ANTICORRP Report Shows Regional Achievers in Control of Corruption

Assessments of corruption on a cross-national level have represented an important focus of research in the field of anti-corruption in recent years. With the aims of tackling the challenging task of quantifying corruption and improving comparability across countries, the development of cross-national corruption indicators has enabled the ranking of countries from the least to the most corrupt, and thereby has given civil society organisations and media an important tool to name and shame governments and exert some pressure for anti-corruption in the policy sphere as well. However, despite advances in estimating corruption levels in a country at a certain point in time, existing scholarship still knows little about how these levels may change over time, and what causes may be behind such movements. Seeking to make a contribution to this academic debate, a recent report prepared by the ERCAS team at the Hertie School of Governance as part of the ANTICORRP research project has examined global corruption trends in eight regions of the globe, pointing out best and worst performers and positive and negative developments in each of them. Building upon one of the few consistent time-series of corruption indicators, namely the Control of Corruption indicator developed by the World Bank as part of the Worldwide Governance Indicators, the report first compares the average control of corruption score across the following regions: Asia and the Pacific, Eastern Europe and the Baltics, Former Soviet Union, Latin America, the Caribbean, Middle East and North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Western Europe, North America and Oceania. From this analysis, the latter emerges as the clear front-runner in control of corruption, followed by the Caribbean islands and Eastern European countries. At the other extreme, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Former Soviet Union present the lowest average scores among all eight regions. Considering a 15-year time span covered by the indicator, published for the first time in 1996, the assessment also shows that no single regional average has seen a significant statistical change during this period.

For more information see the original article on the ERCAS webpage here: