Corruption Perceptions Index

Overview of the index of perception of corruption, 2010.

9 - 10	6 - 6.9	3 - 3.9
8 - 8.9	5 - 5.9	2 - 2.9
7 - 7.9	4 - 4.9	1 - 1.9
No Information

Political corruption
Corruption Perceptions Index, 2010
Concepts
Electoral fraud · Economics of corruption Nepotism · Bribery · Cronyism · Slush fund
Corruption by country
Angola · Armenia · Canada Chile · China (PRC) · Colombia Cuba · Ghana · India · Iran · Kenya Ireland · Nigeria · Pakistan Paraguay · Philippines · Russia South Africa · Ukraine · Venezuela  · United States
This box: view · talk · edit

Since 1995, Transparency International (TI) publishes the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) annually ranking countries "by their perceived levels of corruption, as determined by expert assessments and opinion surveys."^[1] The CPI generally defines corruption as "the misuse of public power for private benefit."^[2] As of 2010^[update], the CPI ranks 178 countries "on a scale from 10 (very clean) to 0 (highly corrupt)."^[3]

Methods

Transparency International commissioned Johann Graf Lambsdorff of the University of Passau to produce the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI).^[4] The 2010 CPI draws on 13 different surveys and assessments from 10 independent institutions.^[5] The institutions are the African Development Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the Bertelsmann Foundation, the Economist Intelligence Unit, Freedom House, Global Insight, International Institute for Management Development, Political and Economic Risk Consultancy, the World Economic Forum, and the World Bank.^[6] The 13 surveys/assessments are either business people opinion surveys or performance assessments from a group of analysts.^[2] Early CPIs used public opinion surveys. Countries must be assessed by at least three sources to appear in the CPI.^[7]

The CPI measures perception of corruption due to the difficulty of measuring absolute levels of corruption.^[8]

Validity

The CPI's validity is supported by strong significant correlation with two other measures of corruption.^{[9][verification needed]}

Limitations

Since the set of sources changes, comparing corruption over time with the CPI is inappropriate.^[8]

Criticism

The Corruption Perceptions Index has drawn increasing criticism in the decade since its launch, leading to calls for the index to be abandoned.^[10][11][12] This criticism has been directed at the quality of the Index itself, and the lack of actionable insights created from a simple country ranking.^[13][14] Because corruption is willfully hidden, it is impossible to measure directly; instead proxies for corruption are used. The CPI uses an eclectic mix of third-party surveys to sample public perceptions of corruption through a variety of questions, ranging from "Do you trust the government?" to "Is corruption a big problem in your country?"

The use of third-party survey data is a source of criticism. The data can vary widely in methodology and completeness from country to country. The methodology of the Index itself changes from year to year, thus making even basic better-or-worse comparisons difficult. Media outlets, meanwhile, frequently use the raw numbers as a yardstick for government performance, without clarifying what the numbers mean.

The lack of standardization and precision in these surveys is cause for concern. The authors of the CPI argue that averaging enough survey data will solve this; others argue that aggregating imprecise data only masks these flaws without addressing them.^[15] In one case, a local Transparency International chapter disowned the index results after a change in methodology caused a country's scores to increase—media reported it as an "improvement".^[16] Other critics point out that definitional problems with the term "corruption" makes the tool problematic for social science.

Due to the sources used the index produces a view of corruption as mainly viewed by (Western) business elites. In comparison, the questions in the Eurobarometer surveys 64.3 (2005), 68.2 (2007), 72.2 (2009), and the Flash Eurobarometer 236 (2008) established by the European Commission for all of the 27 European Union members states ask the perceptions and experiences of the general public. In general,the results show a very large divergence between the perception of living in a corrupt country by the general public and the experiences of corruption in everyday life.

