Corruption Perception Index

The Corruption Perceptions Index ( English Corruption Perceptions Index, abbreviated CPI, also briefly corruption index ) is a by Transparency International out a given characteristic value for corruption . The index has been collected since 1995 and is published in the form of a ranking that compares the perceived level of corruption in the public sector in 180 countries.

Overview of the corruption perception index, by country (as of 2018)

Transparency International is a non-governmental organization dedicated to the fight against corruption worldwide . The CPI is their most important publication and lists countries according to the degree to which they perceive corruption among public officials and politicians. It is a composite index based on various surveys and research carried out by more than ten independent institutions. Business people and country analysts are interviewed and surveys with experts at home and abroad are included. The index ranges from 0 to 100 (max. 10 points up to 2011), with 100 indicating the lowest level of perception of corruption and thus the best possible result. The index is intended to represent the perceived corruption. It is therefore explicitly not a direct measure of the corruption actually taking place, but rather reflects the opinion of the respondents about assumed corruption. This opinion can be based on personal experience with corruption. However, it can also be influenced, for example, by sensational press reports on spectacular corruption cases. This is also considered a major criticism of the CPI. Perceived corruption is very high in many countries where the political class is in low esteem. It is not always clear what the cause and the consequence are.

The spiritus rector of the directory was Johann Graf Lambsdorff , Professor of Economic Theory at the University of Passau , who designed the index in 1995 andcreated iton behalf of Transparency International up to and including 2008.

Methodology & database

CPI methodology

Since the CPI 2012, the methodology for building the index has roughly consisted of four steps: selection of the data sources, standardization of the data, aggregation of the standardized data by forming an average value and reporting a data uncertainty measure (standard deviation with 90% confidence interval ). The index includes information from 13 different sources from 12 different organizations. These are in particular surveys of local or foreign business people (e.g. by the World Economic Forum , the World Bank or the Bertelsmann Foundation) as well as systematic evaluations by risk agencies , based on country reports from local correspondents.

Reliability of the database of corruption indices

Various scientists question the validity and reliability of the database of corruption indices. Among other things, it is doubted that an actually experienced corruption ( predictor ) can only insufficiently lead to the perception of a reported corruption ( outcome ). In addition, the perception (especially by external experts) does not reflect the actual corruption or is influenced by external factors such as economic developments (and not just by corruption itself). Furthermore, investigations into corruption by external experts in so-called emerging regions would not match the experiences and opinions of the actual residents.

In 2016, Charron found a high level of correlation between the perception of corruption in the Europe region between external experts and actual residents. This speaks for the validity of the data used by corruption indexes. One possible reason why his research provides different results than previous researchers, Charron cites that the higher the level of development of a country, the smaller the gap in the perception of corruption between external experts and actual residents. European countries are usually more developed, so the gap is small and there is a high degree of agreement. Another possible reason, Charron cites a better knowledge of the actual corruption in Europe. In poorer countries that tend to be more corrupt, corruption may be considered so normal that corruption is reported less frequently. Another explanation is that there are more experts in Europe with sufficient knowledge than in developing countries. A higher level of expert knowledge therefore leads to more valid investigations.

Corruption: influencing factors and possible consequences

The corruption index has found its way into academic research in many ways. According to various sources, corruption is encouraged by the following factors, among others: Restraints of competition and a high tax burden, high raw material deposits, arbitrary and contradicting state intervention in economic activity, lack of freedom of the press, acceptance of hierarchies and a tendency towards reciprocity .

Various sources cite the following common consequences of corruption in the public sector: Foreign direct investment declines, productivity falls, environmental pollution rises, military spending rises, inflation rises, income and wealth are more unevenly distributed and the subjective feeling of happiness of private individuals falls.

