Local corruption watchdog Transparency Institute of Guyana Inc (TIGI) says Guyana’s improved ranking on the Transparency International (TI) corruption index is reason to be optimistic but it is not “statistically significant.”
According to TIGI, sustained improvement over a period of time is the best indicator of real achievements in the fight against corruption and both government and citizen organisations have roles to play.
“Guyana has had a sustained poor showing on the index and time will make it clearer whether the surge in 2016 is temporary or more indicative of a real shift in position. Although Guyana’s current rank (108) is unimpressive, we emphasise that the movement in the direction of improvement observed for 2016 is reason to be optimistic,” it said yesterday in a detailed press statement, where it said that getting a functional Integrity Commission and Public Procurement Commission and implementation of a ministerial code of conduct are among significant issues that need to be addressed.
TIGI noted that Guyana moved up 11 places to 108 based on a five-point increase—from 29 to 34—in perception score on the Corruption Perception Index (CPI). “Though the actual gain in points is small, the jump in ranking appears more substantial due to clustering of countries within a narrow range,” it said.
And with corruption being a global phenomenon and pervasive in a large number of countries, it argued that any improvement in standing should be celebrated even as efforts are directed towards greater gains in the fight against the scourge.
At the same time, TIGI pointed out that the difference in the corruption perception score between 2015 and 2016 lacks “statistical significance” even at the 10% level. “The statistics therefore offer no confirmation of the apparent improvement. The statistical test is conservative since the number of surveys used in 2015 and 2016 (four and six respectively) are small. But given that this is about the number of surveys rather than about the number of respondents, statistical significance would be an especially limited way to view the results since it is unlikely that there will ever be very large numbers of surveys to use,” it explained, while urging that the substantive interpretations of the index should be relied upon.
In this regard, TIGI noted that research shows that changes in government in Latin America, where Guyana is classed, are usually accompanied by a period of goodwill that endure an average of approximately two years. As a result, it said it could be argued that the recent change in government in 2015 would have ushered in a period of optimism that would be evident across several issues. “This includes confidence in government and perceptions about corruption. One can therefore argue that improvement in the 2016 CPI was to be expected,” it added, before noting that the argument becomes more attractive if the country’s rating subsequently returns to its usual level.
However, TIGI conceded that there is inadequate information to invalidate any competing view that there were real achievements in the fight against corruption, although it noted that the argument for real achievements will find support if the improvement holds in subsequent years. “Nevertheless, neither argument is entirely proven or disproven depending on what happens subsequently since there can be real change followed by real deterioration or a good-will ripple followed by real achievements,” it said, before adding that the “best way” to view the scores on the index appears to be over a period rather than in isolated years.
Need for transparency and accountability
Addressing how to reduce corruption perception, TIGI said it requires a reduction in the people’s experience of corruption in everyday interactions and in questionable occurrences in government and the private sector. It noted that corruption in government can have a large impact and there is a need for transparency and accountability and willingness to enforce penalties against corrupt behaviour. Law enforcement and the judiciary, it added, need to be strengthened to the extent that confidence in these institutions begins to improve.
Overall, TIGI said, government should swiftly address the things that it can easily address to demonstrate commitment and cited the need for a functional Integrity Com-mission and Public Procurement Commission, implementation of the promised Code of Conduct for ministers, cancellation of corrupt government contracts and the establishment of campaign financing laws. The Access to Information Act, it further said, is also in urgent need of attention.
In addition to the government, TIGI said citizens and citizen organisations also have an essential part in addressing corruption. Citizens need to change their attitudes to many forms of everyday corrupt acts, it argued, while pointing out that “many forms of corruption have become expected and condoned among citizens.”
As a result, it urged that citizen organisations educate people about corruption with a view to changing attitudes and the levels of involvement of citizens in the solutions. TIGI noted that it is currently engaged in a project to promote transparency, accountability and anti-corruption in local government. It said this integrally involves the local authorities and will educate citizens about what is available, encourage them to help set the local agendas and facilitate citizen monitoring of regional projects.
Addressing criticisms
Meanwhile, TIGI also acknowledged local criticisms of the Corruption Perception Index (CPI), including the view that TIGI itself has a role in the data collection. TIGI maintained that it has nothing to do with the data collection and that no report from TIGI or any other arm of Transparency International contributes data to the index. “The data are obtained from many surveys conducted by other reputable organisations,” it explained, while noting that the 2016 index made use of the World Bank Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (2015), the World Econo-mic Forum Executive Opinion Survey (2016), the Global Insight Country Risk Ratings (2015), the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index (2016, new addition), the Political Risk Services International Country Risk Guide 2016 and the Varieties of Democracy Project (2016, new addition) to arrive at the score for Guyana.
It added that many of the surveys capture the views of experts and other citizens and there is one specifically for executives, which counters claims by the private sector about non-involvement of the business community. It noted too that members of the business community are also members of other groups and there need not be a survey specifically for this community for it to be included.
Except for the World Bank Country Policy and Institutional Assessment, which collected data from the bank’s employees, some of whom might have been expatriates, TIGI said the data were collected from citizens. “The surveys are about the realities of which people are aware and subject to appropriate sampling, the results would not only be valid as measurements of the phenomenon, but would also be representative of the diversity of views that exists,” it argued.
The statement added that the respondents need not be aware of what government is doing to fight corruption to evaluate the levels of corruption. “The focus is as it should be on the realities of their experiences rather than about the systems in place to address corruption. In more corrupt societies systems and procedures are often disfigured and unenforced due to corruption,” it pointed out, while noting that although the responses provided in surveys can be distorted by some to project a certain image, no single person can skew the results in a particular direction.
Addressing the criticism that the index is about perception rather than actual corruption and is therefore not valid, TIGI said corruption is meant to be hidden and it is usually done in such a way as to avoid detection. As a result, it explained that reported incidents would be an especially poor measure of corruption in the face of gross underreporting given that someone involved or who knows will be doing the reporting. It added that the use of convictions would be worse since it would measure the efficacy of the judicial system instead of corruption and would bear all the limitations of reported incidents. In comparison, it said, perception emerges as an attractive and indeed better alternative measure of corruption. “The approach employed by TI… is sound from a methodological perspective although it has the limitations of research based on responses from people. People will not know of what they are unaware yet, people need not know everything to represent the prevailing context accurately. If the idea is to arrive at a valid index, a measure that is strongly correlated with reality is sufficient. However, the substantive interpretation of the index must be guided by its limitations,” it further said, while adding that to disregard the index as a good indicator of the level of corruption in the country “requires audacity as this is essentially rejection of established standards for scientific inquiry.”
