Table 2.2 Countries most affected by Bribery: GCB 2010

Table 2.2 Countries most affected by Bribery: GCB 2010

Percentage of respondents reporting they paid a bribe to obtain a service Quintile Countries and Territories

Top Quintile: more than 50% Afghanistan, Cambodia, Cameroon, India, Iraq, Liberia, Nigeria, Palestine, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Uganda Second Quintile: 30–49.9% Azerbaijan, Bolivia, El Salvador, Ghana, Kenya, Lebanon, Lithuania, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, Pakistan, Ukraine, Vietnam, Zambia Third Quintile: 20–29.9% Armenia, Belarus, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Chile, Colombia, Hungary, FYR Macedonia, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Romania, Russia, Solomon Islands, Thailand, Turkey, Venezuela Fourth Quintile: 6–19.9% Argentina, Austria, Bulgaria, China, Czech Republic, Fiji, France, Greece, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Kosovo, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Poland, Philippines, Finland, Serbia, Singapore, Taiwan, Vanuatu Bottom Quintile: Less than 6% 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

Source: Transparency International, 2010.

health and educational services. In other words, the economic burden of corruption acts as a regressive tax on the poor people in a country, whether it is developed or developing. Another significant conclusion emerging from the GCB (2010) is that the public view many of the governmental instrumentalities such as the legislature, the police and the judiciary as the most tainted by corruption around the world.

The GCB also points out the extensive prevalence of ‘petty’ corruption in many of the developing countries. Widespread corruption tends to undermine the legitimacy of government institutions in many countries.

What is significant is to note that the GCB (2010) gives a pessimistic view of the future. Steps taken by governments to fight corruption are

generally ineffective. Moreover, the general consensus seems to be that the level of corruption, far from decreasing, will probably increase in the future.

By the end of 2007, across the world, 104 governments had ratified or acceded to the United Nations Convention against Corruption. But the public opinion still seems to be that in many countries the anti-corruption measures are more cosmetic than real in effectiveness. Hence there is an urgent need for reviewing the various anti-corruption measures worldwide. Historically, developed countries of today experienced high levels of corruption in the early years of development and industrialization. These countries were able to have control over ‘petty’ corruption as a byproduct of the development process. However, the process of elimination of corruption is still far from over in the developed world. Developed countries continue to experience high levels of corruption both in politics and business today. ‘Petty’ corruption has been, more or less, weeded out, but ‘grand’ corruption still poisons public life in many developed countries of today. In the poorer countries, on the other hand, both ‘petty’ and ‘grand’ corruptions tend to stifle progress.

Bribe Payers Index (BPI)

Transparency International (TI) has also developed the Bribe Payers’ Index (BPI), which assesses the supply side of corruption and ranks corruption by source country and industry sector.

The 2008 Bribe Payers’ Survey consisted of over 2,500 interviews with senior business executives in 26 countries and territories completed in October 2008. The countries surveyed were selected on the basis of their foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows and imports, and importance in regional trade.

In any corrupt transaction, there are two sides: bribe takers and bribe suppliers. In its latest BPI for 2008, TI focused its attention on the supply side of corruption. BPI is updated on a bi-annual basis. The Index (2008) ranks 22 of the world’s most economically powerful countries according to the likelihood of their companies and firms offering a bribe when doing business abroad. The main conclusion of the 2008 index is that companies based in Belgium and Canada are perceived as being least likely to bribe, whereas companies from India, China and Russia are perceived as those who are most likely to offer bribes to sign up a business contract.