The Scientific Reliability of International Corruption Rankings
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35551/PFQ_2019_3_1Keywords:
corruption, perception, ranking, measurement, methodology, sample, D73, Z18, C18Abstract
Owing to its hiding nature, corruption is difficult to measure. However, measurements lacking sufficient methodological grounds and the rankings so created pose just as much of economic risk as the corruption itself. The objective of the present study is to examine the methodological compliance of the calculation of the most well-known corruption perceptions index after having reviewed the specific literature and by using the method of document analysis. The most important criticisms formed against corruption measures in the international specific literature also highlight that in the most cases the independence of the organizations issuing the corruption measures, the transparency of data sources used and the applied methodology are not ensured. It follows from all of the above, and due to improper compilation of the respondent group and the inadequacies of the summary of the data sources - in the absence of methodological substantiation - the results are not suitable for comparing the countries, to draw scientific conclusions, and they do not even make a diagnosis related to the phenomenon examined which could serves as an efficient tool for making the appropriate policy decisions.
References
Apaza, C. R. (2009). Measuring governance and corruption through the worldwide governance indicators: Critiques, responses, and ongoing scholarly discussion. PS: Political Science & Politics, 42(1), pp. 139-143
Dadašov, R., Hefeker, C., Lorz, O. (2017). Natural resource extraction, corruption, and expropriation. Review of World Economics, 153(4), pp. 809-832, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10290-017-0288-y
Donchev, D., ujhelyi, G. (2014). What do Corruption Indices Measure? Economics & Politics 26(2), pp. 309-331, https://doi.org/10.1111/ecpo.12037
ferwerda, J., Deleanu, I., & unger, B. (2017). Corruption in public procurement: finding the right indicators. European Journal on Criminal Po-licy and Research, 23(2), pp. 245-267, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10610-016-9312-3
Galtung, f. (2006). “Measuring the Immeasurable: Boundaries and Functions of (Macro) Corruption Indices”, in Sampford, C., shacklock, A., Connors, C., Galtung, f. (eds.). Measuring Corruption, Ashgate, Hampshire, uk and Vermont, us, pp. 101-130
Gutmann, J., Padovano, f., Voigt, s. (2015). Perception vs. Experience: Explaining Differences in Corruption Measures using Microdata, ssRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2659349, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2659349
Hawken A., Munck, G. (2009). Do You know Your Data? Measurement Validity in Corruption Research, working paper, school of Public Policy, Pepperdine university (Malibu: California)
Heywood, P. M., Rose, J. (2014). “Close but no Cigar”: the measurement of corruption. Journal of Public Policy, 34(3), pp. 507-529, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0143814X14000099
Jahedi, s., f. Méndez (2014). On the advantages and disadvantages of subjective Measures. Journal of Economic Behavior & Orga-nization, 98(C), pp. 97-114, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2013.12.016
Johnston, M. (2004). Comparing corruption: Participation, Institutions, and Development, in Heffernan, W. C., kleinig J. (eds.). Private and Pub-lic Corruption, Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 275-322
Knack, s. (2006). Measuring corruption in Eastern Europe and Central Asia: a critique of the cross-country indicators. The World Bank. ssRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=923275
Krige, J. (1999). The ford foundation, Europe-an physics and the cold war. Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, 29(2), pp. 333-361, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/27757813
Lambropoulou, E. (2012). Myths and Realities about Corruption in Public Administration and its Discourse in Greece, Amsterdam Law Forum, 4(3). pp. 77-96
Laufer, W. s. (2006). The Importance of Cynicism and Humility: Anti-Corruption Partnerships with the Private sector. Development Outreach, 8(2), pp. 18-21
Malito, D. (2014). Measuring corruption indicators and indices. Robert schuman Centre for Advanced studies Research Paper, 13, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2393335
Mungiu-Pippidi, A., Dadašov, R. (2016). Measuring control of corruption by a new index of public integrity. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 22(3), pp. 415-438
McMann, k. M., Pemstein, D., seim, B., Teorell, J., Lindberg, s. I. (2016). strategies of validation: Assessing the varieties of democracy corruption data. V-Dem Working Paper, 23
Németh E., körmendi G., Kiss B. (2011). korrupció és nyilvánosság: a média hatása a korrupcióra és annak társadalmi megítélésére. Pénzügyi Szemle/Public Finance Quarterly, 56, 57-65. oldal
Németh E., Martus B., Vargha B., Gergely sz., Vasváriné J., Jakovác k. (2017). Elemzés a közszféra integritási helyzetéről 2017, A hazai integritás helyzete a köz- és a magánszektor érintkezési felületén, https://asz.hu/storage/files/files/Publikaciok/Elemzesek_ tanulmanyok/2017/int_koz2017.pdf?ctid=1126
Olken, B. A. (2007). Monitoring Corruption: Evidence from a field Experiment in Indonesia. Journal of Political Economy, 115(2), pp. 200-249, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/517935
Olken, B.A. (2009). Corruption Perceptions vs. corruption reality. Journal of Public Economics 93 (7-8), pp. 950-964, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/s0047-2727(09)00031-0
Roca, T., Orme, W., Brown, J. (2010). fear and Loathing of the Corruption Perception Index: Does Transparency International Penalize Press freedom? DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.1694211
Sampson, s. (2010). Diagnostics: Indicators and transparency in the anti-corruption industry. In Jansen, s., schröter, E., stehr, N. (eds.). Transparenz: Multidisziplinäre Durchsichten durch Phänomene und Theorien des Undurchsichtigen (pp. 97-111), Vs Verlag für sozialwissenschaften
Sampson, s. (2015). The anticorruption package. Ephemera: Theory and Politics in Organization, 15(2), pp. 115-123
Shore, C. (2005). „Culture and Corruption in the Eu: Reflections on fraud, Nepotism and Cronyism in the European Commission”, in Hal-ler, D., shore, C. (eds.) Corruption: Anthropological Perspectives, Pluto Press
Strauss, E. N. (2013). Easing out the fCPA facilitation payment exception. BuL Rev., 93, 235
Søreide, T. (2006). Is it wrong to rank? A critical assess ment of corruption indices. Chr. Michelsen Institute
Trapnell, s. E. (2015). user’s Guide to Measuring Corruption and Anti-Corruption. United Nations Development Programme, https://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/democratic-governance/anti-corruption/user-s-guide---measuring- corruption-and-anticorruption.html
Treisman D. (2007). What Have We Learned About the Causes of Corruption from Ten Years of Cross-National Empirical Research? Annual Review of Political Science, Vol 10, pp. 211-244, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.081205.095418
Warren, D. E., Laufer, W. s. (2009). Are corruption indices a self-fulfilling prophecy? A social labeling perspective of corruption. Journal of Busi-ness Ethics, 88(4), pp. 841-849, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0316-5
Weber Abramo, C. (2008). How Much Do Perceptions of Corruption Really Tell us? Economics: The Open Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal 2, http://dx.doi.org/10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2008-3
zaman, A., faiz-ur-Rahim (2009). Corruption: measuring the unmeasurable. Humanomics, 25(2), pp. 117-126, https://doi.org/10.1108/08288660910964184
Századvég (2016). Nemzetközi indexek mód-szertani korlátai és kritikája. https://szazadveg.hu/uploads/media/57e3d8e300c7d/szazadveg-elemzes-a-nemzetkozi-indexeknek-komoly-hianyossagai-es-korlatai-tanulmany.pdf
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors assign copyright to Pénzügyi Szemle / Public Finance Quarterly. Authors are responsible for permission to reproduce copyright material from other sources.
