ti global corruption barometer 2010 spreads 01 08

8/3/2019 TI Global Corruption Barometer 2010 Spreads 01 08

1/29

www.transparency.org

TRANSPARENCYINTERNATIONAL

the global coalition against corruption

GLOBAL CORRUPTION

BAROMETER 2010


2/29

www.transparency.org

2010 Transparency International. All rights reserved.

ISBN: 978-3-935711-64-7

Printed on 100% recycled paper.

Authors: Juanita Riao, with Finn Heinrich and Robin Hodess.

Design: Sophie Everett

Generous support or the 2010 Global Corruption Barometer was provided by Ernst & Young and the Australian Agency or International Development. In-kind contributions to the Barometer were made by TI Bangladesh andthe Independent Authority Against Corruption o Mongolia.

Every e ort has been made to veri y the accuracy o the in ormation contained in this report. All in ormationwas believed to be correct as o December 2010. Nevertheless, Transparency International cannot acceptresponsibility or the consequences o its use or other purposes or in other contexts.

Cover photos (in order o appearance): istockphoto.com/Juanmonino, Flickr/spAvAAi,Flickr/Ferdinand Reus, istockphoto.com/Elena Korenbaum, istockphoto.com/Danish Khan,Flickr/RezaG!, istockphoto.com/Joanne Green, istockphoto/Christine Glade,istockphoto.com/Kevin Russ, istockphoto.com/Cristian Lazzari, istockphoto.com/JTSorrell,istockphoto.com/PhotoTalk, istockphoto.com/Alex Gumerov, istockphoto.com/Galina Dreyzina,Flickr/jirotrom, istockphoto.com/Danish Khan

Transparency International (TI) is the global civil society organisation leadingthe fight against corruption. Through more than 90 chapters worldwide and aninternational secretariat in Berlin, TI raises awareness of the damaging effectsof corruption and works with partners in government, business and civil societyto develop and implement effective measures to tackle it.

CONTENTSOverview 2

Findings 3

Regional classification 4

1. The view around the world 5

True story: balancing the budget 6

1.1 The sector or institution most affected by corruption 8

Visualising the data #1 10

2. Peoples experiences with petty bribery 12

2.1 Petty bribery 13

2.2 Regressiveness of petty bribery 15

Visualising the data #2 16

2.3 No reduction in petty bribery levels in the last five years 18

2.4 Why pay bribes? To avoid problems with the authorities,most people say 19

3. Public perceptions and experiences of corruptionalign with expert assessments 20

True story : gold mine 22

4. Government anti-corruption efforts are not seen as effective,but the public believe media and government are crucialto stopping corruption 24

True story: drastic measures 28

5. People are willing to engage in the fight against corruption 30

Conclusion 33

Appendix A: about the survey 34

Appendix B: questionnaire 3

Appendix C: tables by country/territory 41

Appendix D: results by gender 48

Appendix E: country/territory coverage of the Barometer over time 50

End Notes 53


3/29

Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer 2010

GLOBAL CORRUPTIONBAROMETER2010

Transparency Internationals Global Corruption Barometer (the Barometer) is the largestcross-country survey to collect the general publics views on and experiences o corruption.In 2010 the Barometer interviewed more than 91,500 people in 86 countries, making it themost comprehensive edition since it was launched in 2003. The Barometer explores thegeneral publics views about corruption levels in their country and their governments e ortsto ght corruption. The 2010 Barometer also probes the requency o bribery, reasons orpaying a bribe in the past year, and attitudes towards reporting incidents o corruption.

The Barometer complements the views o country analysts and businesspeople represented in Transparency Internationals Corruption Perceptions Index 1 and Bribe Payers Index 2, gatheringthe general publics perceptions about how key institutions are a ected by corruption. The2010 Barometer also explores whom people trust the most to ght corruption in their countries.

The questions in the Barometer vary rom year to year. As a result, time comparisons arelimited to questions that have been included in two or more editions. A general approach tocomparisons over time or the 2010 Barometer is to compare this years ndings with thoseearliest available or that question. In all cases, the years compared are indicated in the tableor graphic accompanying the analysis o changes over time.

Public views on corruption are o critical importance. They o er signi cant insight into howcorruption a ects lives around the world. Transparency International believes it is critical topresent the general publics perspective on corruption or it is they who su er its directand indirect consequences around the world. At the same time, Transparency Internationalencourages the public to play an active role in stopping corruption and improving governance.

To this end, this years edition o the Barometer probes or the rst time public willingness toengage with the ght against corruption.

Now in its seventh edition, the Barometer o ers a unique opportunity to explore how peoplesperceptions o corruption and encounters with bribery have changed over time in a number o countries. 3

FINDINGS: Corruption levels around the world are seen as

increasing over the past three years- Almost six out o 10 report that corruption levelsin their country have increased over time- The biggest increase is perceived by respondentsin North America and EU+ 4

Political parties are identi ed as the most corruptinstitution around the world- Eight out o 10 judge political parties as corruptor extremely corrupt, ollowed by the civil service,the judiciary, parliaments and the police- Over time, public opinion about political parties hasdeteriorated, while opinions o the judiciary have improved

Experience of petty bribery is widespread and has

remained unchanged as compared to 2006- The police is identi ed as the most requentrecipient o bribes in the past 12 months. The policealso has the biggest increase in bribery incidents overtime, according to the general public surveyed- In eight out o nine services assessed, people inlower income brackets are more likely to pay bribesthan people in higher income brackets- The reason most o ten given or paying a bribeis to avoid a problem with the authorities

Government action to ght corruption is often seenas ine ective- Across the world, one in two considers theirgovernments actions to be ine ective to stop corruption- While global views have not changed over time,opinions about government e orts have deterioratedin Asia Paci c, Latin America and Sub-Saharan A rica,but improved in the Newly Independent States+ andNorth America

There is little trust in formal institutions to ght corruption

- One in our worldwide does not trust any particularinstitution most o all to ght corruption- Nearly one in our trusts the media or governmentthe most to stop corruption

There is signi cant belief that the public has a role tostop corruption and a willingness or action inreporting on corruption when it occurs- Seven out o 10 respondents think ordinarypeople can make a di erence in the ght againstcorruption, while hal could imagine themselvesgetting involved- People are willing to report corruption to theauthorities: seven out o 10 respondents reportedthey would denounce an incident. This willingnessto report a case o corruption is more pronouncedin the Americas and EU+.

3

istockphoto.com/ Elena Korenbaum


4/29

Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer 2010 5

REGIONAL CLASSIFICATION The ollowing are the regional classi cations used in the 2010 Barometer:

ASIA PACIFIC EU+ LATIN AMERICA MIDDLE EAST& NORTH AFRICA

NEWLYINDEPENDENTSTATES+

NORTH AMERICA

SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

WESTERNBALKANS +TURKEY

A ghanistan AustraliaBangladeshCambodiaChinaFijiHong KongIndiaIndonesiaJapanKorea (South)MalaysiaNew ZealandPakistanPapua NewGuineaPhilippinesSingaporeSolomonIslands

Taiwan Thailand Vanuatu Vietnam

AustriaBulgariaCzech RepublicDenmarkFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIcelandIrelandItalyLatviaLithuaniaLuxembourgNetherlandsNorwayPolandPortugalRomaniaSloveniaSpainSwitzerlandUnited Kingdom

ArgentinaBoliviaBrazilChileColombiaEl SalvadorMexicoPeru

Venezuela

IraqIsraelLebanonMoroccoPalestine

Armenia AzerbaijanBelarusGeorgiaMoldovaMongoliaRussiaUkraine

CanadaUnitedStates

CameroonGhanaKenyaLiberiaNigeriaSenegalSierra LeoneSouth A ricaUgandaZambia

Bosnia &HerzegovinaCroatiaKosovoFYR -MacedoniaSerbia

Turkey

1. THE VIEW AROUNDTHE WORLD:CORRUPTION HASINCREASED IN THEPAST THREE YEARSLevels o corruption have increased in the past threeyears, according to those interviewed in the 2010Barometer. Slightly more than hal o the respondentsconsidered that corruption has increased; where as orthree out o 10, levels have remained unchanged in thepast three years. Only one out o every seven peoplethinks that corruption levels have decreased in the

past three years. Women were more likely than men toperceive an increase in corruption levels over the pastthree years, (60 per cent v. 52 per cent), see detailed

ndings in Appendix D.

There are regional di erences in the perceptions o changes in corruption levels. While more than two-thirdso respondents in the EU+ and North America saw anincrease in corruption over the last three years, this

gure dropped to less than hal in Asia Paci c and NIS+(Figure 1). However, even in these two regions, aboutthree times as many respondents report an increase thanreport a decrease in corruption (see Table 1 in Appendix C).

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

% o

f r e s p o n

d e n

t s r e p o r t

i n g a c o r r u p

t i o n

i n c r e a s e

i n t h e p a s

t t h r e e y e a r s

A s i a P a

c i f c

E U +

M i d d l e E

a s t &

N o r t h

A r i c a

W e s t e

r n B a

l k a n s

+ T u r k

e y

L a t i n

A m e r i c a

N o r t h

A m e r i c a

S u b - S

a h a r a

n A r i c

a N I S

+ T o t a l

73

6762

57 57

5147 45

Figure 1 Changes in corruption levelsin the past three years, by regionSource: Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer 2010. Percentagesare weighted.

56


5/29


BALANCINGTHE BUDGET

A vast number o Palestinians in the West Bank livein abject poverty. Many lack access to health andeducation acilities, and countless buildings, roads andsewage systems are in urgent need o repair. Instanceso government o cials misusing public unds have uelledcalls or the Palestinian Authority to introduce tightercontrols on public sector spending.

Through its work with the public, TransparencyInternational Palestine (AMAN) received a number o

complaints about the use o government cars. In 2009,more than 6,000 civil servants owned one, and 18million was being spent on their uel, maintenance andlicensing. Many o the cars were requently used orprivate journeys, or by riends and relatives. Some werereportedly even being sent abroad.

AMAN took its ndings to the Ministry o Transport. TheMinistry admitted that it was aware o the problem, butlacked the resources to tackle it. So AMAN undertook toassist them. It launched a broad-based media campaigncomprising radio, billboard and newspaper advertisements,encouraging citizens to phone in incidents o publicvehicle misuse via AMANs ree hotline.

