IT’S GOOD TO KNOW...HOW CORRUPTION IS MEASURED 26 October 2010

WHAT IS TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL? Global network of non profit organisations Offering support Diagnosing corruption risks Campaigning for action and reform

HOW DO WE DEFINE CORRUPTION? The abuse of entrusted power for private gain

WHAT IS THE CORRUPTION PERCEPTIONS INDEX? Poll of polls Measuring business perceptions of public sector corruption Relative ranking – no absolute measure Not measuring ‘legal corruption’ or ‘private sector corruption’

HOW WE COMPILE THE INDEX Up to 13 different surveys Over two years Standardise data – create common scale from ranks and scores of countries reported by each source Average values 90 % confidence range

WHY DOES IT MATTER? 35% Control Risks Group (2006) 45% PricewaterhouseCoopers Ability to trade Habib and Zurawicki

CORRUPTION PERCEPTIONS INDEX 2010

WHAT DOES IT MEAN? We’re not faced with the kind of “petty” corruption people in low income countries are Teachers, doctors, traffic police and airport security not demanding bribes Rule of law largely observed. Relatively strong, stable institutions.

LEGAL CORRUPTION COMPONENT 2004 Netherlands 79.2 Norway 78.6 Denmark 74.7 Finland 72.6 Singapore 72.6 Iceland 69.6 New Zealand 68.7 United Arab Emirates 68.2 United Kingdom 67.4 Germany 62.4 Sweden 60.0 Jordan 59.4 Hong Kong SAR 59.1 Switzerland 59.1 Luxembourg 57.2 Austria 57.2 Belgium 54.1 Chile 53.5 Bahrain 52.3 Australia 50.3 China 49.4 Tunisia 48.8 Botswana 47.3 Ghana 47.2 Malaysia 47.1 South Africa 46.5 Japan 46.2 Taiwan 44.6 Canada 42.9 Ireland 42.6 WORLD BANK INSTITUTE 2004

WHAT OTHERS SAY 78% of respondents believed the government’s efforts to combat corruption were ineffective (Eurobarometer). 32% of respondents believed the prosecution rate for bribery offences was a sufficient deterrent. (Eurobarometer) In 2007, trust in business amongst Irish opinion leaders was at 50%. (Edelman) Ireland is the only EU country to see a decline rather than a rise in trust in business when the figures for 2010 are compared with those for (Edelman)