2007 CORRUPTION

PERCEPTIONS INDEX

EMBARGO:
All materials are embargoed for publication on September 26, 2007 at 05.00 a.m. Washington
DC (EST); 10.00 a.m. London, UK; 11.00 a.m. Berlin, Germany; 09:00 GMT.
In this Press Information Package:

Pages 1-3 Press Release (with policy action recommendations on page 3).
Pages 4-7 Rankings: The 2007 Corruption Perceptions Index Tables.
Pages 8-9 Notes on the CPI table. Detailed descriptions of the 14 surveys used as the basis for the CPI.
Page 10 Notes on the CPI methodology.

Some key points: -

• Somalia and Myanmar share the lowest score of 1.4, while Denmark has edged up to share the top
score of 9.4 with perennial high-flyers Finland and New Zealand.

• Huguette Labelle, Chair of Transparency International:

“Despite some gains, corruption remains an enormous drain on resources sorely needed for education,
health and infrastructure. Low scoring countries need to take these results seriously and act now to
strengthen accountability in public institutions. But action from top scoring countries is just as important,
particularly in cracking down on corrupt activity in the private sector.”

• Cobus de Swardt, Managing Director of Transparency International:

“Partnering with civil society and citizens is an essential strategy for developing countries seeking to
strengthen the accountability of government. Civil society organisations play a vital watchdog role, can
help stimulate demand for reform and also bring in expertise on technical issues. But, increasingly,
many governments are moving to restrict the operating space of civil society”
• Akere Muna, Vice Chair of Transparency International:
“Criticism by rich countries of corruption in poor ones has little credibility while their financial
institutions sit on wealth stolen from the world’s poorest people. (For many countries, repatriation of
funds will mean long and extensive litigation.) In addition to ensuring adequate legal funding,
simplifying recovery procedures and provisions for third party institutions to act as escrows during
litigation must be a high priority.”
• The CPI 2007 is the largest ever CPI, ranking 180 countries, after a total of 163 in 2006.

The Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index ranks countries in terms of the degree to
which corruption is perceived to exist among public officials and politicians. It is a composite index, a poll
of polls, drawing on corruption-related data from 14 expert and business surveys carried out by a variety
of independent and reputable institutions. The CPI reflects views from around the world. The TI CPI
focuses on corruption in the public sector and defines corruption as the abuse of public office for private
gain.
=====================================================================================
Media Contacts: In Washington DC – Frank Vogl, Tel: 202 331 8183 [email protected]

In Berlin : Gypsy Guillén Kaiser In London: Jesse Garcia/Conny Abel

Tel: +49-30-3438 20 662 Tel: +49-162-419 6454
Fax: +49-30-3470 3912 [email protected]
[email protected] [email protected]
Press Release: Transparency International CORRUPTION PERCEPTIONS INDEX 2007

Persistent Corruption in Low-Income Countries

Requires Global Action
Concerted efforts needed in rich and poor countries to stem flow of corrupt monies and make
justice work for the poorest

London/Berlin/Washington DC, 26 September 2007 -- The divide in perceived levels of corruption between
rich and poor countries remains as sharp as ever, according to the 2007 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI),
released today by Transparency International, the global coalition against corruption. Developed and developing
countries must share responsibility for reducing corruption, in tackling both the supply and demand sides.

“Despite some gains, corruption remains an enormous drain on resources sorely needed for education, health
and infrastructure,” said Huguette Labelle, Chair of Transparency International. “Low scoring countries need to
take these results seriously and act now to strengthen accountability in public institutions. But action from top
scoring countries is just as important, particularly in cracking down on corrupt activity in the private sector.”

The 2007 results

The 2007 Corruption Perceptions Index looks at perceptions of public sector corruption in 180 countries and
territories - the greatest country coverage of any CPI to date – and is a composite index that draws on 14 expert
opinion surveys. It scores countries on a scale from zero to ten, with zero indicating high levels of perceived
corruption and ten indicating low levels of perceived corruption.

A strong correlation between corruption and poverty continues to be evident. Forty percent of those scoring
below three, indicating that corruption is perceived as rampant, are classified by the World Bank as low income
countries. Somalia and Myanmar share the lowest score of 1.4, while Denmark has edged up to share the top
score of 9.4 with perennial high-flyers Finland and New Zealand.