The initiative was a huge success. Within a short spaceo time AMAN logged more than 150 complaints, whichwere relayed back to the Ministry o Transport or urtherinvestigation. Knowing that this was unlikely to bringabout lasting change, however, AMAN called on PrimeMinister Salam Fayyad to address the issue moresystematically.

Consequently, Palestines Council o Ministers (PNA)declared a ban on the use o all government vehiclesoutside o ce hours, with the exception o the Prime Ministerand his deputy. In 2010 around 6,200 vehicles werereclaimed rom civil servants. Some o them were givento the government ministries or shared use, but the majoritycould be purchased by civil servants to use privately.

AMAN realises that this is only one step towards re orm,and a lot o work remains to be done to bring integrityand transparency to government spending.

Transparency International provides ree advice and legal support tovictims and witnesses o corruption in more than 40 countries aroundthe world. In 2009 alone, more than 20,000 people sought help.

TRUE STORY

istockphoto.com/Joel Carillet


6/29


1.1 THE SECTOROR INSTITUTIONMOST AFFECTEDBY CORRUPTION:POLITICAL PARTIES

The 2010 Barometer asked respondents or their viewson the extent to which they believe 11 key sectors andinstitutions in their country are a ected by corruption.

The list includes the civil service 5, the education system,the judiciary, the media, the military, non-governmentalorganisations, the parliament, the police, political parties,the private sector and religious bodies.

Globally, political parties are judged most a ected bycorruption: almost 80 per cent o all respondents thinkthey are either corrupt or extremely corrupt. They aretrailed by a second grouping, including public servants,parliaments and the police. A third group o institutions ismade up o the private sector, religious bodies, the judiciary,media and the education system. Respondents worldwideconsider the military and non-governmental organisationsleast a ected by corruption, although 30 per cent stillconsidered them corrupt or extremely corrupt.

Figure 2 Perceived levels o corruptionin key institutions, worldwideSource: Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer 2010. Percentagesare weighted. Colour o the institutionsrepresents the groups identi ed by clusteranalysis, and indicates that there is astatistical di erence between them.

POLITICAL PARTIES

PUBLIC OFFICIALS/CIVIL SERVANTS

PARLIAMENT/LEGISLATURE

POLICE

BUSINESS/PRIVATE SECTOR

RELIGIOUS BODIES

JUDICIARY

MEDIA

EDUCATION SYSTEM

NGOS (NON-GOVERNMENTALORGANISATIONS)

MILITARY

% o respondents reporting the sector/institution to be corrupt or extremely corrupt

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

79

62

60

58

51

50

43

40

38

30

30

Figure 3 shows that peoples perceptions about howcorruption a ects key sectors or organisations havenot changed much over time. In both 2004 and 2010,the lists are topped by political parties, with non-governmental organisations and the military allingat the bottom. Nonetheless, religious bodies andpolitical parties have witnessed the biggest increasein perceived corruption over time. Perceptions aboutnon-governmental organisations and the private sector,however, have also deteriorated. Worth noting is thatpublic opinion about the judiciary has improved: thoseviewing it as corrupt or extremely corrupt decreased by10 percentage points.

Figure 3 Corruption a ecting keyinstitutions/sectors, comparisonover time, overall resultsSource: Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer 2004 and 2010.Percentages are weighted. Only countriesincluded in both editions are used in theanalysis.

POLITICAL PARTIES


POLICE

RELIGIOUS BODIES


JUDICIARY

MEDIA

EDUCATION SYSTEM

NGOS (NON-GOVERNMENTALORGANISATIONS)

MILITARY

% o people reporting the sector/institution to be corrupt or extremely corrupt

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

20042010

8071

6159

5957

5328

5247

4354

4144

3939

3126

3033


7/29

ARGENTINA, AUSTRALIA, BOSNIA & HERZEGOVINA, BRAZIL,CANADA, CHILE, COLOMBIA, CZECH REPUBLIC, DENMARK,EL SALVADOR, FIJI, FINLAND, FRANCE, GEORGIA, GERMANY,GREECE, HUNGARY, ICELAND, INDIA, IRAQ, IRELAND, ISRAEL,ITALY, JAPAN, KOREA(SOUTH), KOSOVO, LATVIA, LEBANON,LITHUANIA, MEXICO, MONGOLIA, NEW ZEALAND, PALESTINEPAPUA NEW GUINEA, PHILIPPINES, POLAND, PORTUGAL,ROMANIA, SERBIA, SLOVENIA, SOLOMON ISLANDS, SPAIN,UNITED KINGDOM, UNITED STATES, VANUATU

AZERBAIJAN, BANGLADESH, CAMEROON, GHANA,KENYA, LIBERIA, MALAYSIA, MEXICO, MOLDOVA,NIGERIA, PAKISTAN, PHILIPPINES, RUSSIA, SENEGAL,SIERRA LEONE, SOUTH AFRICA, TAIWAN, UGANDA,VENEZUELA, VIETNAM, ZAMBIA

AUSTRIA, CHINA, DENMARK, HONG KONG, LUXEMBOURG,NETHERLANDS, NORWAY, SWITZERLAND, TURKEY

AFGHANISTAN, BOLIVIA, BULGARIA, CAMBODIA,CROATIA, FYR MACEDONIA, PERU, UKRAINE

BRAZIL, COLOMBIA, INDONESIA, KOREA(SOUTH),LITHUANIA, ROMANIA, SOLOMON ISLANDS

BELARUS, MOROCCO, RUSSIA, THAILAND, TURKEY

ARMENIA, TURKEY

SINGAPORE

NORWAY

POLITICAL PARTIES

POLICE


JUDICIARY


PUBLIC OFFICIALS/CIVIL SERVANTSEDUCATION SYSTEM

MEDIA

RELIGIOUS BODIES


INSTITUTIONS PERCEIVED BYRESPONDENTS TO BE THE MOST

AFFECTED BY CORRUPTION

Brazil, Colombia, Denmark, Korea (South), Lithuania,Mexico, Norway, Phillippines, Romania, Russia, SolomonIslands and Turkey are listed more than once becauserespondents rated more than one institution the same.

Please see Table 2, Appendix C (p. 41) or the ull resultsby institution and country.


8/29


2. PEOPLES EXPERIENCESWITH PETTY BRIBERY:ONE OUT OF FOURWORLDWIDE HASPAID A BRIBE

The 2010 Barometer explores experiences o pettybribery among the general public around the globe,asking more than 77,000 users o nine di erentbasic services whether they had to pay a bribe wheninteracting with them. 6 As in past editions, the 2010Barometer examined bribery when people had contactwith customs, education, the judiciary, land related

services7

, medical services, the police, registry & permitservices 8, tax authorities, and utilities. One out o everyour users o these services reports paying a bribe in the

past 12 months.

The group o countries reporting the highest petty briberylevels includes: A ghanistan, Cambodia, Cameroon,India, Iraq, Liberia, Nigeria, Palestine, Senegal, SierraLeone, and Uganda 9. (Table 1 below. Table 3 in AppendixC shows the ull results).

COUNTRY/TERRITORY

Group 1:50 per cent or more

A ghanistan, Cambodia, Cameroon, India, Iraq, Liberia,Nigeria, Palestine, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Uganda

Group 2:Between 30 and49.9 per cent

Azerbaijan, Bolivia, El Salvador, Ghana, Kenya, Lebanon,Lithuania, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, Pakistan, Ukraine,

Vietnam, Zambia


Armenia, Belarus, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Chile, Colombia,Hungary, FYR Macedonia, Papua New Guinea, Peru,Romania, Russia, Solomon Islands, Thailand, Turkey, Venezuela


Argentina, Austria, Bulgaria, China, Czech Republic, Fiji,France, Greece, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kosovo, Latvia,Luxembourg, Malaysia, Poland, Philippines, Serbia,Singapore, Taiwan, Vanuatu

Group 5: Less than 6per cent

Australia, Brazil, Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, Georgia,Germany, Hong Kong, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Korea (South),Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain,Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States

Table 1 Percentage o respondents who reportpaying bribes in the past year to di erentservice providers, 10 by countrySource: Transparency International Global CorruptionBarometer 2010. Percentages are weighted.Figures are calculated or those respondents whocame in contact with the services listed and paid abribe to any o the providers. Groups were de nedusing cluster analysis. The result or Malaysia wascalculated or eight services instead o nine becausethe questions about tax authorities were not includedin the survey. Morocco is not included in the table dueto their low reported contact rate with most servicesand South A rica was not included because o datavalidity concerns regarding this question. Bangladeshis not eatured in the table due to problems with thecoding o this question.

% OF RESPONDENTSWHO REPORTPAYING A BRIBETO ANY OF NINEDIFFERENT SERVICEPROVIDERS IN THEPAST 12 MONTHS

As in the past, the 2010 Barometer shows that youngerpeople are more likely to pay bribes than older people.

Thirty- ve per cent o those who report paying a bribein the past year are under 30 years old, while 21 percent aged 65 or more report a similar incident (Table2). The 2010 Barometer did not nd substantial genderdi erences in the reporting o petty corruption, which isa change over previous editions, where women were lesslikely to report paying bribes (Appendix D).

Table 2 Percentage o people whoreport paying bribes to di erentservice providers 11 in the past12 months, by age group.Source: Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer 2010. Percentagesare weighted.

AG E GR OUP PER CE NTA GE

Tota l Sample 25%

Under 30 35%

30 - 50 22%

51 - 65 18%

65+ 21%

Services included: education, judiciary, landservices, medical services, police, registry &permit services, utilities, tax authorities, customs.

2.1 PETTY BRIBERY:POLICE TOP THE LIST

The police are the institution most o ten reported as therecipient o bribes. As Figure 4 shows, almost three in10 o those who had contact with the police worldwidereport paying a bribe. The judiciary and registry & permitservices ollow. At the bottom o the list, only our percent o those who had contact with tax authorities reportincidents with bribery.

Figure 4 Percentage o people who reportpaying a bribe in the previous 12months, by serviceSource: Transparency InternationalGlobal Corruption Barometer 2010.Percentages are weighted and calculated

or respondents who came in contact withthe services listed.