Aside from precision issues, a more fundamental critique is aimed at the uses of the Index. Critics are quick to concede that the CPI has been instrumental in creating awareness and stimulating debate about corruption.^{[not in citation given]} However, as a source of quantitative data in a field hungry for international datasets, the CPI can take on a life of its own, appearing in cross-country and year-to-year comparisons that the CPI authors themselves admit are not justified by their methodology. The authors state in 2008: "Year-to-year changes in a country's score can either result from a changed perception of a country's performance or from a change in the CPI’s sample and methodology. The only reliable way to compare a country’s score over time is to go back to individual survey sources, each of which can reflect a change in assessment." ^[17]

The CPI produces a single score per country, which as noted above, cannot be compared year-to-year. As such, the Index is nearly useless as a tool for evaluating the impact of new policies.^[15] In the late 2000s, the field has moved towards unpackable, action-oriented indices (such as those by the International Budget Partnership or Global Integrity), which typically measure public policies that relate to corruption, rather than try to assess "corruption" as a whole via proxy measures like perceptions.^[13] These alternative measures use original (often locally collected) data and so have the same non-comparability problem as the CPI and are limited in scope to specific policy practices (such as public access to parliamentary budget documents) and so they are only an indicator of visible corruption/policy corruption.

The inherent value-ladeness of any definition of what represents a corrupt policy is also a concern for the CPI or any other measure corruption. For example, any measure must weight the extent to which corruption has a negative impact on citizens of that country. Measures can focus on the extent to which corruption negatively impacts citizens' lives on many dimensions including quality of life, health, economic well-being and liberty. Therefore, current measures have also been criticized not just for their methodology but for their breadth and the value choices that are required to be made in deciding how to weight the importance of various aspects of corruption.

