Corruption Perception Index for 2013 - transparentnost.org.rs

Corruption Perception Index for 2013 - transparentnost.org.rs

Global Corruption Perception Index (CPI) Transparency International 2013 www.transparentnost.org.rs http://www.transparency.org/research/cpi/overview Corruption Perception Index for 2013 Global (177 states/territories) agregate Index (from 13 different sources of data) that measures perception (experts/businessmen) corruption (abuse of entrusted power for private gain) in public sector (state officials and public servants) Corruption Perception Index for 2013 Measures the level of how corrupt public sector is perceived to be (corruption among state officials and public servants) Index is created on the basis of 13 different researches and studies, conducted by independent institutions, questioning entrepreneurs, analysts and local experts In 2013 total of 177 states/territories are ranked, one more compared to 2012 Goals of CPI To measure the perception of corruption presence in the public sector by businessmen, experts and risk analysts To promote comparative understanding of corruption level To offer overview on perception of decisions makers that influence trade and investments CPI is cumulative research (research of group of researches), designed to overcome deficiencies of each individual research on corruption To stimulate scientific researches, analysis of cause and consequences of corruption both in international and domestic level To contribute to raising public awareness on corruption to create positive climate for changes Improvement of CPI methodology with the

beginning of 2012 CPI is research of group of researches conducted annually that provides data that could be monitored continuously. Minimum 3 researches per country/territory to be included in the list Research covers the period of previous 24 months Countries are ranked on a scale from 100 (very clean) to 0 (very corrupted), which allows detailed classification (smaller number of countries that share the same score Perception and not the facts are being researched (e.g. number of convictions, number of media releases) Possibility of comparison Index represents overview of businessmen and analysts' perceptions on situations in certain countries and doesnt necessarily reflect certain annual trends Score is more relevant than the place on the list (because sometimes number of states/tterritories involved, changes) Smaller changes in the score are not necessarily consequence of significant change in corruption perception, but of the researches comprehended with sample Possibility of comparison: CPI 2013 is possible to compare fully with the CPI 2012 (countrys/territorys score). Due to methodology changes, possibility of comparison of CPI 2012 with previous years is limited: ranking in the list can be compared (taking into consideration changes of number of countries in the sample), comparing with development of other countries or comparing of the results by individual researches; it is not methodologically correct to multiply score from previous years with 10 or to share current one with 10! Deficiencies and advantages of CPI Deficiencies: Index does not reflect level of efforts invested into fight against corruption Developing countries can be shown in worst light due to impartiality and prejudices of foreign observers (thats why there are other means for measuring corruption) Advantages: Other tools for estimation of corruption lead to similar results as CPI CPI is a good chance to promote public debate on corruption CPI is good incentive for conducting further analysis CPI includes almost all the countries of the world CPI 2013 The best and the worst

Countries perceived as the less corrupted Rank 1 3 Country Score (0-100) No. researches Denmark 91 7 New Zeeland 91 7 Finland 89 7 Sweden 89 7 Countries perceived as the most corrupted Rank 174 175 Country

Score (0-100) Sudan 11 6 Somalia 8 4 North Korea 8 3 8 3 Afganistan No. researches Methodology remarks for Serbia CPI 2013. Serbia is included in 7 polls that are taken into consideration when creating the Index Observed territory of Serbia without Kosovo and Metochy (researches on the basis of which CPI is created are separately made for that territory and reflect perception on corruption of their public services, so that Kosovo is separately ranked on this list) Researches that are relevant to Serbia were published by august 2013. Four researches refer to 2013, while three in significant level contain data from 2012. Ranking by individual researches is from 36 to 48. Standard deviation is within acceptable limits (3.4) and allows high level of reliability . Source of data in initial researches

relevant to Serbia Source 1 FH (Freedom House, Nations in Transit) 2013 Sample Perception of nonresidents; examinees come mainly from developed countries. 2 BF (Bertelsmann Foundation) Transformation Experts hired by the bank/ institution Index 2014 3 4 5 6 EIU (Economist Intelligence Unit) GI (Global Insight Country Risk Ratings) PRS ICRG (Political Risk Services International Country Risk Guide) WEF (Report of the World Economic Forum, Perception of residents; examinees are Executive Opinion Survey) 2013 mostly local experts, local businessmen and multinational companies 7 WJP (World Justice Project Rule of Law Index) Local experts and general population CPI 2013 former SFRYs republics Number of

researches CPI 2013 Rank Country Score 2013 43 Slovenia 57 9 57 Croatia 48 9 67 Macedonia 44 6 67 Montenegro 44 4 72

