption in government and public administration. The countries with a score of 2 or less are Azerbaijan, Bolivia, Cameroon, Kenya, Indonesia, Uganda, Nigeria and Bangladesh.

The CPI, which TI first launched in 1995, is a poll of polls, this year drawing on 14 surveys from seven independent institutions. The surveys reflect the perceptions of business people, academics and country analysts. The surveys were undertaken over the past three years and no country has been included in the CPI without results from a minimum of three surveys. "This prudent approach means that we are unable to include a number of countries that probably have higher corruption levels than those included in the CPI," explained Peter Eigen. "Moreover, for some countries in the CPI, there are only three or four data sources and wide variations in the individual survey results. Small differences in ranking between countries should not be overstated."

"The new Index illustrates once more the vicious circle of poverty and corruption, where parents have to bribe underpaid teachers to secure an education for their children and underresourced health services provide a breeding ground for corruption. The world's poorest are the greatest victims of corruption," said Peter Eigen at a press conference in Paris. "Vast amounts of public funds are being wasted and stolen by corrupt officials," he continued.

TI's chairman said: "HIV AIDS is killing millions of Africans, and in many of the countries where AIDS is at its deadliest the problem is compounded by the fact that corruption levels are seen to be very high. While it is imperative that richer countries provide the fruits of medical research at an affordable price to address this human tragedy, it is also essential that corrupt governments do not steal from their own people. This is now an urgent priority if lives are to be saved."

The CPI also registers very high levels of perceived corruption in the countries in transition, in particular the former Soviet Union. Scores of 3.0 or less were recorded in Romania, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan. Peter Eigen noted: "The leaders of the countries of the former Soviet Union must do far more to establish the rule of law and transparency in government. This is crucial to their economic progress, and to the development of an open society."

While the CPI scores of most leading industrial countries are quite high, the CPI focuses on corruption involving public officials. It does not reflect secret payments to finance political campaigns, the complicity of banks in money laundering or bribery by multinational companies. Speaking in Washington DC, TI Vice Chairman Frank Vogl noted: "Corruption in the most prosperous countries in the world has many manifestations, and Transparency International is increasing its efforts to stimulate actions to secure greater transparency in politics, business and banking. We aim to publish a new Bribe Payers Index in early 2002 to shine the spotlight on the propensity of western firms to use bribes in emerging market economies."

TI Vice Chairman Tunku Abdul Aziz stated in Malaysia: "The CPI is based on the understanding that a change in the perceived level of corruption can be measured only by a consistent shift in behaviour over a number of years. As a result, it may not give credit to new government leaders who are making determined efforts to counter years of rampant corruption in their countries. For example, in recent times we have seen new leaders take the helm in Nigeria, Mexico and the Philippines intent upon far-reaching anti-corruption programmes."

"Relief from the IMF and increases in aid funding are evidence that the poor ranking of Nigeria in the CPI is recognised internationally as an inheritance that cannot be overturned in the space of one or two years," said Tunku Abdul Aziz. "The Nigerian administration has also made great strides in its quest to recover funds looted by the late dictator Sani Abacha."