Scores are significantly higher in several African countries in the 2007 CPI. These include Namibia, Seychelles,
South Africa and Swaziland. These results reflect the positive progress of anti-corruption efforts in Africa and
show that genuine political will and reform can lower perceived levels of corruption.

Other countries with a significant improvement include Costa Rica, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Dominica,
Italy, Macedonia, Romania and Suriname. Countries with a significant worsening in perceived levels of
corruption in 2007 include Austria, Bahrain, Belize, Bhutan, Jordan, Laos, Macao, Malta, Mauritius, Oman,
Papua New Guinea and Thailand.

The concentration of gainers in South East and Eastern Europe testifies to the galvanising effect of the European
Union accession process on the fight against corruption.

A number of relatively poor countries manage to contain corruption to a degree, scoring well on the CPI,
including Botswana, Cape Verde, Chile, Dominica, Estonia, Ghana, Samoa, Senegal, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and
the Grenadines and Uruguay. They prove that it is possible to break out of the vicious cycle of poverty and
corruption.

At the same time, deeply troubled states such as Afghanistan, Iraq, Myanmar, Somalia, and Sudan remain at the
very bottom of the index. “Countries torn apart by conflict pay a huge toll in their capacity to govern. With
public institutions crippled or non-existent, mercenary individuals help themselves to public resources and
corruption thrives,” said TI Chair Huguette Labelle.

2007 CPI from Transparency International www.transparency.org 1

TI Press Release Corruption Perception Index Page 2

Good governance begins at home

The poorest countries suffer most under the yoke of corruption. And it is ultimately their responsibility to tackle
the problem. Low scores in the CPI indicate that public institutions are heavily compromised. The first order of
business is to improve transparency in financial management, from revenue collection to expenditure, as well as
strengthening oversight and putting an end to the impunity of corrupt officials.

An independent and professional judicial system is critical to ending impunity and enforcing the impartial rule
of law, to promoting public, donor and investor confidence. If courts cannot be relied upon to pursue corrupt
officials or to assist in tracing and returning illicit wealth, progress against corruption is unlikely.

“Partnering with civil society and citizens is another essential strategy for developing countries seeking to
strengthen the accountability of government. Civil society organisations play a vital watchdog role, can help
stimulate demand for reform and also bring in expertise on technical issues,” said Cobus de Swardt, Managing
Director of Transparency International. “But, increasingly, many governments are moving to restrict the
operating space of civil society.”

In addition, many countries are unable to shoulder the burden of reform alone. In countries where public sector
institutions were historically based on patronage and nepotism rather than merit, reform takes time and can
require a substantial investment of resources, as well as technical assistance. As significant development
assistance donors, top scoring countries play a special role in supporting greater accountability and institutional
integrity in countries plagued by the highest levels of public sector corruption. Technical assistance is a key
requirement of the landmark United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC).

Corruption is a problem with global roots

The top scores of wealthy countries and territories, largely in Europe, East Asia and North America, reflect their
relatively clean public sectors, enabled by political stability, well-established conflict of interest and freedom of
information regulations and a civil society free to exercise oversight.

But corruption by high-level public officials in poor countries has an international dimension that implicates the
CPI’s top scorers. Bribe money often stems from multinationals based in the world’s richest countries. It can no
longer be acceptable for these companies to regard bribery in export markets as a legitimate business strategy.

In addition, global financial centres play a pivotal role in allowing corrupt officials to move, hide and invest
their illicitly gained wealth. Offshore financing, for example, played a crucial role in the looting of millions
from developing countries such as Nigeria and the Philippines, facilitating the misdeeds of corrupt leaders and
impoverishing those they governed.

Akere Muna, Vice Chair of Transparency International, pointed to the recovery of stolen assets as another area
ripe for enhanced action by developed nations, noting, “Criticism by rich countries of corruption in poor ones
has little credibility while their financial institutions sit on wealth stolen from the world’s poorest people.”

In many cases, asset tracing and recovery are hindered by the laundering of funds through offshore banks in
jurisdictions where banking secrecy remains the norm. Through the UNCAC, priority should be given to
improving international cooperation and mutual legal assistance, expediting action to recover assets, and
developing legal and technical expertise in nations requesting the return of looted assets.

For many countries, repatriation of funds will mean long and extensive litigation. “In addition to ensuring
adequate legal funding, simplifying recovery procedures and provisions for third party institutions to act as
escrows during litigation must be a high priority,” Muna added.

