Corruption

Corruption

 

According to the Global Corruption Barometer 2010, which has been prepared by the Transparency International,

http://transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/gc
b/2010/in_detail#1
:  

Transparency International’s Global Corruption Barometer (the Barometer) is the largest cross-country survey to collect the general public’s views on and experiences of corruption.

In 2010 the Barometer interviewed more than 91,500 people in 86 countries, making it the most comprehensive edition since it was launched in 2003. The Barometer explores the general public’s views about corruption levels in their country and their government’s efforts to fight corruption. The 2010 Barometer also probes the frequency of bribery, reasons for paying a bribe in the past year, and attitudes towards reporting incidents of corruption.

The 2010 Barometer asked respondents for their views on the extent to which they believe 11 key sectors and institutions in their country are affected by corruption. The list includes the civil service, the education system, the judiciary, the media, the military, non-governmental organisations, the parliament, the police, political parties, the private sector and religious bodies.

In India, fifty percent or more of respondents have reported paying a bribe to any of the nine different servive (i.e. customs, education, the judiciary, land related services, medical services, the police, registry & permit services, tax authorities, and utilities) providers in the past 12 months. India is the ninth most corrupt country in the world, in a ranking of 86 countries, with 54% of people reporting having paid a bribe. 

India is among the 20 countries, which has seen more petty bribery than in 2006.   

Views on corruption trends are most negative in Europe and North America, where 73 per cent and 67 per cent of people respectively think corruption has increased over the last three years. 

The survey also found that seven out of 10 people would be willing to report an incident of corruption.

Almost half of all respondents say they paid bribes to avoid problems with the authorities and a quarter say it was to speed up processes.

Most worrying is the fact that bribes to the police have almost doubled since 2006, and more people report paying bribes to the judiciary and for registry and permit services than did so five years ago.

Poorer people are twice as likely to pay bribes for basic services, such as utilities, medical services and education, than wealthier people.

A third of all people under the age of 30 reports paying a bribe in the past 12 months, compared to less than one in five people over 51 years of age.

Corruption levels around the world are seen as increasing over the past three years

- Almost six out of 10 report that corruption levels in their country have increased over time

- The biggest increase is perceived by respondents in North America and EU+

- One in four people report paying bribes in the last year.

Political parties are identified as the most corrupt institution around the world

- Eight out of 10 judge political parties as corrupt or extremely corrupt, followed by the civil service, the judiciary, parliaments and the police

- Globally, political parties are judged most affected by corruption: almost 80 per cent of all respondents think they are either corrupt or extremely corrupt. They are trailed by a second grouping, including public servants, parliaments and the police.

- Respondents worldwide consider the military and non-governmental organisations least affected by corruption, although 30 per cent still considered them corrupt or extremely corrupt.

- Over time, public opinion about political parties has deteriorated, while opinions of the judiciary have improved

- Religious bodies and political parties have witnessed the biggest increase in perceived corruption over time. 

- Perceptions about non-governmental organisations and the private sector, however, have also deteriorated. 

- Worth noting is that public opinion about the judiciary has improved: those viewing it as corrupt or extremely corrupt decreased by 10 percentage points.

Experience of petty bribery is widespread and has remained unchanged as compared to 2006

- The police is identified as the most frequent recipient of bribes in the past 12 months. The police also has the biggest increase in bribery incidents over time, according to the general public surveyed

- In eight out of nine services assessed, people in lower income brackets are more likely to pay bribes than people in higher income brackets

- The reason most often given for paying a bribe is ‘to avoid a problem with the authorities’

Government action to fight corruption is often seen as ineffective

- Across the world, one in two considers their government’s actions to be ineffective to stop corruption

- While global views have not changed over time, opinions about government efforts have deteriorated in Asia Pacific, Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa, but improved in the Newly Independent States+ and North America

• There is little trust in formal institutions to fight corruption

- One in four worldwide does not trust any particular institution ‘most of all’ to fight corruption

- Nearly one in four trusts the media or government the most to stop corruption

There is significant belief that the public has a role to stop corruption – and a willingness for action in reporting on corruption when it occurs

- Seven out of 10 respondents think ordinary people can make a difference in the fight against corruption, while half could imagine themselves getting involved

- People are willing to report corruption to the authorities: seven out of 10 respondents reported they would denounce an incident. This willingness to report a case of corruption is more pronounced in the Americas and EU+.

