Global Corruption Perception Index CPI Transparency International 2006

Global Corruption Perception Index (CPI) Transparency International 2006 www. transparentnost. org. yu www. transparency. org/surveys/#cpi

Corruption Perception Index for 2006 • Measures the level in which the corruption of public servants and politicians is perceived • Index is made on the bases of twelve different researches and studies, which were conducted by nine independent institutions questioning businessmen, analysts and local experts

CPI 2006 – The best and the worst Countries recognized as the least corrupted No. of research Rank Country Score (1 -10) Finland 9. 6 7 1 Iceland 9. 6 6 New Zealand 9. 6 7 Denmark 9. 5 7 4 Countries recognized as the most corrupted Rank Country Score (1 -10) No. of research Guinea 1. 9 3 160 Myanmar 1. 9 3 Iraq 1. 9 3 Haiti 1. 8 3 163

CPI goals • To measure how much is the corruption perceived in public sector by businessmen, experts and analysts of risk • To promote comparative comprehension of the level of corruption • To offer overview of decision makers’ points of view which affects the market and investments • To stimulate scientific researches, analysis of the cause and consequences of corruption, in international and domestic level • To contribute to building the public consciousness about corruption – and create climate for changes

Methodology • CPI is “research of group of researches” which is conducted every year and provides information which can continuously be monitored • Minimum three researches by country - Research includes previous two years • Countries are scored on the scale from 10 (very ‘clean’) to 0 (very corrupted). • Perception is questioned and not the facts (e. g. number of convictions, number of media texts) • Corruption determined as “abuse of public authorities for private interests”

Possibility of comparing • Index represents overview of points of view of businessmen and analysts about certain countries’ situation and doesn’t reflect necessarily trends for certain years • Score is more relevant than the rank on the list (because the number of countries included in the list is constantly increasing) • Index changes of certain countries can be a result of sample changes – researches taken into consideration when creating the index

Disadvantages and advantages of CPI • Index doesn’t reflect the level of efforts invested into fight against corruption • Developing countries can be shown in worse light due to prejudice and pre convictions of foreign investors (that is why other instruments for measuring corruption exist) • Other instruments for measuring corruption also come to similar results as CPI • CPI is good chance to promote public debate on corruption • CPI is good stimulation for conducting further analysis • CPI includes almost all the world countries

Resources • CPIA: Country Policy and Institutional Assessment by the IDA and IBRD • EIU: Economist Intelligence Unit • FH: Freedom House, Nations in Transit • IMD: World Competitiveness Report of the Institute for Management Development • MIG: Merchant International Group • PERC: Political and Economic Risk Consultancy, Hong Kong • UNECA: United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, African Governance Report • WEF: Global Competitiveness Report of the World Economic Forum • WMRC: World Markets Research Centre

Resource of information in initial researches Resource Sample 1 EIU, FH, MIG i WMRC Non residents’ perception; examinees mostly come from developed countries. 2 CPIA Experts engaged from World Bank 3 WEF Residents’ perception; examinees are mostly local experts, local businessmen and multinational companies.

CPI results and Serbia • SCG is included in seven researches which are taken into consideration when creating the index • Researches published during 2005 and 2006 • Ranking by certain researches is from 2, 3 to 4, 0 • Standard deviation is in acceptable limits (0, 7)

CORRUTION PERCEPTIONS INDEX 2006

Former socialist countries in Europe • • • Estonia 6. 7 Slovenia 6. 4 Hungary 5. 2 Lithuania 4. 8 Chech Republic Slovakia 4. 7 Latvia 4. 7 Bulgaria 4. 0 Poland 3. 7 Croatia 3. 4 Moldova 3. 2 Romania 3. 1 4. 8 • • • Serbia Armenia BIH Georgia Ukraine Macedonia Albania Russia Belarus 3. 0 2. 9 2. 8 2. 7 2. 6 2. 5 2. 1

CPI 2006 – ex SFRJ Rank Country 28 Slovenia 69 Croatia 90 Serbia (SCG) 93 Bi. H 105 Macedonia Score 1 -10 Score Researches 2000. 2003. 2004. 2005 6, 4 5, 5 5, 9 6, 0 6, 1 8 3, 4 3, 7 3, 5 3, 4 7 3, 0 1, 3 2, 7 2, 8 7 2, 9 / 3, 3 3, 1 2, 9 6 2, 7 / 2, 3 2, 7 6 90. place Serbia Gabon Suriname

Evolution of SCG and Serbia

SCG and Serbia’s place by years

Reactions to recent ranking • Data from 2000: facing with catastrophic picture of Serbia • 2003: Expected larger move on the list, but the perception changes slowly • 2004: New move made – getting close to real state • 2005 and 2006: Minimal trend of increase is kept – no radical changes which would lead to fast change of corruption perception • Corruption perception in Serbia is similar to that in surrounding countries – progress exists but is very slow

CPI results and Serbia • Countries can ignore CPI results only on their damage – even if it doesn’t reflect totally to real state of things, CPI is good index of what other people think of us • Adopted strategy for fight against corruption must be elaborated as soon as possible through quality action plans and their implementation should be controlled • If the anticorruption regulations and institutions are just established, and their functioning in practice isn’t enabled, important move can’t be expected • Ambient for business must be renovated through guarantee of legal safety, effective court protection and decreasing chance of the bureaucracy to extort bribe