Corruption
Measuring corruption: myths and realities
Can corruption be measured?
Authors:
D. Kaufmann; A. Kraay; M. Mastruzzi
Publisher:
World Bank, 2006
Progress in fighting corruption on all fronts requires measurement of corruption itself. This recognition has renewed interest in the World Bank, and among aid donors, aid recipients, investors, and civil society, in developing measures of corruption, both in aid-financed projects as well as more broadly in developing countries.
This in turn has also sparked new debate on how best to measure corruption and monitor progress in reducing it. This note highlights some of the main issues in these debates, in the form of six myths and their associated realities, which are as follows:
Myth 1: Corruption cannot be measured.
Reality: Corruption can, and is being, measured in some broad ways.
Myth 2: Subjective data reflect vague and generic perceptions of corruption rather than specific objective realities
Reality: Since corruption usually leaves no paper trail, perceptions of corruption based on individuals' actual experiences are sometimes the best, and the only, information we have.
Myth 3: Subjective data is too unreliable for use in measuring corruption
Reality: All efforts to measure corruption using any kind of data involve an irreducible element of uncertainty.
Myth 4: We need hard objective measures of corruption in order to progress in the fight against corruption.
Reality: Since corruption is clandestine, it is virtually impossible to come up with precise objective measures of it.
Myth 5: Subjective measures of corruption are not "actionable" and so cannot guide policymakers in the fight against corruption
Reality: Several different surveys of firms and individuals ask detailed and disaggregated questions about corruption in different areas of government.
Myth 6: There is no need to monitor corruption closely since many countries with high corruption have also had fast growth
Reality: Evidence suggests that a one standard-deviation increase in corruption lowers investment rates by three percentage points and lowers average annual growth by about one percentage point.
In conclusion, for monitoring purposes, corruption can and is being measured through a wide variety of innovative approaches. Given the imperfections of any individual approach, it is appropriate to rely on a wide variety of different indicators, both subjective and objective, individual as well as aggregate, cross-country as well as country-specific, in order to monitor results on the ground, assess the concrete reality of corruption, and develop anti-corruption programs.
