Corruption Perceptions Index

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Overview of the index of perception of corruption, 2009. (Where the highest perception of corruption is colored red, and lowest is colored green.)

Since 1995, Transparency International has published an annual Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI)[1] ordering the countries of the world according to "the degree to which corruption is perceived to exist among public officials and politicians".[2] The organization defines corruption as "the abuse of entrusted power for private gain".[3]

The 2003 poll covered 133 countries; the 2007 survey, 180. A higher score means less (perceived) corruption. The results show seven out of every ten countries (and nine out of every ten developing countries) with an index of less than 5 points out of 10.

Contents

[edit] Methods and interpretation

Transparency International commissioned Johann Graf Lambsdorff of the University of Passau to produce the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI).[2] The CPI 2005 draws on "16 different polls and surveys from 10 independent institutions…The institutions who provided data for the CPI 2005 are: Columbia University, Economist Intelligence Unit, Freedom House, Information International, International Institute for Management Development, Merchant International Group, Political and Economic Risk Consultancy, United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, World Economic Forum and World Markets Research Centre. Early CPIs used public opinion surveys, but now only "experts" are used. TI requires at least three sources to be available in order to rank a country in the CPI.[2]

"TI writes in their FAQ on the CPI that "residents' viewpoints correlate well with those of experts abroad. In the past, the experts surveyed in the CPI sources were often business people from industrialised countries; the viewpoint of less developed countries was underrepresented. This has changed over time, giving increasingly voice to respondents from emerging market economies."[2]

As this index is based on polls, the results are subjective and corrupt in itself, and less reliable for countries with fewer sources. Also, what is legally defined (or perceived) to be corruption, differs between jurisdictions: a political donation legal in some jurisdiction may be illegal in another; a matter viewed as acceptable tipping in one country may be viewed as bribery in another. In former Soviet states, the term "corruption" itself has become a proxy for the broader frustration with all changes since the breakup of the USSR. In the Arab world, terms for corruption had to be invented by advocates as recently as the 1990s.

Statistics like this are, by nature, imprecise; statistics from different years aren't necessarily comparable. The ICCR itself explains, "…year-to-year changes in a country's score result not only from a changing perception of a country's performance but also from a changing sample and methodology. Each year, some sources are not updated and must be dropped from the CPI, while new, reliable sources are added. With differing respondents and slightly differing methodologies, a change in a country's score may also relate to the fact that different viewpoints have been collected and different questions been asked… [despite] anti-corruption reform… [or] recent exposure of corruption scandals… [i]t is often difficult to improve a CPI score over a short time period, such as one or two years. The CPI is based on data from the past three years (for more on this, see the question on the sources of data, below). This means that a change in perceptions of corruption would only emerge in the index over longer periods of time".[4]

[edit] The validity of the method

The validity of the method has been assessed according to Wilhelm's paper [5][clarification needed]. However, more cross-validations need to be established to demonstrate its applicability.

[edit] Criticism

The Corruption Perceptions Index has drawn increasing criticism in the decade since its launch, leading to calls for the index to be abandoned.[6][7][8] This criticism has been directed at the quality of the Index itself, and the lack of actionable insights created from a simple country ranking.[9][10] Because corruption is willfully hidden, it is impossible to measure directly; instead proxies for corruption are used. The CPI uses an eclectic mix of third-party surveys to sample public perceptions of corruption through a variety of questions, ranging from "Do you trust the government?" to "Is corruption a big problem in your country?"

The use of third-party survey data is a source of criticism. The data can vary widely in methodology and completeness from country to country. The methodology of the Index itself changes from year to year, thus making even basic better-or-worse comparisons difficult. Media outlets, meanwhile, frequently use the raw numbers as a yardstick for government performance, without clarifying what the numbers mean.

The lack of standardization and precision in these surveys is cause for concern. The authors of the CPI argue that averaging enough survey data will solve this; others argue that aggregating imprecise data only masks these flaws without addressing them.[11] In one case, a local Transparency International chapter disowned the index results after a change in methodology caused a country's scores to increase—media reported it as an "improvement".[12] Other critics point out that definitional problems with the term "corruption" makes the tool problematic for social science.

Aside from precision issues, a more fundamental critique is aimed at the uses of the Index. Critics are quick to concede that the CPI has been instrumental in creating awareness and stimulating debate about corruption. However, as a source of quantitative data in a field hungry for international datasets, the CPI can take on a life of its own, appearing in cross-country and year-to-year comparisons that the CPI authors themselves admit are not justified by their methodology. The authors state in 2008: "Year-to-year changes in a country's score can either result from a changed perception of a country's performance or from a change in the CPI’s sample and methodology. The only reliable way to compare a country’s score over time is to go back to individual survey sources, each of which can reflect a change in assessment." [13]

The CPI produces a single score per country, which as noted above, cannot be compared year-to-year. As such, the Index is nearly useless as a tool for evaluating the impact of new policies.[14] In the late 2000s, the field has moved towards unpackable, action-oriented indices (such as those by the International Budget Partnership or Global Integrity), which typically measure public policies that relate to corruption, rather than try to assess "corruption" as a whole via proxy measures like perceptions.[9] These alternative measures use original (often locally collected) data and are limited in scope to specific policy practices (such as public access to parliamentary budget documents).

[edit] Rankings

Worldwide Corruption Perceptions ranking of countries
published by Transparency International
Rank Country Index
2009 2009[15] 2008[16] 2007[17] 2006[18] 2005[19] 2004[20] 2003 2002
1  New Zealand 9.4 9.3 9.4 9.6 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.4
2  Denmark 9.3 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5
3  Singapore 9.2 9.2 9.3 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.4 9.4
3  Sweden 9.2 9.3 9.3 9.2 9.2 9.3 9.3 9.0
5  Switzerland 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.1 8.8 8.5 8.4
6  Finland 8.9 9.0 9.4 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.7 9.9
6  Netherlands 8.9 8.9 9.0 8.7 8.6 8.9 9.0 8.8
8  Australia 8.7 8.7 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.8 8.6 8.5
8  Canada 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.5 8.4 8.7 9.0 8.9
8  Iceland 8.7 8.9 9.2 9.6 9.7 9.6 9.4 9.2
11  Norway 8.6 7.9 8.7 8.8 8.9 8.8 8.5 8.6
12  Hong Kong 8.2 8.1 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.0 8.2 7.9
12  Luxembourg 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.6 8.5 8.7 9.0 8.7
14  Germany 8.0 7.9 7.8 8.0 8.2 7.7 7.3 7.4
14  Ireland 8.0 7.7 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.5 6.9 7.5
16  Austria 7.9 8.1 8.1 8.6 8.7 8.0 7.8 7.8
17  Japan 7.7 7.3 7.5 7.6 7.3 7.0 7.1 7.1
17  United Kingdom 7.7 7.7 8.4 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.7 8.3
19  United States 7.5 7.3 7.2 7.3 7.6 7.5 7.7 7.6
20  Barbados 7.4 7.0 6.9 6.7 6.9      
21  Belgium 7.1 7.3 7.1 7.3 7.4 7.6 7.1 6.6
22  Qatar 7.0 6.5 6.0 6.0 5.9 5.6    
22  Saint Lucia 7.0 7.1 6.8          
24  France 6.9 6.9 7.3 7.4 7.5 6.9 6.3 6.7
25  Chile 6.7 6.9 7.0 7.3 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.5
25  Uruguay 6.7 6.9 6.7 6.4 5.9 5.5 5.1 5.1
27  Cyprus 6.6 6.4 5.3 5.6 5.7 5.4 6.1  
27  Estonia 6.6 6.6 6.5 6.7 6.4 5.5 5.6 5.6
27  Slovenia 6.6 6.7 6.6 6.4 6.1 5.9 6.0 5.2
30  United Arab Emirates 6.5 5.9 5.7 6.2 6.2 6.1 5.2  
31  Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 6.4 6.5 6.1          
32  Israel 6.1 6.0 6.1 5.9 6.3 6.4 7.0 7.3
32  Spain 6.1 6.5 6.7 6.8 7.0 6.9 7.1 7.0
34  Dominica 5.9 6.0 5.6 4.5 3.0 2.9 3.3 3.2
35  Portugal 5.8 6.1 6.5 6.6 6.5 6.6 6.3 6.3
35  Puerto Rico 5.8 5.8            
37  Botswana 5.6 5.8 5.4 5.6 5.9 6.0 5.7 6.4
37  Taiwan 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.9 5.6 5.7 5.6
39  Brunei 5.5              
39  Oman 5.5 5.5 4.7 5.4 6.3 6.1 6.3  
39  South Korea 5.5 5.6 5.1 5.1 5.0 4.5 4.3 4.5
42  Mauritius 5.4 5.5 4.7 5.1 4.2 4.1 4.4 4.5
43  Costa Rica 5.3 5.1 5.0 4.1 4.2 4.9 4.3 4.5
43  Macau 5.3 5.4 5.7 6.6        
45  Malta 5.2 5.8 5.8 6.4 6.4      
46  Bahrain 5.1 5.4 5.0 5.7 5.8 5.8 6.1  
46  Cape Verde 5.1 5.1 4.9          
46  Hungary 5.1 5.1 5.3 5.2 5.0 4.8 4.8 4.9
