World Corruption Index and Myanmar Corruption index 2016 collection

SURVEYS • 25 JANUARY 2017
CORRUPTION PERCEPTIONS INDEX 2016
Jump to: Results table | Regional analysis | Resources
Let's get straight to the point: No country gets close to a perfect score in the Corruption Perceptions Index 2016.
Over two-thirds of the 176 countries and territories in this year's index fall below the midpoint of our scale of 0 (highly
corrupt) to 100 (very clean). The global average score is a paltry 43, indicating endemic corruption in a country's public
sector. Top-scoring countries (yellow in the map below) are far outnumbered by orange and red countries where citizens
face the tangible impact of corruption on a daily basis.
converted by Web2PDFConvert.com

This year’s results highlight the connection between corruption and inequality, which feed off each other to create a
vicious circle between corruption, unequal distribution of power in society, and unequal distribution of wealth.
In too many countries, people are deprived of their most basic needs and go to bed hungry every night because
of corruption, while the powerful and corrupt enjoy lavish lifestyles with impunity.”
– José Ugaz, Chair of Transparency International
The interplay of corruption and inequality also feeds populism. When traditional politicians fail to tackle corruption, people
grow cynical. Increasingly, people are turning to populist leaders who promise to break the cycle of corruption and
privilege. Yet this is likely to exacerbate – rather than resolve – the tensions that fed the populist surge in the first place.
(Read more about the linkages between corruption, inequality and populism.)
More countries declined than improved in this year's results, showing the urgent need for committed action to thwart
corruption.
PUTTING THE SCORES IN CONTEXT
The lower-ranked countries in our index are plagued by untrustworthy and badly functioning public institutions like the
police and judiciary. Even where anti-corruption laws are on the books, in practice they're often skirted or ignored. People
frequently face situations of bribery and extortion, rely on basic services that have been undermined by the
misappropriation of funds, and confront official indifference when seeking redress from authorities that are on the take.
Grand corruption thrives in such settings. Cases like Petrobras and Odebrecht in Brazil or the saga of ex-President Viktor
Yanukovych in Ukraine show how collusion between businesses and politicians siphons off billions of dollars in revenue
from national economies, benefitting the few at the expense of the many. This kind of systemic grand corruption violates
human rights, prevents sustainable development and fuels social exclusion.
Higher-ranked countries tend to have higher degrees of press freedom, access to information about public expenditure,
stronger standards of integrity for public officials, and independent judicial systems. But high-scoring countries can't afford
to be complacent, either. While the most obvious forms of corruption may not scar citizens' daily lives in all these places,
the higher-ranked countries are not immune to closed-door deals, conflicts of interest, illicit finance, and patchy law
MENU

OUR GLOBAL MOVEMENT POPULAR CONTENT

enforcement that can distort public policy and exacerbate corruption at home and abroad.
REGIONAL ANALYSIS
Corruption hurts all countries, in every region of the world. Learn more about public sector corruption in your region
below.
Americas: From the Panama Papers in April to the record US$3.5 billion Odebrecht settlement in Brazil in
December, 2016 was a good year in the fight against corruption in the Americas. But there is still a long way to
go. Read more
Asia Pacific: Unfortunately, the majority of Asia Pacific countries sit in the bottom half of this year’s
Corruption Perceptions Index. Poor performance can be attributed to unaccountable governments, lack of
oversight, insecurity and shrinking space for civil society, pushing anti-corruption action to the margins in those
countries. Read more
Europe and Central Asia: There are no drastic changes in Europe and Central Asia on this year’s index, with
only a few exceptions. However, this does not mean that the region is immune from corruption. The stagnation
also does not indicate that the fight against corruption has improved, but rather the opposite. Read more
Middle East and North Africa: Despite the political changes that shook the Arab region six years ago, the
hope for Arab countries to fight corruption and end impunity has not seen any progress yet. This explains the
sharp drop of most of Arab countries on the 2016 index – 90 percent of these have scored below 50, which is a
failing grade. Read more
Sub Saharan Africa: 2016 saw elections across the African continent with the results providing a good
reflection of corruption trends in the region. In Ghana, for example, voters voiced their dissatisfaction with the
government's corruption record at the polls where, for the first time in Ghana's history, an incumbent president
was voted out. Read more
RESOURCES

Latest
First name
Last name
Enter your email address SUBSCRIBE
Press release: 'Vicious circle of corruption and inequality must be tackled: Rise of populist politicians in many countries is a warning signal' | ‫ﻋ‬‫ﺮ‬‫ﺑ‬‫ﻲ‬ |
Español | Français | Português | Русский
Analysis: 'Corruption and inequality: how populists mislead people'
Previous Corruption Perceptions Index results
DOWNLOADS
Global map graphic and results table: JPG | PDF
Global map graphic: JPG | PDF
Global and regional results graphics: ZIP
Data set: XLSX
FAQ
Short methodology note
Technical methodology note
Source description
For any press enquiries please contact press@transparency.org
Would you like to know more?
Sign up to stay informed about corruption news and our work around the world
SUPPORT TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL
€50 Monthly
SUPPORTUS

Corruption and inequality: how populists mislead people
Corruption and social inequality are indeed closely related and provide a source for popular discontent. Yet, the track record of populist leaders in tackling
this problem is dismal.

Asia Pacific: Fighting corruption is side-lined
The majority of Asia Pacific countries sit in the bottom half of this year’s index.
Americas: Sometimes bad news is good news
From the Panama Papers to the Odebrecht settlement, 2016 was a good year in the fight against corruption in the Americas.

Sub Saharan Africa: Corruption is a big issue in 2016 African elections
The elections held across Africa in 2016 provide a good reflection of corruption trends in the region.
2016 ‫ﻟ‬‫ﻌ‬‫ﺎ‬‫م‬ ‫ا‬‫ﻟ‬‫ﻔ‬‫ﺴ‬‫ﺎ‬‫د‬ ‫ﻣ‬‫ﺪ‬‫ر‬‫ﻛ‬‫ﺎ‬‫ت‬ ‫ﻣ‬‫ﺆ‬‫ﺷ‬‫ﺮ‬ ‫ﻋ‬‫ﻠ‬‫ﻰ‬ ‫ﺳ‬‫ﻮ‬‫ء‬‫ا‬ ‫ﺗ‬‫ﺰ‬‫د‬‫ا‬‫د‬ ‫ا‬‫ﻟ‬‫ﻌ‬‫ﺮ‬‫ﺑ‬‫ﯿ‬‫ﺔ‬ ‫ا‬‫ﻟ‬‫ﺪ‬‫و‬‫ل‬
‫و‬‫ا‬‫ﻟ‬‫ﺤ‬‫ﺮ‬‫و‬‫ب‬ ‫ا‬‫ﻟ‬‫ﺪ‬‫ا‬‫ﺧ‬‫ﻠ‬‫ﯿ‬‫ﺔ‬ ‫و‬‫ا‬‫ﻟ‬‫ﻨ‬‫ﺰ‬‫ا‬‫ﻋ‬‫ﺎ‬‫ت‬ ‫ا‬‫ﻟ‬‫ﺴ‬‫ﯿ‬‫ﺎ‬‫ﺳ‬‫ﻲ‬ ‫ا‬‫ﻻ‬‫ﺳ‬‫ﺘ‬‫ﻘ‬‫ﺮ‬‫ا‬‫ر‬ ‫ا‬‫ﻧ‬‫ﻌ‬‫ﺪ‬‫ا‬‫م‬ ‫ﺑ‬‫ﺴ‬‫ﺒ‬‫ﺐ‬ ‫ا‬‫ﻟ‬‫ﻌ‬‫ﺎ‬‫ﻟ‬‫ﻢ‬ ‫ﺣ‬‫ﻮ‬‫ل‬ ‫ﻓ‬‫ﺴ‬‫ﺎ‬‫د‬‫ا‬ ‫ا‬‫ﻟ‬‫ﺪ‬‫و‬‫ل‬ ‫أ‬‫ﻛ‬‫ﺜ‬‫ﺮ‬ ‫ﻣ‬‫ﻦ‬ ‫ﻋ‬‫ﺮ‬‫ﺑ‬‫ﯿ‬‫ﺔ‬ ‫د‬‫و‬‫ل‬ 6 ‫ﺗ‬‫ﻌ‬‫ﺘ‬‫ﺒ‬‫ﺮ‬ ‫ﺣ‬‫ﯿ‬‫ﺚ‬ ‫ا‬‫ﻟ‬‫ﻌ‬‫ﺎ‬‫م‬ ‫ﻟ‬‫ﮭ‬‫ﺬ‬‫ا‬ ‫ا‬‫ﻟ‬‫ﻔ‬‫ﺴ‬‫ﺎ‬‫د‬ ‫ﻣ‬‫ﺪ‬‫ر‬‫ﻛ‬‫ﺎ‬‫ت‬ ‫ﻣ‬‫ﺆ‬‫ﺷ‬‫ﺮ‬ ‫ﻋ‬‫ﻠ‬‫ﻰ‬ ‫ا‬‫ﻧ‬‫ﺤ‬‫ﺪ‬‫ا‬‫ر‬‫ا‬ ‫ا‬‫ﻟ‬‫ﻌ‬‫ﺮ‬‫ﺑ‬‫ﯿ‬‫ﺔ‬ ‫ا‬‫ﻟ‬‫ﺪ‬‫و‬‫ل‬ ‫أ‬‫ﻏ‬‫ﻠ‬‫ﺒ‬‫ﯿ‬‫ﺔ‬ ‫ﺷ‬‫ﮭ‬‫ﺪ‬‫ت‬

‫ا‬‫ﻟ‬‫ﺴ‬‫ﯿ‬‫ﺎ‬‫ﺳ‬‫ﻲ‬ ‫ا‬‫ﻟ‬‫ﻔ‬‫ﺴ‬‫ﺎ‬‫د‬ ‫و‬‫ﺧ‬‫ﺎ‬‫ﺻ‬‫ﺔ‬ ‫ا‬‫ﻟ‬‫ﻔ‬‫ﺴ‬‫ﺎ‬‫د‬ ‫ﺗ‬‫ﻐ‬‫ﺬ‬‫ي‬ ‫و‬‫ا‬‫ﻟ‬‫ﺤ‬‫ﺮ‬‫و‬‫ب‬ ‫ا‬‫ﻟ‬‫ﺼ‬‫ﺮ‬‫ا‬‫ﻋ‬‫ﺎ‬‫ت‬ ‫ا‬‫ن‬ ‫ﻋ‬‫ﻠ‬‫ﻰ‬ ‫ﺗ‬‫ﺆ‬‫ﻛ‬‫ﺪ‬ ‫و‬‫ا‬‫ﻟ‬‫ﺘ‬‫ﻲ‬ ‫ا‬‫ﻹ‬‫ر‬‫ھ‬‫ﺎ‬‫ب‬ ‫و‬‫ﺗ‬‫ﺤ‬‫ﺪ‬‫ﯾ‬‫ﺎ‬‫ت‬ .
Middle East and North Africa: A very drastic decline
The majority of Arab countries have failed to fulfil the will of the people to build democratic systems allowing for greater transparency and accountability.

Europe and Central Asia: An overall stagnation
There are no drastic changes in Europe and CentralAsia in the Corruption Perceptions Index 2016 but this does not mean that the region is immune from
corruption.
Social Media
Corruption dominating headlines is not always a bad thing... From the Panama Papers scandal to the record US$3.5 billion Odebrecht settlement in Brazil

in December, 2016 was a good year in the fight against corruption in the Americas. #cpi2016
TRANSPARENCY.ORG

The US dropped 2 points in our corruption index. Donald Trump claims he's going to drain the swamp, but he's actually bringing in more crocodiles!
http://www.transparency.org/cpi2016
gph.is
MEDIA.GIPHY.COM

RT @ASalasTI: Venezuela, México #CPI2016 se perciben más corruptos. Preocupa futuro en EU https://t.co/Xld0sIY6KH @anticorruption https://t…

Con 1,378 personas juzgadas por casos de #corrupción entre 2015/16, #España ocupa el puesto 41 de 176 en el… https://t.co/OeydKWWhyI

Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensedunder CCBY-ND4.0
©Transparency International 2016. Some rights reserved.
Privacy – Terms – Impressum– Note about browsers and our site
FOLLOWUS ON SOCIALMEDIA
First name
Last name
WOULD YOU LIKE TO KNOWMORE?

