What I want to see is a comparison of total value of corruption - not volume as seems to be case here.
For example, the UK government has consistently refused to investigate British Aerospace's winning a 42Bn pound contract in Saudi - despite the USA basically handing out proof we bribed the ministers involved.
I think that claiming impoverished island X is very corrupt when customs agents are snaffling the price of a meal is disingenuous compared to projects won on bribery that total more than the impoverished island X GDP
Edit: One Afghan in seven paid a bribe in 2010, and the average bribe is equal to one third of the average Afghan salary.
Ok I take it back - thats not what I was thinking.
I'm unaware whether it's accounted as corruption only in Saudi Arabia but bribery is illegal in U.K so the fact that the government is refusing to investigate would be perceived as corruption where I come from.
"The Bribery Act creates the following offences:
* Active bribery: promising or giving a financial or other advantage.
* Passive bribery: agreeing to receive or accepting a financial or other advantage.
* Bribery of foreign public officials.
* The failure of commercial organisations to prevent bribery by an associated person (corporate offence)."
This is why I enjoy the idea of a European Union. As dysfunctional as it looks right now, it still puts my homeland France together in a big bag with the likes of Sweden, The Netherlands, Denmark or Norway, who regularly top the charts in terms of fight against corruption, equlity, education, citizen happiness and tons of other good metrics.
It's always nice to have that kind of example right next door.
Bluntly: Aside from slightly cheaper holidays, I'm not seeing the advantages for Scandanavia. I'm also confused as to why you think that you would need some political union to benefit from their examples? Not so much for France, but a lot of Eastern Euro countries have huge problems with corruption and I'd love to see evidence that political union with, e.g. Sweden, will help, e.g. Bulgaria, aside from enabling mass-migration.
Not all action should be seen as a political advantage for one self. Particularly not if you are a rich country, like all Scandinavian countries are. And Nordic countries for that matter as well.
I feel it is about trying to help Eastern Europe obtaining the same standard of living as Western Europe. After the Wall fell, Scandinavia worked together to help the three Baltic country up. Work that has paid off well in Estonia. Latvia and Lithuania still needs some work.
True, this was done without the help of the EU, but one of the main purposes of the EU is solidarity. Ensuring that all of Europe has a decent standard of living.
Not all political action should be seen as advantageous for oneself...but it should almost certainly be advantageous for oneself. I think that any politician that proposes sacrificing their own team's quality of life for the benefit of others won't last very long.
Touché. I believe European politicians have talked about how the prosperity of other European countries will benefit us all in the end. The EU has provided a much easier access for Scandinavia to other European countries' markets, allowing us to export more.
But Scandinavians are not above helping others; selfless acts are never that, though, there is always some objective in mind. Like bringing the Baltic countries up? It's just smart to have stable neighbours.
Bad economies leads to unstable countries, and that leads to trouble for its neighbours. And in a world as intertwined as ours, even beyond just neighbours.
Besides, EU-friendly governments in Scandinavia hasn't been outed for their pro-EU stance anyway.
I completely understand that it makes sense to have prosperous, stable neighbours. However, I'm not convinced that the EU as an institution is absolutely necessary to achieve that. Given that it has so many problems with corruption itself, it is not clear to me that it is learning very well from the better examples! It is surely possible to have some inter-cooperation without some of the downsides of the EU - mostly free trade and a certain minimum quality standard of living without the pernicious interference and bloated bureaucracy for which the european institutions are famed. Of course, I have no solid ideas to offer on that direction :-(
Well, to put it into perspective, they joined during very different political and economic times: the Danes in the late 60s and the Swedes and Finns right after the Wall came down.
Edit: Looks like Denmark applied in 1969 and was admitted in the early 1970s.
To be fair, New Zealand is also the top of the world (1st equal), and Australia has a respectable score. I love the idea of a European Union, but I'd prefer a union of Australia and New Zealand. We've got so much in common.
We already have free trade and a joint labour market. This benefits both countries hugely. Any other union would have very questionable benefits (currency, federal government). We should try to extend our free trade zone and labour market. Shortage of cheap labour in New Zealand.
I was asking myself the same about lobbying. Is lobbying some form of "legalized corruption"? Reading their explanation just made me even more confused, they don't even seem to know themselves.
http://blog.transparency.org/2009/09/14/what-is-%E2%80%98lob...
Strictly defined, lobbying is about educating representatives on behalf of special interests. However, lobbying is a lot like sales. Even if what you're selling isn't actually the best product for your customer, you still have a vested (if somewhat conflicted) interest in convincing them to buy it. Similarly, even if your special interest isn't actually the best policy for the public of which you're a part, you still have a vested interest in convincing them to enact it.
Sales and marketing spend a lot of time, money, and effort on building a positive association in your mind with their brand. This is a very standard and well-accepted technique, and it's the same technique that lobbyists apply when they loophole bribery by inviting people to lavish get-togethers for business meetings.