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

% o

f r e s p o n

d e n

t s w

h o r e p o r t e d p a y

i n g a

b r i b e

i n t h e p r e v i o u s

1 2 m o n

t h s

E d u c

a t i o n

S y s t e

m P o

l i c e

C u s t o

m s

U t i l i t i

e s

M e d i c

a l S e

r v i c e s

R e g i s t r y

& P e r m i t S

e r v i c e

s

J u d i c i a r

y

L a n d

S e r v i c

e s

T a x A

u t h o r i t i e

s

29

20

14

108 8

6 64


9/29


Regional di erences do emerge. The 2010 Barometeround that people interviewed in Asia Paci c and Latin

America report paying more bribes when in contact withthe judiciary. Sub-Saharan A ricans report the highestlevel o bribes to registry & permit services - nearly onpar with the police. The public in EU+ countries indicatesthat customs is the most bribery-prone service, while inNorth America it is land services, although in both regionsoverall reported bribery rates remain low (Table 3).

Table 3 Percentage o people whoreport paying a bribe in the past12 months, by service/institutionand regionSource: Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer 2010. Percentagesare weighted and calculated or respondentswho had contact with the services listed.

SERVICEPROVIDER

ASIA PACIFIC EU+ LATIN AMERICA

MIDDLE EAST& NORTH AFRICA

NIS+ NORTH AMERICA

SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA


TOTAL

Police 9% 4% 19% 37% 38% 4% 44% 15% 29%

Registry& PermitServices

7% 3% 12% 30% 20% 5% 41% 9% 20%

Judiciary 14% 3% 23% 30% 26% 6% 20% 14% 14%

Customs 8% 7% 17% 23% 27% 5% 13% 14% 10%

Utilities 9% 2% 9% 23% 5% 3% 15% 5% 8%

MedicalServices

8% 2% 11% 21% 28% 3% 13% 15% 8%

EducationSystem

5% 3% 9% 23% 20% 4% 8% 10% 6%

Land Services 12% 4% 11% 29% 25% 8% 4% 12% 6%

Tax Authorities 9% 2% 8% 15% 10% 3% 4% 7% 4%

2.2 REGRESSIVENESSOF PETTY BRIBERY

The 2010 Barometer shows again that poorer peoplearound the globe are more requently penalised bybribery. In eight out o nine services, users whose statedincome corresponds to low income quintiles pay bribesmore requently than those stating higher income levels.

The biggest disparities exist in interactions with customsand registry & permits services, where respondents withlower income report more numerous incidents o bribery(Figure 5).

Figure 5 Percentage o people who reportpaying a bribe in the previous 12months, by income and serviceSource: Transparency InternationalGlobal Corruption Barometer 2010.Percentages are weighted and calculated

or respondents who came in contact withthe services listed.

POLICE

REGISTRY & PERMIT SERVICES

JUDICIARY

CUSTOMS

UTILITIES

MEDICAL SERVICES

EDUCATION SYSTEM

LAND SERVICES

TAX AUTHORITIES

% o respondents who reported paying a bribe in the past 12 months

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Lower income quintileHigher income quintile

3427

2815

812

186

124

93

103

129

75


10/29

19%

56%

5%

32%

36%

23%

5%

11% C a m b o d

i a

A f g h a n

i s t a n

I n d

i a

P a k

i s t a n

V i e t n a m

P a p u a N e w

G u

i n e a

T h a i l a n d

S o l o m o n I s l a n d s

I n d o n e s i a

P h

i l i p p

i n e s

V a n u a t u

F i j i

C h

i n a

J a p a n

M a l a y s

i a

S i n g a p o r e

T a i w a n

H o n g K o n g

N e w

Z e a l a n d

A u s t r a l i a

K o r e a ( S o u t h )

L i t h u a n

i a

R o m a n

i a

H u n g a r y

G r e e c e

L u x e m b o u r g

L a t v

i a

P o l a n d

C z e c h R e p u b l i c

I t a l y

A u s t r i a

B u l g a r i a

F r a n c e

S p a

i n

I r e l a n d

S l o v e n

i a

I c e l a n d

P o r t u g a l

F i n l a n d

G e r m a n y

N e t h e r l a n d s

S w

i t z e r l a n d

N o r w a y

U n

i t e d K

i n g d o m

D e n m a r k

E l

S a l v a d o r

M e x

i c o

B o l i v

i a

C o l o m b

i a

P e r u

C h

i l e

V e n e z u e l a

A r g e n t i n a

B r a z i l

I r a q

P a l e s t

i n e

L e b a n o n

I s r a e l

M o n g o l i a

A z e r b a

i j a n

M o l d o v a

U k r a

i n e

B e l a r u s

R u s s

i a

A r m e n

i a

G e o r g

i a

U n

i t e d

S t a t e s

C a n a d a

L i b e r i a

U g a n d a

S i e r r a L e o n e

N i g e r i a

S e n e g a l

C a m e r o o n

K e n y a

Z a m b

i a

G h a n a

T u r k e y

B o s n

i a & H e r z e g o v i n a

F Y R M a c e d o n

i a

S e r b

i a

K o s o v o

C r o a t i a

ASIA PACIFIC

EU+

LATIN AMERICA

MIDDLE EAST &NORTH AFRICA

NEWLYINDEPENDENT

STATES+

NORTH AMERICA

SUB-SAHARAN

AFRICA

WESTERNBALKANS+ TURKEY

PERCENTAGE OFUSERS WHO REPORT

PAYING A BRIBE TO AT LEAST ONE OFNINE SERVICEPROVIDERS INTHE PAST YEAR Bangladesh, Morocco and South A rica are excluded romthis table. For detailed in ormation see Appendix A (p. 32).For ull results by country see Table 3 Appendix C (p. 44).



11/29

2.3 NO REDUCTION INPETTY BRIBERY LEVELSIN THE LAST FIVE YEARS

The 2010 Barometer allows us to explore howexperiences with petty bribery have changed over time.Findings are discouraging: globally, users o seven basicservices report paying similar levels o bribes to ve yearsago. However, when examined at the institution/servicelevel, even more concerning results emerge: there aresubstantially more reported bribes to the judiciary, thepolice and registry & permit services than previously.

Figure 6 Percentage o people who reportpaying a bribe, comparison overtime, by serviceSource: Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer 2006 and 2010.Percentages are weighted and calculated

or respondents who came in contact withthe services listed. Only countries includedin both editions are used or comparison.


% o respondents who reported paying a bribe in the past 12 months

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

20062010

POLICE

REGISTRY & PERMIT SERVICES

JUDICIARY

UTILITIES

MEDICAL SERVICES

EDUCATION SYSTEM

TAX AUTHORITIES

Regional variations also exist in the reporting o pettybribery. In the Western Balkans + Turkey and in Sub-Saharan A rican countries, respondents indicate thatbribery has increased. On average, however, reportedbribery has decreased in Asia Paci c (Figure 7).

Figure 7 Percentage o people whoreported paying bribes,comparison over time, by regionSource: Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer 2006 and 2010.Percentages are weighted and calculated

or respondents who came in contact withthe services listed. Only countries includedin both editions are used or comparison.

The Middle East & North A rica and theNewly Independent States+ regionsare not included as there were too ewcountries rom these regions covered bythe 2006 Barometer.

% o respondents reporting paying a bribe to any o 7 service providers

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

20062010

SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

LATIN AMERICA

ASIA PACIFIC

WESTERN BALKANS+ TURKEY

EU+

NORTH AMERICA

2.4 WHY PAY BRIBES?TO AVOID PROBLEMSWITH THE AUTHORITIES,MOST PEOPLE SAY

To understand peoples experiences with bribery ingreater depth, the 2010 Barometer explores why bribesare paid. Speci cally, it asks respondents to indicate thereason or the last bribe paid, based on a list provided tothem. Nearly hal o all respondents report that the lastbribe was paid to avoid a problem with the authorities.

Almost one quarter o respondents cited speedingthings up as the reason or the bribe, ollowed by toreceive a service they were entitled to (Table 4).

These aggregate results mask regional di erences. In Asia Paci c, the most reported reason is to receive aservice the respondent was entitled to, while in Sub-Saharan A rica it is to avoid a problem with authorities.In the Middle East & North A rica, and Latin America,the reason most reported is to speed things up.

Table 4 Percentage o people by regionreporting that the last bribe paidwas toSource: Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer 2010. Percentagesare weighted.


NIS+NORTH

AMERICA SUB-SAHARAN

AFRICA


TOTAL

Avoid aproblem withthe authorities

12% 6% 10% 9% 12% 1 6% 67% 6% 44%

Speedthings up

28% 15% 44% 48% 28% 9% 20% 21% 22%

Receivea serviceentitled to

35% 8% 34% 14% 21% 6% 11% 15% 17%

Dont know 20% 59% 8% 20% 33% 59% 1% 53% 14%

Dontremember

5% 12% 5% 10% 6% 10% 0% 5% 3%43

56

1923

149

718

54

24

1730

921

815

58

68

56

34


12/29


3. PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS AND EXPERIENCESOF CORRUPTION

ALIGN WITH EXPERT ASSESSMENTS The Barometer 2010 allows us to explore thealignment o general public and expert views oncorruption. Transparency Internationals CorruptionPerceptions Index (CPI) measures the degree to whichpublic sector corruption is perceived to exist in countriesaround the world. 12 The most recent edition, the 2010CPI, rated 178 countries around the world on a scale

rom 10 (very clean) to 0 (highly corrupt). In contrastto the Global Corruption Barometer , which refectspublic opinion, the CPI refects the views o experts andbusinesspeople.

As Figure 8 shows, perceptions o the general public 13 captured in the 2010 Barometer and perceptions o experts in the 2010 CPI align. 14 This means that, onaverage, in those countries where businesspeople,country analysts and experts perceive corruption to bewidespread, the general public also perceives corruptionto be widespread.

Figure 8 General public perceptions o corruptionin the 2010 Barometer compared toexpert perceptions o corruption in the2010 Corruption Perceptions IndexSource: Transparency International Global CorruptionBarometer 2010 and Corruption Perceptions Index 2010. Each dot represents a country.