In some countries, a large black economy is associated with a lot of corruption. This reduces the quantitative supply or the quality of the public goods, services and infrastructure provided by the state. This also includes cultural offers as well as the education and health system. The citizens lose the incentive to work in the official economy due to the reduced state offers or their reduced quality. If a state also has a weak legal system and is struggling with a difficult economic situation, corruption is favored. This corruption, in turn, makes the shadow economy grow. In order to break the vicious circle, Schneider recommends lifting restrictions on competition, allowing more economic freedom and reducing the tax burden. The possibility of increased direct democracy, a strong tax system with effective controls and sanctions against state actors and companies and social norms are also factors that can help against the shadow economy and corruption.

According to the CPI 2016, less corrupt states tend to have a higher degree of freedom of the press, access to information about public spending, stricter integrity requirements for state employees and independent judicial systems.

Index results

2004

According to the 2004 CPI, 106 out of 146 countries scored less than 5 out of 10. Sixty countries even scored below 3 out of 10, suggesting deeply rooted corruption.

2005

159 countries were examined in the 2005 CPI. At the top (score greater than 9) in the 2005 version were again mainly economically strong countries such as Iceland (1st), Finland and New Zealand (2nd), Denmark (4th), Singapore (5th), Sweden (6th) .) or Switzerland (7.). At the lowest end (less than two points) were economically weak countries such as Bangladesh and Chad (last position 158th); Haiti , Myanmar and Turkmenistan (155th); Angola , Equatorial Guinea , Ivory Coast and Nigeria (152nd). Austria was in 10th place (8.7), Germany in 16th place (8.2) of the 2005 index.

2006

163 countries were examined in the CPI 2006. Finland , Iceland and New Zealand were in first place with a score of 9.6 points . Behind came Denmark , Sweden , Singapore and Switzerland , all with over 9 points. Austria achieved 8.6 points and thus 11th place. As in the previous year, Germany ranked 16th with 8.0 points, directly behind Hong Kong (8.3 points) and ahead of Japan (7.6 points). The USA came in 20th , along with Belgium and Chile . The last places with two or less points went to Bangladesh , the Democratic Republic of the Congo , Guinea , Iraq , Myanmar , Sudan and Chad, and most recently Haiti in 163rd place.

120 countries were below the threshold of 5 points, 71 of them even below three points. 43.6% of all participating countries suffered from deeply rooted corruption.

Finding 2006:
A connection between corruption and poverty could be discovered. Many of the poorest countries came in last. But some poorer countries such as Barbados , Bhutan , Botswana , Chile , Jordan and Uruguay showed that poorer countries also did relatively well. In contrast, many resource-rich countries were rated as relatively corrupt despite their high per capita income.

A sometimes strong deterioration compared to previous years was observed in Brazil , Israel , Jordan , Cuba , Laos , Seychelles , Trinidad and Tobago , Tunisia and the USA . Countries where improvements were perceived are Algeria , India , Japan , Latvia , Lebanon , Mauritius , Paraguay , Slovenia , Turkey , Turkmenistan , Czech Republic and Uruguay .

2007

Corruption Perceptions Index, 2007

In 2007 Somalia , Myanmar and Iraq were identified as the most corrupt states; corruption was least common in Denmark , Finland and New Zealand . The Switzerland remained unchanged on the 7th place, together with the Netherlands . Germany remained stable in 16th place and was therefore not considered corrupt. Before that, Austria was in 15th place and had therefore deteriorated by four places since 2006.

2008

In 2008, Somalia , Myanmar and Iraq also came in the bottom of the International Corruption Index. The least corrupt countries - with an index value of 9.3 each - were Denmark , Sweden and New Zealand , closely followed by Singapore . Switzerland improved to 5th place, Austria took 12th place and Germany 14th place.

2009

In 2009, Somalia , Afghanistan , Myanmar , Sudan, and Iraq were at the bottom. Perhaps the least corruption was in New Zealand , Denmark , Singapore , Sweden . The Switzerland finished with 9.0 points back to 5th place, Austria worsened again and lagt 7.9 points now ranked 16th Transparency International said in this regard by a "significant deterioration within several years." While the Alpine republic has so far been in the upper middle range of the developed democratic industrialized countries in this decade, it is now in danger of falling behind. For the first time since 1999, Austria was back behind Germany, which again came in 14th with 8.0 points (previous year: 7.9 points).

