Comparative corruption: Asia doesn't shine
Recent news stories reported that Denmark was the least corrupt nation while Nigeria was the most corrupt. Our Asia correspondent Harvey Stockwin delves into the surveys behind the corruption index, which attempts to measure the extent to which nations fall prey to corrupt practices.
HONG KONG (JP): Indonesians concerned about the growth of corruption in their country should have been happy with the results of a recent survey.
Indonesia's rating on the respected Corruption Perception Index (CPI) has improved.
The bad news is that Indonesia still lingers near the bottom of the index, where it competes with several other major Asian nations.
The index, and the research behind it, is primarily the result of a joint venture between Goettingen University in Germany and Transparency International, a non-governmental organization dedicated to the reduction of corruption as a means of hastening economic development.
It goes without saying that the researchers have not found some magic formula whereby they can calculate just how much ill- gotten cash is secretly changing hands in business and political circles. Such calculations are obviously impossible.
The index is essentially a comparative measure of the perceptions of corruption. A variety of opinion surveys from various sources are gathered together, all of which deal with the degree of corruption as seen by businesspeople, risk analysts and members of the general public. Seven surveys were used in 1997, and the nations mentioned had to be included in at least four of these to make it into the overall index of 52 countries.
Subjective estimates of the extent of corruption were measured numerically, ranging from 10 (wholly corruption free) to 0 (riddled with corruption involving large sums in kickbacks, extortion, pay offs and fraud).
The Jakarta Post readers will probably not be surprised to learn that, so far, Indonesia has always hovered in the last ten nations in the index. This suggests that many people have a fairly bleak view of the extent of corruption in Indonesia.
Opinions about Indonesia in 1997 were sought in six out of seven surveys (from various parts of the world) used in the index. There was little variation between the ratings given to Indonesia in the six surveys, indicating that perceptions of corruption in Indonesia are fairly uniform.
But in the 1997 index Indonesia has at least improved its rating from 2.65 in 1996 to 2.72 this year.
Indonesia was 45th out of 54 countries surveyed in 1996, which was better than the position achieved by India, Russia, China, Bangladesh and Pakistan.
In 1997, despite its higher rating, Indonesia was 46th out of 52 nations surveyed; behind China, Vietnam and India but still ahead of Russia and Pakistan.
For the last two years Nigeria has had a firm hold on the corruption ladder's final rung, a position briefly held by Indonesia in 1995 when it came last out of 41 nations on the CPI, with a rating of only 1.94.
Clearly, therefore, negative perceptions of corruption within Indonesia, while still considerable, have been diminishing in the last three years.
While Asian nations unhappily predominate the positions of most corrupt, Scandinavia and New Zealand regularly occupy the top positions as the least corrupt. In 1997, for example, the first three positions in the index went to Denmark (9.94) Finland (9.48) and Sweden (9.35) with New Zealand fourth (9.23).
The only Asian nation to regularly appear in the top ten is Singapore, although the city-state, with its fierce anticorruption policies, appears to be slipping in the opinion of those surveyed -- from 3rd in 1995 (9.26), to 7th in 1996 (8.80) and now 9th in 1997 (8.66).
Two other ASEAN partners are also slipping down the index. In 1996/1997 Malaysia slipped from 26th to 32nd, while Thailand went from 37th to 39th. Vietnam was surveyed for the first time in 1997 and came in 43rd. The Philippines improved its rating and rank, from 44th to 40th.
Another nation obviously sliding down the index is Japan, which fell from 17th in 1996 with a score of 7.05, to 21st in 1997 with 6.57.
The poor standing of Japan, and the regular lowly ranking of India, in the CPI point to one factor these two nations share in a survey based on subjective perceptions: freedom of the press. These nations and their respective media feel free to draw public attention to corrupt practices. Recently in Japan particularly there has been an almost constant drumbeat of scandal in business or political circles.
Inevitably, therefore, anyone doing business with these two nations will get a clearer idea of the degree of corruption than would be the case with nations in which the press, and information about corruption, are strictly controlled.
China is a case in point. The belief that corruption is widespread in the Middle Kingdom is pervasive, not least within China itself. The problem is even mentioned occasionally by the nation's government-controlled media. But there is no detailed exposure of what is going on.
Thus the announcement on Aug. 8 of the sentencing of two senior Beijing municipal officials to 10 and 15 years imprisonment respectively for corruption, looked, to the uninitiated, like a crackdown. But Beijing residents remain cynical.
They know that the main culprit in the Beijing administration was the former mayor Chen Xitong. He was disgraced and lost his post two years ago but his seniority and support within the Chinese Communist Party almost certainly means that he will never be tried for corruption, let alone imprisoned.
Contrast this with the fact that in India even a former prime minister has been indicted on corruption charges. Naturally the subjective perception is that corruption is much worse in India than in China -- unless the people surveyed have first-hand experience of China, or know the very real differences between the political setup in the two nations.
The control of China's media may help explain why China rose from next to last in 1995 (2.16), to 50th in the 1996 index with 2.43 and 41st in 1997 with 2.88.
Hong Kong's ratings, however, have been improving in leaps and bounds, overtaking Japan in 1997 to become the second least corrupt Asian nation (18th overall) with a score of 7.28. But there was a wide variety of opinions on Hong Kong corruption in the seven surveys.
All this is a reminder that one of the most prevalent fears accompanying Hong Kong's return to China has been that corruption will radically increase with the territory adopting China's bad habits. So far, in these indexes, there is no sign of that happening.
But within China the opposite impression about Hong Kong is being given. As the controlled press has several times stressed, Hong Kong businesspeople have been the corruptors of Chinese officials. So in fact, they say, it seems that China is being infected with the Hong Kong malady.
Obviously there are strict limits to what the CPI tells us about corruption in Asia and the world. One criticism heard of the CPI, notably in Malaysia, is that it puts the spotlight only on those who take rather than those who give bribes. As it happens, Transparency International (TI) is not satisfied with merely measuring the extent to which the bribed accept corrupt payments.
In a month or so, the organization will be producing another index, arranging nations in the order of their willingness to offer bribes. It should make fascinating reading.