49  Bhutan 5.0 5.4 5.0          
49  Jordan 5.0 5.1 4.7 5.3 5.7 5.3 4.6 4.5
49  Poland 5.0 4.6 4.2 3.7 3.4 3.5 3.6 4.0
52  Czech Republic 4.9 5.2 5.2 4.8 4.3 4.2 3.9 3.7
52  Lithuania 4.9 4.6 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.6 4.7 4.8
54  Seychelles 4.8 4.8 4.5 3.6 4.0 4.4    
55  South Africa 4.7 4.9 5.1 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.4 4.8
56  Latvia 4.5 5.0 4.8 4.7 4.2 4.0 3.8 3.7
56  Malaysia 4.5 5.1 5.1 5.0 5.1 5.0 5.2 4.9
56  Namibia 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.1 4.3 4.1 4.7 5.7
56  Samoa 4.5 4.4 4.5          
56  Slovakia 4.5 5.0 4.9 4.7 4.3 4.0 3.7 3.7
61  Cuba 4.4 4.3 4.2 3.5 3.8 3.7 4.6  
61  Turkey 4.4 4.6 4.1 3.8 3.5 3.2 3.1 3.2
63  Italy 4.3 4.8 5.2 6.2 6.2 5.2    
63  Saudi Arabia 4.3 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.4 4.5  
65  Tunisia 4.2 4.4 4.2 4.6 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.8
66  Croatia 4.1 4.4 4.1 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.7 3.8
66  Georgia 4.1 3.9 3.4 2.8 2.3 2.0 1.8 2.4
66  Kuwait 4.1 4.3 4.3 4.8 4.7 4.6 5.3  
69  Ghana 3.9 3.9 3.7 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.3 3.9
69  Montenegro 3.9 3.4 3.3          
71  Bulgaria 3.8 3.6 4.1 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 4.0
71  Macedonia 3.8 3.6 3.3 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.3  
71  Greece 3.8 4.7 4.6 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.2
71  Romania 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.6
75  Brazil 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.7 3.9 3.9 4.0
75  Colombia 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.9 4.0 3.8 3.7 3.6
75  Peru 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.7 3.4
75  Suriname 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.0 3.2 4.3    
79  Burkina Faso 3.6 3.5 2.9 3.2 3.4      
79  China 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.3 3.2 3.4 3.4 3.5
79  Swaziland 3.6 3.6 3.3 2.5 2.7      
79  Trinidad and Tobago 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.2 3.8 4.2 4.6 4.9
83  Serbia[21] 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.0 2.8 2.7 2.3  
84  El Salvador 3.4 3.9 4.0 4.0 4.2 3.7 3.4 3.2
84  Guatemala 3.4 3.1 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.2 2.4 2.5
84  India 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.3 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.7
84  Panama 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.1 3.5 3.7 3.4 3.0
84  Thailand 3.4 3.5 3.3 3.6 3.8 3.6 3.3 3.2
89  Lesotho 3.3 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.4      
89  Malawi 3.3 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.9
89  Mexico 3.3 3.6 3.5 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6
Rank Country Index
2009 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002
89  Moldova 3.3 2.9 2.8 3.2 2.9 2.3 2.4 2.1
89  Morocco 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.7
89  Rwanda 3.3 3.0 2.8 2.5 3.1      
95  Albania 3.2 3.4 2.9 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.5
95  Vanuatu 3.2 2.9 3.1          
97  Liberia 3.1 2.4 2.1   2.2      
97  Sri Lanka 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.5 3.4 3.7
99  Bosnia and Herzegovina 3.0 3.2 3.3 2.9 2.9 3.1 3.3  
99  Dominican Republic 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.8 3.0 2.9 3.3 3.5
99  Jamaica 3.0 3.1 3.3 3.7 3.6 3.3 3.8 4.0
99  Madagascar 3.0 3.4 3.2 3.1 2.8 3.1 2.6 1.7
99  Senegal 3.0 3.4 3.6 3.3 3.2 3.0 3.2 3.1
99  Tonga 3.0 2.4 1.7          
99  Zambia 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.6
106  Argentina 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.8
106  Benin 2.9 3.1 2.7 2.5 2.9 3.2    
106  Gabon 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.0 2.9 3.3    
106  Gambia 2.9 1.9 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.8 2.5  
106  Niger 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.3 2.4 2.2    
111  Algeria 2.8 3.2 3.0 3.1 2.8 2.7 2.6  
111  Djibouti 2.8 3.0 2.9          
111  Egypt 2.8 2.8 2.9 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.3 3.4
111  Indonesia 2.8 2.6 2.3 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.9
111  Kiribati 2.8 3.1 3.3 3.7        