There are countries and territories where the twoperspectives di er. In Australia, Canada, Chile, HongKong, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, the United Kingdomand the United States, experts and country analysts havea more positive image than the general public, who viewthe countrys corruption levels as higher.

On the contrary, in A ghanistan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Iraq,Morocco and Vietnam, the general public does not perceivecorruption to be as widespread as the experts perceive it to be.

Given the hidden nature o corruption, perceptions havebeen deemed by academics as a sound proxy or actualcorruption levels. The Barometer allows us to explore thisrelationship, by analysing whether peoples experienceswith petty bribery 15 and experts perceptions as refectedin the CPI align. The CPI rates countries on a scale

rom 10 (very clean) to 0 (highly corrupt). Results showthat experiences and perceptions are closely related. 16 In other words, those countries assessed by expertsas being a ected by public sector corruption are thesame countries where a higher proportion o Barometerrespondents report having to pay a bribe in the past 12months (Figure 9).

Figure 9 Peoples experiences obribery in the 2010 Barometercompared to experts perceptionso corruption in the 2010Corruption Perceptions IndexSource: Transparency InternationalGlobal Corruption Barometer 2010 andCorruption Perceptions Index 2010. Eachdot represents a country. Bangladesh,Morocco and South A rica are notincluded because o data validity concernsregarding the question on bribery byservice.

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

E x p e r

t p e r c e p

t i o n s o

f c o r r u p t

i o n

General public perceptions o corruption

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

E x p e r

t p e r c e p

t i o n s o

f c o r r u p t i o n

% o households paying bribes

Veryclean

Highlycorrupt

Veryclean

Veryclean

Highlycorrupt

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1


13/29

GOLD MINERwandas economy was gradually recovering rom thedevastating impact o years o civil confict when one miningcooperative discovered it had lost more than it thought.

In 2008 a change in Rwandan law meant the cooperativehad to renew its certi cate. This task ell to the groupspresident, who was an infuential member o the community.

Yet members o the cooperative claim that the presidentorged the ownership documents and re-registered

the mine under his own name. They appealed to localleaders, but the leaders sided with the president.

The cooperative then wrote to Rwandas Public Prosecutor Authority to request an investigation. When monthspassed by without a response, they turned to TransparencyInternational (TI) Rwanda, who dra ted an appeal orexpedience and orwarded it to the prosecutor general.

As a result, the case came to court, and in a stunningvictory the cooperatives president was sentenced to10 years in jail, and ned the equivalent o around US$3,400. Ownership o the mine was returned to thegroup, who are now working to increase its output orthe bene t o the community.

TI Rwanda has since been approached with three morecases related to mine exploitation; encouraging evidencethat demand or accountability is growing.



TRUE STORY

istockphoto.com/ Poula Hansen


14/29


Neither

4. GOVERNMENT ANTI-CORRUPTIONEFFORTS ARE NOT SEEN

AS EFFECTIVE, BUT THEPUBLIC BELIEVE MEDIA

AND GOVERNMENT ARECRUCIAL TO STOPPINGCORRUPTION

4.1 GOVERNMENTSEFFORTS TO FIGHTCORRUPTION REMAININEFFECTIVE

The 2010 Barometer asks the general public howthey evaluate government e orts to curb corruptionin their country. Hal o those interviewed deem theirgovernments anti-corruption e orts to be ine ective,while three out o 10 think that these e orts are e ective(Figure 10).

Important di erences in how people evaluate theirgovernments actions exist across countries. Aboutseven out o 10 respondents in Azerbaijan, Cambodia,Fiji, Georgia, Kenya, Luxembourg and Sierra Leoneconsider their governments actions as being e ectiveor extremely e ective. On the contrary, about seven outo 10 respondents in Argentina, Bosnia & Herzegovina,Canada, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Latvia,Lithuania, Pakistan, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain,the United Kingdom, the United States and Venezuela

judge the anti-corruption actions o their governments tobe ine ective or extremely ine ective (Table 4 in AppendixC contains ull results).

Figure 10 Assessment o governmentactions in the fght againstcorruption, overall resultsSource: Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer 2010. Percentagesare weighted.

29%

21%

50%

Ine ective

E ective

4.2 CRITICISM OFGOVERNMENTS EFFORTSHAS REMAINED CONSISTENTOVER TIME

The general publics overall evaluation o theirgovernments e orts has not changed much over time.

There are, however, regional di erences that emerge.While ewer people in Asia Paci c, Latin America andSub-Saharan A rica rate their governments e orts ase ective in 2010 as they assessed them in 2007, theopposite trend is observed in the Newly IndependentStates+ and North America, where government e ortsare seen to have improved (Figure 11).

Figure 11 Percentage o people who

eel their governmentsanti-corruption e orts are

e ective, comparison overtime and by regionSource: Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer 2007 and 2010.Percentages are weighted. Only countriesincluded in both editions are used orcomparison. No 2007 data or the MiddleEast & North A rica region are available.

% o respondents reporting their government e orts to be e ective/extremely e ective0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

20072010

SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

WESTERN BALKANS + TURKEY

NIS+

LATIN AMERICA

EU+

NORTH AMERICA

ASIA PACIFIC

4739

3835

2533

4132

2729

2127

2922


15/29


For the rst time, the 2010 Barometer asked the generalpublic whom they trust the most to stop corruptionin their countries. Results show that, inso ar as anyone institution is trusted, the most trusted actor is themedia. Almost as many people trust their governmentsmost o all to curb corruption. However, a ull quarter o those asked report that they do not trust any institutionin this regard. Around one in every 10 respondentswould put their greatest trust in the private sector, innon-governmental organisations 17 or in internationalinstitutions (eg. UN, World Bank, International MonetaryFund) respectively (Figure 12).

Figure 12 Peoples trust: whom do peopletrust the most to fght corruptionin their country?Source: Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer 2010. Percentagesare weighted.

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0% % o

f r e s p o n d e n

t s

2522

119

8

25

Media Governmentleaders

Business/ private sector

NGOs (non-governmentalorganisations)

Internationalorganisations

Nobody

Table 5 presents regional di erences in this evaluation. The biggest sceptics those who do not put great trustin any institution are in the Western Balkans + Turkey,the EU+, NIS+ and in North America. A substantialproportion o respondents our in 10 in Sub-Saharan

A rica report trusting their government leaders most o all.

Table 5 Percentage o respondents who trustthe ollowing institutions the most tofght corruption, by regionSource: Transparency International Global CorruptionBarometer 2010. Percentages are weighted.


NIS+NORTH AMERICA

SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA


TOTAL

Media 34% 18% 22% 21% 10% 22% 15% 11% 25%

Nobody 26% 34% 30% 29% 39% 33% 13% 45% 25%

Govermmentleaders

17% 13% 29% 28% 35% 13% 40% 17% 22%

Business/ private sector

10% 9% 4% 3% 2% 8% 17% 2% 11%

NGOs (non-governmentalorganisations)

10% 9% 8% 12% 5% 20% 7% 14% 9%

Internationalorganisations

3% 18% 8% 7% 8% 5% 7% 10% 8%

Figure 13 explores the relationship between views o government anti-corruption e orts and public trust ininstitutions. It is not surprising that those who deem theirgovernment actions as e ective also place their trust inthem. On the contrary, those who think their governmentis not doing a good job in ghting corruption are moreinclined not to trust anyone to stop corruption in their country.

Figure 13 Peoples trust versus evaluation ogovernments anti-corruption e ortsSource: Transparency International Global CorruptionBarometer 2010. Percentages are weighted.

% o respondents

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Ine ectiveE ective

GOVERNMENTLEADERS

NOBODY


NGOs (NON-GOVERNMENTALORGANISATIONS)INTERNATIONALORGANISATIONS

I you deem your governmentse orts to ght corruption as...

WHOM DO YOU TRUST THEMOST TO FIGHT CORRUPTION...

1044

369

1113

98

106


16/29


DRASTIC MEASURES At the age o 84, Alma* set about writing her will. Sheowned a plot o land that had been in her amily ordecades, and intended to leave it to her daughter. Onchecking the deeds, however, it transpired that sixsquare metres o her property o cially belonged tosomeone else. Alma went to court to claim ownershipo the plot in its entirety, and was granted it. On checkingover the documentation, however, Alma noticed asigni cant misprint. Instead o the six square metres inquestion, the court had adjudicated upon six squarecentimetres.

Alma promptly returned to court to have the rulingoverturned, but was re used. She spent the next year inand out o various courts, all the way to KazakhstansSupreme Court. But to no avail. At which point Almacontacted Transparency International (TI) Kazakhstan.

TI Kazakhstan contacted the judges who had beeninvolved in Almas case, but, bizarrely, each onemaintained that the ruling could not be reversed. So TIlawyers turned to the media instead. The case receivedbroad coverage in the press and on national television,prompting court o cials to renege on their initial ruling.

Almas deeds were amended, and she was nally able tocomplete her will.

Almas case illustrates some o the shortcomings o Kazakhstans judicial system with great clarity. A systemthat repeatedly denies an elderly lady what is right ullyhers is in urgent need o re orm.

*Names have been changed


TRUE STORY

istockphoto.com/PeskyMonkey


17/29


5. PEOPLE AREWILLING TO ENGAGEIN THE FIGHT AGAINSTCORRUPTION

The 2010 Barometer examines the general publicswillingness to get involved in the ght against corruption.

Almost seven out o every 10 respondents think thatthe general public can make a di erence in the ghtagainst corruption and would de nitely support a riendwho wants to engage in the cause. When asked abouttheir own personal involvement, willingness is somewhatreduced: hal report that they could imagine themselvesgetting personally involved in the anti-corruption cause. A

higher proportion o men to women indicated they wouldbecome involved in the ght against corruption (54 percent v. 45 per cent) (Appendix D).

There are regional di erences in terms o willingness topersonally engage. The willingness to engage personallyis the lowest in Asia Paci c (31 per cent). NIS+ is alsorather low in this regard (53 per cent) (Figure 14).

Figure 14 Peoples engagement in the fghtagainst corruption, by regionSource: Transparency International Global CorruptionBarometer 2010. Percentages are weighted.