2007 CPI from Transparency International www.transparency.org 2

TI Press Release Corruption Perception Index Page 3

Act now: urgent steps

As a problem of global scale, with global roots, fighting corruption demands action on a broad front.

• Developing countries should use aid money to strengthen their governance institutions, guided by
national assessments and development strategies, and to incorporate strengthened integrity and
corruption prevention as an integral part of poverty reduction programmes.

• Judicial independence, integrity and accountability must be enhanced to improve the credibility of
justice systems in poorer countries. Not only must be judicial proceedings be freed of political influence,
judges themselves must subject to disciplinary rules, limited immunity and a code of judicial conduct to
help ensure that justice is served. A clean and capable judiciary is essential if developing countries are
to manage requests for assistance in the recovery of stolen assets from abroad.

• Governments must introduce anti-money laundering measures to eradicate safe havens for stolen assets,
as prescribed by the UNCAC. Leading banking centres should explore the development of uniform
expedited procedures for the identification, freezing and repatriation of the proceeds of corruption. Clear
escrow provisions for disputed funds are essential.

• Wealthy countries must regulate their financial centres more strictly. Focusing on the roles of trusts,
demanding knowledge of beneficial ownership and strengthening anti-money laundering provisions are
just a few of the ways that rich governments can tackle the facilitators of corruption.

• The world’s wealthiest governments must strictly enforce the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, which
criminalises the bribery of foreign public officials. Lack of compliance with the convention’s provisions
continues to hinder corruption investigations and prosecutions.

• The boards of multinational companies must not only introduce but implement effective anti-bribery
codes, and ensure that they are adhered to by subsidiaries and foreign offices.

###

Transparency International is the global civil society organisation leading the fight against corruption.

Note to editors:
Transparency International commissioned Prof. Dr Johann. Graf Lambsdorff of the University of Passau,
Germany, to produce the CPI table. For more detailed information on data and methodology than that contained
in this press release, please visit:
www.transparency.org/surveys/#cpi or www.icgg.org

Attached:
The CPI 2007 Rankings; details on the surveys used as the basis for the 2007 CPI; notes on CPI methodology.
The full CPI report and other information from transparency international can be found at:
www.transparency.org

2007 CPI from Transparency International www.transparency.org 3

TI Press Release Page 4
Transparency International’s 2007 Corruption Perceptions Index

A country or territory’s CPI Score indicates the degree of public sector corruption as perceived by business
people and country analysts, and ranges between 10 (highly clean) and 0 (highly corrupt)

CPI
Country Confidence Surveys
Country /Territory Score
Rank Intervals* Used**
2007
1 New Zealand 9.4 9.2 - 9.6 6
Denmark 9.4 9.2 - 9.6 6
Finland 9.4 9.2 - 9.6 6
4 Singapore 9.3 9.0 - 9.5 9
Sweden 9.3 9.1 - 9.4 6
6 Iceland 9.2 8.3 - 9.6 6
7 Netherlands 9.0 8.8 - 9.2 6
Switzerland 9.0 8.8 - 9.2 6
9 Norway 8.7 8.0 - 9.2 6
Canada 8.7 8.3 - 9.1 6
11 Australia 8.6 8.1 - 9.0 8
12 Luxembourg 8.4 7.7 - 8.7 5
United Kingdom 8.4 7.9 - 8.9 6
14 Hong Kong 8.3 7.6 - 8.8 8
15 Austria 8.1 7.5 - 8.7 6
16 Germany 7.8 7.3 - 8.4 6
17 Japan 7.5 7.1 - 8.0 8
Ireland 7.5 7.3 - 7.7 6
19 France 7.3 6.9 - 7.8 6
20 USA 7.2 6.5 - 7.6 8
21 Belgium 7.1 7.1 - 7.1 6
22 Chile 7.0 6.5 - 7.4 7
23 Barbados 6.9 6.6 - 7.1 4
24 Saint Lucia 6.8 6.1 - 7.1 3
25 Uruguay 6.7 6.4 - 7.0 5
Spain 6.7 6.2 - 7.0 6
27 Slovenia 6.6 6.1 - 6.9 8
28 Estonia 6.5 6.0 - 7.0 8
Portugal 6.5 5.8 - 7.2 6
30 Israel 6.1 5.6 - 6.7 6
Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines 6.1 4.0 - 7.1 3
32 Qatar 6.0 5.4 - 6.4 4
33 Malta 5.8 5.3 - 6.2 4
34 Macao 5.7 4.7 - 6.4 4
Taiwan 5.7 5.4 - 6.1 9
United Arab Emirates 5.7 4.8 - 6.5 5
37 Dominica 5.6 4.0 - 6.1 3
38 Botswana 5.4 4.8 - 6.1 7
39 Hungary 5.3 4.9 - 5.5 8
Cyprus 5.3 5.1 - 5.5 3