The 2001 Corruption Perceptions Index

Country

Rank

Country

2001

CPI

Score

Surveys

Used

Standard

Deviation

High-Low

Range

1

Finland

9.9

7

0.6

9.2 - 10.6

2

Denmark

9.5

7

0.7

8.8 - 10.6

3

New Zealand

9.4

7

0.6

8.6 - 10.2

4

Iceland

9.2

6

1.1

7.4 - 10.1

Singapore

9.2

12

0.5

8.5 - 9.9

6

Sweden

9.0

8

0.5

8.2 - 9.7

7

Canada

8.9

8

0.5

8.2 - 9.7

8

Netherlands

8.8

7

0.3

8.4 - 9.2

9

Luxembourg

8.7

6

0.5

8.1 - 9.5

10

Norway

8.6

7

0.8

7.4 - 9.6

11

Australia

8.5

9

0.9

6.8 - 9.4

12

Switzerland

8.4

7

0.5

7.4 - 9.2

13

United Kingdom

8.3

9

0.5

7.4 - 8.8

14

Hong Kong

7.9

11

0.5

7.2 - 8.7

15

Austria

7.8

7

0.5

7.2 - 8.7

16

Israel

7.6

8

0.3

7.3 - 8.1

USA

7.6

11

0.7

6.1 - 9.0

18

Chile

7.5

9

0.6

6.5 - 8.5

Ireland

7.5

7

0.3

6.8 - 7.9

20

Germany

7.4

8

0.8

5.8 - 8.6

21

Japan

7.1

11

0.9

5.6 - 8.4

22

Spain

7.0

8

0.7

5.8 - 8.1

23

France

6.7

8

0.8

5.6 - 7.8

24

Belgium

6.6

7

0.7

5.7 - 7.6

25

Portugal

6.3

8

0.8

5.3 - 7.4

26

Botswana

6.0

3

0.5

5.6 - 6.6

27

Taiwan

5.9

11

1.0

4.6 - 7.3

28

Estonia

5.6

5

0.3

5.0 - 6.0

29

Italy

5.5

9

1.0

4.0 - 6.9

30

Namibia

5.4

3

1.4

3.8 - 6.7

31

Hungary

5.3

10

0.8

4.0 - 6.2

Trinidad & Tobago

5.3

3

1.5

3.8 - 6.9

Tunisia

5.3

3

1.3

3.8 - 6.5

34

Slovenia

5.2

7

1.0

4.1 - 7.1

35

Uruguay

5.1

4

0.7

4.4 - 5.8

36

Malaysia

5.0

11

0.7

3.8 - 5.9

37

Jordan

4.9

4

0.8

3.8 - 5.7

38

Lithuania

4.8

5

1.5

3.8 - 7.5

South Africa

4.8

10

0.7

3.8 - 5.6

40

Costa Rica

4.5

5

0.7

3.7 - 5.6

Mauritius

4.5

5

0.7

3.9 - 5.6

42

Greece

4.2

8

0.6

3.6 - 5.6

South Korea

4.2

11

0.7

3.4 - 5.6

44

Peru

4.1

6

1.1

2.0 - 5.3

Poland

4.1

10

0.9

2.9 - 5.6

46

Brazil

4.0

9

0.3

3.5 - 4.5

47

Bulgaria

3.9

6

0.6

3.2 - 5.0

Croatia

3.9

3

0.6

3.4 - 4.6

Czech Republic

3.9

10

0.9

2.6 - 5.6

50

Colombia

3.8

9

0.6

3.0 - 4.5

51

Mexico

3.7

9

0.6

2.5 - 5.0

Panama

3.7

3

0.4

3.1 - 4.0

Slovak Republic

3.7

7

0.9

2.1 - 4.9

54

Egypt

3.6

7

1.5

1.2 - 6.2

El Salvador

3.6

5

0.9

2.0 - 4.3

Turkey

3.6

9

0.8

2.0 - 4.5

57

Argentina

3.5

9

0.6

2.9 - 4.4

China

3.5

10

0.4

2.7 - 3.9

59

Ghana

3.4

3

0.5

2.9 - 3.8

Latvia

3.4

3

1.2

2.0 - 4.3

61

Malawi

3.2

3

1.0

2.0 - 3.9

Thailand

3.2

12

0.9

0.6 - 4.0

63

Dominican Rep

3.1

3

0.9

2.0 - 3.9

Moldova

3.1

3

0.9

2.1 - 3.8

65

Guatemala

2.9

4

0.9

2.0 - 4.2

Philippines

2.9

11

0.9

1.6 - 4.8

Senegal

2.9

3

0.8

2.2 - 3.8

Zimbabwe

2.9

6

1.1

1.6 - 4.7

69

Romania

2.8

5

0.5

2.0 - 3.4

Venezuela

2.8

9

0.4

2.0 - 3.6

71

Honduras

2.7

3

1.1

2.0 - 4.0

India

2.7

12

0.5

2.1 - 3.8

Kazakhstan

2.7

3

1.3

1.8 - 4.3

Uzbekistan

2.7

3

1.1

2.0 - 4.0

75

Vietnam

2.6

7

0.7

1.5 - 3.8

Zambia

2.6

3

0.5

2.0 - 3.0

77

Cote d´Ivoire

2.4

3

1.0

1.5 - 3.6

Nicaragua

2.4

3

0.8

1.9 - 3.4

79

Ecuador

2.3

6

0.3

1.8 - 2.6

Pakistan

2.3

3

1.7

0.8 - 4.2

Russia

2.3

10

1.2

0.3 - 4.2

82

Tanzania

2.2

3

0.6

1.6 - 2.9

83

Ukraine

2.1

6

1.1

1.0 - 4.3

84

Azerbaijan

2.0

3

0.2

1.8 - 2.2

Bolivia

2.0

5

0.6

1.5 - 3.0

Cameroon

2.0

3

0.8

1.2 - 2.9

Kenya

2.0

4

0.7

0.9 - 2.6

88

Indonesia

1.9

12

0.8

0.2 - 3.1

Uganda

1.9

3

0.6

1.3 - 2.4

90

Nigeria

1.0

4

0.9

-0.1 - 2.0

91

Bangladesh

0.4

3

2.9

-1.7 - 3.8

 

Note on the Bangladesh score:
Data for this country in 2001 was available from only three independent survey sources, and each of these yielded very different results. While the composite score is 0.4, the range of individual survey results is from -1.7 to +3.8. This is a greater range than for any other country. TI stresses, therefore, that this result needs to be viewed with caution.


For any press enquiries please contact

.(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Latest

Support Transparency International

The theme for the 18th edition of the International Anti-Corruption Conference (IACC) is announced

Building on the priorities set out in the Panama Declaration, the 18th IACC in Denmark from 22 to 24 October 2018 will move the pledge of acting together now to concrete action.

A new home for our corruption research

Transparency International is excited to announce the launch of the Knowledge Hub, a dedicated online space for our research.

Pardon me? Presidential clemency and impunity for grand corruption

Recent events in Brazil and Peru have shone a spotlight on the issue of presidential pardons in cases of grand corruption. Read more to find out the best practices that legislators can use to ensure that pardons are not abused for political purposes.

Stopping Dirty Money: the Global Effective-O-Meter

As of December 2017, global effectiveness at stopping money laundering stands at 32% effectiveness.

Corruption in the USA: The difference a year makes

A new survey by Transparency International shows that the US government has a long way to go to win back citizens’ trust.

Anti-Corruption Day 2017: Empowering citizens’ fight against corruption

The 9 December, is Anti-corruption Day. A key part of Transparency International’s work is to help people hold their governments to account. Have a look at what we've been doing around the world!

Digital Award for Transparency: Honouring digital initiatives to fight corruption

The Digital Award for Transparency awards individuals and civil society organisations who have developed digital technology tools used to fight corruption. The award aims at strengthening and promoting existing initiatives that promote good governance through three categories: Open Data, Citizen Engagement and Anti-Corruption Tools.

Social Media

Follow us on Social Media

Would you like to know more?

Sign up to stay informed about corruption news and our work around the world