The reason it's okay when it comes to business transactions, but not okay in government policy is simply because it violates the social contract. If not for that, a backroom negotiation that results in a negative government policy is not much different from a big corporation buying your favorite startup and making its product suck as a result. The fundamental problem is identical: the difference is the amount of say you expected to have.
Definitely interested in more details about NK. I generally think of corruption as bribery, and NK seems like the sort of place where government officials would mostly not take bribes, what with the gulags and whatnot that no doubt lie in store for anyone who gets caught. But perhaps my picture of the place is upside down, or there's more to corruption than just that.
The info about North Korea is likely comprised of speculation and/or anecdotes of NK escapees and UN observers. Corruption is not just bribery though, it's also fraud, embezzlement, smuggling, etc. North Korea is printing millions of counterfeit US dollars and conducting illegal trade in arms and narcotics to fund its government and army and personally enrich their officials. NK also has a failed currency with a black market exchange rate that is about 30x higher than the official exchange rate, therefore almost every monetary transaction in North Korea is technically an act of corruption.
It's a meta-study aggregating about 13 surveys. The things being measured by the underlying surveys vary but mostly seem to center on government-employee bribery and misuse of public funds.
Most of the surveys are expert surveys not of the general public, and some of them use out-of-country researchers. It looks like 3 of the surveys reported data for NK and they're all outsiders.
I believe the keywords on that graphic would be "perceived corruption." In consistency with the other comments, that implies that it is based on surveys of the public.
Came to say this. This can be biased by cultural differences - brazilians, for example, are very prone to say everything is terrible and everyone is corrupt.
I wonder if it would be best to measure the impact of corruption instead. For example lots of small bribes to a cops Vs corrupt regulators allowing an large oil spill to happen for example..
IMHO, a lot of third world countries have endemic corruption and they live with it as long as it is bearable, but when it comes to large impact issues (A contaminating mining development or large water usage), locals are much more willing to go out on the street and protest (sometimes riot) to stop it than people on developed countries where almost nothing happens (the 99'%s protests for example)
Well, paying someone a few thousand quid to look the other way when your kid does a hit and run, and dining ministers and taking them on holiday to get time to lobby them for your arms company?
It's all up to methodologies used to gather evidence, how to interpret the evidence and ultimately how to weigh different aspects of perceived/suspected corruption.
We need more transparent and more open societies. Look at SOPA, look at the ITU meetings held behind closed doors, look at G8, ... People should be able to surveil governments and those in power, and not the other way around. Yet, we're going the exact opposing direction.
I'm from South Asia (India) and I can attest that corruption in that part of the world (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri-lanka etc.) is all-pervasive. It affects people from all strata and is pretty much an accepted way of life and is not something that can be solved easily.
It's funny to see Canada being 9th place. In Québec, we currently have a public inquiry regarding the corruption and collusion in the field of construction. Last month, the mayor of Montreal stepped down on reference of keeping a percentage for his party of all contracts given by the city for the past ten years. This particular public inquiry was decided after almost 4 years of denial from the previous government in place. Right now, it seems to be directly linking the Mafia, more specifically the Rizutto family.
At least in Canada cases of corruption and collusion can be publicly aired, criminal cases launched, and the most corrupt/dishonest politicians removed. There are at least two countries in the top 15 I know from first-hand experience where this is not occurring. There is direct interference and collusion on a huge scale in the economy by politicians, their families, and friends. Transparency International does not generally include this in their assessment, unless their are other market distorting factors, such as outright bribery or use of the judiciary for economic reasons, not just political.
Can anyone shed any light on how Japan seems to be doing so well in this metric when all of the other countries that they are close to geographically and culturally are doing very poorly?
I believe a lot of this is due to the US occupation of Japan after WWII which turned Japan in a democracy and gave it laws modeled after the American New Deal. More info here:
Without open disclosure of the methodology of the scoring used in the study, this study should mean nothing more than guess work and should be regarded as nothing noteworthy.
The key thing is that the data is "Corruption Perceptions" not actual corruption.
Here is a link with to their FAQs which explain more details. Also they mention there is a detailed sources description document if you download the raw data.
http://transparency.org/cpi2012/in_detail
EDIT: D'oh, looks like jlmendezbonini beat me to the punch.
For example, the UK government has consistently refused to investigate British Aerospace's winning a 42Bn pound contract in Saudi - despite the USA basically handing out proof we bribed the ministers involved.
I think that claiming impoverished island X is very corrupt when customs agents are snaffling the price of a meal is disingenuous compared to projects won on bribery that total more than the impoverished island X GDP
Edit: One Afghan in seven paid a bribe in 2010, and the average bribe is equal to one third of the average Afghan salary.
Ok I take it back - thats not what I was thinking.