2007 CPI from Transparency International www.transparency.org 4

TI Press Release Corruption Perception Index Page 5

CPI
Country Confidence Surveys
Country /Territory Score
Rank Intervals* Used**
2007
41 Czech Republic 5.2 4.9 - 5.8 8
Italy 5.2 4.7 - 5.7 6
43 Malaysia 5.1 4.5 - 5.7 9
South Korea 5.1 4.7 - 5.5 9
South Africa 5.1 4.9 - 5.5 9
46 Costa Rica 5.0 4.7 - 5.3 5
Bhutan 5.0 4.1 - 5.7 5
Bahrain 5.0 4.2 - 5.7 5
49 Slovakia 4.9 4.5 - 5.2 8
Cape Verde 4.9 3.4 - 5.5 3
51 Latvia 4.8 4.4 - 5.1 6
Lithuania 4.8 4.4 - 5.3 7
53 Oman 4.7 3.9 - 5.3 4
Jordan 4.7 3.8 - 5.6 7
Mauritius 4.7 4.1 - 5.7 6
56 Greece 4.6 4.3 - 5.0 6
57 Namibia 4.5 3.9 - 5.2 7
Seychelles 4.5 2.9 - 5.7 4
Samoa 4.5 3.4 - 5.5 3
60 Kuwait 4.3 3.3 - 5.1 5
61 Cuba 4.2 3.5 - 4.7 4
Poland 4.2 3.6 - 4.9 8
Tunisia 4.2 3.4 - 4.8 6
64 Bulgaria 4.1 3.6 - 4.8 8
Croatia 4.1 3.6 - 4.5 8
Turkey 4.1 3.8 - 4.5 7
67 El Salvador 4.0 3.2 - 4.6 5
68 Colombia 3.8 3.4 - 4.3 7
69 Ghana 3.7 3.5 - 3.9 7
Romania 3.7 3.4 - 4.1 8
71 Senegal 3.6 3.2 - 4.2 7
72 Morocco 3.5 3.0 - 4.2 7
China 3.5 3.0 - 4.2 9
Suriname 3.5 3.0 - 3.9 4
India 3.5 3.3 - 3.7 10
Mexico 3.5 3.3 - 3.8 7
Peru 3.5 3.4 - 3.7 5
Brazil 3.5 3.2 - 4.0 7
79 Serbia 3.4 3.0 - 4.0 6
Georgia 3.4 2.9 - 4.3 6
Grenada 3.4 2.0 - 4.1 3
Trinidad and Tobago 3.4 2.7 - 3.9 4
Saudi Arabia 3.4 2.7 - 3.9 4
84 Bosnia and Herzegovina 3.3 2.9 - 3.7 7
Montenegro 3.3 2.4 - 4.0 4