ASIA PACIFIC

EU+

LATIN AMERICA

MIDDLE EAST &NORTH AFRICA

NIS+

NORTH AMERICA

SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

WESTERN BALKANS+ TURKEY

TOTAL

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 8 0% 90% 100%

...think that ordinarypeople can make adi erence in the ghtagainst corruption

...would supporttheir colleagues or

riends i they oughtagainst corruption

...could imaginethemselves gettinginvolved in ghtingcorruption

Experience o bribery adversely a ects peoples belie that they can make a di erence. While almost eightout o 10 people who did not experience an incidento bribery think that the general public can make adi erence in curbing corruption, less than seven out o 10 who experienced bribery think the same. Moreover,while almost seven out o 10 o those who did not paya bribe imagine themselves getting involved in the ghtagainst corruption, slightly more than ve out o 10

who paid bribes report the same willingness to becomeengaged (Figure 15).

Figure 15 Peoples engagement in thefght against corruption andtheir experiences with briberySource: Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer 2010. Percentagesare weighted.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Paid a bribeDid not pay a bribe...t h i n k t h a t o r d i n a r y p e o p l e

c a n m a k e a d i e r e n c e i n t h e

f g h t a g a i n s t c o r r u p t i o n

...w o u l d s u p p o r t t h e i r c o l l e a g u e s o r r i e n d s i t h e y

o u g h t a g a i n s t c o r r u p t i o n ...c o u l d i m a g i n e t h e m s e l v e s

g e t t i n g i n v o l v e d i n f g h t i n g

c o r r u p t i o n

The 2010 Barometer asks respondents whether theywould report an incident o corruption. Seven out o 10agree that they would do so, indicating a widespread

willingness to play a part in stopping corruption. Severaldi erences emerge when this nding is exploredat the regional level. In the Americas and EU+, theoverwhelming majority (nine out o 10 interviewees)would report an incident o corruption, but in the NewlyIndependent States+ only about hal o all those askedwould report (Table 6).

PERCENTAGE

Total 71%North America 91%

Latin America 90%

EU+ 88%

Western Balkans + Turkey 79%

Middle East & North A rica 73%

Asia Paci c 67%

Sub-Saharan A rica 61%

NIS+ 52%

Table 6 Percentage o respondents whoagree/ strongly agree that theywould report an incident ocorruptionSource: Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer 2010. Percentagesare weighted.

6260

31

7994

79

7390

81

8188

81

4571

53

7993

73

8076

70

6089

71

6971

49

69

79

66

87

56

69

% o respondents

% o respondents


18/29

Those who report paying bribes in the past year wereless likely to indicate they would report an incident o corruption. This suggests that bribe paying is related tolower motivation by individuals to engage and less trustin the institutional procedures that are in place toaddress corruption (Figure 16).


Figure 16 Peoples attitudes towardsreporting an incident ocorruption and experienceso briberySource: Transparency InternationalGlobal Corruption Barometer 2010.Percentages are weighted and calculated

or respondents who came in contact withnine services: customs, education system,

judiciary, land related services, medicalservices, police, registry & permit services,utilities, and tax authorities.

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% % o

f r e s p o n d e n

t s

50 50

84

16

P aid a b ri be Di dn t pa y a br ib e

Agree/strongly agreeDisagree/strongly disagree

. with statement I wouldreport an incident o corruption

CONCLUSIONS The Global Corruption Barometer is a unique toolthat provides a use ul window into peoples views o corruption and experiences with bribery around theworld. By exploring corruption and bribery among thegeneral public, it creates a better knowledge base onhow corruption permeates society and to what extentthere is support within society or stronger anti-corruptione orts. The Barometer provides an overview o thesectors the public deems most a ected by corruptionand provides a bottom up assessment o how leadersaround the world are doing in the ght against corruption.

Most people interviewed in the 2010 Barometer perceivean increase in corruption levels in their countries over thepast three years. This sends a clear message to leadersaround the world that the public believes that corruption

continues to plague societies everywhere.Perceptions are matched by peoples experiences: the2010 Barometer nds that levels o petty bribery aroundthe world have not improved when compared with thosein 2006, with about one in our people having paid abribe in the past year.

Much more must be done to guarantee that access tobasic services, rom health to utilities to education, isnot endangered by corruption. Those institutions thatare supposed to prevent corruption and en orce the law,such as the police and judiciary, must unction well oreveryone in society, untainted by the corruption that isstill evident in so many corners o the world.

In most countries, the general public continues toview political parties as the institution most a ected bycorruption. These perceptions not only refect a negativeimage o political parties that the public has reportedover time in the Barometer, but also pose a risk o undermining the basic role o parties in the democraticprocess.

While government e orts to ght corruption are thoughtine ective by hal the public worldwide, almost one inevery our respondents still trusts their government mosto all to ght cor ruption. This seeming contradictionmight refect a number o things. People may eel a senseo commitment, optimism or even solidarity regardingthe core aims o government to act with accountability,integrity and transparency, by and or the people.

Alternatively, people may eel the checks and balanceson government, above all by the media, where one in

our would place their trust, make it well suited to provideleadership in the ght against corruption.

More must be done globally to guarantee that thegeneral population is not endangered by bribery andimpoverished by corruption. The ongoing trust ingovernments to address corruption, despite mixedper ormance by them thus ar, also provides a pointedmessage or leaders: act now to live up to peoplesexpectations. Loss o public support will undermine thesustained e ort that is needed to prevent and punishcorruption around the world.

The good news to be drawn rom the 2010 Barometeris that the general public is more than willing to engagein the ght against corruption and, critically, believes itcan make a di erence. This energy and commitmentmust be tapped into and nurtured, as it can improvegovernance in a way that bene ts people and society as

a whole. This public engagement, both real and potential,places renewed emphasis on accountability, both romgovernment and rom the people, to create the kind o systems that reject bribery and cor ruption.

Given the ndings o the 2010 Barometer, the choice orall those who want to end corruption is clear: engagepeople, empower people, and opt or solutions thatwork or people everywhere, building on the institutional

rameworks that can and must support this crucialcause. Ultimately, curbing corruption in all its guises willbe strengthened by solutions that create broad basedpublic support.


19/29

APPENDIX A: ABOUT THE SURVEY The Global Corruption Barometer is a public opinionsurvey that assesses the general publics perceptionsand experiences o corruption and bribery. In 2010 theGlobal Corruption Barometer covered 86 countries andterritories. In 84 o the countries evaluated, the surveywas carried out on behal o Transparency Internationalby Gallup International Association. In Bangladesh thesurvey was conducted by Transparency InternationalBangladesh and in Mongolia it was conducted by theIndependent Authority against Corruption o Mongolia(IAAC). Overall, the 2010 Global Corruption Barometer polled 91,781 individuals.

Timing o feldwork

Fieldwork or the survey was conducted between 1 June2010 and 30 September 2010.

Demographic variables

The demographic variables captured in the questionnaireare: age, education, household income, employment andreligion. For comparability purposes these variables wererecoded rom their original orm.

Sampling

In each country the sample is probabilistic and wasdesigned to represent the general adult population.General coverage o the sample is as ollows: 83 percent national and 17 per cent urban only. The interviewswere conducted either ace-to- ace, using sel -administered questionnaires, by telephone, internet orcomputer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) (mostlyin developed countries), with both male and emalerespondents aged 16 years and above.

Weighting

The data were weighted in two steps to obtainrepresentative samples by country and worldwide. Thedata were rst weighted to generate data representativeo the general population or each country. A secondweight, according to the size o the population surveyed,was then applied to obtain global and regional totals.


Data entry and consistency checks

The nal questionnaire, which was reviewed andapproved by Transparency International, was markedwith columns, codes, and with indications o single ormulti-punching. Local survey agencies ollowed thislayout when entering data and sent an ASCII data leto the Gallup International Associations CoordinationCenter ollowing these speci cations.

The data was processed centrally by analysing di erentaspects such as whether all codes entered were validand i lters were respected and bases consistent.

I any inconsistency was ound, this was pointed out to

the local agency so they could evaluate the issue andsend back the revised and amended data.

Data or all countries was nally consolidated andweighted as speci ed above. All data analysis andvalidation was done using SPSS so tware.

Through the consistency check some problems weredetected and these problems prevented the use o data

rom some countries or certain portions o the overallanalysis o the report:

Omitted questions: Questions 3A7 and 3B7 in Malaysia,and Question 2.10 in Iceland.

Problems in coding responses: Questions 3A, 3Band 5 in Bangladesh. Thus the country is not included inthe analysis presented in sections 2 and 5 o this report,Figure 9 and Table 3 in Appendix C.

A lower than usual contact rate in Morocco (question3A) and data inconsistencies in question 3B in South

A rica led to these countries not being eatured in Table1, Figure 9 and Table 3 in Appendix C.