 

According to The Drivers and Dynamics of Illicit Financial Flows from India: 1948-2008 (released in 2010), http://india.gfip.org/:  

•    India's underground economy is closely tied to illicit financial outflows. The total present value of India's illicit assets held abroad ($462 billion) accounts for approximately 72 percent of India's underground economy. This means that almost three-quarters of the illicit assets comprising India's underground economy—which has been estimated to account for 50 percent of India's GDP (approximately $640 billion at the end of 2008)—ends up outside of the country.

•    The finding that only 27.8 percent of India's illicit assets are held domestically support arguments that the desire to amass wealth illegally without attracting government attention is one of the primary motivations behind the cross-border transfer of illicit capital.

•    In the post-reform period of 1991-2008, deregulation and trade liberalization accelerated the outflow of illicit money from the Indian economy. Opportunities for trade mispricing grew and expansion of the global shadow financial system—particularly island tax havens—accommodated the increased outflow of India's illicit capital flight.

•    There is a statistical correlation between larger volumes of illicit flows and deteriorating income distribution.

•    From 1948 through 2008 India lost a total of $213 billion in illicit financial flows (or illegal capital flight). These illicit financial flows were generally the product of: corruption, bribery and kickbacks, criminal activities, and efforts to shelter wealth from a country's tax authorities.

•    The present value of India's total illicit financial flows (IFFs) is at least $462 billion. This is based on the short-term U.S. Treasury bill rate as a proxy for the rate of return on assets.

•    Total capital flight represents approximately 16.6 percent of India's GDP as of year-end 2008.

•    Illicit financial flows out of India grew at a rate of 11.5 percent per year while in real terms they grew by 6.4 percent per year.

•    India lost $16 billion per year from 2002-2006.

•    From 1948 through 2008 the Indian private sector shifted away from deposits into developed country banks and towards increased deposits in offshore financial centers (OFCs). The share of OFC deposits increased from 36.4 percent in 1995 to 54.2 percent in 2009.
 
   
According to the Open Budget Survey 2010,
http://internationalbudget.org/files/2010_Full_Report-English.pdf:   

•    Produced every two years by independent experts not beholden to national governments, the Open Budget Survey 2010 report reveals that 74 of the 94 countries assessed fail to meet basic standards of transparency and accountability with national budgets. This opens the door to abuse and inappropriate and inefficient use of public money.

•    Based on documented evidence, the Open Budget Survey finds that just seven of 94 countries assessed release extensive budget information, and 40 countries release no meaningful budget information.

•    The average Open Budget Index (OBI) score for the countries surveyed in 2010 is 42 out of 100.

•    South Africa, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, France, Norway, Sweden, and the United States score in the top tier of transparency, while the worst performers include China, Saudi Arabia, Equatorial Guinea, Senegal, and newly democratic Iraq, which provide little to no information to their citizens.

•    India's Open Budget Index increased from 53 in 2006 to 60 in 2008 and further to 67 in 2010.

•    Well-off countries like Equatorial Guinea (per capita GDP adjusted for purchasing power parity of US$18,600 in 2009), Saudi Arabia ($23,221), Trinidad and Tobago ($19,818), and Malaysia ($13,770) perform very poorly on the OBI 2010. In contrast, low-income countries like India (GDP per capita of $2,941), Sri Lanka ($4,769), and Ukraine ($6,340) perform relatively well.

•    The average OBI score for the 14 countries that performed worst in the OBI 2006 (and for which comparable data is available) has gone up from 25 to 40 in the OBI 2010. Notable improvers include Egypt, Mongolia, and Uganda. Similar improvements were also found in some of the countries assessed for the first time in the OBI 2008, including Afghanistan, Liberia, and Yemen.

•    The Survey uses internationally accepted criteria to assess each country’s budget transparency and accountability. The Survey is compiled from a questionnaire completed for each country by independent budget experts who are not associated with the national government. Each country’s questionnaire is then independently reviewed by two anonymous experts who also have no association to government. Scores assigned to certain Open Budget Survey questions are used to compile objective scores and rankings of each country’s relative transparency. These scores constitute the Open Budget Index (OBI).