Rankings

Worldwide Corruption Perceptions ranking of countries published by Transparency International
Rank Country Index 2010 2010[18] 2009[19] 2008[20] 2007[21] 2006[22] 2005[23] 2004[24] 2003 2002 1  Denmark 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 1  New Zealand 9.3 9.4 9.3 9.4 9.6 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.4 1  Singapore 9.3 9.2 9.2 9.3 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.4 9.4 4  Finland 9.2 8.9 9.0 9.4 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.7 9.9 4  Sweden 9.2 9.2 9.3 9.3 9.2 9.2 9.3 9.3 9.0 6  Canada 8.9 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.5 8.4 8.7 9.0 8.9 7  Netherlands 8.8 8.9 8.9 9.0 8.7 8.6 8.9 9.0 8.8 8  Switzerland 8.7 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.1 8.8 8.5 8.4 8  Australia 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.8 8.6 8.5 10  Norway 8.6 8.6 7.9 8.7 8.8 8.9 8.8 8.5 8.6 11  Iceland 8.5 8.7 8.9 9.2 9.6 9.7 9.6 9.4 9.2 11  Luxembourg 8.5 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.6 8.5 8.7 9.0 8.7 13  Hong Kong 8.4 8.2 8.1 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.0 8.2 7.9 14  Ireland 8.0 8.0 7.7 7.5 7.4 7.4 7.5 6.9 7.5 15  Austria 7.9 7.9 8.1 8.1 8.6 8.7 8.0 7.8 7.8 15  Germany 7.9 8.0 7.9 7.8 8.0 8.2 7.7 7.3 7.4 17  Barbados 7.8 7.4 7.0 6.9 6.7 6.9       17  Japan 7.8 7.7 7.3 7.5 7.6 7.3 7.0 7.1 7.1 19  Qatar 7.7 7.0 6.5 6.0 6.0 5.9 5.6     20  United Kingdom 7.6 7.7 7.7 8.4 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.7 8.3 21  Chile 7.2 6.7 6.9 7.0 7.3 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.5 22  Belgium 7.1 7.1 7.3 7.1 7.3 7.4 7.6 7.1 6.6 22  United States 7.1 7.5 7.3 7.2 7.3 7.6 7.5 7.7 7.6 24  Uruguay 6.9 6.7 6.9 6.7 6.4 5.9 5.5 5.1 5.1 25  France 6.8 6.9 6.9 7.3 7.4 7.5 6.9 6.3 6.7 26  Estonia 6.5 6.6 6.6 6.5 6.7 6.4 5.5 5.6 5.6 27  Slovenia 6.4 6.6 6.7 6.6 6.4 6.1 5.9 6.0 5.2 28  Cyprus 6.3 6.6 6.4 5.3 5.6 5.7 5.4 6.1   28  United Arab Emirates 6.3 6.5 5.9 5.7 6.2 6.2 6.1 5.2   30  Israel 6.1 6.1 6.0 6.1 5.9 6.3 6.4 7.0 7.3 30  Spain 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.7 6.8 7.0 6.9 7.1 7.0 32  Portugal 6.0 5.8 6.1 6.5 6.6 6.5 6.6 6.3 6.3 33  Puerto Rico 5.8 5.8 5.8             33  Botswana 5.8 5.6 5.8 5.4 5.6 5.9 6.0 5.7 6.4 33  Republic of China 5.8 5.6 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.9 5.6 5.7 5.6 36  Bhutan 5.7 5.0 5.4 5.0           37  Malta 5.6 5.2 5.8 5.8 6.4 6.4       38  Brunei 5.5 5.5               39  South Korea 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.1 5.1 5.0 4.5 4.3 4.5 39  Mauritius 5.4 5.4 5.5 4.7 5.1 4.2 4.1 4.4 4.5 41  Oman 5.3 5.5 5.5 4.7 5.4 6.3 6.1 6.3   41  Costa Rica 5.3 5.3 5.1 5.0 4.1 4.2 4.9 4.3 4.5 41  Poland 5.3 5.0 4.6 4.2 3.7 3.4 3.5 3.6 4.0 44  Dominica 5.2 5.9 6.0 5.6 4.5 3.0 2.9 3.3 3.2 45  Cape Verde 5.1 5.1 5.1 4.9           46  Macau 5.0 5.3 5.4 5.7 6.6         46  Lithuania 5.0 4.9 4.6 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.6 4.7 4.8 48  Bahrain 4.9 5.1 5.4 5.0 5.7 5.8 5.8 6.1   49  Seychelles 4.8 4.8 4.8 4.5 3.6 4.0 4.4     50  Hungary 4.7 5.1 5.1 5.3 5.2 5.0 4.8 4.8 4.9 50  Jordan 4.7 5.0 5.1 4.7 5.3 5.7 5.3 4.6 4.5 50  Saudi Arabia 4.7 4.3 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.4 4.5   53  Czech Republic 4.6 4.9 5.2 5.2 4.8 4.3 4.2 3.9 3.7 54  Kuwait 4.5 4.1 4.3 4.3 4.8 4.7 4.6 5.3   54  South Africa 4.5 4.7 4.9 5.1 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.4 4.8 56  Malaysia 4.4 4.5 5.1 5.1 5.0 5.1 5.0 5.2 4.9 56  Namibia 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.1 4.3 4.1 4.7 5.7 56  Turkey 4.4 4.4 4.6 4.1 3.8 3.5 3.2 3.1 3.2 59  Latvia 4.3 4.5 5.0 4.8 4.7 4.2 4.0 3.8 3.7 59  Slovakia 4.3 4.5 5.0 4.9 4.7 4.3 4.0 3.7 3.7 59  Tunisia 4.3 4.2 4.4 4.2 4.6 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.8 62  Croatia 4.1 4.1 4.4 4.1 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.7 3.8 62  Ghana 