Corruption Perceptions Index

Methods

The CPI methodology, revised in 2012, enables consistent comparison of corruption perceptions across countries and years. It involves four stages: selecting data sources, rescaling them to a uniform 0–100 scale, aggregating the results, and estimating uncertainty.

Selection of source data

The goal of the data selection is to capture expert and business leader assessments of various public sector corruption practices. This includes bribery, misuse of public funds, abuse of public office for personal gain, nepotism in civil service, and state capture. Since 2012 CPI has taken into account 13 different surveys and assessments from 12 different institutions. The institutions are:

African Development Bank (based in Ivory Coast)
Bertelsmann Foundation (based in Germany)
Economist Intelligence Unit (based in the UK)
Freedom House (based in the US)
Global Insight (based in the US)
International Institute for Management Development (based in Switzerland)
Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (based in Hong Kong)
The PRS Group, Inc. (based in the US)
World Bank
World Economic Forum
World Justice Project (based in the US)

Countries need to be evaluated by at least three sources to appear in the CPI. The CPI measures the perception of corruption due to the difficulty of measuring absolute levels of corruption. Transparency International commissioned the University of Passau's Johann Graf Lambsdorff to produce the CPI. Early CPIs used public opinion surveys.

Rescaling source data

In order for all data to be aggregated into the CPI index, it is first necessary to carry out standardization during which all data points are converted to a scale of 0–100. Here, 0 represents the most corruption and 100 signifies the least. Indices originally measuring corruption inversely (higher values for higher corruption) are multiplied by -1 to align with the 0–100 scale.

In the next step, the mean and standard deviation for each data source based on data from the baseline year are calculated (the "impute" command of the STATA statistical software package is used to replace missing values). Subsequently, a standardized z score is calculated with an average centered around 0 and a standard deviation of 1 for each source from each country. Finally, these scores are converted back to a 0–100 scale with a mean of approximately 45 and a standard deviation of 20. Scores below 0 are set to 0, and scores exceeding 100 are capped at 100. This ensures consistent comparability across years since 2012.

Aggregating the rescaled data

The resulting CPI index for each country is calculated as a simple average of all its rescaled scores that are available for the given country, while at least three data sources must be available in order to calculate the index. The imputed data is used only for standardization and is not used as a score to calculate the index.

Reporting a measure for uncertainty

The CPI score is accompanied by a standard error and confidence interval. This reflects the variation present within the data sources used for a particular country or territory.

Related phenomena and indices

CPI and economic growth

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, as well as an increase in GDP growth of 1.7% for every unit increase in a country's CPI score. Also shown was a power-law dependence linking higher CPI score to higher rates of foreign investment in a country.

The research article "The Investigation of the Relationship between Corruption Perception Index and GDP in the Case of the Balkans" from 2020 confirms the positive co-integration relationship in Balkan countries between CPI and GDP and calculates the affecting rate of CPI GDP as 0.34. Moreover, the direction of causality between CPI and GDP was identified from CPI to GDP and, according to this, the hypothesis that CPI is the cause of GDP was accepted.

The working paper Corruption and Economic Growth: New Empirical Evidence from 2019 emphasizes that many previous studies used the CPI for their analysis before 2012 (when the index was difficult to compare over time) and therefore may be biased. At the same time, it presents new empirical evidence based on data for 175 over the period 2012-2018. The results show that corruption is negatively associated with economic growth (Real per capita GDP decreased by around 17% in the long-run when the reversed CPI increased by one standard deviation).

CPI and justice

As reported by Transparency International, there is a correlation between the absence of discrimination and a better CPI score. That indicates that in countries with high corruption, equal treatment before the law is not guaranteed and there is more space for discrimination against specific groups.

It seems that the country's justice system is an important protector of the country against corruption, and conversely, a high level of corruption can undermine the effectiveness of the justice system. Furthermore, as noted by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), justice systems around the world are overburdened with large caseloads, chronically underfunded, and in need of more financial and human resources to properly fulfill their mandates. This, in combination with increasing outside interference, pressures and efforts to undermine judicial independence, results in the inability of justice systems to control corruption. The latest edition of the World Justice Project's Rule of Law Index, which shows that in the past year, justice systems in most countries exhibited signs of deterioration, including increasing delays and lower levels of accessibility and affordability, also serves as evidence of the urgency of the situation. Conversely, because corruption implies disproportionate favoring of some groups or individuals over others, it prevents people from accessing justice. For example, a person may rely on personal contacts to change a statutory process.

As shown in the Corruption Perception Index 2023, there is also a positive relationship between corruption and impunity. Countries with higher levels of corruption are less likely to sanction public officials for failing to adhere to existing rules and fulfill their responsibilities. A positive relationship was also shown between corruption and access to justice.