2007 CPI from Transparency International www.transparency.org 5

 CPI
Country Confidence Surveys
Country /Territory Score
Rank Intervals* Used**
2007
84 Maldives 3.3 2.3 - 4.3 4
Jamaica 3.3 3.1 - 3.4 5
Kiribati 3.3 2.4 - 3.9 3
Gabon 3.3 3.0 - 3.5 5
Swaziland 3.3 2.6 - 4.2 5
Thailand 3.3 2.9 - 3.7 9
Lesotho 3.3 3.1 - 3.5 6
FYR Macedonia 3.3 2.9 - 3.8 6
94 Madagascar 3.2 2.5 - 3.9 7
Sri Lanka 3.2 2.9 - 3.5 7
Panama 3.2 2.8 - 3.4 5
Tanzania 3.2 2.9 - 3.4 8
98 Vanuatu 3.1 2.4 - 3.7 3
99 Dominican Republic 3.0 2.8 - 3.3 5
Armenia 3.0 2.8 - 3.2 7
Lebanon 3.0 2.2 - 3.6 4
Mongolia 3.0 2.6 - 3.3 6
Algeria 3.0 2.7 - 3.2 6
Belize 3.0 2.0 - 3.7 3
105 Argentina 2.9 2.6 - 3.2 7
Djibouti 2.9 2.2 - 3.4 3
Albania 2.9 2.6 - 3.1 6
Burkina Faso 2.9 2.6 - 3.4 7
Bolivia 2.9 2.7 - 3.2 6
Egypt 2.9 2.6 - 3.3 7
111 Moldova 2.8 2.5 - 3.3 7
Eritrea 2.8 2.1 - 3.5 5
Guatemala 2.8 2.4 - 3.2 5
Rwanda 2.8 2.3 - 3.3 5
Solomon Islands 2.8 2.4 - 3.1 3
Mozambique 2.8 2.5 - 3.1 8
Uganda 2.8 2.5 - 3.0 8
118 Mali 2.7 2.4 - 3.0 8
Malawi 2.7 2.4 - 3.0 8
Sao Tome and Principe 2.7 2.4 - 3.0 3
Ukraine 2.7 2.4 - 3.0 7
Benin 2.7 2.3 - 3.2 7
123 Guyana 2.6 2.3 - 2.7 4
Zambia 2.6 2.3 - 2.9 8
Comoros 2.6 2.2 - 3.0 3
Nicaragua 2.6 2.3 - 2.7 6
Viet Nam 2.6 2.4 - 2.9 9
Mauritania 2.6 2.0 - 3.3 6
Niger 2.6 2.3 - 2.9 7
Timor-Leste 2.6 2.5 - 2.6 3
131 Nepal 2.5 2.3 - 2.7 7
Yemen 2.5 2.1 - 3.0 5

2007 CPI from Transparency International www.transparency.org 6

 CPI
Country Confidence Surveys
Country /Territory Score
Rank Intervals* Used**
2007
131 Philippines 2.5 2.3 - 2.7 9
Burundi 2.5 2.0 - 3.0 7
Libya 2.5 2.1 - 2.6 4
Iran 2.5 2.0 - 3.0 4
Honduras 2.5 2.3 - 2.6 6
138 Pakistan 2.4 2.0 - 2.8 7
Ethiopia 2.4 2.1 - 2.7 8
Paraguay 2.4 2.1 - 2.6 5
Cameroon 2.4 2.1 - 2.7 8
Syria 2.4 1.7 - 2.9 4
143 Gambia 2.3 2.0 - 2.6 6
Indonesia 2.3 2.1 - 2.4 11
Togo 2.3 1.9 - 2.8 5
Russia 2.3 2.1 - 2.6 8
147 Angola 2.2 1.8 - 2.4 7
Nigeria 2.2 2.0 - 2.4 8
Guinea-Bissau 2.2 2.0 - 2.3 3
150 Sierra Leone 2.1 2.0 - 2.2 5
Kazakhstan 2.1 1.7 - 2.5 6
Belarus 2.1 1.7 - 2.6 5
Zimbabwe 2.1 1.8 - 2.4 8
Côte d´Ivoire 2.1 1.7 - 2.6 6
Tajikistan 2.1 1.9 - 2.3 8
Liberia 2.1 1.8 - 2.4 4
Congo, Republic 2.1 2.0 - 2.2 6
Ecuador 2.1 2.0 - 2.3 5
Azerbaijan 2.1 1.9 - 2.3 8
Kenya 2.1 1.9 - 2.3 8
Kyrgyzstan 2.1 2.0 - 2.2 7
162 Bangladesh 2.0 1.8 - 2.3 7
Papua New Guinea 2.0 1.7 - 2.3 6
Turkmenistan 2.0 1.8 - 2.3 5
Central African Republic 2.0 1.8 - 2.3 5
Cambodia 2.0 1.8 - 2.1 7
Venezuela 2.0 1.9 - 2.1 7
168 Laos 1.9 1.7 - 2.2 6
Equatorial Guinea 1.9 1.7 - 2.0 4
Guinea 1.9 1.4 - 2.6 6
Congo, Democratic. Republic 1.9 1.8 - 2.1 6
172 Afghanistan 1.8 1.4 - 2.0 4
Sudan 1.8 1.6 - 1.9 6
Chad 1.8 1.7 - 1.9 7
175 Uzbekistan 1.7 1.6 - 1.9 7
Tonga 1.7 1.5 - 1.8 3
177 Haiti 1.6 1.3 - 1.8 4
178 Iraq 1.5 1.3 - 1.7 4
179 Somalia 1.4 1.1 - 1.7 4
Myanmar 1.4 1.1 - 1.7 4