Margin o error per country

Between +/- 2.18% and 4.40%

COUNTRY/ TERRITORY

FIRM INTERVIEWS METHODOLOGY COVERAGEPOPULATIONREPRESENTEDBY THE SAMPLE

FIELD DATES

1 A ghanistan BBSS 1160 Face to Face National 12,100,682 August 4 - August 25

2 Argentina Aleph Zero 1003 CATI National 30,988,780 June 28 - July 15

3 Armenia Romir Holding 1000 CATI National 2,363,408 June 10 - June 20

4 Austr alia Colmar Bru nton 1020 Online National 17, 020,122 June 28 - July 11

5 Austria Austria Gallup 1005 Face to Face National 7,100,000 June 24 - July 15

6 Azerbaijan SIAR 1018 Face to Face National 5,638,439 June 23 - July 14

7 Bangladesh Transparency Int erna tional Bangladesh 1049 Face to Face Nat iona l 3 ,702 ,969 June 9 - July 20

8 Belarus Romir Holding 1000 Face to Face National 7,480,000 June 21 - July 7

9 Bolivia En cu estas y Estudios 1021 F ace to Face Urb an 2, 249,381 June 20 - July 10

10 Bosnia &

HerzegovinaBBSS 1000 Face to Face National 2,900,000 June 25 - July 5

11 Brazil Ib op e Inteligencia 1001 F ace to Face National 140,508,167 June 16 - June 19

12 Bulgaria BBSS 993 Face to Face National 6,500,000 July 1 - July 8

13 Camb od ia In doch ina Research 1002 F ace to Face Urb an 8, 237,200 July 21 - July 26

14 Cameroon RMS-A r ica 1973 F ace to Face National 10, 834,453 June 15 - June 30

15 Canada Leger Marketing 1005 Online National 24,719,625 June 22 - June 29

16 C hile Ibope Inteligencia 1000 CATI Urban 7,365,194 June 21 - July 13

17 C hina CRC 1000 Face to Face Urban 18,451,100 June 9 - July 10

18 Colombia Sigma Dos Colomb ia 1001 CATI National 32, 953,981 June 22 - July 9

19 Croatia Puls 1000 Face to Face National 3,663,521 July 1 - July 15

20 Czech Rep ublic Mareco 1000 F ace to Face National 8, 392,530 July 2 - Ju ly 12

21 Denmark Capacent 1216 Online National 4,516,727 June 24 - July 12

2 2 E l S al vad or Si gm ad os G ua te ma la 5 00 F ac e t o F ac e N at io na l 4, 346 ,0 87 J ul y 5 - J uly 1 5

23 Fiji Tebbutt Research 1002 CATI National 523,624 June 21 - July 14

24 Finland Capacent 1112 Online National 4,383,605 June 24 - July 12

25 France BVA 998 CATI National 46,846,977 July 1 - July 26

26 Georgia GORBI 500 Face to Face National 1,166,510 June 15 - June 24

27 Germany Produkt und Markt 1000 CATI National 68,713,895 June 10 - June 22

28 Ghana RMS-A rica 1029 Face to Face National 2,170,135 July 1 - July 10

29 Greece Focus Bari 1000 CATI Urban 8,253,885 June 17 - July 6

30 Hong Kong CRC 1000 Online National 7,018,637 June 9 - July 10

3 1 H un ga ry Au st ri a Ga ll up ( Psy ma H un ga ry ) 1 00 0 C AT I N at io na l 8, 137 ,2 20 J un e 28 - J ul y 9

32 Iceland Capacent 791 Online National 230,000 June 18 - June 26

33 India MaRS 1000 CATI Urban 65,000,000 July 1 - July 6

34 Indonesia CRC 1000 Online National 237,512,355 June 9 - July 10

35 I raq IIACSS 1720 Face to Face Urban 18,256,481 June 17 - July 10

36 I reland ICM Research 1000 Online National 2,790,864 July 1 - July 19

37 I srael ICM Research 1001 Online National 4,296,834 July 1 - July 19

38 Italy Doxa S.P.A. 1030 Face to Face National 51,200,000 June 16 - June 30

39 Japan NRC 1200 Face to Face National 103,363,009 June 30 - July 12

40 K enya Synovate Kenya 1001 CATI National 21,550,832 July 1 - July 10

41 Korea (South) Gal lup Korea 1500 Face to Face Nat iona l 40,853,273 June 11 - June 28

42 Kosovo BBSS 1000 Face to Face National 1,463,000 July 21 - July 30

43 Latvia Romir Holding 1000 Face to Face National 1,772,800 June 12 - June 22

The local polling agencies participating in theGlobal Corruption Barometer were as ollows:


20/29

COUNTRY/ TERRITORY

FIRM INTERVIEWS METHODOLOGY COVERAGEPOPULATIONREPRESENTEDBY THE SAMPLE

FIELD DATES

44 Lebanon Reach 1000 Face to Face National 3,157,674 July 19 - July 31

45 L iberia RMS-A rica 752 Face to Face Urban 856,516 June 21 - Jun 26

46 Lithuania Romir Holding 1000 F ace to Face National 2, 461,999 July 2 - Ju ly 12

47 Luxembourg B VA 490 Face to Face National 375,399 July 1 - August 5

48 F YR Macedonia Brima 1001 CATI National 1,333,435 June 15 - July 10

49 Malay sia TNS Malaysia 1008 F ace to Face National 18, 031,020 June 28 - July 26

50 Mexico Ib op e Inteligencia 1000 F ace to Face Urb an 13, 168,032 June 16 - June 30

51 Moldova BBSS 1653 Face to Face National 3,018,274 July 9 - August 25

52 Mongo li a Independent Authority againstCorruption o Mongolia (IAAC) 1 01 0 F ac e t o F ac e N at io na l 1, 980 ,3 00 J un e 7 - J ul y 1 3

53 Morocco BVA 999 Face to Face National 19,422,000 July 20 - August 30

5 4 N et he rl an ds M ar ke tr es po ns e 1 05 9 O nl in e N at io na l 1 2, 60 0, 00 0 J un e 2 9 - J ul y 1 6

55 New Z ealand Colmar Bru nton 1291 Online National 3, 381,302 June 3- July 11

56 Nigeria RMS-A rica 1000 Face to Face National 68,645,381 June 16 - June 25

57 Norway Capacent 1214 Online National 3,817,653 June 24 - July 7

58 Pak istan Pakistan Gallu p 2739 F ace to Face National 81, 000,000 June 20 - July 10

59 Pales tine Pales tini an Cen te r or Pub li c Opinion 1040 Face to Face Nat iona l 1 ,414 ,888 July 18 - July 26

62 Papua NewGuinea Tebbutt Research 996 CATI National 3,741,391 June 21 - July 14

60 Peru Ibope Inteligencia 1000 CATI Urban 8,968,696 August 31 -September 26

6 1 P hi li pp in es M &S P HI LI PP NE S 1 00 0 F ac e t o F ac e N at io na l 65 ,37 1, 50 2 J un e 21 - J ul y 7

63 Poland Mareco 1003 Face to Face National 32,611,804 July 1 - July 9

64 Portugal DYM 1195 Face to Face National 7,799,891 June 18 - June 29

65 Romania BBSS 1095 Face to Face National 17,357,765 June 26 - July 5

66 Russia Romir Holding 1500 F ace to Face National 114,953,628 June 17 - July 22

67 Senegal RMS-A rica 1006 Face to Face Urban 1,962,604 July 3 - July 13

68 S erbia BBSS 1007 Face to Face National 5,975,920 July 12 - July 19

69 Sierra Leone RMS-A rica 750 Face to Face Urban 5,002,008 July 8 - July 11

70 Singapore CRC 1000 Online National 4,608,168 June 9 - July 10

71 Slovenia Puls 1010 Online National 1,587,944 June 21 - July 18

72 SolomonIslands Tebbutt Research 500 CATI National 372,908 June 28 - July 14

7 3 S ou th A r ic a To pl in e R es ea rc h S ol ut io ns 1 00 0 F ac e t o F ac e U rb an 3 3, 82 0, 00 1 J un e 1 7 - J ul y 1 4

74 Spain Instituto DYM 1005 Online National 32,337,483 June 28 - July 12

75 Switzerland Isopublic 1025 Face to Face National 5,909,155 June 9 - July 1476 Taiwan CRC 1000 Online National 22,920,947 June 9 - July 10

77 Thailand CRC 1000 Online National 66,187,267 June 14 - July 14

78 Turkey Barem 1035 CATI National 50,781,956 July 7 - July 14

79 Uganda RMS-A rica 1025 Face to Face National 901,000 July 1 - July 10

80 Ukr ain e Romir Holding 2000 F ace to Face National 37, 701,466 June 10 - June 22

81 United Kingdom ICM Research 2014 Online National 47, 358,000 July 1 - Ju ly 19

82 United States The Research Intelligence Group(TRiG) 1 00 0 O nl in e N at io na l 24 5, 26 2, 000 J un e 16 - J un e 2 5

83 Vanuatu Tebbutt Research 495 CATI National 136,368 June 21 - July 14

8 4 Ve ne zu el a Si dm a D os Ve ne zu el a 1 00 0 F ac e t o F ac e N at io na l 19 ,90 7, 05 2 J un e 16 - J ul y 16

85 Vietn am In dichina Research 1000 F ace to Face Urb an 59, 023,831 July 21 - July 26

8 6 Za mb ia RM S- A r ica 1 01 3 F ac e t o F ac e N at io na l 1, 659 ,5 03 J ul y 1 - J uly 1 0


APPENDIX B:QUESTIONNAIRE

TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL

1. Let me open this questionnaire by asking your general views on corruption

A. In the past three years, how has the level o corruption in this country changed:1 Increased a lot

2 Increased a little

3 Stayed the same

4 Decreased a little

5 Decreased a lot

9 DK/NA

B. How would you assess your current governments actions in the ght against corruption?1 The government is very e ective in the ght against corruption

2 The government is somewhat e ective in the ght against corruption

3 The government is neither e ective nor ine ective in the ght against corruption

4 The government is somewhat ine ective in the ght against corruption

5 The government is very ine ective in the ght against corruption

9 DK/NA

C. Whom do you trust the most to ght corruption in this country? (single answer) 1 Government leaders

2 Business/private sector

3 NGOs (non-governmental or ganisations)

4 Media

5 International organisations (eg UN, World Bank, International Monetary Fund, etc.)

6 Nobody

9 DK


21/29


SECTORS NOT AT ALLCORRUPT

EXTREMELYCORRUPT

DK/NA

1. Political parties 1 2 3 4 5 9

2. Parliament/legislature 1 2 3 4 5 9

3. Police 1 2 3 4 5 9

4. Business/ private sector 1 2 3 4 5 9

5. Media 1 2 3 4 5 9

6. Public o cials/ civil servants 1 2 3 4 5 9

7. Judiciary 1 2 3 4 5 9

8. NGOs (non-governmentalorganisations)

1 2 3 4 5 9

9. Religious bodies 1 2 3 4 5 9

10. Military 1 2 3 4 5 9

11. Education system 1 2 3 4 5 9

3.

A. In the past 12 months, have you or anyone living in your household had contact with the ollowinginstitution/organisation?

1=Yes (Note to interviewer i YES ask question b i NO ask about next institution)

2=No8=DK

9=NA

B. In the past 12 months have you or anyone living in your household paid a bribe in any orm to each o theollowing institutions/organisations?