111  Mali 2.8 3.1 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.2 3.0  
111  São Tomé and Príncipe 2.8 2.7 2.7          
111  Solomon Islands 2.8 2.9 2.8          
111  Togo 2.8 2.7 2.3 2.4        
120  Armenia 2.7 2.9 3.0 2.9 2.9 3.1 3.0  
120  Bolivia 2.7 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.5 2.2 2.3 2.2
120  Ethiopia 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.2 2.3 2.5 3.5
120  Kazakhstan 2.7 2.2 2.1 2.6 2.6 2.2 2.4 2.3
120  Mongolia 2.7 3.0 3.0 2.8 3.0 3.0    
120  Vietnam 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.4
126  Eritrea 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.6 2.6    
126  Guyana 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.5      
126  Syria 2.6 2.1 2.4 2.9 3.4 3.4 3.4  
126  Tanzania 2.6 3.0 3.2 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.5 2.7
130  Honduras 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.3 2.3 2.7
130  Lebanon 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.6 3.1 2.7 3.0  
130  Libya 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.1  
130  Maldives 2.5 2.8 3.3          
130  Mauritania 2.5 2.8 2.6 3.1        
130  Mozambique 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7  
130  Nicaragua 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.5
130  Nigeria 2.5 2.7 2.2 2.2 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.6
130  Uganda 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.6 2.2 2.1
139  Bangladesh 2.4 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.2
139  Belarus 2.4 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.6 3.3 4.2 4.8
139  Pakistan 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.5 2.6
139  Philippines 2.4 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.6
143  Azerbaijan 2.3 1.9 2.1 2.4 2.2 1.9 1.8 2.0
143  Comoros 2.3 2.5 2.6          
143  Nepal 2.3 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.8    
146  Cameroon 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1 1.8 2.2
146  Ecuador 2.2 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.2
146  Kenya 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.9
146  Russia 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.8 2.7 2.7
146  Sierra Leone 2.2 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.3 2.2  
146  Timor-Leste 2.2 2.2 2.6 2.6        
146  Ukraine 2.2 2.5 2.7 2.8 2.6 2.2 2.3 2.4
146  Zimbabwe 2.2 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.6 2.3 2.3 2.7
154  Côte d'Ivoire 2.1 2.0 2.1   1.9 2.0 2.1 2.7
154  Papua New Guinea 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.4 2.3 2.6 2.1  
154  Paraguay 2.1 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.1 1.9 1.6 1.7
154  Yemen 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.4 2.6 2.4
158  Cambodia 2.0 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.3 1.5 1.3 1.2
158  Central African Republic 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.4        
158  Laos 2.0 2.0 1.9 2.6 3.3      
158  Tajikistan 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.8  
162  Angola 1.9 2.2 1.9 2.2 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.7
162  Republic of the Congo 1.9 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.2  
162  Democratic Republic of the Congo 1.9 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.0    
162  Guinea-Bissau 1.9 1.9 2.2          
162  Kyrgyzstan 1.9 1.8 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.1  
162  Venezuela 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.5
168  Burundi 1.8 1.9 2.5 2.4 2.3      
168  Equatorial Guinea 1.8 1.7 1.9 2.1 1.9      
168  Guinea 1.8 1.6 1.9 1.9        
168  Haiti 1.8 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.5 1.5 2.2
168  Iran 1.8 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 2.9 3.0  
168  Turkmenistan 1.8 1.8 2.0 2.2 1.8 2.0    
174  Uzbekistan 1.7 1.8 1.7 2.7 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.9
175  Chad 1.6 1.6 1.8 2.0 1.7 1.7    
176  Iraq 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.9 2.2 2.1 2.2  
176  Sudan 1.5 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3  
178  Myanmar 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6  
179  Afghanistan 1.3 1.5 1.8   2.5      
180  Somalia 1.1 1.0 1.4   2.1      
–  Belize   2.9 3.0 3.5 3.7 3.8 4.5  
–  Grenada     3.4 3.5        