•    Only 20 of the 94 countries included in the Open Budget Survey 2010 had OBI scores above 60 and can be characterized as providing their citizens with enough budget data to enable them to develop a comprehensive analysis and understanding of their national budgets.

•    About one-third of the countries (33) provide some information, scoring between 41 and 60, though this information is far less than what is required to obtain a clear understanding of the budget and to provide a check on the executive.

•    The high scoring countries (OBI scores between 81 and 100) publish 100 percent of the documents they produce while the worst scoring countries (OBI scores between 0 and 20) do not make public the majority of budget documents produced.

•    Legislatures in only 26 countries provide the public with formal opportunities to provide testimony during budget discussions. More disturbing is that in 35 countries, all discussions about the budget between the legislatures and the executive, including hearings, are entirely closed to the public (including the media), and no public record of such meetings is subsequently provided.

•    In a plurality of countries (41), the amount of information provided is acutely inadequate. This includes 19 countries in which only minimal information is provided (those with scores between 21 and 40), as well as 22 countries in which little to no budget information is provided (those with scores of 20 or less). The 22 countries are Algeria, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Chad, China, Democratic Republic of Congo, Dominican Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Fiji, Honduras, Iraq, Kyrgyz Republic, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, São Tomé e Príncipe, Senegal, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Vietnam.

•    In 21 of the 22 countries that provide little to no budget information, the Executive’s Budget Proposal — arguably the government’s most important policy document — is not even released.

•    Only 17 of the countries examined, for instance, provide comprehensive budget information on policies intended to alleviate poverty. Another 41 countries provide no information on extra-budgetary funds in their Executive’s Budget Proposals even though, on average, extra-budgetary funds account for nearly 40 percent of central government expenditures in transitional and developing countries.

•    Countries performing poorly on the OBI tend to share certain characteristics — such as low levels of income, low levels of democracy, geographical location in Africa and the Middle East, and dependence on aid and revenues from the sale of hydrocarbons.

 

According to 2010 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), prepared by Transparency International (TI), http://transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cp
i/2010/press#pr
:  



•    India ranks 87th with a CPI 2010 Score of 3.3, while China ranks 78th with a CPI 2010 Score of 3.5. Pakistan ranks 143rd with a CPI 2010 Score of 2.3. Bangladesh ranks 134th with a CPI 2010 Score of 2.4. Sri Lanka ranks 91st with a CPI 2010 Score of 3.2.

•    India has fallen three places to 87th in Transparency International's latest Corruption Perceptions Index, in which 178 countries were surveyed.

•    With governments committing huge sums to tackle the world’s most pressing problems, from the instability of financial markets to climate change and poverty, corruption remains an obstacle to achieving much needed progress, according to Transparency International’s 2010 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), a measure of domestic, public sector corruption.

•    The CPI 2010 is calculated using data from 13 sources by 10 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.

•    In the CPI 2010, the following seven sources provided data based on expert analysis: African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank, Bertelsmann Foundation, Economist Intelligence Unit, Freedom House, Global Insight and the World Bank. Three sources for the CPI 2010 reflect the evaluations by resident business leaders of their own country, IMD, Political and Economic Risk Consultancy, and the World Economic Forum.

•    The 2010 CPI shows that nearly three quarters of the 178 countries in the index score below five, on a scale from 0 (perceived to be highly corrupt) to 10 (perceived to have low levels of corruption), indicating a serious corruption problem.

•    In the 2010 CPI, Denmark, New Zealand and Singapore tie for first place with scores of 9.3. Unstable governments, often with a legacy of conflict, continue to dominate the bottom rungs of the CPI. Afghanistan and Myanmar share second to last place with a score of 1.4, with Somalia coming in last with a score of 1.1.

•    An improvement in scores from 2009 to 2010 could be observed for Bhutan, Chile, Ecuador, FYR Macedonia, Gambia, Haiti, Jamaica, Kuwait, and Qatar. Similarly, a decline in scores from 2009 to 2010 can be identified for the Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Madagascar, Niger and the United States.

•    TI’s assessment of 36 industrialised countries party to the OECD anti-bribery convention, which forbids bribery of foreign officials, reveals that as many as 20 show little or no enforcement of the rules, sending the wrong signal about their commitment to curb corrupt practices.



Rural Experts

Related Articles

 

Write Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Video Archives

Archives

share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later