SURVEYS • 25 JANUARY 2017
CORRUPTION PERCEPTIONS INDEX 2016:
VICIOUS CIRCLE OF CORRUPTION AND
INEQUALITY MUST BE TACKLED
Rise of populist politicians in many countries is a warning signal
Issued by Transparency International Secretariat
Translations: AR | RU | PT | ES | FR
2016 showed that around the world systemic corruption and social inequality reinforce each other, leading to
popular disenchantment with political establishments and providing a fertile ground for the rise of populist
politicians.
69 per cent of the 176 countries on the Corruption Perceptions Index 2016 scored below 50, on a scale from 0
(perceived to be highly corrupt) to 100 (perceived to be very clean), exposing how massive and pervasive
public sector corruption is around the world. This year more countries declined in the index than improved,
showing the need for urgent action.
No equal opportunities for all
Corruption and inequality feed off each other, creating a vicious circle between corruption, unequal distribution
of power in society, and unequal distribution of wealth. As the Panama Papers showed, it is still far too easy for
the rich and powerful to exploit the opaqueness of the global financial system to enrich themselves at the
expense of the public good.
“In too many countries, people are deprived of their most basic needs and go to bed hungry every night
because of corruption, while the powerful and corrupt enjoy lavish lifestyles with impunity,” said José Ugaz,
Chair of Transparency International.
“We do not have the luxury of time. Corruption needs to be fought with urgency, so that the lives of people
across the world improve,” added Ugaz.
Grand corruption cases, from Petrobras and Odebrecht in Brazil to Ukrainian ex-President Viktor Yanukovych,
show how collusion between businesses and politicians denies national economies of billions of dollars of
MENU

OUR GLOBAL MOVEMENT POPULAR CONTENT

revenues that were siphoned off to benefit the few at the expense of the many. This kind of systemic grand
corruption violates human rights, prevents sustainable development and fuels social exclusion.
Brazil’s score on the index, for example, has significantly declined compared to five years ago as one
corruption scandal after another involving top politicians and businesspeople was uncovered. Yet the country
has shown this year that through the work of independent law enforcement bodies it is possible to hold to
account those previously considered untouchable.
Populism is the wrong medicine
People are fed up by too many politicians’ empty assurances to tackle corruption and many are turning towards
populist politicians who promise to change the system and break the cycle of corruption and privilege. Yet this
is likely to only exacerbate the issue.
“In countries with populist or autocratic leaders, we often see democracies in decline and a disturbing pattern
of attempts to crack down on civil society, limit press freedom, and weaken the independence of the judiciary.
Instead of tackling crony capitalism, those leaders usually install even worse forms of corrupt systems,” said
Ugaz. “Only where there is freedom of expression, transparency in all political processes and strong
democratic institutions, can civil society and the media hold those in power to account and corruption be fought
successfully.”
The index scores of Hungary and Turkey – countries that have seen the rise of autocratic leaders – have
dropped in recent years. In contrast, the score of Argentina, which has ousted a populist government, is
starting to improve.
What needs to be done
Technical fixes to specific anti-corruption legislation are not enough. What is urgently needed are deep-rooted
systemic reforms that even up the growing imbalance of power and wealth by empowering citizens to stop the
widespread impunity for corruption, hold the powerful to account, and have a real say in the decisions that
affect their daily lives.
These reforms must include the disclosure through public registries of who owns companies as well as
sanctions for professional enablers who are complicit in moving corrupt money flows across borders.
The results
The Corruption Perceptions Index 2016 covers perceptions of public sector corruption in 176 countries. Click
here for the full index.
Denmark and New Zealand perform best with scores of 90, closely followed by Finland (89) and Sweden (88).
Although no country is free of corruption, the countries at the top share characteristics of open government,
press freedom, civil liberties and independent judicial systems.
For the tenth year running, Somalia is the worst performer on the index, this year scoring only 10. South Sudan
is second to bottom with a score of 11, followed by North Korea (12) and Syria (13). Countries at the bottom of
the index are characterised by widespread impunity for corruption, poor governance and weak institutions.
Countries in troubled regions, particularly in the Middle East, have seen the most substantial drops this year.
Qatar is the biggest decliner compared to the 2015 index with a drop of 10 scores. “The FIFA scandals, the

Latest
First name
Last name
investigations into the decision to host the World Cup in 2022 in Qatar and reports of human rights abuses for
migrant workers have clearly affected the perception of the country,” said Ugaz.
Download supporting documentation ZIP
For any press enquiries please contact
Natalie Baharav
T: +49 30 34 38 20 666
E: press@transparency.org
Would you like to know more?
SUPPORT TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL
€50 Monthly
SUPPORT US

Corruption Perceptions Index 2016
No country gets close to a perfect score in this year's index. A vicious cycle has developed between corruption, unequal distribution of
power and unequal distribution of wealth.
Corruption and inequality: how populists mislead people
Corruption and social inequality are indeed closely related and provide a source for popular discontent. Yet, the track record of populist
leaders in tackling this problem is dismal.

Asia Pacific: Fighting corruption is side-lined
The majority of Asia Pacific countries sit in the bottom half of this year’s index.

Sub Saharan Africa: Corruption is a big issue in 2016 African elections
The elections held across Africa in 2016 provide a good reflection of corruption trends in the region.

2016 ‫ﻟ‬‫ﻌ‬‫ﺎ‬‫م‬ ‫ا‬‫ﻟ‬‫ﻔ‬‫ﺳ‬‫ﺎ‬‫د‬ ‫ﻣ‬‫د‬‫ر‬‫ﻛ‬‫ﺎ‬‫ت‬ ‫ﻣ‬‫ؤ‬‫ﺷ‬‫ر‬ ‫ﻋ‬‫ﻠ‬‫ﻰ‬ ‫ﺳ‬‫و‬‫ء‬‫ا‬ ‫ﺗ‬‫ز‬‫د‬‫ا‬‫د‬ ‫ا‬‫ﻟ‬‫ﻌ‬‫ر‬‫ﺑ‬‫ﯾ‬‫ﺔ‬ ‫ا‬‫ﻟ‬‫د‬‫و‬‫ل‬
‫و‬‫ا‬‫ﻟ‬‫ﺣ‬‫ر‬‫و‬‫ب‬ ‫ا‬‫ﻟ‬‫د‬‫ا‬‫ﺧ‬‫ﻠ‬‫ﯾ‬‫ﺔ‬ ‫و‬‫ا‬‫ﻟ‬‫ﻧ‬‫ز‬‫ا‬‫ﻋ‬‫ﺎ‬‫ت‬ ‫ا‬‫ﻟ‬‫ﺳ‬‫ﯾ‬‫ﺎ‬‫ﺳ‬‫ﻲ‬ ‫ا‬‫ﻻ‬‫ﺳ‬‫ﺗ‬‫ﻘ‬‫ر‬‫ا‬‫ر‬ ‫ا‬‫ﻧ‬‫ﻌ‬‫د‬‫ا‬‫م‬ ‫ﺑ‬‫ﺳ‬‫ﺑ‬‫ب‬ ‫ا‬‫ﻟ‬‫ﻌ‬‫ﺎ‬‫ﻟ‬‫م‬ ‫ﺣ‬‫و‬‫ل‬ ‫ﻓ‬‫ﺳ‬‫ﺎ‬‫د‬‫ا‬ ‫ا‬‫ﻟ‬‫د‬‫و‬‫ل‬ ‫أ‬‫ﻛ‬‫ﺛ‬‫ر‬ ‫ﻣ‬‫ن‬ ‫ﻋ‬‫ر‬‫ﺑ‬‫ﯾ‬‫ﺔ‬ ‫د‬‫و‬‫ل‬ 6 ‫ﺗ‬‫ﻌ‬‫ﺗ‬‫ﺑ‬‫ر‬ ‫ﺣ‬‫ﯾ‬‫ث‬ ‫ا‬‫ﻟ‬‫ﻌ‬‫ﺎ‬‫م‬ ‫ﻟ‬‫ﮭ‬‫ذ‬‫ا‬ ‫ا‬‫ﻟ‬‫ﻔ‬‫ﺳ‬‫ﺎ‬‫د‬ ‫ﻣ‬‫د‬‫ر‬‫ﻛ‬‫ﺎ‬‫ت‬ ‫ﻣ‬‫ؤ‬‫ﺷ‬‫ر‬ ‫ﻋ‬‫ﻠ‬‫ﻰ‬ ‫ا‬‫ﻧ‬‫ﺣ‬‫د‬‫ا‬‫ر‬‫ا‬ ‫ا‬‫ﻟ‬‫ﻌ‬‫ر‬‫ﺑ‬‫ﯾ‬‫ﺔ‬ ‫ا‬‫ﻟ‬‫د‬‫و‬‫ل‬ ‫أ‬‫ﻏ‬‫ﻠ‬‫ﺑ‬‫ﯾ‬‫ﺔ‬ ‫ﺷ‬‫ﮭ‬‫د‬‫ت‬
‫ا‬‫ﻟ‬‫ﺳ‬‫ﯾ‬‫ﺎ‬‫ﺳ‬‫ﻲ‬ ‫ا‬‫ﻟ‬‫ﻔ‬‫ﺳ‬‫ﺎ‬‫د‬ ‫و‬‫ﺧ‬‫ﺎ‬‫ﺻ‬‫ﺔ‬ ‫ا‬‫ﻟ‬‫ﻔ‬‫ﺳ‬‫ﺎ‬‫د‬ ‫ﺗ‬‫ﻐ‬‫ذ‬‫ي‬ ‫و‬‫ا‬‫ﻟ‬‫ﺣ‬‫ر‬‫و‬‫ب‬ ‫ا‬‫ﻟ‬‫ﺻ‬‫ر‬‫ا‬‫ﻋ‬‫ﺎ‬‫ت‬ ‫ا‬‫ن‬ ‫ﻋ‬‫ﻠ‬‫ﻰ‬ ‫ﺗ‬‫ؤ‬‫ﻛ‬‫د‬ ‫و‬‫ا‬‫ﻟ‬‫ﺗ‬‫ﻲ‬ ‫ا‬‫ﻹ‬‫ر‬‫ھ‬‫ﺎ‬‫ب‬ ‫و‬‫ﺗ‬‫ﺣ‬‫د‬‫ﯾ‬‫ﺎ‬‫ت‬ .

Middle East and North Africa: A very drastic decline
The majority of Arab countries have failed to fulfil the will of the people to build democratic systems allowing for greater transparency and
accountability.
Social Media
Corruption dominating headlines is not always a bad thing... From the Panama Papers scandal to the record US$3.5 billion Odebrecht
settlement in Brazil in December, 2016 was a good year in the fight against corruption in the Americas. #cpi2016

TRANSPARENCY.ORG

The US dropped 2 points in our corruption index. Donald Trump claims he's going to drain the swamp, but he's actually bringing in more
crocodiles! http://www.transparency.org/cpi2016

gph.is
MEDIA.GIPHY.COM

RT @ASalasTI: Venezuela, México #CPI2016 se perciben más corruptos. Preocupa futuro en EU https://t.co/Xld0sIY6KH @anticorruption
https://t…

Con 1,378 personas juzgadas por casos de #corrupción entre 2015/16, #España ocupa el puesto 41 de 176 en el…
https://t.co/OeydKWWhyI

