Help understanding this?
Oct. 20th, 2005 03:38 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beandelphikiTransparency International, an international organization that claims to be "devoted to combating corruption" has released its Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) for 2005. This has, most likely, hit papers around the world. Here's the graphic that was in my local paper yesterday. Supposedly, it shows which countries are "the most corrupt."
Okay. Anybody see anything PROBLEMATIC about this image? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
The rest of the story:
Iceland's honest, Chad's not
Canada ranked 14th least-corrupt nation: study
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Chad and Bangladesh were ranked most corrupt on a global watchdog group's annual list of corruption levels in 159 nations, released Tuesday. At the other end of the scale, Iceland was ranked least corrupt. Canada ranked 14th least corrupt and the U.S. came in at 17th least.
Corruption undermines efforts to eradicate poverty, with theft by public officials hampering attempts to raise the living standards of the poor, Transparency International said.
"Corruption must be vigorously addressed if aid is to make a real difference in freeing people from poverty," said Peter Eigen, chairman of the Berlin-based group.
To form its annual corruption index, Transparency International asked businessmen, academics and public officials about how countries they live in or do business with are perceived.
On a scale of one to 10, Bangladesh and Chad both scored 1.7, meaning that corruption is perceived as being rampant. The least corrupt country, Iceland, scored 9.7.
Corruption is a widespread problem in Chad, but difficult to detect in a country where most civil servants and judicial workers are paid low, and often delayed, salaries. Human rights organizations and civic groups in Chad say corruption is most widespread in the customs and tax enforcement services, the judiciary and the government procurement office.
In Bangladesh, government agencies siphoned off a reported $68 million US through corruption last year, with the communications sector the worst offender, the group said.
Turkmenistan, Myanmar, Haiti, Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea, the Ivory Coast and Angola joined Chad and Bangladesh as the most corrupt countries, the report said. After Iceland, the least corrupt were Finland, New Zealand, Denmark, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Australia and Austria.
Mmmkay.
I kinda want to write something up for class about this. I don't know who I'd talk to about this, or whether they'd see the problems I'm seeing. Hell, I don't know if I'm correct in being uneasy about this.
Just...
In both local papers I checked yesterday, this information was given flippantly as measuring "how corrupt countries are." The TI website does not even claim to have measured this - they specify the are measuring "perceptions" only, but they also say (from their FAQs):
It is difficult to assess the levels of corruption in different countries based on hard empirical data, e.g. by comparing the number of prosecutions or court cases. Such cross-country data does not reflect actual levels of corruption; rather it highlights the quality of prosecutors, courts and/or the media in exposing corruption. The only method of compiling comparative data is therefore to draw on the experience and perceptions of those who are most directly confronted with the realities of corruption in a country.
Who did they ask to find out if the country was corrupt?
Surveys are carried out among business people and country analysts, including surveys of residents of countries.
Most disturbing is this, also from their FAQs:
Some governments have begun to wonder whether it is useful to provide aid to countries perceived to be corrupt – and have sought to use corruption scores to determine which countries receive aid, and which do not.
TI does not encourage the CPI to be used in this way.
...No shit.
I feel like this information could be greatly abused, and I'm not exactly certain what the point is of saying, "Africa is the world's most corrupt continent." No one saw that. I feel like it is already sort of obvious which areas of the world are struggling the most with corruption in their government and such, at least to those who care to look. So why is this being carried out, and why do we have newspapers throughout Western countries now printing stories that read, "Africa is the world's most corrupt continent!"
Is it just me that is uneasy about this?
Anyone have any thoughts?
Okay. Anybody see anything PROBLEMATIC about this image? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
The rest of the story:
Iceland's honest, Chad's not
Canada ranked 14th least-corrupt nation: study
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Chad and Bangladesh were ranked most corrupt on a global watchdog group's annual list of corruption levels in 159 nations, released Tuesday. At the other end of the scale, Iceland was ranked least corrupt. Canada ranked 14th least corrupt and the U.S. came in at 17th least.
