Transparency International

Murk meter

THE Economist | BERLIN

CORRUPTION takes many forms; in some countries it is blatant, in others it is barely visible. So the idea that it can quantified on a simple scale is appealing; it gives the impression that an elusive aspect of behaviour can be pinned down.

No wonder, then, that the annual corruption perceptions index (CPI), which orders countries according to the perceived degree of graft, is closely watched. But when its compilers—Transparency International (TI), an organisation based in Berlin—released their 16th annual ranking on October 26th, there was criticism as well as curiosity.

To be sure, TI has done a lot for the anti-corruption cause. The group has had an “enormous impact”, says Richard Boucher, a deputy secretary-general at the OECD, a rich-country club. The CPI was the first index comparing corruption globally.

But it has always been controversial. As might be expected, early complaints came from poor places which felt they were being singled out by an organisation that reflected the ethos of wealthy countries.

Now there are more subtle critiques, too. Some people take issue, for example, with the methodology based on 13 surveys of experts and business people. Its precise working varies from country to country, and it has changed over time—so that year-on-year comparisons can be misleading.

The CPI highlights the general level of corruption, but offers little clue about which aspects are most serious, or how to fight it. Frustration has grown with the idea that “a single number for a whole country is enough”, says Nathaniel Heller of Global Integrity, an anti-corruption outfit.

The CPI “has more than run its course”, in the view of Claudio Weber Abramo, director of Transparência Brasil, a former chapter that left the TI umbrella in 2007.

TI is aware of the index’s shortcomings. The CPI, it says, is “an annual snapshot” with “less of a focus on year-on-year trends”. Yet the group stands by its ranking. “We are comfortable we have an important tool—but it is only one tool”, says Huguette Labelle, TI’s chair.

TI is far from a one-trick pony. It now focuses on boosting international accords and helping enforce them. At the local level, it also does much more than in the past. In some developing countries, legal advice centres help victims of corruption. Still, the CPI looms large, and the organisation faces a dilemma. The index gets a much-needed attention, but it overshadows other activities and exposes it to criticism. If TI had the courage to ditch its score-card, or at least publish it in a less misleading form, its other work might fare better.