Except whereotherwisenoted, this workis licensedunder CCBY-ND4.0
©Transparency International 2016. Somerights reserved.
Privacy – Terms – Impressum – Note about browsers and our site
FOLLOW US ON SOCIAL MEDIA
First name
Last name
WOULD YOU LIKE TO KNOW MORE?
1

corruption
perceptions
index 2016
The perceived levels of public sector
corruption in 176 countries/territories
around the world.
Score
0-9 10-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100 No data
Very
Clean
Highly
Corrupt
21 Uruguay 71
22 Estonia 70
23 France 69
24 Bahamas 66
24 Chile 66
24 United Arab
Emirates
66
27 Bhutan 65
28 Israel 64
29 Poland 62
29 Portugal 62
31 Barbados 61
31 Qatar 61
31 Slovenia 61
31 Taiwan 61
35 Botswana 60
35 Saint Lucia 60
35 Saint Vincent and
The Grenadines
60
38 Cape Verde 59
38 Dominica 59
38 Lithuania 59
60 Italy 47
62 Sao Tome
and Principe
46
62 Saudi Arabia 46
64 Montenegro 45
64 Oman 45
64 Senegal 45
64 South Africa 45
64 Suriname 45
69 Greece 44
70 Bahrain 43
70 Ghana 43
72 Burkina Faso 42
72 Serbia 42
72 Solomon Islands 42
75 Bulgaria 41
75 Kuwait 41
75 Tunisia 41
75 Turkey 41
79 Belarus 40
79 Brazil 40
1 Denmark 90
1 New Zealand 90
3 Finland 89
4 Sweden 88
5 Switzerland 86
6 Norway 85
7 Singapore 84
8 Netherlands 83
9 Canada 82
10 Germany 81
10 Luxembourg 81
10 United Kingdom 81
13 Australia 79
14 Iceland 78
15 Belgium 77
15 Hong Kong 77
17 Austria 75
18 United States 74
19 Ireland 73
20 Japan 72
RANK COUNTRY/TERRITORY SCORE RANK COUNTRY/TERRITORY SCORE
41 Brunei 58
41 Costa Rica 58
41 Spain 58
44 Georgia 57
44 Latvia 57
46 Grenada 56
47 Cyprus 55
47 Czech Republic 55
47 Malta 55
50 Mauritius 54
50 Rwanda 54
52 Korea (South) 53
53 Namibia 52
54 Slovakia 51
55 Croatia 49
55 Malaysia 49
57 Hungary 48
57 Jordan 48
57 Romania 48
60 Cuba 47
RANK COUNTRY/TERRITORY SCORE
79 China 40
79 India 40
83 Albania 39
83 Bosnia and
Herzegovina
39
83 Jamaica 39
83 Lesotho 39
87 Mongolia 38
87 Panama 38
87 Zambia 38
90 Colombia 37
90 Indonesia 37
90 Liberia 37
90 Morocco 37
90 The FYR of
Macedonia
37
95 Argentina 36
95 Benin 36
95 El Salvador 36
95 Kosovo 36
95 Maldives 36
95 Sri Lanka 36
101 Gabon 35
101 Niger 35
101 Peru 35
101 Philippines 35
101 Thailand 35
101 Timor-Leste 35
101 Trinidad
and Tobago
35
108 Algeria 34
108 Côte d’Ivoire 34
108 Egypt 34
108 Ethiopia 34
108 Guyana 34
113 Armenia 33
113 Bolivia 33
113 Vietnam 33
116 Mali 32
116 Pakistan 32
116 Tanzania 32
116 Togo 32
120 Dominican
Republic
31
120 Ecuador 31
120 Malawi 31
123 Azerbaijan 30
123 Djibouti 30
123 Honduras 30
123 Laos 30
123 Mexico 30
123 Moldova 30
123 Paraguay 30
123 Sierra Leone 30
131 Iran 29
131 Kazakhstan 29
131 Nepal 29
131 Russia 29
131 Ukraine 29
136 Guatemala 28
136 Kyrgyzstan 28
136 Lebanon 28
136 Myanmar 28
136 Nigeria 28
136 Papua New
Guinea
28
142 Guinea 27
142 Mauritania 27
142 Mozambique 27
145 Bangladesh 26
145 Cameroon 26
145 Gambia 26
145 Kenya 26
145 Madagascar 26
145 Nicaragua 26
151 Tajikistan 25
151 Uganda 25
153 Comoros 24
154 Turkmenistan 22
154 Zimbabwe 22
156 Cambodia 21
156 Democratic
Republic of Congo
21
156 Uzbekistan 21
159 Burundi 20
159 Central African
Republic
20
159 Chad 20
159 Haiti 20
159 Republic of Congo 20
164 Angola 18
164 Eritrea 18
166 Iraq 17
166 Venezuela 17
168 Guinea-Bissau 16
169 Afghanistan 15
170 Libya 14
170 Sudan 14
170 Yemen 14
173 Syria 13
174 Korea (North) 12
175 South Sudan 11
176 Somalia 10
#cpi2016
www.transparency.org/cpiThis work from Transparency International, 2017 is licensed under CC BY-ND 4.0

1
Corruption Perceptions Index 2016:
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI)?
The CPI scores and ranks countries/territories based on how corrupt a country’s
public sector is perceived to be. It is a composite index, a combination of surveys and
assessments of corruption, collected by a variety of reputable institutions. The CPI is
the most widely used indicator of corruption worldwide.
Why is the CPI based on perceptions?
Corruption generally comprises illegal activities, which are deliberately hidden and
only come to light through scandals, investigations or prosecutions. 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. Capturing perceptions of corruption of those in
a position to offer assessments of public sector corruption is the most reliable method
of comparing relative corruption levels across countries.
Which countries/territories are included in the CPI 2016 and why?
For a country/territory to be included in the ranking, it must be included in a minimum
of three of the CPI’s data sources. If a country is not featured in the ranking, then this
is solely because of insufficient survey information and not an indication that
corruption does not exist in the country. This year 176 countries and territories are
included in the index, eight more than in 2015. Comparing to the 2015 CPI,
Seychelles is no longer included in the 2016 CPI, but Bahamas, Barbados, Brunei,
Dominica, Grenada, Maldives, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and
Solomon Islands enter the 2016 CPI.
What are the data sources for the CPI?
The 2016 CPI draws on data sources from independent institutions specialising in
governance and business climate analysis. The sources of information used for the
2016 CPI are based on data gathered in the past 24 months. The CPI includes only
sources that provide a score for a set of countries/territories and that measure
perceptions of corruption in the public sector. Transparency International reviews the
methodology of each data source in detail to ensure that the sources used meet
Transparency International’s quality standards. For a full list of the data sources, the
type of respondents and the specific questions asked, please see the CPI sources
description document.
What is the difference between a country/territory’s rank and its score?
A country/territory’s score indicates the perceived level of public sector corruption on
a scale of 0-100, where 0 means that a country is perceived as highly corrupt and a
100 means that a country is perceived as very clean. A country's rank indicates its

2
position relative to the other countries/territories included in the index. Ranks can
change merely if the number of countries included in the index changes.
Is the country/territory with the lowest score the world's most corrupt nation?
No. The CPI is an indicator of perceptions of public sector corruption, i.e.
administrative and political corruption. It is not a verdict on the levels of corruption of
entire nations or societies, or of their policies, or the activities of their private sector.
Citizens of those countries/territories that score at the lower end of the CPI often
show the same concern about and condemnation of corruption as the public in
countries that perform strongly.
Further, the country/territory with the lowest score is the one where public sector
corruption is perceived to be greatest among those included in the list. The CPI
provides no information about countries/territories that are not included in the index.
Can the score of a country in the 2016 Corruption Perceptions Index be
compared with the previous year?
Yes. As part of the update to the methodology used to calculate the CPI in 2012 we
established the new scale of 0-100. Using this scale we can compare CPI scores
from one year to the next. Because of the update in the methodology, however, CPI
scores before 2012 are not comparable over time. In addition, due to the inclusion of
a new data source in 2016, the scores of the underlying data sources are not
comparable to previous years.
For a more detailed description of the change in methodology in 2012, please see
Corruption Perceptions Index – An updated Methodology for 2012.
Which countries have improved/declined on the Corruption Perceptions Index
this year?
The biggest improvers this year are Suriname, Belarus, Timor-Leste, Myanmar,
Guyana, Georgia, Laos, Argentina, North Korea, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde,
Turkmenistan, Sao Tome and Principe and Afghanistan.
The biggest decliners this year are Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, Saudi-Arabia, Cyprus,
Lesotho, Jordan, Syria, Macedonia, Mexico, South Sudan, Chile, United Arab
Emirates, Mauritania, Central African Republic, Netherlands, Mozambique, Trinidad
and Tobago, Ghana, Yemen and Djibouti.
Does the CPI tell the full story of corruption in a country?
No. The CPI is limited in scope, capturing perceptions of the extent of corruption in
the public sector, from the perspective of business people and country experts.
Complementing this viewpoint and capturing different aspects of corruption,
Transparency International produces a range of both qualitative and quantitative
research on corruption, both at the global level from its Secretariat and at the national
level through Transparency International’s network of national chapters based in over
100 countries around the world.
Complementing the CPI, Transparency International’s other global research products
include:
 Global Corruption Barometer (GCB): Measuring people’s perceptions and
experiences of corruption, the Global Corruption Barometer is a
representative survey of people carried out worldwide. The most recent
Europe and Central Asia edition of the Global Corruption Barometer can be
found at: https://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/publication/7493. The most

3
recent global edition of the Global Corruption Barometer can be found at:
http://www.transparency.org/gcb2013/report
 Global Corruption Report (GCR): Exploring corruption issues in detail for a
specific issue or sector, the Global Corruption Report is a thematic report
which draws on a variety of expert research and analysis as well as case
studies. The series of Global Corruption Reports, covering issues from the
judiciary to education, can be found at: http://www.transparency.org/gcr
 National Integrity System assessments (NIS): a series of in-country studies
providing an extensive qualitative assessment of the strengths and
weaknesses of the key institutions that enable good governance and prevent
corruption in a country. For more information on the National Integrity System
reports, please see: http://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/nis
 Transparency In Corporate Reporting (TRAC): The study analyses the extent
of transparency in the reporting on a series of anti-corruption measures by the
world’s largest companies. For further information, please see
http://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/publication/transparency_in_corporate
_reporting_assessing_worlds_largest_companies_2014

1
Short Methodology Note
The Corruption Perceptions Index aggregates data from a number of different
sources that provide perceptions of business people and country experts of the level
of corruption in the public sector.
The following steps are followed to calculate the CPI:
1. Select data sources: Each data source that is used to construct the Corruption
Perceptions Index must fulfil the following criteria to qualify as a valid source:
 Quantifies perceptions of corruption in the public sector
 Be based on a reliable and valid methodology, which scores and ranks
multiple countries on the same scale
 Performed by a credible institution and expected to be repeated regularly
 Allow for sufficient variation of scores to distinguish between countries
The CPI 2016 is calculated using 13 different data sources from 12 different
institutions that capture perceptions of corruption within the past two years.
These sources are described in detail in the accompanying source description
document.
2. Standardise data sources to a scale of 0-100 where a 0 equals the highest level
of perceived corruption and 100 equals the lowest level of perceived corruption.
This is done by subtracting the mean of the data set and dividing by the standard
deviation and results in z-scores, which are then adjusted to have a mean of
approximately 45 and a standard deviation of approximately 20 so that the data
set fits the CPI’s 0-100 scale. The mean and standard deviation are taken from
the 2012 scores, so that the rescaled scores can be compared over time against
the baseline year.
3. Calculate the average: For a country or territory to be included in the CPI, a
minimum of three sources must assess that country. A country’s CPI score is
then calculated as the average of all standardised scores available for that
country. Scores are rounded to whole numbers.
4. Report a measure of uncertainty: The CPI is accompanied by a standard error
and confidence interval associated with the score, which capture the variation in
scores of the data sources available for that country/territory.

1
Technical Methodology Note
Background
The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) was established in 1995 as a composite
indicator used to measure perceptions of corruption in the public sector in different
countries around the world. During the past 20 years, both the sources used to
compile the index and the methodology has been adjusted and refined. The most
recent review process took place in 20121
, and some important changes were made
to the methodology in 2012. The method that was used up until 2012 to aggregate
different data sources has been simplified and now includes just one year’s data from
each data source. Crucially, this method now allows us to compare scores over time,
which was not methodologically possible prior to 2012.
Methodology
The methodology follows 4 basic steps: selection of source data, rescaling source
data, aggregating the rescaled data and then reporting a measure for uncertainty.
1. Selection of data sources
The CPI draws upon a number of available sources which capture perceptions of
corruption. Each source is evaluated against the criteria listed below. Contact has
been made with each institution providing data in order to verify the methodology
used to generate scores and for permission to publish the rescaled scores from each
source, alongside the composite index score.
A) Reliable data collection and methodology from a credible institution: It is
necessary that we trust the validity of the data we are using. As such, each
source should originate from a professional institution that clearly documents
its methods for data collection. These methods should be methodologically
sound, for example, where an ‘expert opinion’ is being provided, we seek
assurance on the qualifications of the expert or where a business survey is
being conducted, that the survey sample is representative.
B) Data addresses corruption in the public sector: The question or analysis
should relate to a perception of the level of corruption explicitly in the public
sector. The question can relate to a defined ‘type’ of corruption (e.g.
specifically petty corruption), and where appropriate, the effectiveness of
1 The methodology used to calculate the CPI 2016 builds on the work examining alternative
approaches for constructing the CPI carried out by Prof. Andrew Gelman: Professor,
Department of Statistics and Department of Political Science, Columbia University and Dr
Piero Stanig: Fellow, Methodology Institute, London School of Economics and Political
Science. This work was presented to Transparency International in a report that is available
on request. Please email Santhosh Srinivasan at ssrinivasan@transparency.org.