2. Question on perceptions regarding corruption. To what extent do you perceive the ollowing categories in this country to be a ected by corr uption? Please answeron a scale rom 1 to 5 (1 meaning not at all corrupt, 5 meaning extremely corrupt). O course you can use in-betweenscores as well.

SECTORS

YES NO DK NA YES NO DK NA

Education system 1 2 8 9 1 2 8 9

Judiciary 1 2 8 9 1 2 8 9

Medical services 1 2 8 9 1 2 8 9

Police 1 2 8 9 1 2 8 9

Registry & permit services(civil registry or birth,marriage, licenses, per-mits)

1 2 8 9 1 2 8 9

Utilities (telephone,electricity, water, etc.) 1 2 8 9 1 2 8 9

Tax revenue 1 2 8 9 1 2 8 9

Land services (buying,selling, inheriting, renting)

1 2 8 9 1 2 8 9

Customs 1 2 8 9 1 2 8 9

HAD A CONTACT

QA

PAID A BRIBE

QB

4. I you paid a bribe in the past 12 months, which o the ollowing applied to the LAST bribe paid: (Single answer) 1=The bribe was paid to speed things up

2=The bribe was paid to avoid a problem with the authorities

3=The bribe was paid to receive a service entitled to

4=Did not pay a bribe in the past 12 months

5=Cannot remember

9=Dont know

5. I am going to read out some statements. For each one, can you tell me whether you strongly agree,agree, disagree or strongly disagree?

1 Strongly disagree

2 Disagree 3 Agree

4 Strongly agree

a. Ordinary people can make a di erence in the ght against corruption

b. I would support my colleague or r iend, i they ought against corruption

c. I could imagine mysel getting involved in ghting corruption

d. I would report an incident o corruption


22/29

Transparency International

DEMOGRAPHICS

Rural/Urban

Rural 1Urban 2

Sex:

Male 1Female 2

Age: Write in year o birth:

Code: Under 30 130 - 50 251 - 65 365 + 4

Total household income be ore taxesPlease ask household income as you would normally ask it in your country and then re-code as ollowsLow (Bottom quintile/20%) 1Medium low (Second quintile/20%) 2Medium (Third quintile/20%) 3Medium high (Fourth quintile/20%) 4High (Top quintile/ 20%) 5Re used/Dont know/no answer 9

Education: Highest attained

No education/only basic education 1Secondary school 2High level education (e.g university) 3DK/NA 9

EmploymentWhich o the ollowing best describes your own present employment status?Working ull or part time (include sel -employed) 1Unemployed 2Not working (student, housewi e) 3Retired 4DK/ NA 9

ReligionDo you consider yoursel to beRoman Catholic 01Russian or Eastern Orthodox 02Protestant 03Other Christian 04Hindu 05Muslim 06Jewish 07Buddhist 08Other 09Nothing (DO NOT READ) 10Re use to answer

Global Corruption Barometer 2010 41

APPENDIX C:TABLES BY COUNTRY/ TERRITORY

Table 1: In the past three years, how has thelevel o corruption in this countrychanged?Source: Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer 2010. Figures are weighted.

COUNTRY/TERRITORY ..DECREASED ..STAYED THE SAME ..INCREASED

Total 14% 30% 56%

Asia Pacifc 15% 38% 47%

A ghanistan 16% 24% 60%

Australia 5% 42% 54%

Bangladesh 36% 18% 46%

Cambodia 30% 27% 43%

China 25% 29% 46%

Fiji 53% 11% 36%

Hong Kong 32% 35% 33%

India 10% 16% 74%

Indonesia 27% 30% 43%

Japan 14% 40% 46%

Korea (South) 24% 44% 32%

Malaysia 19% 35% 46%

New Zealand 4% 24% 73%

Pakistan 6% 16% 77%

Papua New Guinea 7% 8% 85%

Philippines 6% 25% 69%

Singapore 28% 33% 38%

Solomon Islands 16% 18% 66%

Taiwan 23% 3 5% 42%

Thailand 39% 32% 29%

Vanuatu 13% 23% 64%

Vietnam 18% 19% 63%

EU+ 3% 24% 73%

Austria 9% 45% 46%

Bulgaria 28% 42% 30%

Czech Republic 14% 42% 44%

Denmark 2% 69% 29%

Finland 7% 43% 50%

France 7% 28% 66%

Germany 6% 24% 70%

Greece 5% 20% 75%

Hungary 4% 20% 76%

Iceland 15% 3 2% 53%

Ireland 10% 24% 66%

Italy 5% 30% 65%

Latvia 9% 36% 55%

Lithuania 8% 29% 63%

Luxembourg 13% 43% 44%

Netherlands 6% 43% 51%

Norway 6% 34% 61%

Poland 26% 4 5% 29%

Portugal 3% 13% 83%


23/29


COUNTRY/TERRITORY ..DECREASED ..STAYED THE SAME ..INCREASED

Romania 2% 11% 87%

Slovenia 5% 22% 73%

Spain 3% 24% 73%

Switzerland 6% 41% 53%

United Kingdom 3% 30% 67%

Latin America 11% 37% 51%

Argentina 8% 30% 62%

Bolivia 20% 34% 46%

Brazil 9% 27% 64%

Chile 9% 3 9% 53%

Colombia 20% 24% 56%

El Salvador 18% 34% 48%

Mexico 7% 18% 75%

Peru 9% 12% 79%

Venezuela 7% 7% 86%

Middle East & North A rica 16% 27% 57%

Iraq 4% 19% 77%

Israel 4% 20% 76%

Lebanon 6% 12% 82%

Morocco 11% 77% 13%

Palestine 59% 19% 22%

NIS+ 17% 38% 45%

Armenia 15% 35% 50%

Azerbaijan 28% 20% 52%

Belarus 24% 49% 27%

Georgia 78% 1 3% 9%

Moldova 12% 35% 53%

Mongolia 7% 20% 73%

Russia 8% 39% 53%

Ukraine 7% 63% 30%

North America 5% 28% 67%

Canada 4% 34% 62%

United States 6% 22% 72%

Sub-Saharan A rica 24% 14% 62%

Cameroon 15% 24% 62%

Ghana 26% 14% 60%

Kenya 48% 14% 39%

Liberia 26% 25% 49%

Nigeria 17% 1 0% 73%

Senegal 6% 6% 88%

Sierra Leone 53% 17% 30%

South A rica 24% 14% 62%

Uganda 21% 1 2% 67%

Zambia 13% 20% 67%

Western Balkans+Turkey 16% 27% 57%

Bosnia & Herzegovina 10% 30% 59%

Croatia 10% 3 3% 57%

Kosovo 8% 19% 73%

FYR Macedonia 25% 29% 46%

Serbia 14% 37% 49%

Turkey 26% 17% 57%

Table 2: To what extent do you perceive the

ollowing institutions in this countryto be a ected by corruption? (1: notat all corrupt, 5: extremely corrupt)

Average score.Source: Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer 2010. Figures are weighted.Shaded scores are the highest or that particularcountry. In Iceland the question about the militarywas not included in the survey.

COUNTRY/ TERRITORY

POLITICALPARTIES

PARLIAMENT/ LEGISLATURE

POLICE BUSINESS/ PRIVATESECTOR

MEDIA PUBLICOFFICIALS/ CIVILSERVANTS

JUDICIARY NGOs RELIGIOUSBODIES

MILITARY EDUCATIONSYSTEM

Total 4.2 3.7 3.7 3.4 3.2 3.7 3.3 2.9 3.3 2.8 3.1

Asia Pacifc 4.2 3.8 3.7 3.6 3.4 3.9 3.1 2.9 3.8 3.2 3.5

A ghanistan 2.9 3.2 3.2 3.1 2.8 3.1 3.4 3.1 2.7 2.9 2.9

Australia 3.7 3.3 3.3 3.5 3.3 3 .2 2.9 2.8 3.3 2.6 2.5

Bangladesh 3.8 3.1 4.4 2.4 2.3 4.0 3.5 2.3 1.8 1.9 2.6

Cambodia 3.1 2.9 3.7 2.7 2.6 3 .5 4.0 1.9 1.8 2.6 3.0

China 3.4 3.4 3.4 3 .6 3.3 3.4 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.7 3.0

Fiji 3.4 2.7 2.8 3.2 2.3 3.0 2.5 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.2

Hong Kong 3.3 3.0 3.4 3.6 3.2 3.4 2.9 2.7 2.6 2.8 2.8

India 4.2 4.0 4.1 3.1 3.0 3.5 3.1 3.1 2.9 2.8 3.4

Indonesia 3.5 3.6 3.5 2.8 2.8 3 .2 3.3 2.5 2.5 2.8 3.0

Japan 4.2 3.8 3.7 3 .7 3.5 3.9 3.1 3.1 4.0 3.3 3.6

Korea (South) 4.0 4.0 3.7 3.4 3.4 3.6 3.6 2.7 3.0 3.3 3.5

Malaysia 4.0 3.4 4.1 3.3 2.7 3 .3 3.0 2.9 2.0 2.3 2.4

New Zealand 3.5 3.2 2.7 3.2 3.1 3.0 2.5 2.6 3.1 2.2 2.4

Pakistan 4.1 4.0 4.5 3.8 3.3 4 .2 3.6 3.8 2.8 3.0 3.1

Papua NewGuinea 4.0 3.7 3.5 2 .8 2.3 3.5 2.7 1.9 1.8 2.7 2.9

Philippines 3.6 3.5 3.6 2.9 2.0 3.5 3.1 2.4 1.9 2.9 2.7

Singapore 2.9 2.6 2.8 2.9 3.0 2 .9 2.7 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.7