Other phenomena and indices

Thesis The Relationship Between Corruption And Income Inequality: A Crossnational Study, published in 2013, investigates the connection between corruption and income inequality on a global scale. The study's key finding is a robust positive association between income inequality (measured by the Gini coefficient) and corruption (measured by the CPI).

A study from 2001 shows that the more affected by corruption, the worse a country's environmental performance. Measuring national environmental performance according to 67 variables, the closest match is with the 2000 TI Corruption Perceptions Index, which revealed a 0.75 correlation with the ranking of environmental performance.

A 2022 study titled "Statistical Analyses on the Correlation of Corruption Perception Index and Some Other Indices in Nigeria" investigated the relationship between the Corruption Perception Index in Nigeria and other relevant indices. These other indices included the Human Development Index (HDI), Global Peace Index (GPI), and Global Hunger Index (GHI). The result from the analysis carried out on the standardized data set shows that a positive linear relationship exists among all the variable considered except for CPI and GPI holding HDI and GHI constant which indicates a negative linear relationship between them.

A study investigating the relationship between public governance and the Corruption Perception Index found that aspects of public administration like voice and accountability, political stability, and rule of law significantly influence how corrupt a country is perceived to be. This suggests that strong governance practices can be effective in reducing corruption.

Criticism

The CPI has received significant criticism related to its conceptual and methodological limitations, and bias towards devoloped countries.

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

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.
Measuring perception of corruption, rather than corruption itself, may reinforce existing stereotypes and cliches.
The Index only measures public sector corruption, ignoring the private sector. This, for instance, means the well-publicized Libor scandal, Odebrecht case and the Volkswagen 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".

In a 2013 Foreign Policy article, Alex Cobham argues that the CPI reflects an elite bias in popular perceptions of corruption, potentially contributing to a vicious cycle and 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." He noted that "many of the staff and chapters" at Transparency International, "protest internally" over concerns about the index. The original creator of the index, Johann Graf Lambsdorff, withdrew from work on the index in 2009, stating that he was "no longer available for doing the Corruption Perceptions Index."

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.

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.

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.

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.

Scoring

As stated by Transparency International in 2024, the level of corruption stagnates at the global level. Only 28 of the 180 countries measured by the CPI index have improved their corruption levels over the last twelve years, and 34 countries have significantly worsened. No significant change was recorded for 118 countries. Moreover, according to Transparency International, over 80 percent of the population lives in countries whose CPI index is lower than the global average of 43, and thus corruption remains a problem that affects the majority of people globally.

Among the states with the most significant decline in the CPI are authoritarian states such as Venezuela, as well as established democracies that have been rated high for a long time, such as Sweden (decrease of 7, the current score 82) or Great Britain (decrease 3, current score 71). Other countries experiencing sharp declines include Sri Lanka, Mongolia, Gabon, Guatemala, and Turkey. In contrast, the most significant improvements in the CPI score over the last twelve years were recorded by Uzbekistan, Tanzania, Ukraine, Ivory Coast, the Dominican Republic and Kuwait.

2024 scores

Below are the scores for each country in the Corruption Perceptions Index. The scores reflect a country's transparency (i.e., the opposite of corruption), while the bar length demonstrates corruption.

Legend

Scores	Perceived as less corrupt	Perceived as more corrupt	since 2012
100–90	89–80	79–70	69–60

Please add the scores to List of Countries by Corruption Perceptions Index before adding them here to make our job easier whenever a new report comes out. --