2
corruption prevention as this can be used as a proxy for the perceived level of
corruption in the country.
C) Quantitative granularity: The scales used by the data sources must allow
for sufficient differentiation in the data (i.e., at least a four-point scale) on the
perceived levels of corruption across countries so that it can be rescaled to
the CPI’s 0-100 scale.
D) Cross country comparability: As the CPI ranks countries against each
other, the source data must also be legitimately comparable between
countries and not be country specific. The source should measure the same
thing in each country scored, on the same scale.
E) Multi year data-set: We want to be able to compare a country’s score, and
indeed the index in general, from one year to the next. Sources that capture
corruption perceptions for a single point in time, but that are not designed to
be repeated over time, are therefore excluded.
2. Standardise data sources
Each source is then standardised to be compatible with other available sources, for
aggregation to the CPI scale. The standardisation converts all the data sources to a
scale of 0-100 where a 0 = highest level of perceived corruption, and 100 = lowest
level of perceived corruption.
Any source that is scaled such that lower scores represent lower levels of corruption
must first be reversed. This is done by multiplying every score in the data set by -1.
Every score is then standardised (to a z score) by subtracting the mean of the data
and dividing by the standard deviation. This results in a data set centred around 0
and with a standard deviation of 1.
For these z scores to be comparable between data sets, we must define the mean
and standard deviation parameters as global parameters. Therefore where a data set
covers a limited range of countries, we impute scores for all those countries that are
missing in the respective data set. We impute missing values for missing countries in
each data set using the statistical software package STATA and, more specifically,
the programme’s impute command. This command regresses each data set against
the CPI data sources that are at least 50% complete to estimate values for each
country that is missing data in each individual data set. This is with the exception of
the Bertelsmann Foundation’s Transformation Index data, which is not used for the
imputation of the Bertelsmann Foundation’s Sustainable Governance Indicators
because there is no overlap in country coverage of these two data sources. The
mean and standard deviation for the data set is calculated as an average of the
complete data sets and is used as the parameter to standardise the raw data.
Importantly, the complete data set with imputed values is used only to generate these
parameters and the imputed values themselves are not used as source data for CPI
country scores.
Critically, the z scores are calculated using the mean and standard deviation
parameters from the imputed 2012 scores. This is so that 2012 is effectively the
baseline year for the data and the rescaled scores can be comparable year on year.
When new sources enter the index, in order to appropriately reflect changes over
time, the rescaling calculation allows for these to be consistent with 2012 baseline
parameters. This is done by first estimating if there was a global change in the mean

3
and standard deviation since 2012, and then using these new values, which may
have deviated from 50 and 20 to rescale the new data set.2
The z scores are then rescaled to fit the CPI scale between 0-100. This uses a
simple rescaling formula, which sets the mean value of the standardised dataset to
approximately 45, and the standard deviation of approximately 20. Any score which
exceeds the 0 to 100 boundaries will be capped.
3. Aggregate the rescaled data
Each country’s CPI score is calculated as a simple average of all the available
rescaled scores for that country (note, we do not use any of the imputed values as a
score for the aggregated CPI). A country will only be given a score if there are at
least three data sources available from which to calculate this average.
4. Report a measure of uncertainty
The CPI score is reported alongside a standard error and 90% confidence interval
which reflects the variance in the value of the source data that comprises the CPI
score.
The standard error term is calculated as the standard deviation of the rescaled
source data, divided by the square root of the number of sources. Using this standard
error, we can calculate the 90% confidence interval, assuming a normal distribution.
2 Since a new data source was added to the CPI, the above procedure was used to check if
there was a change in the mean and standard deviation since 2012. We established that the
mean and standard deviation had not changed and thereby maintaining year on year
comparison of CPI scores.

Full Source Description
13 data sources were used to construct the Corruption Perceptions Index 2016:
1. African Development Bank Governance Ratings 2015
2. Bertelsmann Foundation Sustainable Governance Indicators 2016
3. Bertelsmann Foundation Transformation Index 2016
4. Economist Intelligence Unit Country Risk Ratings 2016
5. Freedom House Nations in Transit 2016
6. Global Insight Country Risk Ratings 2015
7. IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook 2016
8. Political and Economic Risk Consultancy Asian Intelligence 2016
9. Political Risk Services International Country Risk Guide 2016
10. World Bank - Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2015
11. World Economic Forum Executive Opinion Survey (EOS) 2016
12. World Justice Project Rule of Law Index 2016
13. Varieties of Democracy (VDEM) Project 2016

Source 1
1. African Development Bank Governance Ratings 2015
Code: AFDB
Data Provider
The African Development Bank (AFDB) is a regional multilateral development bank, engaged in
promoting the economic development and social progress of countries on the continent.
The AfDB’s 2015 Governance Ratings are part of the Country Policy and Institutional Assessment
(CPIA), which assesses the quality of a country’s institutional framework in terms of how conducive it is
to fostering the effective use of development assistance. The current CPIA strives to achieve a
maximum level of uniformity and consistency across all regional member countries surveyed. Also, and
in order to comply with the Paris and Rome declarations on Aid Effectiveness, Harmonization and
Alignment, the AfDB has modified the questionnaire and guidelines for its CPIA to be in line with those
of the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, thus increasing the comparability and synergy
among systems.
The CPIA is carried out by a group of country economists with vast experience in policy analysis. The
knowledge of these experts is complemented with that of local contacts that provide both quantitative
and qualitative insights. Peer discussions are also used to monitor the quality of the findings.
Corruption Question(s)
Experts are asked to assess:
Transparency, Accountability and Corruption in the Public Sector.
“This criterion assesses the extent to which the executive can be held accountable for its use of funds
and the results of its actions by the electorate and by the legislature and judiciary, and the extent to
which public employees within the executive are required to account for the use of resources,
administrative decisions, and results obtained. Both levels of accountability are enhanced by
transparency in decision making, public audit institutions, access to relevant and timely information, and
public and media scrutiny. A high degree of accountability and transparency discourages corruption, or
the abuse of public office for private gain. National and sub-national governments should be
appropriately weighted.
Each of three dimensions should be rated separately:
(a) the accountability of the executive to oversight institutions and of public employees for their
performance;
(b) access of civil society to information on public affairs; and
(c) state capture by narrow vested interests.”
The questionnaire for CPIA assessment can be accessed here:
https://cpia.afdb.org/documents/public/cpia2015-questionnaire-en.pdf
Scores
The rating scale ranges from 1 (very weak for two or more years) to 6 (very strong for three or more
years) and allows for half point intermediate scores (e.g.3.5).
The score is an aggregate of the three dimensions of corruption across national and sub-national
government institutions in the country.
Country Coverage
38 African countries are covered.
Countries are scored in terms of their performance during the year of the rating vis-à-vis the criteria,
which are included in the CPIA Manual for Drafters and updated every year. The CPIA is a three-phase
process involving i) the rating of countries by country teams; iii) the review of all ratings by sector
experts; and iii) the endorsement of final ratings at open discussions between country teams and
reviewers
Data availability
The data set has been published annually since 2005.
The 2015 Governance Ratings were compiled during 2015 and published in March 2016.
The data is publicly available online in the Bank’s web page,
https://cpia.afdb.org/?page=data

Source 2
2. Bertelsmann Foundation Sustainable Governance Indicators 2016
Code: BF (SGI)
Data Provider
The Bertelsmann Stiftung was founded in 1977 as a private foundation. As a think tank they work toward
improved education, a just and efficient economic system, a preventative healthcare system, a vibrant
civil society and greater international understanding. The Bertelsmann Stiftung is independent and
nonpartisan. It designs, launches and runs its own projects.
The Sustainable Governance Indicators (SGI) examine governance and policymaking in all OECD and
EU member states in order to evaluate each country's need for, and ability to carry out, reform.
The indicators are calculated using quantitative data from international organisations and then
supplemented by qualitative assessments from recognised country experts.
“To what extent are public officeholders prevented from abusing their position for private interests?”
This question addresses how the state and society prevent public servants and politicians from
accepting bribes by applying mechanisms to guarantee the integrity of officeholders: auditing of state
spending; regulation of party financing; citizen and media access to information; accountability of
officeholders (asset declarations, conflict of interest rules, codes of conduct); transparent public
procurement systems; effective prosecution of corruption.
Scores are given from:
 a low of 1 to 2, where 'Public officeholders can exploit their offices for private gain as they see
fit without fear of legal consequences or adverse publicity'
 to a high of 9 to 10, where 'Legal, political and public integrity mechanisms effectively prevent
public officeholders from abusing their positions.'
Scores
Scores are given on a scale of 1 (highest level of corruption) to 10 (lowest level of corruption).
Country Coverage
All 41 OECD and EU countries were scored.
The quantitative data are compiled centrally by the SGI project team from official, publicly accessible
statistics (primarily from OECD sources). The qualitative data are captured and examined by a
worldwide network of around 100 respected researchers. The SGI Codebook, a detailed questionnaire,
provides a clear explanation for each of the questions, so that all experts share a common
understanding of the questions (http://www.sgi-network.org/docs/2016/basics/SGI2016_Codebook.pdf).
Data availability
First published in 2009, this is now an annual publication.
The Sustainable Governance Indicators 2016 data is publicly available online. It assesses a one-year
period from November 2014 to November 2015.
http://www.sgi-
network.org/2016/Democracy/Quality_of_Democracy/Rule_of_Law/Corruption_Prevention

Source 3
3. Bertelsmann Foundation Transformation Index 2016
Code: BF (TI)
Data Provider
The Bertelsmann Stiftung was founded in 1977 as a private foundation. As a think tank they work toward
improved education, a just and efficient economic system, a preventative healthcare system, a vibrant
civil society and greater international understanding. The Bertelsmann Stiftung is independent and
nonpartisan. It designs, launches and runs its own projects.
The Transformation Index provides the framework for an exchange of good practice among agents of
reform. Within this framework, the BTI publishes two rankings, the Status Index and the Management
Index, both of which are based on in-depth assessments of 129 countries. The scores are based on
detailed country reports which assess 52 questions divided into 17 criteria.
Assessments are provided by two experts per country. Country assessments consist of two sections:
the written assessment of the state of transformation and management performance in a country
(country report) and the numerical assessment of the state of transformation and management
performance (country ratings). Scores are given by a country expert, which are then reviewed blind by a
second country expert who also provides a second independent rating of the country. These scores by
experts are then verified and discussed by regional coordinators to ensure intra and inter-regional
comparability in ratings. In addition, BF has also instituted an extra layer of verification to ensure the
scores provided match the qualitative descriptions for each country.
“To what extent are public officeholders who abuse their positions prosecuted or penalized?”
Assessments range from:
 a low of 1, where 'Officeholders who break the law and engage in corruption can do so without
fear of legal consequences or adverse publicity.'
 to a high of 10, where 'Officeholders who break the law and engage in corruption are
prosecuted rigorously under established laws and always attract adverse publicity.'
“To what extent does the government successfully contain corruption?” Assessments range from:
 from a low of 1, where 'The government fails to contain corruption, and there are no integrity
mechanisms in place.'
 to a high of 10, where 'The government is successful in containing corruption, and all integrity
mechanisms are in place and effective.'
Scores
Scores are assigned on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being the lowest level of corruption and 1 being the
highest.
The score for each country is an average of the two questions.
The BTI codebook for 2016 is accessible here: https://www.bti-
project.org/fileadmin/files/BTI/Downloads/Zusaetzliche_Downloads/Codebook_BTI_2016.pdf
Country Coverage
129 countries and territories are scored.
Country scores pass through an intra-regional review stage followed by an inter-regional review and
ratings aggregation.
Data availability
The Transformation Index was first published in 2003, and has been published every two years since
then.
The data is taken from the BTI 2016 report, which was published in February 2016, and data is publicly
available online: https://www.bti-
project.org/fileadmin/files/BTI/Downloads/Zusaetzliche_Downloads/BTI_2016_Scores.xlsx. It assesses
a one-year period from November 2014 to November 2015.