SolomonIslands 3.7 3.7 2.9 2 .8 2.2 3.4 2.6 2.2 2.0 2.7 2.9

Taiwan 3.5 3.8 3.9 3.5 3.2 3.8 3.3 2.8 2.9 3.4 3.2

Thailand 3.6 3.4 3.6 3.2 2.8 3 .7 3.0 2.5 2.4 3.5 3.3

Vanuatu 4.0 3.3 3.0 2.9 2.4 3 .1 2.7 1.8 1.8 2.8 2.3

Vietnam 2.0 1.9 3.8 2.6 2.2 3 .0 2.8 1.7 1.5 2.3 3.3

EU+ 4.4 3.5 3.1 3 .5 3.4 3.5 3.4 2.8 3.5 2.7 2.6

Austria 3.2 2.7 2.6 3.3 2.8 2.8 2.5 2.3 2.7 2.5 2.3

Bulgaria 4.1 3.9 3.8 3.7 2.9 3 .9 4.3 2.8 2.7 2.5 3.2

CzechRepublic 3.8 3.6 3.5 3 .3 2.8 3.7 3.5 2.6 2.5 3.3 3.1

Denmark 2 .8 2.3 2.0 2.8 2.6 2 .5 1.6 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.0

Finland 3.7 2.9 1.9 3.0 2.7 2 .7 2.0 2.5 2.7 2.0 2.2

France 3.6 3.1 2.7 3.3 3.0 3.0 2.8 2.4 2.5 2.2 2.1

Germany 3 .7 3.1 2.3 3.3 3.0 3 .2 2.4 2.6 2.9 2.6 2.3

Greece 4.6 4.3 3.7 3.6 4.3 4.0 3.9 2.8 3.5 2.9 3.2

Hungary 3.9 3.4 3.2 3.8 3.1 3.2 2.9 2.4 2.2 2.8 2.5

Iceland 4.3 3.7 2.2 4.0 3.5 3.5 2.7 2.6 3.2 2.4


24/29

COUNTRY/ TERRITORY

POLITICALPARTIES






Ireland 4.4 4.0 3.0 3.5 3.0 3 .3 2.7 2.5 3.9 2.3 2.5

Italy 4.4 4.0 3.0 3.7 3.3 3.7 3.4 2.7 3.4 2.8 2.9

Latvia 4.0 3.7 3.3 3.0 2.5 3.6 3.2 2.1 1.8 2.3 2.6

Lithuania 4.2 4.2 3.7 3.5 2.9 3 .8 4.0 2.6 2.5 2.4 3.0

Luxembourg 2.9 2.5 2.5 3.0 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.3 2.7 2.3 2.3

Netherlands 3.0 2.7 2.6 3.1 2.9 3 .0 2.6 2.5 2.9 2.5 2.3

Norway 3.0 2.2 2.1 3.2 2.9 2.8 1.9 2.7 3.2 2.4 2.4

Poland 3.6 3.4 3.2 3.5 2.8 3.4 3.3 2.6 2.7 2.4 2.6

Portugal 4.2 3.7 3.2 3.6 2.8 3 .2 3.4 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.5

Romania 4.5 4.5 3.9 3.6 3.1 3 .8 4.0 2.9 2.3 2.4 3.1

Slovenia 4.3 3.7 3.2 3.7 3.1 3 .6 3.5 2.7 3.2 2.8 2.9

Spain 4.4 3.5 3.1 3 .5 3.4 3.5 3.4 2.8 3.5 2.7 2.6Switzerland 2.9 2.6 2.1 3.3 3.0 2.6 2.3 2.2 2.5 2.2 1.8

UnitedKingdom 4.0 3.8 3.1 3 .5 3.4 3.4 2.8 2.9 3.0 2.5 2.5

Latin America 4.0 3.7 3.3 3.5 2.9 3.7 3.8 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.9

Argentina 4.1 3.9 3.8 3.2 3.0 4 .0 3.7 2.4 2.7 2.9 2.5

Bolivia 4.2 3.8 4.1 3.5 3.3 4 .1 4.3 2.8 2.3 3.3 2.6

Brazil 4.1 4.1 3.8 3.0 2.7 3.1 3.2 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.5

Chile 4.0 3.7 3.1 3.4 2.7 3.6 3.6 2.9 3.0 2.8 3.0

Colombia 4.2 4.2 4.0 2.9 2.7 4 .0 3.8 2.6 2.8 3.4 2.5

El Salvador 4.4 3.8 4.3 2.3 2.4 4.2 4.1 2.2 2.5 2.6 2.6

Mexico 4.4 4.2 4.4 3.3 3.2 4.2 4.3 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.9

Peru 4.2 4.3 3.9 2 .9 2.9 4.0 4.4 2.7 2.4 3.4 3.1

Venezuela 4.0 4.0 4.4 3.1 2.3 3 .8 4.1 2.3 2.3 3.5 2.7

Middle East &North A rica 3.6 3.3 3.2 2 .9 2.6 3.4 2.9 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.6

Iraq 3.9 3.6 3.1 3 .0 2.3 3.1 2.6 2.5 2.0 2.8 2.8

Israel 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.4 3.2 3.9 2.8 2.8 4.0 2.6 2.8

Lebanon 4.1 3.8 3.7 3.4 3.5 3.9 3.5 3.0 3.0 2.4 3.0

Morocco 2 .0 2.0 3.3 1.6 1.3 3 .5 3.5 1.4 1.0 1.1 2.0

Palestine 3 .1 2.8 2.7 2.9 2.8 2 .8 2.4 2.8 2.5 2.7 2.3

NIS+ 3.7 3.7 3.9 3 .3 3.0 3.8 3.9 2.9 2.2 3.1 3.6

Armenia 3.6 3.8 4.1 3.2 2.9 3 .8 4.1 2.7 2.2 3.6 4.2

Azerbaijan 2.6 2.5 3.6 2.6 2.4 3.3 3.2 2.5 1.9 2.6 3.3

Belarus 3.2 3.2 3.6 3.2 3.1 3.8 3.4 2.9 2.2 2.9 3.2

Georgia 2.9 2.6 2.1 2.4 2.4 2.7 2.9 2.2 1.4 1.8 2.2

Moldova 3.8 3.7 4.1 3.7 3.0 3.8 3.9 2.9 2.4 2.9 3.7

Mongolia 4 .2 4.2 4.0 3.0 2.9 3 .6 4.1 2.5 2.1 2.9 3.7

Russia 3.5 3.6 3.9 3.4 3.2 3.9 3.7 3.1 2.5 3.5 3.7

Ukraine 4.0 4.1 4.3 3.7 3.2 4.1 4.4 3.2 2.3 3.5 4.0

North America 4.1 3.8 3.1 3 .5 3.3 3.5 3.2 2.8 3.2 2.7 2.8

Canada 3.9 3.6 2.9 3.4 3.0 3 .3 2.9 2.7 3.3 2.7 2.6

United States 4.3 4.0 3.3 3.6 3.5 3.8 3.4 3.0 3.1 2.8 3.0

COUNTRY/ TERRITORY

POLITICALPARTIES






Sub-Saharan A rica 3.9 3.8 4.4 2 .8 2.5 3.6 3.5 2.9 2.4 2.2 2.6

Cameroon 4.0 3.7 4.5 2.9 3.0 3.9 4.0 2.3 2.3 3.5 3.5

Ghana 4.1 3.7 4.6 3.0 2.6 3.6 3.9 2.4 2.7 2.6 3.6

Kenya 3.8 3.8 4.6 2.8 1.6 3.5 3.8 2.2 2.2 2.8 3.0

Liberia 2.9 3.6 4.1 3.2 2.4 3 .6 3.7 2.5 1.9 2.3 3.8

Nigeria 4.5 4.2 4.7 2.9 2.7 3 .5 3.7 2.4 2.2 3.1 3.8

Senegal 4.4 4.5 4.6 3.1 3.0 4.0 4.2 2.6 2.4 2.8 3.5

Sierra Leone 3.5 3.4 4.4 3.3 2.6 3.3 3.5 2.2 2.0 2.4 3.7

South A rica 3.9 3.8 4.4 2.8 2.5 3.6 3.5 2.9 2.4 2.2 2.6

Uganda 3.1 3.3 4.6 2.4 2.0 3 .5 3.9 2.1 1.7 3.0 3.2

Zambia 3.6 3.2 4.1 3.1 2.8 3.5 3.4 2.5 2.2 2.5 3.4

WesternBalkans +

Turkey3.9 3.7 3.3 3 .4 2.9 3.6 3.7 2.7 2.4 2.4 3.3

Bosnia &Herzegovina 4.1 3.9 3.5 3 .6 2.8 3.8 3.5 2.4 2.5 2.4 3.6

Croatia 4.0 4.0 3.7 3.9 3.2 3.8 4.1 2.8 2.7 2.7 3.4

Kosovo 4.2 3.9 2.4 3.3 2.3 3.2 4.1 1.8 1.5 1.3 2.4

FYRMacedonia 3.7 3.5 3.3 3 .0 2.8 3.6 3.9 2.6 2.6 2.1 3.4

Serbia 4.2 3.8 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.8 3.9 3.4 2.7 2.7 3.6

Turkey 3.2 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.0 3 .3 3.1 3.0 2.5 3.2 3.3



25/29


Table 3: Percentage o users paying a bribe to receive attention

rom at least one o nine di erent service providers inthe past 12 monthsSource: Transparency International Global Corruption Barometer 2010.Percentages are weighted. Figures are calculated or those respondentswho came in contact with the services listed and paid a bribe to any o the providers. Groups were de ned using cluster analysis. The result orMalaysia was calculated or eight services instead o nine because thequestion about tax authorities was not included in the survey. Moroccois not included in the table due to their low reported contact rate withmost services and South A rica was not included because o datavalidity concerns regarding these questions. Bangladesh is not includeddue to problems with the coding o these questions.

COUNTRY/TERRITORY PERCENTAGE

Total 25%

Asia Pacifc 11%

A ghanistan 61%

Australia 2%

Cambodia 84%

China 9%

Fiji 12%

Hong Kong 5%

India 54%

Indonesia 18%

Japan 9%

Korea (South) 2%

Malaysia 9%

New Zealand 4%

Pakistan 49%

Papua New Guinea 26%Philippines 16%

Singapore 9%

Solomon Islands 20%

Taiwan 7%

Thailand 23%

Vanuatu 16%

Vietnam 44%

EU+ 5%

Austria 9%

Bulgaria 8%

Czech Republic 14%

Denmark 0%

Finland 2%

France 7%

Germany 2%

Greece 18%

Hungary 24%

Iceland 3%

Ireland 4%

ti global corruption barometer 2010 spreads 01 08

Documents