B&H 42 7 72 Serbia 42 7 Evaluation of Serbia by sources for 2011, 2012 and for 2013 BF EIU FH GI PRS ICRG WEF WJP Number of researches Evaluation CPI 2011 (by new methodology) 49 38 47 42 31 35 / 6 CPI 2012 CPI 2013

49 38 47 42 31 35 35 7 53 38 47 52 31 37 35 7 40 39 42 Former socialist countries of Europe by index (according to estimation on a scale from 0 to 100) Estonia 68 Poland 60 Lithuania 57

Slovenia 57 Hungary 54 Letonia 53 Georgia 49 Czech 48 Croatia 48 Slovakia 47 Macedonia 44 Montenegro 44 Romania B and H Serbia 42 Bulgaria Armenia Moldavia Albania Belarus Russia 28 Ukraine 43 42 41 36 35 31 29 25

Comparison Countries that were before us, and are now behind: Countries that were ranked the same, and are now behind of us: Country CPI 2013 CPI 2012 Country CPI 2013 CPI 2012 Serbia 42 39 Serbia 42 39 Sri Lanka 37 40 China 40 39

Liberia Bulgaria 38 41 41 41 Trinidad and Tobago 38 39 Reactions to recent rankings Data from 2000: facing the disastrous picture of Serbia 2003: Larger progress on a scale was expected, but perception slowly changes 2004: New breakthrough approaching to realistic view of the situation 2005, 2006 and 2007: Minimum progress trend maintained no radical changes that would lead to fast change in corruption perception 2008: Stagnation fist time not even minimal progress, other countries catching up or even outpacing 2009: Simbolical progress 2010: Stagnation and expectation that improving of legal framework will bring future progress 2011: decline of score and regressing on the list 2012: same reactions as in previous year 2013: Mild progress Results of CPI and Serbia for 2013 Countries can ignore results of CPI only at their own damage even if it doesnt reflect completely real state, CPI is a good indicator of what other people think of us no room for satisfaction! Serbia is still considered as a country with high corruption level, changes similar to those that occur in region. Citizens of Serbia have also impression on highly corrupted public area, which derives from result of research made on a national sample (e.g. Global Corruption Barometer) Progress is noticed in three of seven sources used for creation of

CPI Potential discussion topics What is the ration between the perception and real level of corruption? When corruption is current topic it can lead to increase of perception on corruption, especially when corroborated with non selective and systemic measures for removing corruption and resolving of affairs. If the issue of corruption is followed by specific actions that can, in long term, lead to decrease in corruption perception. Is it possible to influence to decrease of corruption perception with isolated anticorruption measures or campaigns? In most of the cases - no, due to nature of research. Besides, priority of state organs should be prevention, discovering and punishing of on-going corruption, rather than changing perception. Main problems of Serbia Violation of adopted anticorruption laws and violation of legal certainity by adopting contradictory or undetermined provisions Insufficient capacities of supervising organs who perform control over implementation of the law; discretion authorities in determining subject of verification Failure to draw a lesson on the basis of discovered corruption cases and revealed forms of corruptive behavior Non institutional power of political parties which reflects the work of complete public sector Insufficiently transparent process of decision making, impossibility of citizens to influence it and unorganized lobbing Unnecessary procedures and state interventions that increase number of situations for corruption to occur Priorities of Serbia in fight against corruption Fight against corruption can be successful only if its organized systemically, ensuring the rule of law, if institutions work is coordinated with the strict respect of their constitutional and legal jurisdictions. New National Anticorruption Strategy and Action Plan contain many useful measures, but the goals that are set are not sufficiently ambitious to induce important changes; while Strategy doesnt state on certain very important matters such are: recently established system of anticorruption coordination, chain of command and choosing of high level corruption cases to investigate, matter of non transparent agreements and