Source 4
4. Economist Intelligence Unit Country Risk Ratings 2016
Code: EIU
Data Provider
The Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) was established in 1946 as the research body for The Economist
newspaper. Since then, it has grown into a global research and advisory firm that produces business
intelligence for policy makers worldwide. 650 full-time and contributing analysts work in and on over 200
countries/territories.
Country Risk Ratings are designed to provide in-depth and timely analysis of the risks of financial
exposure in more than 140 countries.
The EIU relies on teams of experts based primarily in London (but also in New York, Hong Kong, Beijing
and Shanghai) who are supported by a global network of in-country specialists. Each country analyst
covers a maximum of two or three countries/territories. The economic and political reports produced by
EIU analysts are subjected to a rigorous review process before publication.
Specific guiding questions include:
 Are there clear procedures and accountability governing the allocation and use of public funds?
 Are public funds misappropriated by ministers/public officials for private or party political purposes?
 Are there special funds for which there is no accountability?
 Are there general abuses of public resources?
 Is there a professional civil service or are large numbers of officials directly appointed by the
government?
 Is there an independent body auditing the management of public finances?
 Is there an independent judiciary with the power to try ministers/public officials for abuses?
 Is there a tradition of a payment of bribes to secure contracts and gain favours?
Scores
Scores are given as integers on a scale from 0 (very low incidence of corruption) to 4 (very high
incidence of corruption).
Country Coverage
129 countries/territories were scored in 2016.
Data availability
Country risk assessments have been produced by the EIU since the early 1980s. Updated summaries
are provided monthly for 100 countries and quarterly for the rest.
The CPI draws on risk rating data available as of September 2016.
Data is available to subscribers of EIU Country Risk Service.
http://www.eiu.com

Source 5
5. Freedom House Nations in Transit 2016
Code: FH
Data Provider
Founded in 1941, Freedom House is an independent watchdog organisation that supports the
expansion of freedom around the world. Freedom House supports democratic change, monitors
freedom, and advocates for democracy and human rights.
The Nations in Transit (NIT) reports measure democratisation in 29 nations and administrative areas
throughout Central Europe and the Newly Independent States (NIS). The reports focus on democratic
progress and setbacks. Each report focuses on the following thematic areas: national democratic
governance; electoral process; civil society; independent media; local democratic governance; judicial
framework and independence; and corruption.
The NIT surveys were produced by Freedom House staff and consultants. The latter were
recommended by relevant authorities and are regional or country specialists. A range of sources were
used in compiling the report, including: multilateral lending institutions; non-governmental organisations;
and other international organisations; local newspapers and magazines; and select government data.
The Freedom House experts are asked to explore a range of indicative questions, including:
 Has the government implemented effective anti-corruption initiatives?
 Is the government free from excessive bureaucratic regulations, registration requirements, and other
controls that increase opportunities for corruption?
 Are there adequate laws requiring financial disclosure and disallowing conflict of interest?
 Does the government advertise jobs and contracts?
 Does the state enforce an effective legislative or administrative process—particularly one that is free
of prejudice against one’s political opponents—to prevent, investigate, and prosecute the corruption
of government officials and civil servants?
 Do whistleblowers, anti-corruption activists, investigators, and journalists enjoy legal protections that
make them feel secure about reporting cases of bribery and corruption?
Scores
Ratings run from 1 (lowest level of corruption) to 7 (highest level of corruption) and allow for half-point
and quarter-point intermediate scores (e.g. 3.25).
The score is a generalised composite measure of corruption that includes an assessment of all areas
covered by the indicative questions.
Country Coverage
29 countries/territories were ranked in 2016.
Country scores are reviewed at the regional level and then centrally by the Freedom House academic
advisory board.
Data availability
The report has been published annually since 2003.
The 2016 Nations in Transit data coverage is from 1 January through 31 December 2015.
The data is publicly available online.
https://freedomhouse.org/report/nations-transit/nations-transit-2016

Source 6
6. Global Insight Country Risk Ratings 2015
Code: GI
Data Provider
Founded in 1959, IHS is a global information company employing more than 5,100 people in more than
30 countries around the world. It provides a wide range of online services covering macroeconomics,
country risk and individual sector analysis.
The Global Insight country risk rating system has been in operation since 1999 and provides a six-factor
analysis of the risk environment in over 200 countries/territories. The six factors are political, economic,
legal, tax operational and security risk. The corruption risk score used in the CPI is drawn from Global
Insight Business Condition and Risk Indicators.
The assessments are made by over 100 in-house country specialists, who also draw on the expert
opinions of in-country freelancers, clients and other contacts. The ratings reflect IHS Global Insights
expert perceptions of the comparative level of the problem in each country/territory. The ratings assess
the broad range of corruption, from petty bribe-paying to higher-level political corruption and the scores
assigned to each country are based on a qualitative assessment of corruption in each country/territory.
The risk that individuals/companies will face bribery or other corrupt practices to carry out business,
from securing major contracts to being allowed to import/export a small product or obtain everyday
paperwork. This threatens a company's ability to operate in a country, or opens it up to legal or
regulatory penalties and reputational damage.
Scores
The ratings range from a minimum of 1.0 (maximum corruption) to 5.0 (minimum corruption) and allow
for half-point intermediate scores (e.g. 3.5).
Country Coverage
204 countries/territories worldwide are scored.
Scores provided by country analysts are reviewed and benchmarked by IHS Global Insight's risk
specialists at both the regional and global level.
Data availability
The Country Risk Rating System has been available since 1999 and is continuously maintained.
The data for CPI 2016 from IHS Global Insight was accessed through the World Bank World
Governance Indicators portal, as IHS Global Insight stopped providing data to Transparency
International since 2015. This can be accessed through:
http://info.worldbank.org/governance/wgi/index.aspx#doc-sources
The data
Detailed data is also available to customers of IHS’ Country Intelligence.
http://www.ihs.com/products/global-insight/country-analysis/

Source 7
7. IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook 2016
Code: IMD
Data Provider
IMD is a top-ranked business school with expertise in developing global leaders through high-impact
executive education. 100% focused on real-world executive development, offering Swiss excellence with
a global perspective, IMD has a flexible, customized and effective approach.
IMD is ranked first in open programs worldwide (Financial Times 2012 & 2013) and first in executive
education outside the US (Financial Times 2008 - 2013).
(www.imd.org)
The World Competitiveness Yearbook (WCY) measures the competitiveness of nations and, in doing so,
both ranks and examines how a nation’s socio-political and economic climate affects corporate
competitiveness. The study uses 333 criteria in order to obtain a multifaceted image of the
competitiveness of nations, defined as following: “Competitiveness of nations is a field of economic
knowledge, which analyses the facts and policies that shape the ability of a nation to create and
maintain an environment that sustains more value creation for its enterprises and more prosperity for its
people.”
The WCY largely includes hard data but also a survey of senior business leaders who, together, reflect
a cross-section of a nation’s corporate community. IMD calls upon local and foreign enterprises
operating in a given economy, and surveys both nationals and expatriates, so as to add an international
perspective on local environments. In 2016, 5480 business executives responded. The IMD World
Competitiveness Centre works in collaboration with 54 partner institutes around the world to assure the
validity and relevance of data.
https://www.imd.org/wcc/research-methodology/
Corruption Question
Survey respondents were asked:
“Bribing and corruption: Exist or do not exist”.
Scores
Answers are given on a 1 - 6 scale which is then converted to a 0 - 10 scale where 0 is the highest level
of perceived corruption and 10 is the lowest.
https://www.imd.org/uupload/imd.website/wcc/Survey_Explanation.pdf
Country Coverage
61 countries/territories around the world were scored in 2016.
Data availability
The IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook has been published annually since 1989.
The 2016 data were published in May 2016.
Data is available to customers of IMD World Competitiveness Yearbook, package or online services.
https://worldcompetitiveness.imd.org/

Source 8
8. Political and Economic Risk Consultancy 2016
Code: PERC
Data Provider
The Political and Economic Risk Consultancy or PERC is a consulting firm specialising in strategic
business information and analysis for companies doing business in the countries of East and Southeast
Asia. As part of its services, PERC produces a range of risk reports on Asian countries, paying special
attention to critical socio-political variables like corruption, intellectual property rights and risks, labour
quality, and other systemic strengths and weakness of individual Asian countries/territories.
PERC publishes fortnightly newsletters, which are available to subscribers, on a number of issues. The
data for the CPI was gathered from the corruption newsletter, which gathers and interprets data from an
executive opinion survey of local and expatriate businesspeople.
All responses were either collected in face-to-face interviews or in response to e-mails directed to
specific people obtained from different national business chambers, conferences, and personal name
lists. All respondents provided scores and comments only for the country in which they are currently
residing. Respondents for each country include local business executives who are nationals of the
countries, academics and expatriate executives.
The following three questions were asked:
First, how do you grade the problem of corruption in the country in which you are working? Second, has
corruption decreased, stayed the same or increased compared with one year ago? Third, what aspects
or implications of corruption in your country stand out to you as being particularly important?
For the CPI only the first question: how do you grade the problem of corruption in the country in which
you are working was used.
Scores
Answers to the question were scaled from 0 (not a problem) to 10 (a serious problem).
Country Coverage
15 Asian countries/territories plus the Unites States were surveyed in 2016.
The same questions and survey methodology were employed in each country surveyed.
Data availability
The survey dates back 20 years and is conducted annually.
The data used for the CPI 2016 was gathered in a survey carried out between January 2016 and March
2016 and published in April 2016.
The data is available to subscribers.
http://www.asiarisk.com/

Source 9
9. Political Risk Services International Country Risk Guide 2016
Code: PRS
Data Provider
Based in the vicinity of Syracuse, New York, since its founding in 1979, Political Risk Services (PRS)
has consistently focused on political risk analysis.
On a monthly basis since 1980, their International Country Risk Guide (ICRG) has produced political,
economic, and financial risk ratings for countries/territories important to international business. The
ICRG now monitors 140 countries/territories. ICRG ratings form the basis of an early warning system for
opportunities and pitfalls, country-by-country.
ICRG staff collect political information and convert it to risk points on the basis of a consistent pattern of
evaluation. Political risk assessments and other political information form the basis of ICRG risk ratings.
It is therefore possible for the user to check through the information and data so as to assess the ratings
against their own assessments, or against some other risk ratings system.
This is an assessment of corruption within the political system. The most common form of corruption
met directly by businesses is financial corruption in the form of demands for special payments and
bribes connected with import and export licenses, exchange controls, tax assessments, police
protection, or loans. The measure is most concerned with actual or potential corruption in the form of
excessive patronage, nepotism, job reservations, exchange of favours, secret party funding, and
suspiciously close ties between politics and business.
Scores
The corruption scores are given on a scale of 0 (highest potential risk) to 6 (lowest potential risk).
Country Coverage
The ICRG provides ratings for 140 countries on a monthly basis.
To ensure consistency both between countries/territories and over time, points are assigned by ICRG
editors on the basis of a series of pre-set questions for each risk component.
Data availability
The ICRG model was created in 1980 and the data is made available on a monthly basis.
The CPI 2016 data is an aggregate of quarterly assessments covering the period of August 2015 to
August 2016.
Data is available to customers of the PRS International Country Risk Guide.
www.prsgroup.com

Source 10
10. World Bank Country Policy and Institutional Assessment 2015
Code: WB
Data Provider
The World Bank was established in 1944, is headquartered in Washington, D.C and has more than
10,000 employees in more than 100 offices worldwide. The World Bank is made up of two development
institutions: the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the International
Development Association (IDA).The IBRD aims to reduce poverty in middle-income and creditworthy
poorer countries, while IDA focuses on the world's poorest countries.
The CPIA rates all IDA-eligible countries against a set of 16 criteria grouped in four clusters: (a)
economic management; (b) structural policies; (c) policies for social inclusion and equity; and (d) public
sector management and institutions. The criteria are focused on balancing the capture of those factors
critical to fostering growth and poverty reduction against avoiding undue burden on the assessment
process.
The ratings are the product of staff judgment and do not necessarily reflect the views of the World
Bank’s Board of Executive Directors or the governments they represent. The Bank has prepared
guidance to help staff assess country performance, by providing a definition of each criterion and a
detailed description of each rating level. Bank staff assess the countries’ actual performance on each of
the criteria, and assign a rating. The ratings reflect a variety of indicators, observations, and judgments
based on country knowledge, originating with the Bank or elsewhere, and on relevant publicly available
indicators.
Transparency, Accountability and Corruption in the Public Sector.
“This criterion assesses the extent to which the executive can be held accountable for its use of funds
and the results of its actions by the electorate and by the legislature and judiciary, and the extent to
which public employees within the executive are required to account for the use of resources,
administrative decisions, and results obtained. Both levels of accountability are enhanced by
transparency in decision making, public audit institutions, access to relevant and timely information, and
public and media scrutiny. A high degree of accountability and transparency discourages corruption, or
the abuse of public office for private gain. National and sub-national governments should be
appropriately weighted.
Each of three dimensions should be rated separately:
(a) accountability of the executive to oversight institutions and of public employees for their
performance;
(b) access of civil society to information on public affairs; and
(c) state capture by narrow vested interests.”
http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/pubdocs/publicdoc/2015/6/559351435159340828/cpia14-webFAQ14.pdf
Scores
The rating scale ranges from 1 (low levels of transparency) to 6 (high levels of transparency) and allows
for half-point intermediate scores (eg. 3.5). The score is an aggregate of the three dimensions of
corruption across national and sub-national government institutions in the country/territory.
Country Coverage
76 countries were scored in the CPIA 2015.
The process of preparing the ratings involves two phases: (a) the benchmarking phase, in which a
small, representative, sample of countries is rated in an intensive Bank-wide process; and (b) a second
phase, in which the remaining countries are rated using the derived benchmark ratings as guideposts.
The process is managed by the Bank’s Operations Policy and Country Services Vice-Presidency.
Data availability
First released in 2005 in its current form, the CPIA is now an annual exercise.
The ratings process typically starts in the fall and is concluded in the spring of the following year. The
scores disclosed in June 2016 (the 2015 CPIA exercise) cover 2015 country performance.
The data is publicly available online.
http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/CPIA