Corruption undermines efforts to eradicate poverty, with theft by public officials hampering attempts to raise the living standards of the poor, Transparency International said.
"Corruption must be vigorously addressed if aid is to make a real difference in freeing people from poverty," said Peter Eigen, chairman of the Berlin-based group.
To form its annual corruption index, Transparency International asked businessmen, academics and public officials about how countries they live in or do business with are perceived.
On a scale of one to 10, Bangladesh and Chad both scored 1.7, meaning that corruption is perceived as being rampant. The least corrupt country, Iceland, scored 9.7.
Corruption is a widespread problem in Chad, but difficult to detect in a country where most civil servants and judicial workers are paid low, and often delayed, salaries. Human rights organizations and civic groups in Chad say corruption is most widespread in the customs and tax enforcement services, the judiciary and the government procurement office.
In Bangladesh, government agencies siphoned off a reported $68 million US through corruption last year, with the communications sector the worst offender, the group said.
Turkmenistan, Myanmar, Haiti, Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea, the Ivory Coast and Angola joined Chad and Bangladesh as the most corrupt countries, the report said. After Iceland, the least corrupt were Finland, New Zealand, Denmark, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Australia and Austria.
Mmmkay.
I kinda want to write something up for class about this. I don't know who I'd talk to about this, or whether they'd see the problems I'm seeing. Hell, I don't know if I'm correct in being uneasy about this.
Just...
In both local papers I checked yesterday, this information was given flippantly as measuring "how corrupt countries are." The TI website does not even claim to have measured this - they specify the are measuring "perceptions" only, but they also say (from their FAQs):
It is difficult to assess the levels of corruption in different countries based on hard empirical data, e.g. by comparing the number of prosecutions or court cases. Such cross-country data does not reflect actual levels of corruption; rather it highlights the quality of prosecutors, courts and/or the media in exposing corruption. The only method of compiling comparative data is therefore to draw on the experience and perceptions of those who are most directly confronted with the realities of corruption in a country.
Who did they ask to find out if the country was corrupt?
Surveys are carried out among business people and country analysts, including surveys of residents of countries.
Most disturbing is this, also from their FAQs:
Some governments have begun to wonder whether it is useful to provide aid to countries perceived to be corrupt – and have sought to use corruption scores to determine which countries receive aid, and which do not.
TI does not encourage the CPI to be used in this way.
...No shit.
I feel like this information could be greatly abused, and I'm not exactly certain what the point is of saying, "Africa is the world's most corrupt continent." No one saw that. I feel like it is already sort of obvious which areas of the world are struggling the most with corruption in their government and such, at least to those who care to look. So why is this being carried out, and why do we have newspapers throughout Western countries now printing stories that read, "Africa is the world's most corrupt continent!"
Is it just me that is uneasy about this?
Anyone have any thoughts?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-20 10:03 pm (UTC)If nothing else, the definition has got to have at least some cultural content. For example, tipping. Over here in the UK, one tips to reward good service; in the US, as I experienced it, tipping is expected regardless of the quality of service. Is that corrupt? I found being told "If you don't tip, not only will you get lousy service next time, but also the staff NEED those "tips" as they're an expected part of their income." What would definitely be wrong here is just the way of life over there.
If a culture works by recipients of services showing their appreciation by the giving of gifts, is that corruption, or is it just cultural practice?
I receive gifts; you take sweeteners; they're corrupt. That seems to be the (cynical) grammar of such things.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-20 10:37 pm (UTC)2. For the purpose of the CPI, how is corruption defined?
The CPI focuses on corruption in the public sector and defines corruption as the abuse of public office for private gain. The surveys used in compiling the CPI ask questions that relate to the misuse of public power for private benefit, with a focus, for example, on bribe-taking by public officials in public procurement. The sources do not distinguish between administrative and political corruption or between petty and grand corruption.
The listed the U.S. as the 17th least corrupt nation, notably.
Re: tipping. I can't imagine not tipping someone, regardless of cultural concerns, unless they spit in my food right in front of me. That's me, though.
Not to mention...