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.7 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.3 3.9 62  Macedonia 4.1 3.8 3.6 3.3 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.3   62  Samoa 4.1 4.5 4.4 4.5           66  Rwanda 4.0 3.3 3.0 2.8 2.5 3.1       67  Italy 3.9 4.3 4.8 5.2 6.2 6.2 5.2     68  Georgia 3.8 4.1 3.9 3.4 2.8 2.3 2.0 1.8 2.4 69  Cuba 3.7 4.4 4.3 4.2 3.5 3.8 3.7 4.6   69  Montenegro 3.7 3.9 3.4 3.3           69  Romania 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.1 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.6 69  Brazil 3.7 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.3 3.7 3.9 3.9 4.0 73  Bulgaria 3.6 3.8 3.6 4.1 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 4.0 73  El Salvador 3.6 3.4 3.9 4.0 4.0 4.2 3.7 3.4 3.2 73  Panama 3.6 3.4 3.4 3.2 3.1 3.5 3.7 3.4 3.0 73  Trinidad and Tobago 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.2 3.8 4.2 4.6 4.9 73  Vanuatu 3.6 3.2 2.9 3.1           78  Greece 3.5 3.8 4.7 4.6 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.2 78  Colombia 3.5 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.9 4.0 3.8 3.7 3.6 78  Peru 3.5 3.7 3.6 3.5 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.7 3.4 78  China 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.3 3.2 3.4 3.4 3.5 78  Thailand 3.5 3.4 3.5 3.3 3.6 3.8 3.6 3.3 3.2 78  Serbia[25] 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.0 2.8 2.7 2.3   78  Lesotho 3.5 3.3 3.2 3.3 3.2 3.4       85  Malawi 3.4 3.3 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.9 85  Morocco 3.4 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.7 87  India 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.3 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.7 87  Albania 3.3 3.2 3.4 2.9 2.6 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 87  Liberia 3.3 3.1 2.4 2.1   2.2       87  Jamaica 3.3 3.0 3.1 3.3 3.7 3.6 3.3 3.8 4.0 91  Bosnia and Herzegovina 3.2 3.2 3.3 2.9 2.9 3.1 3.3   91  Djibouti 3.2 3.0 2.9		Rank Country Index 2010 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 91  Swaziland 3.2 3.6 3.6 3.3 2.5 2.7       91  Guatemala 3.2 3.4 3.1 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.2 2.4 2.5 91  Sri Lanka 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.1 3.2 3.5 3.4 3.7 91  Gambia 3.2 2.9 1.9 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.8 2.5   91  Kiribati 3.2 2.8 3.1 3.3 3.7         98  Burkina Faso 3.1 3.6 3.5 2.9 3.2 3.4       98  Mexico 3.1 3.3 3.6 3.5 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 98  Egypt 3.1 2.8 2.8 2.9 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.3 3.4 101  Dominican Republic 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.8 3.0 2.9 3.3 3.5 101  Tonga 3.0 3.0 2.4 1.7           101  Zambia 3.0 3.0 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.6 101  São Tomé and Príncipe 3.0 2.8 2.7 2.7           105  Moldova 2.9 3.3 2.9 2.8 3.2 2.9 2.3 2.4 2.1 105  Senegal 2.9 3.0 3.4 3.6 3.3 3.2 3.0 3.2 3.1 105  Argentina 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.8 105  Kazakhstan 2.9 2.7 2.2 2.1 2.6 2.6 2.2 2.4 2.3 105  Algeria 2.9 2.8 3.2 3.0 3.1 2.8 2.7 2.6   110  Benin 2.8 2.9 3.1 2.7 2.5 2.9 3.2     110  Gabon 2.8 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.0 2.9 3.3     110  Indonesia 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.3 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.9 1.9 110  Bolivia 2.8 2.7 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.5 2.2 2.3 2.2 110  Solomon Islands 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.8           110  Kosovo 2.8               116  Ethiopia 2.7 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.2 2.3 2.5 3.5 116  Mali 2.7 3.1 2.7 2.8 2.9 3.2 3.0   116  Mongolia 2.7 3.0 3.0 2.8 3.0 3.0     116  Vietnam 2.7 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.4 116  Guyana 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.5       