Source 11
11. World Economic Forum Executive Opinion Survey (EOS) 2016
Code: WEF
Data Provider
The World Economic Forum is an independent international organisation committed to improving the
state of the world by engaging business, political, academic and other leaders of society to shape
global, regional and industry agendas. Incorporated as a not-for-profit foundation in 1971, and
headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, the Forum is not tied to political, partisan or national interests.
The Executive Opinion Survey (EOS) is the World Economic Forum's annual survey of business
executives. The survey has evolved over time to capture new data points essential to the Global
Competitiveness Index (GCI) and other Forum indexes.
The Forum's Global Competitiveness and Benchmarking Network works closely with a network of over
160 Partner Institutes that administer the survey in their respective countries/territories. They are
selected because of their capacity to reach out to leading business executives as well as their
understanding of the national business environment and their commitment to the Forum's research on
competitiveness. The Partner Institutes are, for the most part, well-respected economics departments of
national universities, independent research institutes or business organisations. The surveys are
conducted according to detailed guidelines aiming at collecting a sample stratified by sector of activity
and company size. The EOS administration process is reviewed on a yearly basis and underwent an
external review in 2008 and 2012 by a renowned survey expert consultancy. See chapter 1.3 of the
Global Competitiveness Report 2013-2014 for further details www.weforum.org/gcr.
Survey respondents were asked:
(On a scale of 1 - 7 where 1 means very common and 7 means never)
“In your country, how common is it for firms to make undocumented extra payments or bribes connected
with the following”:
a) Imports and exports;
b) Public Utilities;
c) Annual Tax Payments;
d) Awarding of public contracts and licenses;
e) Obtaining favourable judicial decisions.
(on a scale of 1 - 7 where 1 means very common and 7 means never)
“In your country, how common is diversion of public funds to companies, individuals or groups due to
corruption?”
Scores
Each question is scored by respondents on a scale of 1 - 7.
The results of parts a) to e) of the first question were aggregated into a single score. The results of the
first and second question were then averaged across all respondents to give a score per
country/territory.
Country Coverage
In 2016 the survey captured the views of business executives in 134 economies. Data from the 2015
survey was used for 7 countries: Egypt, Guyana, Haiti, Hong Kong, Myanmar, Nicaragua and
Swaziland.
The survey is conducted in each country/territory according to the sampling guidelines and therefore in a
consistent manner across the globe during the same time of year.
Data availability
The World Economic Forum has conducted its annual survey for more than 30 years. The data was
gathered in a survey conducted between January and June 2016. Some aggregated data is available in
the appendix of the Global Competitiveness Report, the micro-level data is provided to TI by the World
Economic Forum.
http://www.weforum.org/

Source 12
12. World Justice Project Rule of Law Index 2016
Code: WJP
Data Provider
The World Justice Project (WJP) is an independent, not-for-profit organisation working to advance the
rule of law for the development of communities of opportunity and equity. The WJP’s multi-national,
multi-disciplinary efforts are dedicated to developing practical programmes in support of the rule of law
around the world. The work of the WJP is based on two complementary premises: the rule of law is the
foundation for communities of opportunity and equity, and multi-disciplinary collaboration is the most
effective way to advance the rule of law.
The WJP Rule of Law Index is an assessment tool designed by The World Justice Project to offer a
detailed and comprehensive picture of the extent to which countries/territories adhere to the rule of law
in practice. The Index provides detailed information and original data regarding a variety of dimensions
of the rule of law, which enables stakeholders to assess a nation’s adherence to the rule of law in
practice, identify a nation’s strengths and weaknesses in comparison to similarly situated countries, and
track changes over time.
The Index’s rankings and scores are the product of a rigorous data collection and aggregation process.
Data comes from a global poll of the general public and detailed questionnaires administered to local
experts. To date, over 2,000 experts and 66,000 other individuals from around the world have
participated in this project.
A total of 68 questions are asked of experts and respondents from the general population (53 and 15
targeted to each group respectively) on the extent to which government officials use public office for
private gain. These questions touch on a variety of sectors within government including the public health
system, regulatory agencies, the police, and the courts. Individual questions are aggregated into four
sub-indices:
 Government officials in the executive branch do not use public office for private gain
 Government officials in the judicial branch do not use public office for private gain
 Government officials in the police and the military do not use public office for private gain
 Government officials in the legislature do not use public office for private gain
Only the scores provided by the experts were considered for the CPI calculations.
Scores
Scores are given on a continuous scale between from a low of 0 to a high of 1.
Country Coverage
113 countries were scored in the 2016 Rule of Law index.
The Index is deliberately intended to be applied in countries with vastly differing social, cultural,
economic, and political systems.
Data availability
The first edition was published in 2010, with slight variation in methodology and country coverage.
Data for computing this index was collected between May to September 2016 using 2700 experts
across the various countries. Data is publicly available online.
http://worldjusticeproject.org/rule-of-law-index/
http://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/default/files/media/rolindex2016_methodology.pdf

Source 13
13. Varieties of Democracy Project 2016
Code: VDEM
Data Provider
Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) is a new approach to conceptualizing and measuring democracy. V-
Dem provide a multidimensional and disaggregated dataset that reflects the complexity of the concept of
democracy as a system of rule that goes beyond the simple presence of elections. The V-Dem project
distinguishes between seven high-level principles of democracy: electoral, liberal, participatory,
deliberative, egalitarian, majoritarian and consensual, and collects data to measure these principles.
It is a collaboration among more than 50 scholars worldwide which is co-hosted by the Department of
Political Science at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden; and the Kellogg Institute at the University of
Notre Dame, USA. With four Principal Investigators (PIs), fifteen Project Managers (PMs) with special
responsibility for issue areas, more than thirty Regional Managers (RMs), 170 Country Coordinators
(CCs), Research Assistants, and 2,500 Country Experts (CEs), the V-Dem project is one of the largest
social science data collection projects focusing on research.
V-Dem is one of the largest-ever social science data collection efforts with a database containing over
16 million data points. By April 2017, the dataset will cover 177 countries from 1900 to 2016 with annual
updates to follow.
Question: How pervasive is political corruption?
The directionality of the V-Dem corruption index runs from less corrupt to more corrupt (unlike the other
V-Dem variables that generally run from less democratic to more democratic situation). The corruption
index includes measures of six distinct types of corruption that cover both different areas and levels of
the polity realm, distinguishing between executive, legislative and judicial corruption. Within the
executive realm, the measures also distinguish between corruption mostly pertaining to bribery and
corruption due to embezzlement. Finally, they differentiate between corruption in the highest echelons of
the executive (at the level of the rulers/cabinet) on the one hand, and in the public sector at large on the
other. The measures thus tap into several distinguished types of corruption: both ‘petty’ and ‘grand’;
both bribery and theft; both corruption aimed and influencing law making and that affecting
implementation.
Aggregation: The index is arrived at by taking the average of (a) public sector corruption index (b)
executive corruption index (c) the indicator for legislative corruption and (d) the indicator for judicial
corruption. In other words, these four different government spheres are weighted equally in the resulting
index.
Scores
Scores are given on a continuous scale between a low of 0 to a high of 1.
Country Coverage
76 countries were scored in the 2016 update of the index with country coverage expected to rise
considerably next year.
Data availability
VDEM data can be publicly accessed through: https://www.v-dem.net/en/data/data-version-6-2/ and the
codebook is available at: https://www.v-dem.net/en/reference/version-6-mar-2016/

Country
CPI2016
Rank
Region
WBCode
WorldBankCPIA
WorldEconomicForum
EOS
New Zealand 90 1 AP NZL 90
Denmark 90 1 WE/EU DNK 85
Finland 89 3 WE/EU FIN 91
Sweden 88 4 WE/EU SWE 86
Switzerland 86 5 WE/EU CHE 80
Norway 85 6 WE/EU NOR 80
Singapore 84 7 AP SGP 88
Netherlands 83 8 WE/EU NLD 82
Canada 82 9 AME CAN 73
Germany 81 10 WE/EU DEU 67
Luxembourg 81 10 WE/EU LUX 85
United Kingdom 81 10 WE/EU GBR 80
Australia 79 13 AP AUS 80
Iceland 78 14 WE/EU ISL 85
Hong Kong 77 15 AP HKG 82
Belgium 77 15 WE/EU BEL 73
Austria 75 17 WE/EU AUT 73
The United States of America 74 18 AME USA 65
Ireland 73 19 WE/EU IRL 83
Japan 72 20 AP JPN 78
Uruguay 71 21 AME URY 68
Estonia 70 22 WE/EU EST 76
France 69 23 WE/EU FRA 69
Bahamas 66 24 AME BHS
Chile 66 24 AME CHL 64
United Arab Emirates 66 24 MENA ARE 86
Bhutan 65 27 AP BTN 69 59
Israel 64 28 MENA ISR 69
Poland 62 29 WE/EU POL 56
Portugal 62 29 WE/EU PRT 59
Barbados 61 31 AME BRB 48
Taiwan 61 31 AP TWN 68
Qatar 61 31 MENA QAT 82
Slovenia 61 31 WE/EU SVN 58
Saint Lucia 60 35 AME LCA 69
Saint Vincent and The Grenadines 60 35 AME VCT 58
Botswana 60 35 SSA BWA 52
Dominica 59 38 AME DMA 58
Cape Verde 59 38 SSA CPV 69 49
Lithuania 59 38 WE/EU LTU 56
Costa Rica 58 41 AME CRI 46
Brunei 58 41 AP BRN 61

Spain 58 41 WE/EU ESP 51
Georgia 57 44 ECA GEO 68
Latvia 57 44 WE/EU LVA 48
Grenada 56 46 AME GRD 58
Cyprus 55 47 WE/EU CYP 49
Czech Republic 55 47 WE/EU CZE 46
Malta 55 47 WE/EU MLT 54
Mauritius 54 50 SSA MUS 53
Rwanda 54 50 SSA RWA 47 76
Korea (South) 53 52 AP KOR 49
Namibia 52 53 SSA NAM 49
Slovakia 51 54 WE/EU SVK 34
Malaysia 49 55 AP MYS 56
Croatia 49 55 WE/EU HRV 39
Jordan 48 57 MENA JOR 60
Hungary 48 57 WE/EU HUN 43
Romania 48 57 WE/EU ROM 37
Cuba 47 60 AME CUB
Italy 47 60 WE/EU ITA 47
Saudi Arabia 46 62 MENA SAU 66
Sao Tome and Principe 46 62 SSA STP 47
Suriname 45 64 AME SUR
Montenegro 45 64 ECA MON 39
Oman 45 64 MENA OMN 67
Senegal 45 64 SSA SEN 47 36
South Africa 45 64 SSA ZAF 49
Greece 44 69 WE/EU GRC 42
Bahrain 43 70 MENA BHR 66
Ghana 43 70 SSA GHA 47 30
Solomon Islands 42 72 AP SLB 35
Serbia 42 72 ECA SCG 39
Burkina Faso 42 72 SSA BFA 47
Turkey 41 75 ECA TUR 49
Kuwait 41 75 MENA KWT 43
Tunisia 41 75 MENA TUN 37
Bulgaria 41 75 WE/EU BGR 38
Brazil 40 79 AME BRA 28
China 40 79 AP CHN 53
India 40 79 AP IND 54
Belarus 40 79 ECA BLR
Jamaica 39 83 AME JAM 41
Albania 39 83 ECA ALB 41
Bosnia and Herzegovina 39 83 ECA BIH 34
Lesotho 39 83 SSA LSO 35 20
Panama 38 87 AME PAN 43
Mongolia 38 87 AP MNG 47 38
Zambia 38 87 SSA ZMB 35 31
Colombia 37 90 AME COL 32
Indonesia 37 90 AP IDN 40
The FYR of Macedonia 37 90 ECA MKD 54