Date: 2005-10-20 10:46 pm (UTC)Yes... I mean, this would more appropriately be titled "The whose model of 'democracy' is most like the US ideal? index."
Re: Not to mention...
Date: 2005-10-20 11:23 pm (UTC)Oh, I hope that wasn't just MY mistake. But it probably was... I've read articles on this in several places, so maybe I picked up the phrase "Africa's the most corrupt country" without noticing, but I bet they managed to spell "continent." *mutters, goes to fix*
Democracy? See, here's what I don't get...how is anyone measuring "abuse of public office for private gain?" Is measuring perceptions useful? Does it make it more "accurate" if "expert" outsiders to the country have the same perceptions about how corrupt the government is (as their FAQs claim)?
EXACTLY...
Date: 2005-10-20 11:30 pm (UTC)Re: EXACTLY...
Date: 2005-10-20 11:36 pm (UTC)Yeah, that's my feeling. Like all the different version of the graphic above that I've seen now seem to be trying to say something: Canada, UK, etc. - BLUE. Basically all countries in Africa - RED.
It's not like...I'm going to argue that those governments aren't corrupt. Just...people are opening up newspapers to this and nothing more complex. Eh...it just bugged me.
LMAO
Date: 2005-10-20 11:30 pm (UTC)Re: LMAO
Date: 2005-10-20 11:37 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-21 12:55 am (UTC)Here's my comment: Why isn't the U.S. painted red? After all, we're a RED STATE CUNTRY, right?
>___>
*seethes at the irony*
(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-21 01:09 am (UTC)Guh.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-21 01:13 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-21 06:53 am (UTC)You understood that, right?
(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-22 03:27 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-22 04:50 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-21 02:53 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2005-10-22 04:53 am (UTC)You do? They're both labelled "Least corrupt", that doesn't give me any measure of which of the two is more corrupt.
absurdly long rant, with no cohesive argument.
Date: 2005-10-23 10:29 pm (UTC)Most of the countries judged least corrupt have realitivly free living conditions; there is no war, there is no famine, there is little oppression, and there is a greater effort made to protect human rights. All of the countries named least corrupt are economically advantaged and have a long western history of democracy or enlightened rule. They all are historically speaking aware of human rights issues from the past, wether it be women's rights or religious freedom. And the Inhabitants are allowed and encouraged to voice their opinions. There are also many steps within the political systems which prevent or minimize corruption. No one is above the law we like to believe. Wether it be Martha Stewart, Prince Harry, or Paul Martin. All of these contries political systems have thrived continually on coruption so reforms were made and they continualy change to improve. (Am I the only one to find it Ironic that Australia is one of the least corrupt when historically it's been almost entirly colonized by criminals? J/Ks)
IN contrast we have these poor red nations. And I really do mean poor. These countries are economically poor. The majority of the population do not have access to a Seven Eleven or a shopping mall. So if your starving and dieing do you really care what some corporations doing? If the Police beat, rape, and kill are you going to complaign? Historically and contemporarilly these countries are wartorn, this does not lead to public and government stability. In countries like the red ones people are to worried about surviving that people can abuse the situation.
I think the biggest factor in understanding corruption versus the least corruption is war. I don't know about you but I don't think I've ever heard of civil unrest in Iceland. And although other countries in the blue may take part in wars it is rarly ever brought home. Having a stable home country and seat of govenment allows for better watchgaurds.
So it really doesn't suprise me that these countries are corrupt. What suprises me is that people would make such a big deal about it as a determinant for social aid. Perhaps one of the problems arises from our belief that money makes social evils go away. So we through millions of dollars in aid.
What I think attracks western newpapers to printing this article and in part the reason for this survey is to agrandize our self inflated ego's. Look here we are we're western we're democratic and we have such an ideal life, lets impose all of our preconcieved notions of what right and whats not on these poor uneducated "barbarians". Its the same old stupid imperialist ploy the Britished used to rationalize their concquest. Here we have another survey that seems to promote Bush invading another country for their "better good". Who said the evil empire died? It just moved.
I hate world politics it gives me a headache.
p.s. I hope you're glad now that I commented