116  Tanzania 2.7 3.0 3.2 2.9 2.9 2.8 2.5 2.7 116  Mozambique 2.7 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.7   123  Armenia 2.6 2.9 3.0 2.9 2.9 3.1 3.0   123  Madagascar 2.6 3.4 3.2 3.1 2.8 3.1 2.6 1.7 123  Niger 2.6 2.8 2.6 2.3 2.4 2.2     123  Eritrea 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.6 2.6     127  Belarus 2.5 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.6 3.3 4.2 4.8 127  Syria 2.5 2.1 2.4 2.9 3.4 3.4 3.4   127  Lebanon 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.6 3.1 2.7 3.0   127  Nicaragua 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.5 127  Ecuador 2.5 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.2 127  Timor-Leste 2.5 2.2 2.6 2.6         127  Uganda 2.5 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.6 2.2 2.1 134  Azerbaijan 2.4 1.9 2.1 2.4 2.2 1.9 1.8 2.0 134  Nigeria 2.4 2.7 2.2 2.2 1.9 1.6 1.4 1.6 134  Honduras 2.4 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.3 2.3 2.7 134  Togo 2.4 2.7 2.3 2.4         134  Bangladesh 2.4 2.1 2.0 2.0 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.2 134  Philippines 2.4 2.3 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.6 134  Sierra Leone 2.4 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.3 2.2   134  Ukraine 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.8 2.6 2.2 2.3 2.4 134  Zimbabwe 2.4 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.6 2.3 2.3 2.7 143  Pakistan 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.5 2.6 143  Maldives 2.3 2.8 3.3           143  Mauritania 2.3 2.8 2.6 3.1         146  Cameroon 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1 1.8 2.2 146  Nepal 2.2 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.8     146  Libya 2.2 2.6 2.5 2.7 2.5 2.5 2.1   146  Côte d'Ivoire 2.2 2.0 2.1   1.9 2.0 2.1 2.7 146  Paraguay 2.2 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.1 1.9 1.6 1.7 146  Yemen 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.4 2.6 2.4 146  Haiti 2.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.5 1.5 2.2 146  Iran 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 2.9 3.0   154  Comoros 2.1 2.5 2.6           154  Russia 2.1 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.4 2.8 2.7 2.7 154  Kenya 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.1 1.9 1.9 154  Papua New Guinea 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.4 2.3 2.6 2.1   154  Cambodia 2.1 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.3 1.5 1.3 1.2 154  Central African Republic 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.4         154  Laos 2.1 2.0 1.9 2.6 3.3       154  Tajikistan 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.0 1.8   154  Republic of the Congo 2.1 1.9 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.2   154  Guinea-Bissau 2.1 1.9 2.2           164  Democratic Republic of the Congo 2.0 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.0     164  Guinea 2.0 1.6 1.9 1.9         164  Kyrgyzstan 2.0 1.8 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.1   164  Venezuela 2.0 1.9 2.0 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.5 168  Angola 1.9 2.2 1.9 2.2 2.0 2.0 1.8 1.7 168  Equatorial Guinea 1.9 1.7 1.9 2.1 1.9       170  Burundi 1.8 1.9 2.5 2.4 2.3       171  Chad 1.7 1.6 1.8 2.0 1.7 1.7     172  Sudan 1.6 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3   172  Turkmenistan 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 1.8 2.0     172  Uzbekistan 1.6 1.8 1.7 2.7 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.9 175  Iraq 1.5 1.3 1.5 1.9 2.2 2.1 2.2   176  Afghanistan 1.4 1.5 1.8   2.5       176  Burma 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.9 1.8 1.7 1.6   178  Somalia 1.1 1.0 1.4   2.1       –  Belize   2.9 3.0 3.5 3.7 3.8 4.5   –  Grenada     3.4 3.5         -  Saint Lucia   7.0 7.1 6.8           -  Saint Vincent and the Grenadines   6.4 6.5 6.1