negotiation with foreign states, lenders and investors Priorities of Serbia in fight against corruption Providing greater transparency of state organs work (including rules on public debates and lobbying, increasing transparency of Governmental, public enterprises and of other institutions activities), Decrease of regulatory and financial state interventions (e.g. license, approvals, subsidies) that create corruption risks, Thorough reform of public sector Respecting and strengthening the role of independent state organs and providing implementation of their decisions and recommendations Providing transparency of media ownership and media financing Priorities of Serbia in fight against corruption Independent, efficient and accountable judiciary Protection of whistleblowers and witnesses of corruption, proactive approach in investigating corruption and measures for control of public officials and servants property Strict control of accuracy and completeness of reports on campaign and political party financing, investigating of suspicions and claims on buying of election votes and public resources abuse in election campaigns Resolving of all cases with suspicion to corruption from previous years and establishing of state oppressive apparatus that will allow discovering and punishing of such actions later on, instead of recent mechanisms. Corruption Perception Index 2013 Perceiving level of corruption in public sector in 177 states/territories worldwide. Global results: 70% of countries have score less than 50 from possible 100. 43 is average estimation worldwide

Corruption Perception Index 2013 COUNTRY/ RANK TERRITORY SCORE 1 Denmark 91 1 New Zealand 91 3 Finland 89 3 Sweden 89 5 Norway 86 5 Singapore 86 7 Switzerland 85 8 Netherlands 83 9 Australia 81 9 Canada 81 11 Luxembourg 80 12 Germany 78 12 Iceland 78

United 14 Kingdom 76 15 Barbados 75 15 Belgium 75 15 Hong Kong 75 18 Japan 74 19 Uruguay 73 United States 19 of America 73 21 Ireland 72 22 The Bahamas 71 22 Chile 71 22 France 71 22 Saint Lucia 71 26 26 28 28 30

31 31 33 33 33 36 36 38 38 40 41 41 43 43 45 46 47 47 49 49 Austria United Arab Emirates Estonia Qatar Botswana Bhutan Cyprus Portugal Puerto Rico Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Israel Taiwan Brunei Poland Spain Cape Verde Dominica Lithuania Slovenia Malta

South Korea Hungary Seychelles Costa Rica Latvia 69 69 68 68 64 63 63 62 62 62 61 61 60 60 59 58 58 57 57 56 55 54 54 53 53 COUNTRY/ RANK TERRITORY SCORE 49 Rwanda 53 52 Mauritius 52 53 Malaysia 50

53 Turkey 50 55 Georgia 49 55 Lesotho 49 57 Bahrain 48 57 Croatia 48 57 Czech Republic 48 57 Namibia 48 61 Oman 47 61 Slovakia 47 63 Cuba 46 63 Ghana 46 63 Saudi Arabia 46 66 Jordan 45 Macedonia 67 FYR 44 67 Montenegro

44 69 Italy 43 69 Kuwait 43 69 Romania 43 Bosnia and 72 Herzegovina 42 72 Brazil 42 Sao Tome and 72 Principe 42 72 72 77 77 77 80 80 82 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 83 91 91 91 94 94 94

94 94 94 94 94 Serbia South Africa Bulgaria Senegal Tunisia China Greece Swaziland Burkina Faso El Salvador Jamaica Liberia Mongolia Peru Trinidad and Tobago Zambia Malawi Morocco Sri Lanka Algeria Armenia Benin Colombia Djibouti India Philippines Suriname 42 42 41 41 41 40 40 39 38

38 38 38 38 38 38 38 37 37 37 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 Corruption Perception Index 2013 RANK 102 102 102 102 106 106 106 106 106 111 111 111 114 114 116 116 116 119 119 119 119 123 123

123 COUNTRY/ TERRITORY Ecuador Moldova Panama Thailand Argentina Bolivia Gabon Mexico Niger Ethiopia Kosovo United Republic of Tanzania Egypt Indonesia Albania Nepal Vietnam Mauritania Mozambique Sierra Leone East Timor Belarus Dominican Republic Guatemala SCORE 35 35 35 35 34 34 34 34 34 33 33

