By Clinton Urling
Recently, when the local chapter of Trans-parency International (TI) announced the results of the latest edition of the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), the report raised many eyebrows and ruffled many feathers throughout the community. For some the revelation that Guyana is “the most corrupt country in English-speaking Caribbean” was an accurate assessment of the state of affairs, while others disagreed vehemently about the verdict.
Before venturing an opinion on the verdict’s validity it is worthwhile to understand the process used to reach the results.
What is the CPI?
The annual CPI report comprises a composite index calculated from numerous data sources from several institutions. It seeks to measure, according to TI, “the overall extent of corruption (frequency and/or size of bribes) in the public or political sectors.” For Guyana, data inputs were taken from surveys conducted by the World Bank, the World Economic Forum, Global Insight and the International Country Risk Guide. Basically, the CPI is a weighted average score of data values measuring the degree and extent of corruption.
In 2012, with the CPI incorporating an updated methodology that provides a maximum index score of 100, Guyana received a 28. For comparison, the closer a nation’s score to 100, the more favourable a country is perceived in efforts to limit corruption.
Flawed index?
There are many critiques about how TI arrives at its results. For example, critics are concerned about a standard or universal definition of corruption. TI defines corruption simply as “the abuse of public office for private gain,” which focuses only on the public sector.
Understandably, it is difficult to develop a single, broadly encompassing definition of corruption as a rigorous comparative measure applicable from one country to another. Nonetheless, much of the related research also has been developed with definitions of corruption that could just as easily be challenged by critics for being limited or selective about what types of activities or events should be designated as corrupt.
For TI, as with other researchers, the purposes of a simple, commonly acknowledged definition of corruption are convenient for a project with the degree of global scope and the range of data sources, as incorporated in the CPI.
While a convenient approach might be helpful to the research community, it might not be particularly informative or instructive for the general public. Without the benefit of explaining how the process for research took place, the unsuspecting public is left to believe that the research measured all levels and types of corruption. In other words, one should justifiably view the results with a healthy dose of scepticism and reservation.
Another major critique of the CPI is that it measures “perceptions” rather than, for example, actually reported cases of bribes (or offers), prosecutions or proven incidences of corruption. Facts and hard evidence should matter, especially when it comes to making policy.
What really matters are institutions
In the final analysis, it really does not matter if TI’s methodology was flawed or if the ranking index score was calculated on incomplete data.
What should matter are questions about the concrete steps the government and policy makers are willing to make to strengthen the essential institutions for curbing all forms of corruption in Guyana.
More directly, focus on the institutions and any index score will most certainly bend towards a favourable disposition.
The TI chairman underscored this position when the CPI was issued, thus: “Governments need to integrate anti-corruption actions into all public decision-making. Priorities include better rules on lobbying and political financing, making public spending and contracting more transparent, and making public bodies more accountable to people.”
Instead of focusing on the score and questions about its validity, we must commit ourselves to persuading the government and policy makers about the importance of ensuring that institutions tasked with regulatory, oversight, law enforcement and judicial responsibilities are empowered to deal effectively with all sources and kinds of corruption that affect both stakeholders in the public and private sectors.
Clinton Urling is the President of the Georgetown Chamber of Commerce & Industry