[edit] See also

[edit] References

  1. ^ Corruption Perception Report accessed on January 9, 2007
  2. ^ a b c d "Frequently Asked Questions: TI Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI 2005)". http://www.icgg.org/corruption.cpi_2005_faq.html. Retrieved 2005-11-22. 
  3. ^ "Global Corruption Report 2007". http://www.transparency.org/publications/publications/gcr_2007. Retrieved 2007-10-27. 
  4. ^ "ICCR FAQ". http://www.icgg.org/corruption.cpi_2004_faq.html. Retrieved 2005-07-04. 
  5. ^ Wilhelm, Paul G. (2002). "International Validation of the Corruption Perceptions Index: Implications for Business Ethics and Entrepreneurship Education". Journal of Business Ethics (Springer Netherlands) 35 (3): 177–189. doi:10.1023/A:1013882225402. 
  6. ^ Galtung, Fredrik (2006). "Measuring the Immeasurable: Boundaries and Functions of (Macro) Corruption Indices," in Measuring Corruption, Charles Sampford, Arthur Shacklock, Carmel Connors, and Fredrik Galtung, Eds. (Ashgate): 101-130. The author, a former Transparency International researcher and pioneer in the development of the Bribe Payers Index (BPI), addresses several criticisms of the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI). He argues that the CPI should be radically revised and complemented by additional indicators.
  7. ^ Sik, Endre (2002). "The Bad, the Worse and the Worst: Guesstimating the Level of Corruption," in Political Corruption in Transition: A Skeptic's Handbook, Stephen Kotkin and Andras Sajo, Eds. (Budapest: Central European University Press): 91-113.
  8. ^ "The Uses and Abuses of Governance Indicators". OECD. http://www.oecd.org/document/25/0,2340,en_2649_33935_37081881_1_1_1_1,00.html. 
  9. ^ a b "Bangladesh's economists question corruption perception index". The HINDU News Update Service. 2007-09-27. http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/003200709270921.htm. Retrieved 2007-09-28. 
  10. ^ "Hey Experts: Stop Abusing the CPI". Global Integrity. http://commons.globalintegrity.org/2009/02/hey-experts-stop-abusing-corruption.html. 
  11. ^ "A Users' Guide to Measuring Corruption". Global Integrity & UNDP. http://commons.globalintegrity.org/2008/09/users-guide-to-measuring-corruption.html. 
  12. ^ "TI's Index: Local Chapter Not Having It". Global Integrity. http://commons.globalintegrity.org/2008/09/tis-index-local-chapter-not-having-it.html. 
  13. ^ "CPI: Methodology FAQ". Transparency International. http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2008/faq#interpreting4. 
  14. ^ "A Users' Guide to Measuring Corruption". Global Integrity & UNDP. http://commons.globalintegrity.org/2008/09/users-guide-to-measuring-corruption.html. 
  15. ^ "CPI 2009 table". Transparency International. http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2009/cpi_2009_table. Retrieved 2009-11-18. 
  16. ^ "CPI 2008 table". Transparency International. http://www.transparency.org/news_room/in_focus/2008/cpi2008/cpi_2008_table. Retrieved 2008-12-17. 
  17. ^ "CPI 2007 table". Transparency International. http://www.transparency.org/news_room/in_focus/2007/cpi_2007/cpi_2007_table. Retrieved 2007-10-01. 
  18. ^ "CPI 2006 table". Transparency International. http://www.transparency.org/news_room/in_focus/cpi_2006/cpi_table. Retrieved 2006-11-17. 
  19. ^ "CPI 2005 table". Transparency International. http://www.transparency.org/news_room/in_focus/2005/cpi_2005#cpi. Retrieved 2007-12-03. 
  20. ^ "CPI 2004 table". Transparency International. http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2004. Retrieved 2007-12-03. 
  21. ^ The years 2002–2005 show data for Serbia and Montenegro

[edit] External links

v • d • e
Lists of countries by political rankings
Freedom
Corruption
Competitiveness
History
Rights
Other
Lists of countries · Lists by country · List of international rankings · List of statistically superlative countries
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index"