References

1. ^ Transparency International (2010). "Corruption Perceptions Index". Transparency International. Transparency International. http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi. Retrieved 24 August 2011. 
2. ^ ^{a b} CPI 2010: Long methodological brief, p. 2
3. ^ Transparency International (2010). "Corruption Perceptions Index 2010: In detail". Transparency International. Transparency International. http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/in_detail. Retrieved 24 August 2011. 
4. ^ "Frequently Asked Questions: TI Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI 2005)". http://www.icgg.org/corruption.cpi_2005_faq.html. Retrieved 2005-11-22. 
5. ^ CPI 2010: Long methodological brief, p. 1
6. ^ Transparency International (2010). Corruption Perceptions Index 2010: Sources of information (Report). Transparency International. http://www.transparency.org/content/download/55815/891318/CPI2010_sources_EN.pdf. Retrieved 24 Aug 2011. 
7. ^ CPI 2010: Long methodological brief, p. 7
8. ^ ^{a b} Transparency International (2010). "Frequently asked questions (FAQs)". Corruption Perceptions Index 2010. Transparency International. http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/faqs. Retrieved 24 August 2011. 
9. ^ Wilhelm, Paul G. (2002). "International Validation of the Corruption Perceptions Index: Implications for Business Ethics and Entrepreneurship Education". Journal of Business Ethics (Springer Netherlands) 35 (3): 177–89. doi:10.1023/A:1013882225402. 
10. ^ Galtung, Fredrik (2006). "Measuring the Immeasurable: Boundaries and Functions of (Macro) Corruption Indices," in Measuring Corruption, Charles Sampford, Arthur Shacklock, Carmel Connors, and Fredrik Galtung, Eds. (Ashgate): 101-130. The author, a former Transparency International researcher and pioneer in the development of the Bribe Payers Index (BPI), addresses several criticisms of the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI). He argues that the CPI should be radically revised and complemented by additional indicators.
11. ^ Sik, Endre (2002). "The Bad, the Worse and the Worst: Guesstimating the Level of Corruption," in Political Corruption in Transition: A Skeptic's Handbook, Stephen Kotkin and Andras Sajo, Eds. (Budapest: Central European University Press): 91-113.
12. ^ "The Uses and Abuses of Governance Indicators". OECD. http://www.oecd.org/document/25/0,2340,en_2649_33935_37081881_1_1_1_1,00.html. 
13. ^ ^{a b} "Bangladesh's economists question corruption perception index". The HINDU News Update Service. 2007-09-27. http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/003200709270921.htm. Retrieved 2007-09-28. 
14. ^ "Hey Experts: Stop Abusing the CPI". Global Integrity. http://commons.globalintegrity.org/2009/02/hey-experts-stop-abusing-corruption.html. 
15. ^ ^{a b} "A Users' Guide to Measuring Corruption". Global Integrity & UNDP. http://commons.globalintegrity.org/2008/09/users-guide-to-measuring-corruption.html. 
16. ^ "TI's Index: Local Chapter Not Having It". Global Integrity. http://commons.globalintegrity.org/2008/09/tis-index-local-chapter-not-having-it.html. 
17. ^ "CPI: Methodology FAQ". Transparency International. http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2008/faq#interpreting4. 
18. ^ "CPI 2010 table". Transparency International. http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2010/results. Retrieved 2010-10-26. 
19. ^ "CPI 2009 table". Transparency International. http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2009/cpi_2009_table. Retrieved 2009-11-18. 
20. ^ "CPI 2008 table". Transparency International. http://www.transparency.org/news_room/in_focus/2008/cpi2008/cpi_2008_table. Retrieved 2008-12-17. 
21. ^ "CPI 2007 table". Transparency International. http://www.transparency.org/news_room/in_focus/2007/cpi_2007/cpi_2007_table. Retrieved 2007-10-01. 
22. ^ "CPI 2006 table". Transparency International. http://www.transparency.org/news_room/in_focus/cpi_2006/cpi_table. Retrieved 2006-11-17. 
23. ^ "CPI 2005 table". Transparency International. http://www.transparency.org/news_room/in_focus/2005/cpi_2005#cpi. Retrieved 2007-12-03. 
24. ^ "CPI 2004 table". Transparency International. http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2004. Retrieved 2007-12-03. 
25. ^ The years 2002–2005 show data for Serbia and Montenegro

• Transparency International (2010). Corruption Perceptions Index 2010: Long methodological brief (Report). Transparency International. http://www.transparency.org/content/download/55903/892623/CPI2010_long_methodology_En.pdf. Retrieved 24 Aug 2011. 

External links

• Official site
• Interactive world map of the Corruption Perception Index: 2000-2008
• A Users' Guide to Measuring Corruption critiques the CPI and similar indices
• Global Integrity Index