“The results of the 2016 Corruption Index are alarming”
An interview with the Research Team of Transparency International (TI) about the global dimension of public sector corruption.
In 2016, no country gets close to a perfect score: This year’s Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) shows that around the world systemic corruption and social inequality reinforce each other, providing a fertile ground for the rise of populist politicians. 69 per cent of the 176 countries on the CPI 2016 scored below 50, on a scale from 0 (perceived to be highly corrupt) to 100 (perceived to be very clean). In 2016, more countries declined than improved, showing the need for urgent action.
Transparency International-Korea: The CPI covers the perception of corruption in the public sector. To what extent do the results also reflect the situation of the private sector in a country?
TI-Research Team: The CPI doesn’t tell the full story. It is an indicator of perceptions of public sector corruption. It covers the government and its decentralized units, including police, military, public roads and transit authorities, primary schools and healthcare systems. All these institutions use public funds and provide services based on the motivation e.g. to improve citizens’ health rather than to make a profit. So the CPI is not a verdict on the levels of corruption of entire societies, their policies, or the activities of their private sector.
Corruption generally comprises illegal activities, which are deliberately hidden and only come to light through scandals or prosecutions. There is no meaningful way to assess absolute levels of corruption. Possible attempts to do so, such as by comparing bribes reported, the number of prosecutions brought or studying court cases directly linked to corruption, cannot be taken as definitive indicators of corruption levels. Instead, they show how effective prosecutors, the courts or the media are in investigating and exposing corruption.
How do you generate data from countries such as Somalia that are difficult to visit or that are currently at war?
The CPI uses data from up to 13 different external surveys of experts. For countries such as e.g. North Korea some of the source surveys maintain analysts or experts who have good knowledge of the situation in those countries. And they rely upon these experts to rate them. These could be international experts who have experience doing business within those countries or researchers who have studied those countries in detail and have an intimate knowledge of the situation there.
This year’s index also reveals some success stories: Could you explain why e.g. Tunisia and Afghanistan have improved significantly?
Tunisia is one of the very few countries that slightly improved. The country took some serious anti-corruption steps in 2016 such as passing the Access to Information law, one of the most progressive laws in the region, and adopting a national anti-corruption strategy. Yet Tunisia has still a long road ahead. Laws on whistleblower protection, conflict of interests and illicit enrichment policies remain missing. The judicial system should move forward in pending corruption cases, especially those that are ongoing since the revolution six years ago.
Afghanistan has nearly doubled its score from 2013 (8 out of 100). In 2016, the country has moved up four points (15 out of 100). Yet it still remains one of the ten very corrupt countries on the index. The reason for the better score: The National Unity Government has promised change to the people of Afghanistan and made over 50 commitments to address corruption. The commitments cover reforms of the civil service and justice sector as well as transparency in company ownership. The Afghan government also plans to improve the transparency of tax affairs and the transparency of donor aid. So there has been some progress. However, the Afghan government must follow up on these commitments.
And what have been the main reasons for the decline of e.g. the Netherlands and the United Arab Emirates?
Corruption scandals have hit a number of EU countries. Last year in Denmark, the top country on the index, 20 members of the Danish Parliament (11 percent of 179 members) did not declare their outside activities or financial interests in their asset declarations. In the same year, Dutch members of the Police Works Council resigned following an investigation that revealed how a significant amount of the Council’s money was used to pay for expensive dinners, parties, and hotels.
This is alarming. When core institutions in a democratic society – political parties, parliament, public administration and the judiciary – are systematically implicated with corruption, they cease to be regarded as responsive to people’s needs and problems.
On the other hand, the hope for Arab countries to end impunity has not seen any progress yet. This explains their sharp drop in 2016: About 90 percent have scored below 50, which is a failing grade. The United Arab Emirates and Qatar have managed to remain above the average, yet their scores have declined, too.
They have dropped on the index as ruling families continue to hold power politically and economically and public freedoms are oppressed. The military involvement of these states in regional coalitions has raised the levels of secrecy and ambiguity of public expenditure and state budgets.
In order for Arab countries to improve, Governments should stop persecuting anti-corruption activists, whistleblowers, and civil society organizations. The independence of the judiciary, as well as auditing bodies, must be respected to ensure that the corrupt are prosecuted and stolen assets are returned.
Interview: Karoline Richter