#	Nation or Territory	Rank
Change (2023)
1	Denmark
2	Finland
3	Singapore	2
4	New Zealand	1
5	Luxembourg	5
5	Norway	1
5	Switzerland	1
8	Sweden	2
9	Netherlands	1
10	Australia	4
10	Iceland	9
10	Ireland	1
13	Estonia
13	Uruguay	5
15	Canada	3
15	Germany	6
17	Hong Kong	2
18	Bhutan	8
18	Seychelles	4
20	Japan	3
20	United Kingdom	3
22	Belgium	6
23	Barbados	1
23	United Arab Emirates	4
25	Austria	5
25	France	4
25	Taiwan	3
28	Bahamas	2
28	United States	3
30	Israel	3
30	South Korea	2
32	Chile	3
32	Lithuania	2
32	Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	4
35	Cape Verde	5
36	Dominica	6
36	Slovenia	6
38	Latvia	2
38	Qatar	2
38	Saint Lucia	7
38	Saudi Arabia	15
42	Costa Rica	3
43	Botswana	4
43	Portugal	9
43	Rwanda	6
46	Cyprus	3
46	Czech Republic	5
46	Grenada	3
46	Spain	10
50	Fiji	3
50	Oman	20
52	Italy	10
53	Bahrain	23
53	Georgia	4
53	Poland	6
56	Mauritius	1
57	Malaysia
57	Vanuatu	4
59	Greece
59	Jordan	4
59	Namibia
59	Slovakia	12
63	Armenia	1
63	Croatia	6
65	Kuwait	2
65	Malta	10
65	Montenegro	2
65	Romania	2
69	Benin	1
69	Ivory Coast	18
69	São Tomé and Príncipe	2
69	Senegal	1
73	Jamaica	4
73	Kosovo	10
73	Timor-Leste	3
76	Bulgaria	9
76	China
76	Moldova
76	Solomon Islands	6
80	Albania	18
80	Ghana	10
82	Burkina Faso	1
82	Cuba	6
82	Hungary	6
82	South Africa	1
82	Tanzania	5
82	Trinidad and Tobago	6
88	Kazakhstan	5
88	North Macedonia	12
88	Suriname	1
88	Vietnam	5
92	Colombia	5
92	Guyana	5
92	Tunisia	5
92	Zambia	2
96	Gambia	2
96	India	3
96	Maldives	3
99	Argentina	1
99	Ethiopia	1
99	Indonesia	16
99	Lesotho	6
99	Morocco	2
104	Dominican Republic	4
105	Serbia	1
105	Ukraine	1
107	Algeria	3
107	Brazil	3
107	Malawi	8
107	Nepal	1
107	Niger	17
107	Thailand	1
107	Turkey	8
114	Belarus	16
114	Bosnia and Herzegovina	6
114	Laos	22
114	Mongolia	7
114	Panama	6
114	Philippines	1
114	Sierra Leone	6
121	Angola
121	Ecuador	6
121	Kenya	5
121	Sri Lanka	6
121	Togo	5
121	Uzbekistan
127	Djibouti	3
127	Papua New Guinea	6
127	Peru	6
130	Egypt	22
130	El Salvador	4
130	Mauritania
133	Bolivia
133	Guinea	8
135	Eswatini	5
135	Gabon	1
135	Liberia	10
135	Mali	1
135	Pakistan	2
140	Cameroon
140	Iraq	14
140	Madagascar	5
140	Mexico	14
140	Nigeria	5
140	Uganda	1
146	Guatemala	8
146	Kyrgyzstan	5
146	Mozambique	1
149	Central African Republic
149	Paraguay	13
151	Bangladesh	2
151	Congo	7
151	Iran	2
154	Azerbaijan
154	Honduras
154	Lebanon	4
154	Russia	13
158	Cambodia
158	Chad	4
158	Comoros	4
158	Guinea-Bissau
158	Zimbabwe	9
163	Democratic Republic of the Congo	1
164	Tajikistan	2
165	Afghanistan	3
165	Burundi	3
165	Turkmenistan	5
168	Haiti	4
168	Myanmar	6
170	North Korea	2
170	Sudan	8
172	Nicaragua
173	Equatorial Guinea	1
173	Eritrea	12
173	Libya	3
173	Yemen	3
177	Flag of the Syrian revolution.svg Syria
178	Venezuela	1
179	Somalia	1
180	South Sudan	3

List by region

The following table lists the average CPI score for each region since 2012.

Region	Countries (2024)	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015	2014	2013	2012
Western Europe and European Union	31	64.29	65.35	65.52	65.87	65.81	66.06	66.32	66.35	66.39	67.39	66.10	65.19	65.10
Americas	32	42.19	42.69	42.97	43.13	43.38	43.38	43.72	44.19	44.09	40.31	44.94	44.32	45.03
Central Asia and Eastern Europe	19	34.84	35.32	35.21	35.68	35.95	34.79	34.53	34.47	34.32	33.21	33.11	32.74	32.79
Asia-Pacific	31	44.48	44.52	45.13	45.10	45.29	44.87	44.39	44.39	43.87	42.56	42.70	43.04	42.64
Sub-Saharan Africa	49	32.51	32.82	32.39	32.51	32.31	32.24	32.24	32.02	31.46	32.30	32.73	32.12	33.35
Middle East and North Africa	18	39.00	38.00	37.50	38.72	39.11	39.00	38.56	37.89	37.50	40.06	39.67	38.44	40.00
World	180	42.66	42.97	42.98	43.27	43.34	43.17	43.12	43.07	42.95	42.60	43.16	42.55	43.15

Transnational corruption in states with high CPI scores

The advanced economies of Northern and Western Europe, North America, and Asia and the Pacific tend to top the rankings over the long term. This means that these countries are perceived as having a low level of corruption in the public sector. These nations also generally have well-functioning judicial systems, a strong rule of law, and political stability – all factors that contribute to perceptions of clean governance. However, while these top-ranked countries have strong domestic institutions, their commitment to fighting corruption appears to be weak when it comes to their own financial systems and regulations affecting the international environment. The CPI doesn't capture transnational corruption, so corrupt foreign business practices by companies from these countries don't affect their CPI scores. The example of the Netherlands highlights this issue. Despite a high CPI score, the Netherlands has a poor record of prosecuting companies that bribe foreign officials to win contracts, as seen in the Nigerian oil bribery case.

