The Politics of Perception: Use and Abuse of Transparency International's Approach to Measuring Corruption
| Published date | 01 December 2009 |
| Date | 01 December 2009 |
| Author | Paul M. Heywood,Staffan Andersson |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2008.00758.x |
| Subject Matter | Article |
The Politics of Perception: Use and Abuse of
Transparency International’s Approach to
Measuring Corruptionpost_758746..767
Staffan Andersson Paul M. Heywood
Växjö University University of Nottingham
The annual Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), published by Transparency International (TI), has had
a pivotal role in focusing attention on corruption. Despite recent critiques of the CPI,it remains highly
influential on research into the causes of corruption and is also extensively used to galvanise support
for measures to fight corruption. In this article we explore the CPI in more depth in order to highlight
how the index has been used for political ends which may not always turn out to be supportive of
anti-corruption efforts. The argument is developed in four sections: in the first,we focus on Transparency
International’s definition of corruption, highlighting some conceptual difficulties with the approach
adopted and its relationship to the promotion of ‘good governance’ as the principal means of combating
corruption. In the second section, we outline some methodological difficulties in the design of the
Corruption Perceptions Index. Although the CPI has been much criticised, we demonstrate in the third
section that the index continues to exercise great influence both in academic research and in the politics
of anti-corruption efforts, particularly as exercised byTransparency International itself.In the final section
we argue that the CPI contributes to the risk of creating a‘cor ruption trap’in countr ies wherecor ruption
is deeply embedded, as development aid is increasingly made conditional on the implementation of
reforms which are impossible to achieve without that aid.
The issue of corruption and how to fight it has assumed ever more importance
in recent years.Not only has there been a significant g rowth in academic research
on corruption, but media attention has also focused far more on corruption
scandals, and governments, international financial institutions and non-
governmental organisations (NGOs) have devoted increasing resources to com-
bating cor ruption (see Johnston, 2005; Krastev, 2003; Pieth, 1997; Robinson,
1998).
Whether discussing issues such as trust in political parties and politicians in
democracies, barriers to international trade or support for development and
poverty reduction, corruption has become a central concer n – and it shows no
sign of declining. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Develop-
ment (OECD) was an early advocate of putting more focus on fighting cor-
ruption, most notably because of its impact on fair competition in foreign
trade. But following the OECD lead, other international organisations – such
as the UN, the European Union, the World Bank and regional development
banks – also made the fight against corruption a prior ity.Notably, in discussions
of how to improve the prospects of development in poor countries, the fight
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2008.00758.x
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2009 VOL 57, 746–767
© 2008The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 Political StudiesAssociation
against corruption has come to the forefront. The World Bank, in par ticular,
has identified corruption as ‘The single greatest obstacle to economic and social
development’ ( World Bank, 2006a) and has taken the lead in promoting ‘good
governance’ as a key strategy to combat corruption. So in both multilateral and
bilateral aid today, combating corruption and establishing good governance are
seen as necessary parts of supporting sustainable development (see, as examples,
UK Commission for Africa, 2005; UK Government, 2000; USAID, 2003;
World Bank, 2006b).
However, notwithstanding the importance of the organisations mentioned above
in the fight against corruption, it is the formation of Transparency International
(TI) in 1993, and the publication of its annual Corruption Perceptions Index
(CPI) since 1995, which have been most influential in sharpening the focus on
corruption. TI itself says about the CPI that ‘The annualTI Cor ruption Percep-
tions Index (CPI), first released in 1995, is the best known of TI’s tools. It has
been widely credited for putting TI and the issue of corruption on the inter na-
tional policy agenda’ (Transparency International, 2005a).
Indeed, the CPI has rightly been seen as an immensely important step in focusing
attention on the issue of corruption, offering for the first time a systematic basis
on which to compare perceptions of corruption across a range of different
countries, year by year.Without the CPI, it is doubtful whether many secondary
studies which seek to identify the causes of corruption would have been under-
taken,since the index offer s an ideal large-nbasis for analysis.We should therefore
not underplay its significance in the fight against corruption: its value goes
beyond the stimulation of research activity,since the publication of the CPI each
autumn has generated widespread media interest across the world and contrib-
uted to galvanising international anti-corruption initiatives, such as those spon-
sored by the World Bank and the OECD.
However, these undoubted virtues should not blind us to some serious drawbacks
to the CPI, both in conception and in execution, which have a direct bearing on
the leading international approaches to combating corruption. In this article we
explore the CPI in more depth in order to highlight how the index has been used
for political ends which may not always turn out to be supportive of anti-
corruption efforts. The argument is developed in four sections: in the first, we
focus on Transparency International’s definition of corr uption, highlighting some
conceptual difficulties with the approach adopted and its relationship to the
promotion of ‘good governance’ as the principal means of combating corruption.
In the second section, we outline some methodological difficulties in the design
of the Corruption Perceptions Index. Although the CPI has been much criti-
cised, we demonstrate in the third section that the index continues to exercise
great influence both in academic research and in the politics of anti-corruption
efforts, particularly as exercised by Transparency International itself. Our conclu-
sion suggests that the CPI contributes to the risk of creating a ‘corruption trap’
MEASURING CORRUPTION 747
© 2008The Authors. Journal compilation © 2008 Political StudiesAssociation
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2009, 57(4)
To continue reading
Request your trial