2007 CPI from Transparency International www.transparency.org 7

TI Press Release Corruption Perception Index Page 8

EXPLANATORY NOTES:
*Confidence range provides a range of possible values of the CPI score. This reflects how a country's score
may vary, depending on measurement precision. Nominally, with 5 percent probability the score is above this
range and with another 5 percent it is below. However, particularly when only few sources are available, an
unbiased estimate of the mean coverage probability is lower than the nominal value of 90%.

**Surveys used refers to the number of surveys that assessed a country's performance. 14 surveys and expert
assessments were used and at least 3 were required for a country to be included in the CPI.

The 14 surveys used upon which the CPI is based are:

ADB: Country Performance Assessment Ratings by the Asian Development Bank
AFDB: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment by the AFDB
BTI: Bertelsmann Transformation Index
CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment by the Inter-American development bank & World Bank
EIU: Economist Intelligence Unit
FH: Freedom House, Nations in Transit
GI: Global Insights (formerly World Markets Research Centre)
IMD: World Competitiveness Report of the Institute for Management Development
MIG: Merchant International Group
PERC: Political and Economic Risk Consultancy, Hong Kong
UNECA: United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, African Governance Report
WEF: Global Competitiveness Report of the World Economic Forum

Sources for the TI Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) 2007

Number 1 2 3
Abbreviation ADB AFDB BTI
Source Asian Development Bank African Development Bank Bertelsmann Foundation
Country Performance Country Policy and Institutional Bertelsmann Transformation
Name
Assessment Ratings Assessments Index
Compiled /
2006/2007 2005/2006 2007/2008
published
http://www.adb.org/Docume http://www.afdb.org/portal/page?
http://www.bertelsmann-
nts/Reports/Country- _pageid=293,158705&_dad=port
Internet transformation-
Performance-Assessment- al&_schema=PORTAL&focus_it
index.de/11.0.html?&L=1
Exercise/IN76-07.pdf em=9912322&focus_lang=us
Network of local
Who was Country teams, experts inside Country teams, experts inside and correspondents and experts
surveyed? and outside the bank outside the bank inside and outside the
organization
Corruption, conflicts of Corruption, conflicts of interest,
interest, diversion of funds as diversion of funds as well as anti- The government’s capacity to
Subject asked
well as anti-corruption efforts corruption efforts and punish and contain corruption
and achievements achievements
Number of
Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable
replies
Coverage 26 countries /territories 52 countries /territories 125 countries /territories

2007 CPI from Transparency International www.transparency.org 8

TI Press Release Corruption Perception Index Page 9

Number 4 5 6
Abbreviation CPIA EIU FH
World Bank (IDA and
Source Economist Intelligence Unit Freedom House
IBRD)
Country Policy and Country Risk Service and
Name Nations in Transit
Institutional Assessment Country Forecast
Compiled /
2006/2007 2007 2007
published
http://web.worldbank.org/W
BSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTA
BOUTUS/IDA/0,,contentMD http://www.freedomhouse.hu/in
Internet K:20933600~menuPK:26269 www.eiu.com dex.php?option=com_content&
68~pagePK:51236175~piPK: task=view&id=84
437394~theSitePK:73154,00.
html
Assessment by experts
Who was Country teams, experts inside Expert staff
originating or resident in the
surveyed? and outside the bank assessment
respective country.
Extent of corruption as
Corruption, conflicts of practiced in governments, as
interest, diversion of funds as The misuse of public office for perceived by the public and as
Subject asked
well as anti-corruption efforts private (or political party) gain reported in the media, as well
and achievements as the implementation of
anticorruption initiatives
Number of
Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable
replies
Coverage 77 countries /territories 166 countries /territories 29 countries /territories

Number 7 8 9
Abbreviation GI IMD
Global Insight, formerly World
Source IMD International, Switzerland, World Competitiveness Center
Markets Research Centre
Name Country Risk Ratings IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook
Compiled /
2007 2006 2007
published
Internet http://www.globalinsight.com www.imd.ch/wcc
Who was Executives in top and middle management; domestic and
Expert staff assessment
surveyed? international companies
The likelihood of encountering
corrupt officials, ranging from
Subject asked Bribing and corruption exist/do not exist
petty bureaucratic corruption to
grand political corruption
Number of
Not applicable More than 4000
replies
Coverage 203 countries /territories 53 countries /territories 55 countries /territories