The report Exporting Corruption 2022, which assesses foreign bribery enforcement in 43 of the 44 signatories to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, as well as China, ZAO Hong Kong, India and Singapore, reinforces this concern. It found a significant decline in foreign bribery enforcement. Only two out of 47 countries are now in active enforcement category. Other key findings were that no country is exempt from bribery by its nationals and related money laundering. Moreover, according to the report, weaknesses remain in legal frameworks and enforcement systems are not adequately disclosed by most countries information on enforcement, victim compensation is rare and international cooperation is increasing but still faces significant obstacles. This calls for a more comprehensive approach to tackling corruption, addressing both domestic and international aspects.

References

"1995 – CPI".
"Corruption Perception Index".
(2024). "Corruption Perceptions Index: Frequently Asked Questions". [[Transparency International]].
(11 February 2025). "CPI 2024". [[Transparency International]].
Andy McDevitt. (2016). ''How-to guide for corruption assessment tools (2nd edition)''. U4 operated by Transparency International.
Transparency International. "Corruption Perceptions Index 2022: Full Source Description". Corruption Perceptions Index.
"Corruption Perceptions Index 2010: Long Methodological Brief". Transparency International.
Transparency International. (2010). "Frequently asked questions (FAQs)". Transparency International.
"Frequently Asked Questions: TI Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI 2005)".
(2007). "Quantitative relations between corruption and economic factors". The European Physical Journal B.
(2008). "Influence of corruption on economic growth rate and foreign investment". The European Physical Journal B.
(2020). "The investigation of relationship between Corruption Perception Index and GDP in the case of the Balkans". International Journal of Management Economics and Business.
(2019). "Corruption and Economic Growth: New Empirical Evidence". European Journal of Political Economy.
(2024-01-30). "CPI 2023: Corruption and (in)justice – News".
“Corruption Perceptions Index 2023.” Transparency International, Jan. 2024. {{ISBN. 978-3-96076-250-8.
Mehen, M.. (2013). "The Relationship between Corruption and Income Inequality: A Crossnational Study". Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Georgetown University.
(2001-01-25). ""Strongest correlation" between corruption and poor environmental…".
(29 January 2023). "Statistical Analyses on the Correlation of Corruption Perception Index and Some Other Indices in Nigeria". Scientia Africana.
(2024). "Investigating the Relationship between Public Governance and the Corruption Perception Index". Cogent Social Sciences.
Hough, Dan. (27 January 2016). "Here's this year's (flawed) Corruption Perception Index. Those flaws are useful.". The Washington Post.
Werve, Jonathan. (23 September 2008). "TI's Index: Local Chapter Not Having It".
Cobham, Alex. (22 July 2013). "Corrupting Perceptions". [[Foreign Policy]].
Cobham, Alex. (23 July 2013). "Corrupting Perceptions: Why Transparency International's Flagship Corruption Index Falls Short".
Hamilton, Alexander. (2017). "Can We Measure the Power of the Grabbing Hand? A Comparative Analysis of Different Indicators of Corruption". World Bank.
Campbell, Stuart. (2013). "Perception is Not Reality: The FCPA, Brazil, and the Mismeasurement of Corruption". Minnesota Journal of International Law.
(27 January 2016). "2015 Corruptions Perceptions Index – Explore the results".
(2024-01-30). "CPI 2023: Highlights and insights – News".
(11 February 2025). "Corruption Perceptions Index (latest)". [[Transparency International]].
Bahamas and Barbados were not scored this year, lowering the regional average.
(2024-01-30). "CPI 2023: Trouble at the top – News".
(2023-05-22). "Nigeria oil bribery case: Netherlands and US must reopen…".
Dell, G., & McDevitt, A. (2022). Exporting Corruption 2022: Assessing Enforcement of the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention. In ''www.transparency.org'' ({{ISBN. 978-3-96076-228-7). Transparency International.

Info: Wikipedia Source

This article was imported from Wikipedia and is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Content has been adapted to SurfDoc format. Original contributors can be found on the article history page.