Global anti-corruption watchdog Transparency International (TI) recently released the 2019 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) and it was largely good news for the Caribbean.
The report, which ranks 180 countries and territories, placed most Caribbean nations towards the top of the charts with the region’s best-performer, the Bahamas, ranked at 29. Saint Lucia was the fifth least-corrupt country in the region, tying with Dominica in 48th place. Saint Lucia’s score (55 out of 100) has held steady for the past three years, but is this really an accomplishment worth celebrating? Flaws in Transparency International’s methodology and motives have long cast doubt on the accuracy of its flagship publication.
Perception vS. reality
The first CPI was released in 1995 and has generated controversy ever since. Perhaps the most persuasive criticism is that the report artificially pits countries against each other, which can give a skewed measurement of success. Each country is given a score out of 100; if one country should under-perform, it can boost up others in the table by a few notches, without any improvement in their own score. Thus, a country can climb the rankings year after year without demonstrating any tangible success in fighting corruption.
?In addition, it’s difficult, if not impossible, to reduce the wide-ranging topic of corruption to just one score (and it’s also worth noting that the CPI measures perceived corruption rather than actual investigations or successful prosecutions). Respondents in each country are asked for their experiences of bribery, misuse of public funds, use of public office for personal gain, protection for whistleblowers, anti-corruption legislation and more. This leaves plenty that goes untracked, including tax fraud, private sector fraud, money-laundering and the operation of the informal economy.
Denmark, which has been ranked the world’s least corrupt country by TI several times and took the top spot again this year, hit the headlines in 2017 and 2018 as news broke of a massive money-laundering scam involving Danske Bank and almost US$ 230bn in suspicious payments. More recently, the Group of States against Corruption blasted Denmark for “too little emphasis on measures to prevent corruption”, specifically in terms of political donations.
One of the inherent problems with the CPI is that statistics are only as good as their source. Perception is not reality, and survey respondents are motivated by their own biases and background. In small, insular populations, such as those in the Caribbean, where there are strong familial and political ties to consider, the potential for misinformation is huge.
Changing the conversation
TI’s Corruption Perceptions Index has its shortcomings, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that the report is worth dismissing entirely. In fairness, TI researchers have a difficult task as, by its very nature, corruption operates in the dark. To counter claims of inaccuracy, the NGO has stated: “There is no meaningful way to assess absolute levels of corruption in countries or territories on the basis of hard, empirical data. Possible attempts to do so, such as by comparing bribes reported, the number of prosecutions brought or studying court cases directly linked to corruption, cannot be taken as definitive indicators of corruption levels. Instead, they show how effective prosecutors, the courts or the media are in investigating and exposing corruption.”
?The report’s biggest value lies in its visibility. As a useful tool in promoting and publicising anti-corruption measures, it subjects governments in areas like the Caribbean to some degree of international scrutiny. The more public sector corruption is forced into mainstream conversation, the more pressure on national watchdogs to develop a transparent and effective system of sanctions and deterrents.
After 25 years in the business, the CPI is still the best-known and most cited record of global corruption but perhaps it’s time for that to change. The organisation itself has come under fire for several high-profile mis-steps such as handing an Integrity Award to Hilary Clinton in 2012, even as the Clinton Foundation was being investigated by the US State Department, or failing to support whistleblower Edward Snowden. It is telling that in 2009 the original creator of the CPI, Johann Graf Lambsdorff, said he would no longer be involved with the work and abdicated all responsibility for its findings.
Public trust in TI and its report appears to be waning, leaving a gap for other anti-corruption NGOs, such as Global Integrity, to fill. And alongside these international groups, there’s room for the Caribbean to step up. The Commonwealth Caribbean Heads of Anti-Corruption Agencies met in summer 2019 for a summit that was largely ignored by the media, and information on the groups’ activities and plans is difficult to find. More visibility for regional and local bodies can help reframe the concerns around regional corruption, add more oversight and present a more balanced and accurate picture than that drawn by the CPI.