Morocco 37 90 MENA MAR 42
Liberia 37 90 SSA LBR 35 45
Argentina 36 95 AME ARG 29
El Salvador 36 95 AME SLV 32
Maldives 36 95 AP MDV 35
Sri Lanka 36 95 AP LKA 35 41
Kosovo 36 95 ECA LWI 35
Benin 36 95 SSA BEN 47 20
Peru 35 101 AME PER 39
Trinidad and Tobago 35 101 AME TTO 29
Philippines 35 101 AP PHL 29
Thailand 35 101 AP THA 37
Timor-Leste 35 101 AP TLS 24
Gabon 35 101 SSA GAB 36
Niger 35 101 SSA NER 35
Guyana 34 108 AME GUY 35 25
Algeria 34 108 MENA DZA 33
Egypt 34 108 MENA EGY 42
Côte d’Ivoire 34 108 SSA CIV 35 32
Ethiopia 34 108 SSA ETH 35 37
Bolivia 33 113 AME BOL 35 18
Vietnam 33 113 AP VNM 35 34
Armenia 33 113 ECA ARM 45
Pakistan 32 116 AP PAK 35 29
Mali 32 116 SSA MLI 35 24
Tanzania 32 116 SSA TZA 35 27
Togo 32 116 SSA TGO 24
Dominican Republic 31 120 AME DOM 24
Ecuador 31 120 AME ECU 33
Malawi 31 120 SSA MWI 24 27
Honduras 30 123 AME HND 35 26
Mexico 30 123 AME MEX 29
Paraguay 30 123 AME PRY 23
Laos 30 123 AP LAO 24 45
Azerbaijan 30 123 ECA AZE 46
Moldova 30 123 ECA MDA 24 23
Djibouti 30 123 SSA DJI 24
Sierra Leone 30 123 SSA SLE 35 19
Nepal 29 131 AP NPL 35 26
Kazakhstan 29 131 ECA KAZ 45
Russia 29 131 ECA RUS 38
Ukraine 29 131 ECA UKR 27
Iran 29 131 MENA IRN 34
Guatemala 28 136 AME GTM 35
Myanmar 28 136 AP MMR 35 23
Papua New Guinea 28 136 AP PNG 35
Kyrgyzstan 28 136 ECA KGZ 35 23
Lebanon 28 136 MENA LBN 23
Nigeria 28 136 SSA NGA 35 20
Guinea 27 142 SSA GIN 24

Mauritania 27 142 SSA MRT 35 15
Mozambique 27 142 SSA MOZ 24 25
Nicaragua 26 145 AME NIC 35 28
Bangladesh 26 145 AP BGD 24 17
Cameroon 26 145 SSA CMR 24 22
Gambia 26 145 SSA GMB 13 44
Kenya 26 145 SSA KEN 35 30
Madagascar 26 145 SSA MDG 24 19
Tajikistan 25 151 ECA TJK 24 48
Uganda 25 151 SSA UGA 13 27
Comoros 24 153 SSA COM 24
Turkmenistan 22 154 ECA TKM
Zimbabwe 22 154 SSA ZWE 13 30
Cambodia 21 156 AP KHM 13 28
Uzbekistan 21 156 ECA UZB 13
The Democratic Republic of Congo 21 156 SSA COD 13 20
Haiti 20 159 AME HTI 24 20
Burundi 20 159 SSA BDI 13 24
Central African Republic 20 159 SSA CAF 24
Chad 20 159 SSA TCD 24 10
Republic of Congo 20 159 SSA COG 13
Angola 18 164 SSA AGO
Eritrea 18 164 SSA ERI 13
Venezuela 17 166 AME VEN 13
Iraq 17 166 MENA IRQ
Guinea-Bissau 16 168 SSA GNB 13
Afghanistan 15 169 AP AFG 13
Libya 14 170 MENA LBY
Yemen 14 170 MENA YEM 2 12
Sudan 14 170 SSA SDN 2
Syria 13 173 MENA SYR
Korea (North) 12 174 AP PRK
South Sudan 11 175 SSA SSD 2
Somalia 10 176 SSA SOM

GlobalInsightCountry
RiskRatings
Bertelsmann
Foundation
TransformationIndex
AfricanDevelopment
BankCPIA
IMDWorld
Competitiveness
Yearbook
Bertelsmann
FoundationSustainable
GovernanceIndex
WorldJusticeProject
RuleofLawIndex
PRSInternational
CountryRiskGuide
VaritiesofDemocracy
Project
EconomistIntelligence
UnitCountryRatings
83 95 99 79 93 90
83 98 99 85 93 90
83 94 90 85 93 90
83 86 90 85 93 90
83 88 90 85 90
83 83 80 84 93 90
83 73 91 85 76 90
83 89 71 82 85 90
83 85 80 79 85 90
83 85 80 79 85 90
83 81 80 85 72
71 80 80 80 85 90
83 81 80 78 76 72
83 80 61 85 72
83 87 77 67 72
83 79 80 74 76 72
71 74 80 79 76 72
71 74 90 72 76 69 90
71 83 71 76 54
71 74 52 75 76 72
59 77 72 76 72
71 73 66 80 70 67 69 54
71 73 52 69 76 72
59 62 76
59 73 54 61 65 76 72
47 53 81 73 67 54
71 65 64
59 64 61 58 72
59 69 60 71 66 58 66 54
59 51 71 68 67 67 54
71 65
71 77 65 50 50 54
47 40 80 67 39 72
71 65 46 61 59 58 67 54
47 65
59 63
59 57 55 67 72
59 61
59
59 65 53 61 58 64 54
59 65 61 50 69 54
71 41

59 38 61 65 58 72
47 53 61 65
59 57 45 71 50 67 54
47 62
47 42 67 72
59 65 47 52 62 50 54
59 52 58 54
59 49 54
59 40 53 49
47 57 47 52 69 50 54
59 49 50 54
59 61 45 52 50 54
59 49 52 41 41 54
47 61 38 52 50 50 54
34 40 53 50 50 40 54
59 53 37 33 49 50 54
59 61 37 52 49 41 52 37
47 40 41 53 54
59 39 52 57 41 37
22 36 50 54
47 44
34 47 32 65
47 53
47 24 50 37
47 53 44 43 32 54
47 45 33 47 41 54
47 37 52 53 41 37
34 36 41 37
34 45 53 35 50 42 54
47 44
47 57 32 32 37
47 32 44 34 41 49
47 45 46 33 39 41 36 37
34 40 50 37
47 28 37 41 61 37
34 53 37 42 38 42 37
47 61 25 37 32 51 37
47 36 42 37 32 37
34 45 39 34 41 37
47 28 56 32 46 37
34 36 47 41 37
47 36 30 41 37
47 40 37 37 37
59 40 38
47 36 33 32 37
47 36 35 38 32 34 37
34 28 41 39 41 59 37
47 45 28 37 41 34 37
34 36 39 26 50 37
34 40 42 21 19

34 28 37 41 39 37
34 45 41 19 41
34 36 37 46 32 39 37
22 45 34 41 40 37
47 27
34 28 38 41 37
47 36 27
34 32 44 36
34 45 29 30 34 37
34 43 32 37
34 36 31 31 41 36 37
22 40 44 37 32 24 37
34 45
34 32 37
34 36 44 24
34 40 25 47
22 36 32 44 37
22 32 37 32 37
47 28 32 30 32 37
34 24 38 33 32 32 37
34 36 25 32 44 37
34 28 40 41 19
34 28 32 17
34 20 32 32 37
34 32 35 32
22 32 38 27 32 38 37
47 32 23 32
34 32 27 32 37
22 32 32 32 37
34 36 38 32 32 36 19
22 36 27 41 19
34 28 32 33 26 24 37
22 36 32 27 37
34 16
47 24 24 9 37
34 40 26 32 23 37
47 20
34 40 35 23 32 19
34 24 31 21
34 20 41 32 24 16 19
34 28 41 32 24 18 19
34 36 29 32 24 23 19
34 24 35 24 33 19
22 32 27 32 19
22 20 27 24 50 19
22 28 32 19
22 32 29 21
22 20 30 32 34 37
22 28 32 26 24 24 37
22 36 26 24

22 32 29
22 28 14 32 34 37
22 28 26 24 19
22 24 25 50 19
34 28 41 19 32 11 19
34 5 32
22 28 29 21 24 28 19
34 32 14 23 32
22 16 11
22 32 26 21 24 26 37
47 2
22 20 19
22 16 17 24 15 24 37
22 16 15 17 19
22 20 32 16 19
22 20 32 24 19
22 16 15
22 20 20 20
10 28 17
22 20 23
22 20 24 19
22 16 15 19
34 12 0 29
22 16 21 14 15 19
10 20 15 19 19
22 14 15
10 20 13 16
10 12 15 19
10 28 15 14 19
22 16 11 6 22 19
10 8 15 12 19
10 12 15
10 16 5 19
10 8 0 15 17

FreedomHouse
NationsinTransit
Ratings
PERCAsiaRiskGuide
Country(2)
CPI2016(2)
Rank(2)
NumberofSources
New Zealand 90 1 7
Denmark 90 1 7
Finland 89 3 7
Sweden 88 4 7
Switzerland 86 5 6
Norway 85 6 7
89 Singapore 84 7 8
Netherlands 83 8 7
Canada 82 9 7
Germany 81 10 7
Luxembourg 81 10 6
United Kingdom 81 10 7
81 Australia 79 13 8
Iceland 78 14 6
74 Hong Kong 77 15 7
Belgium 77 15 7
Austria 75 17 7
64 The United States of America 74 18 9
Ireland 73 19 6
78 Japan 72 20 8
Uruguay 71 21 6
70 Estonia 70 22 10
France 69 23 7
Bahamas 66 24 3
Chile 66 24 8
United Arab Emirates 66 24 7
Bhutan 65 27 5
Israel 64 28 6
59 Poland 62 29 10
Portugal 62 29 8
Barbados 61 31 3
51 Taiwan 61 31 8
Qatar 61 31 7
70 Slovenia 61 31 10
Saint Lucia 60 35 3
Saint Vincent and The Grenadines 60 35 3
Botswana 60 35 6
Dominica 59 38 3
Cape Verde 59 38 3
59 Lithuania 59 38 9
Costa Rica 58 41 7
Brunei 58 41 3

Spain 58 41 7
49 Georgia 57 44 6
65 Latvia 57 44 9
Grenada 56 46 3
Cyprus 55 47 5
59 Czech Republic 55 47 9
Malta 55 47 5
Mauritius 54 50 4
Rwanda 54 50 6
50 Korea (South) 53 52 9
Namibia 52 53 5
57 Slovakia 51 54 8
44 Malaysia 49 55 8
52 Croatia 49 55 9
Jordan 48 57 8
54 Hungary 48 57 9
57 Romania 48 57 10
Cuba 47 60 5
Italy 47 60 7
Saudi Arabia 46 62 5
Sao Tome and Principe 46 62 3
Suriname 45 64 4
44 Montenegro 45 64 4
Oman 45 64 5
Senegal 45 64 8
South Africa 45 64 7
Greece 44 69 7
Bahrain 43 70 5
Ghana 43 70 9
Solomon Islands 42 72 3
52 Serbia 42 72 7
Burkina Faso 42 72 7
Turkey 41 75 9
Kuwait 41 75 5
Tunisia 41 75 7
52 Bulgaria 41 75 9
Brazil 40 79 8
39 China 40 79 8
34 India 40 79 8
30 Belarus 40 79 7
Jamaica 39 83 6
41 Albania 39 83 7
44 Bosnia and Herzegovina 39 83 7
Lesotho 39 83 5
Panama 38 87 6
Mongolia 38 87 9
Zambia 38 87 9
Colombia 37 90 8
35 Indonesia 37 90 8
49 The FYR of Macedonia 37 90 7