2007 CPI from Transparency International www.transparency.org 9

TI Press Release Corruption Perception Index Page 10

Number 10 11 12
Abbreviation MIG PERC
Source Merchant International Group Political & Economic Risk Consultancy
Name Grey Area Dynamics Asian Intelligence Newsletter
Compiled /
2007 2006 2007
published
Internet www.merchantinternational.com www.asiarisk.com/
Expert staff and network of local
Who was surveyed? Expatriate business executives
correspondents
Corruption, ranging from bribery of
government ministers to
Subject asked How serious do you consider the problem of corruption to be in the public sector?
inducements payable to the
“humblest clerk”
Number of replies Not applicable More than 1,000 1476
Coverage 155 countries /territories 15 countries /territories 15 countries /territories

Number 13 14
Abbreviation UNECA WEF
Source United Nations Economic Commission for Africa World Economic Forum
Name Africa Governance Report Global Competitiveness Report
Compiled /
2005/2006 2006/2007
published
Internet http://www.uneca.org/agr/ www.weforum.org
Senior business leaders; domestic and international
Who was surveyed? National expert survey (between 70 and 120 in each country)
companies
“Corruption Control”. This includes aspects related to
corruption in the legislature, judiciary, and at the executive Undocumented extra payments or bribes connected with
Subject asked
level, as well as in tax collection. Aspects of access to justice various government functions
and government services are also involved
Number of replies Roughly 2800 Ca. 11,000
Coverage 28 countries /territories 125 countries /territories

CPI Methodology: Notes

1. The CPI gathers data from sources that span the last two years (for the CPI 2007, this includes surveys
from 2007 and 2006).

2. The CPI 2007 is calculated using data from 14 sources originated from 12 independent institutions. All
sources measure the overall extent of corruption (frequency and/or size of bribes) in the public and political
sectors and all sources provide a ranking of countries, i.e., include an assessment of multiple countries.

3. For CPI sources that are surveys, and where multiple years of the same survey are available, data for the
last two years are included to provide a smoothing effect.

4. For sources that are scores provided by experts (risk agencies/country analysts), only the most recent
iteration of the assessment is included, as these scores are generally peer reviewed and change very little from
year to year.

5. Evaluation of the extent of corruption in countries is done by country experts, non resident and residents
(in the CPI 2007, this consists of the following sources: ADB, AFDB, BTI, CPIA, EIU, FH, MIG, UNECA and
GI); and resident business leaders evaluating their own country (in the CPI 2007, this consists of the following
sources: IMD, PERC, and WEF).To determine the mean value for a country, standardisation is carried out via a
matching percentiles technique. This uses the ranks of countries reported by each individual source. This
method is useful for combining sources that have a different distribution. While there is some information loss
in this technique, it allows all reported scores to remain within the bounds of the CPI, that is to say, to remain
between 0 and 10.

2007 CPI from Transparency International www.transparency.org 10

TI Press Release Corruption Perception Index Page 11

6. A beta-transformation is then performed on scores. This increases the standard deviation among all
countries included in the CPI and avoids the process by which the matching percentiles technique results in a
smaller standard deviation from year to year.

7. Next, all values for a country are averaged, to determine a country's score.

8. The CPI score and rank are accompanied by the number of sources, high-low range, standard deviation
and confidence range for each country.

9. The confidence range is determined by a bootstrap (non-parametric) methodology, which allows

inferences to be drawn on the underlying precision of the results. A 90% confidence range is then established,
where there is 5% probability that the value is below and 5% probability that the value is above this confidence
range.

10. Research shows that the unbiased coverage probability for the confidence range is lower than its
nominal value of 90%. The accuracy of the confidence interval estimates increases with a growing number of
sources: for 3 sources, 65.3%; for 4 sources, 73.6%; for 5 sources, 78.4%; for 6 sources, 80.2%; and for 7
sources, 81.8%.

11. The overall reliability of data is demonstrated in the high correlation between sources. In this regard,
Pearson's and Kendall's rank correlations have been performed, which provided average results of .77 and .62
respectively.

www.transparency.org

2007 CPI from Transparency International www.transparency.org 11