33 32 32 31 31 31 30 30 30 30 29 29 29 123 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 136 136 136 136 140 140 140 140 144 144 144 144 144 144 Togo Azerbaijan Comoros Gambia Lebanon

Madagascar Mali Nicaragua Pakistan Russia Bangladesh Ivory Coast Guyana Kenya Honduras Kazakhstan Laos Uganda Cameroon Central African Republic Iran Nigeria Papua New Guinea Ukraine 29 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 28 27 27 27 27 26 26 26 26 25 25 25 25

25 25 COUNTRY/ RANK TERRITORY SCORE 150 Guinea 24 150 Kyrgyzstan 24 150 Paraguay 24 153 Angola 23 Republic of 154 Congo 22 Democratic Republic of the 154 Congo 22 154 Tajikistan 22 157 Burundi 21 157 Myanmar 21 157 Zimbabwe 21 160 Cambodia 20 160 Eritrea 20 160 Venezuela 20 163 Chad 19 Equatorial 163 Guinea 19 163 163 167 168

168 Guinea Bissau Haiti Yemen Syria Turkmenistan 19 19 18 17 17 168 171 172 173 174 175 175 175 Uzbekistan Iraq Libya South Sudan Sudan Afghanistan North Korea Somalia 17 16 15 14 11 8 8 8

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • ...and they all fall Down!

    ...and they all fall Down!

    I believe that this will occur because I think that the dominoes with less space in between them will pick up more momentum as they fall. Specifically, I think that the domino chain with 0.5 cm separating each domino will...
  • Petrophysical Characterization of the Barnett Shale: Progress ...

    Petrophysical Characterization of the Barnett Shale: Progress ...

    Arial Times New Roman Wingdings Symbol Fullerton ExMo presentation Microsoft Excel Chart Microsoft Equation Petrophysical Characterization of the Barnett Shale: Progress Report Overview Database construction Database construction Geophysical log modeling Geophysical log modeling - some history Geophysical log modeling -...
  • Diapositiva 1 - Servicio Salud OHiggins

    Diapositiva 1 - Servicio Salud OHiggins

    STN subthalamic nucleus GPi globus pallidus interna Gpe globus pallidus externa SNpc substantia nigra pars compacta VTA ventral tegmental area Dopamina Enfermedad de Parkinson Serotonina Noradrenalina GPi GPe Putamen Núcleo Subtalámico Amígdala Tálamo Substantia innominata Caudado SNpc A. Ventral tegmental...
  • Lufthansa - Lido Route & Wind Uplink DataLink

    Lufthansa - Lido Route & Wind Uplink DataLink

    Air-delay Intelligent continuous schedule flight schedule and resources allocation can be optimized up to hours before actual operation slow Server (check in- counter) fast medium slow Server (check in- counter) queue queue Dynamic management: Intelligent queuing passenger information is available...
  • How You Can Help Youth Manage Anxiety

    How You Can Help Youth Manage Anxiety

    How You Can Help Youth Manage Anxiety. Lisa Herman, PsyD, LP Nicole Smith, PsyD, LP. Thank you for joining me today to learn more about how you can help the youth you work with manage their anxiety.
  • Exploring Microsoft Office Word 2007 Chapter 2: Gaining

    Exploring Microsoft Office Word 2007 Chapter 2: Gaining

    Widow/Orphan control keeps single words and partial words from ending on their own lines or worse yet, from ending on a new page. When this is checked, Word will move at least two words to the new line at the...
  • Economic and Political Risk Evaluator OXFORD ECONOMICS AND

    Economic and Political Risk Evaluator OXFORD ECONOMICS AND

    Economic and Political Risk Evaluator The Economic and Political Risk Evaluator identifies and monitors the risks of doing business in 164 countries. It is a platform for analysing economic and geopolitical risks through regularly updated ratings, in-depth profiles and event-driven...
  • Characteristics of Major Varieties - University of Kentucky

    Characteristics of Major Varieties - University of Kentucky

    Characteristics of Major Varieties HB04PLC- hybrid Developed in Brazil By Profigen do Brazil Advantages High yield (3400) Drought tolerant High leaf quality High resistance to Black root rot Resistance to tobacco mosaic virus Disadvantages No resistance to Black Shank HB04PLC...