Morocco 37 90 7
Liberia 37 90 7
Argentina 36 95 8
El Salvador 36 95 7
Maldives 36 95 3
Sri Lanka 36 95 7
33 Kosovo 36 95 5
Benin 36 95 6
Peru 35 101 7
Trinidad and Tobago 35 101 5
43 Philippines 35 101 9
38 Thailand 35 101 9
Timor-Leste 35 101 3
Gabon 35 101 4
Niger 35 101 5
Guyana 34 108 6
Algeria 34 108 6
Egypt 34 108 6
Côte d’Ivoire 34 108 8
Ethiopia 34 108 9
Bolivia 33 113 8
35 Vietnam 33 113 8
41 Armenia 33 113 6
Pakistan 32 116 7
Mali 32 116 6
Tanzania 32 116 9
Togo 32 116 5
Dominican Republic 31 120 6
Ecuador 31 120 6
Malawi 31 120 9
Honduras 30 123 7
Mexico 30 123 8
Paraguay 30 123 6
Laos 30 123 4
25 Azerbaijan 30 123 7
33 Moldova 30 123 9
Djibouti 30 123 3
Sierra Leone 30 123 8
Nepal 29 131 6
28 Kazakhstan 29 131 9
25 Russia 29 131 9
33 Ukraine 29 131 9
Iran 29 131 7
Guatemala 28 136 6
Myanmar 28 136 8
Papua New Guinea 28 136 5
30 Kyrgyzstan 28 136 7
Lebanon 28 136 7
Nigeria 28 136 9
Guinea 27 142 5

Mauritania 27 142 5
Mozambique 27 142 8
Nicaragua 26 145 7
Bangladesh 26 145 7
Cameroon 26 145 9
Gambia 26 145 5
Kenya 26 145 9
Madagascar 26 145 7
28 Tajikistan 25 151 6
Uganda 25 151 9
Comoros 24 153 3
25 Turkmenistan 22 154 4
Zimbabwe 22 154 9
37 Cambodia 21 156 8
25 Uzbekistan 21 156 7
The Democratic Republic of Congo 21 156 7
Haiti 20 159 5
Burundi 20 159 6
Central African Republic 20 159 4
Chad 20 159 5
Republic of Congo 20 159 5
Angola 18 164 4
Eritrea 18 164 5
Venezuela 17 166 7
Iraq 17 166 5
Guinea-Bissau 16 168 4
Afghanistan 15 169 5
Libya 14 170 4
Yemen 14 170 7
Sudan 14 170 7
Syria 13 173 5
Korea (North) 12 174 3
South Sudan 11 175 5
Somalia 10 176 5

StdError2016
LowerCI
UpperCI
Min
Max
OECD G20 BRICS EU
2.56 86 94 79 99 y
2.46 86 94 83 99 y y
1.46 87 92 83 94 y y
1.33 85 90 83 93 y y
1.57 83 89 80 90 y
1.85 82 88 80 93 y
2.35 81 88 73 91
2.32 79 87 71 90 y y
2.03 79 85 73 90 y y
2.73 77 86 67 90 y y y
1.96 78 84 72 85 y y
2.12 77 84 71 90 y y y
1.27 77 81 72 83 y y
3.81 71 84 61 85 y
2.62 73 82 67 87
1.55 74 79 72 83 y y
1.36 73 77 71 80 y y
3.15 69 80 64 90 y y
4.31 66 80 54 83 y y
3.02 67 77 52 78 y y
2.68 66 75 59 77
2.16 66 73 54 80 y y
2.97 64 74 52 76 y y y
5.2 57 74 59 76
2.65 61 70 54 76 y
5.7 56 75 47 86
2.12 62 69 59 71
2.27 60 68 58 72 y
1.77 59 65 54 71 y y
2.58 58 66 51 71 y y
6.91 50 73 48 71
3.79 55 67 50 77
7.02 49 72 39 82
2.44 57 65 46 71 y y
6.8 49 71 47 69
1.66 57 63 58 63
3.1 55 66 52 72
0.85 58 60 58 61
5.72 50 68 49 69
1.36 57 61 53 65 y
3.17 53 63 46 69
8.85 43 72 41 71

4.09 51 65 38 72 y y
3.61 51 63 47 68
2.96 52 62 45 71 y y
4.63 48 63 47 62
5.94 46 65 42 72 y
2.24 51 59 46 65 y y
1.39 53 58 52 59 y
2.14 50 57 49 59
5.07 46 62 40 76
2.33 49 57 47 69 y y
2.03 49 55 49 59
3.09 46 57 34 61 y y
2.46 45 53 41 59
2.39 45 53 38 61 y
3.03 43 53 34 60
2.89 43 53 33 59 y y
3 43 53 37 61 y
2.9 42 52 40 54
3.34 42 53 37 59 y y y
7.54 33 58 22 66 y
0.93 44 47 44 47
7.53 32 57 32 65
2.89 41 50 39 53
7.07 33 56 24 67
2.63 40 49 32 54
2.55 41 49 33 54 y y
2.5 40 48 37 53 y y
5.96 33 53 34 66
2.89 39 48 30 54
3.34 36 47 35 47
3.69 36 48 32 57
2.47 38 46 32 49
1.8 38 44 33 49 y y
2.67 37 45 34 50
3.9 35 47 28 61
2.2 38 45 34 53 y
4.34 33 47 25 61 y y
2.39 37 44 32 53 y y
2.47 36 44 34 54 y y
3.93 33 46 28 56
1.84 36 42 34 47
1.99 36 42 30 47
1.7 37 42 34 47
6.15 29 49 20 59
2.29 34 42 32 47
1.7 35 41 32 47
2.91 34 43 28 59
2.27 34 41 28 47
2.39 33 41 26 50 y
4.97 29 45 19 54

1.74 34 40 28 42
3.43 31 43 19 45
1.76 33 39 29 46 y
2.76 31 40 22 45
5.66 27 46 27 47
1.64 34 39 28 41
3.17 31 41 27 47
3.8 29 42 20 47
2.04 32 39 29 45
2.48 31 39 29 43
1.58 33 38 29 43
2.44 31 39 22 44
5.97 25 44 24 45
0.97 33 36 32 37
3.25 29 40 24 44
3.57 29 40 25 47
2.94 29 39 22 44
2.72 29 38 22 42
2.03 31 38 28 47
1.37 31 36 24 38
2.85 28 37 18 44
2.46 29 38 19 41
4.01 26 40 17 45
2.12 28 35 20 37
1.75 29 35 24 35
1.84 29 35 22 38
4.21 25 39 23 47
1.89 28 34 24 37
1.96 28 35 22 37
2.11 28 35 19 38
3.05 25 35 19 41
1.56 28 33 24 37 y y
2.68 25 34 22 37
6.19 20 40 16 45
5.13 22 39 9 47
2.18 27 34 23 40
8.23 17 44 20 47
2.94 25 35 19 40
2.33 25 33 21 35
3.35 23 34 16 45
2.73 24 33 18 41 y y
1.97 25 32 19 36
2.47 25 33 19 35
2.58 24 32 19 35
3.69 22 34 19 50
3.01 23 32 19 35
2.08 24 31 21 35
2.5 24 32 20 37
1.98 24 31 20 37
2.54 22 31 22 36

3.62 21 33 15 35
2.57 23 31 14 37
1.98 23 29 19 35
4.13 19 33 17 50
3.04 21 31 11 41
7.2 14 38 5 44
1.72 24 29 19 35
2.88 21 30 14 34
5.26 16 34 11 48
2.24 22 29 13 37
12.81 3 45 2 47
1.32 20 24 19 25
2.59 18 26 13 37
2.82 16 26 13 37
2.35 17 25 13 32
2.13 18 25 13 32
1.81 17 23 15 24
1.53 18 23 13 24
4.04 13 27 10 28
2.67 16 24 10 24
1.78 17 23 13 24
1.68 15 21 15 22
6.24 8 28 0 34
1.41 15 20 13 22
1.87 14 20 10 20
2.09 13 20 13 22
1.74 12 17 10 20
2 11 17 10 19
3.05 9 19 2 28
2.99 9 19 2 22
1.97 10 16 8 19
1.39 10 15 10 15
3.21 5 16 2 19
2.98 5 15 0 17

Country
CPI2016
score
CPI2015
score
Score
difference
CPI2016
rank
CPI2015
rank
Rank
difference
Qatar 61 71 -10 31 22 9
Kuwait 41 49 -8 75 55 20
Bahrain 43 51 -8 70 50 20
Saudi Arabia 46 52 -6 62 48 14
Cyprus 55 61 -6 47 32 15
Lesotho 39 44 -5 83 61 22
Jordan 48 53 -5 57 45 12
Syria 13 18 -5 173 154 19
The FYR of Macedonia 37 42 -5 90 66 24
Mexico 30 35 -5 123 95 28
South Sudan 11 15 -4 175 163 12
Chile 66 70 -4 24 23 1
United Arab Emirates 66 70 -4 24 23 1
Mauritania 27 31 -4 142 112 30
Central African Republic 20 24 -4 159 145 14
Netherlands 83 87 -4 8 5 3
Mozambique 27 31 -4 142 112 30
Trinidad and Tobago 35 39 -4 101 72 29
Ghana 43 47 -4 70 56 14
Yemen 14 18 -4 170 154 16
Djibouti 30 34 -4 123 99 24
Thailand 35 38 -3 101 76 25
Uruguay 71 74 -3 21 21 0
Republic of Congo 20 23 -3 159 146 13
Korea (South) 53 56 -3 52 37 15
El Salvador 36 39 -3 95 72 23
Hungary 48 51 -3 57 50 7
Japan 72 75 -3 20 18 2
Mali 32 35 -3 116 95 21
Moldova 30 33 -3 123 103 20
Botswana 60 63 -3 35 28 7
Madagascar 26 28 -2 145 123 22
Egypt 34 36 -2 108 88 20
Norway 85 87 -2 6 5 1
Gambia 26 28 -2 145 123 22
Chad 20 22 -2 159 147 12
Ireland 73 75 -2 19 18 1
Armenia 33 35 -2 113 95 18
Lithuania 59 61 -2 38 32 6
Greece 44 46 -2 69 58 11
Libya 14 16 -2 170 161 9
Croatia 49 51 -2 55 50 5

Dominican Republic 31 33 -2 120 103 17
Algeria 34 36 -2 108 88 20
Jamaica 39 41 -2 83 69 14
The United States of America 74 76 -2 18 16 2
Comoros 24 26 -2 153 136 17
Sweden 88 89 -1 4 3 1
Benin 36 37 -1 95 83 12
Iceland 78 79 -1 14 13 1
Honduras 30 31 -1 123 112 11
Bolivia 33 34 -1 113 99 14
Cameroon 26 27 -1 145 130 15
Taiwan 61 62 -1 31 30 1
France 69 70 -1 23 23 0
Portugal 62 63 -1 29 28 1
Czech Republic 55 56 -1 47 37 10
Panama 38 39 -1 87 72 15
Burundi 20 21 -1 159 150 9
Namibia 52 53 -1 53 45 8
Tajikistan 25 26 -1 151 136 15
Austria 75 76 -1 17 16 1
Canada 82 83 -1 9 9 0
Nicaragua 26 27 -1 145 130 15
Guinea-Bissau 16 17 -1 168 158 10
Mongolia 38 39 -1 87 72 15
Peru 35 36 -1 101 88 13
Ecuador 31 32 -1 120 107 13
Turkey 41 42 -1 75 66 9
Finland 89 90 -1 3 2 1
Denmark 90 91 -1 1 1 0
Singapore 84 85 -1 7 8 -1
Sri Lanka 36 37 -1 95 83 12
The Democratic Republic of Congo 21 22 -1 156 147 9
Malaysia 49 50 -1 55 54 1
Malta 55 56 -1 47 37 10
Estonia 70 70 0 22 23 -1
Kyrgyzstan 28 28 0 136 123 13
United Kingdom 81 81 0 10 10 0
Togo 32 32 0 116 107 9
Eritrea 18 18 0 164 154 10
Poland 62 62 0 29 30 -1
Belgium 77 77 0 15 15 0
Spain 58 58 0 41 36 5
Oman 45 45 0 64 60 4
Russia 29 29 0 131 119 12
Australia 79 79 0 13 13 0
Switzerland 86 86 0 5 7 -2
Rwanda 54 54 0 50 44 6

World Corruption Index and Myanmar Corruption index 2016 collection

World Corruption Index and Myanmar Corruption index 2016 collection

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Plus de MYO AUNG Myanmar

Plus de MYO AUNG Myanmar (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

World Corruption Index and Myanmar Corruption index 2016 collection