2010

Three quarters of the 178 countries surveyed scored less than five points in 2010 on a scale from zero (perceived as very corrupt) to ten (perceived as less corrupt). Iraq , Afghanistan , Myanmar and Somalia again brought up the rear ; The situation in Uzbekistan , Turkmenistan and Sudan was hardly better . First place was shared by Denmark , New Zealand and Singapore , each with 9.3 points. Finland and Sweden (9.2 points) followed in the next places. Germany lost one place and was together with Austria in 15th place (7.9 points). Switzerland did better with 8.7 points and rank 8.

2011

In 2011 a total of 183 countries were examined. Somalia and North Korea brought up the rear ; followed by Myanmar, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Sudan and Iraq. New Zealand landed in first place, followed by Denmark and Finland. Switzerland and Australia were in 8th place, Germany and Japan shared 14th place. Austria was in 16th place.

Note: Until 2011 the rating was calculated in a range of 0-10. Since 2012 the value range has been 0 - 100.

2012

Corruption Perceptions Index, 2012

Among the 176 countries surveyed in 2012, Denmark, Finland, and New Zealand came first, followed by Sweden and Singapore. Switzerland was able to improve by two places and landed in 6th place. Germany also improved by one place and was in 13th place. Austria had slipped from 16th place to 25. Afghanistan, North Korea and Somalia share the last and 174th place respectively.

2013

Denmark, New Zealand and Finland again achieved the best values. Germany lost one point, but ended up one place higher than in the previous year and thus reached 12th place. Austria achieved 69 points as in the previous year, but fell again slightly to 26th. Somalia, North Korea and Afghanistan are divided as in the previous year previously the last rank.

2014

Denmark, New Zealand and Finland topped the list again. Germany was consistently in 12th place. Austria was able to improve to 72 points and now reached 23rd place. Somalia, North Korea and Sudan brought up the rear.

2016

Denmark topped the list for the fifth time since 2012. New Zealand and Finland followed closely. Germany, together with Luxembourg and the United Kingdom, was in 10th place. Austria was able to improve to 75 points and now reached 17th place. North Korea, Sudan and Somalia brought up the rear.

2017

According to Transparency International, there was little progress in the fight against corruption in the public sector in 2017. In particular, countries with low levels of protection for press and non-governmental organizations were rated negatively. Unchanged cut Zealand and Denmark best South Sudan and Somalia was the worst. Some countries like Senegal and the UK had improved their scores significantly over the past six years; others like Syria , Yemen , but also Australia , had deteriorated. A high level of corruption (score below 50) was perceived in more than two thirds of the countries examined.

Ranking list

Ranking of the corruption index (sorted according to the rank of 2019, equivalents alphabetically)
(without specification of standard error and confidence interval)

rank	country	CPI score
		2019	2018	2017	2016	2015	2014	2013	2012
01	Denmark	87	88	88	90	91	92	91	90
02	New Zealand	87	87	89	90	88	91	91	90
03	Finland	86	85	85	89	90	89	89	90
04th	Sweden	85	85	84	88	89	87	89	88
04th	Switzerland	85	85	85	85	86	86	85	86
04th	Singapore	85	85	84	84	85	84	86	87
07th	Norway	84	84	85	85	87	86	86	85
08th	Netherlands	82	82	82	83	87	83	83	84
09	Germany	80	80	81	81	81	79	78	79
09	Luxembourg	80	81	82	81	81	82	80	80
11	Iceland	78	76	77	78	79	79	78	82
12	Australia	77	77	77	79	79	80	81	85
12	Canada	77	81	82	82	83	81	81	84
12	Austria	77	76	75	75	76	72	69	69
12	United Kingdom	77	80	82	81	81	78	76	74
16	Hong Kong	76	76	77	77	75	74	73	77
17th	Belgium	75	75	75	77	77	76	75	75
18th	Estonia	74	73	71	70	70	69	71	64
18th	Ireland	74	73	74	73	75	74	75	69
20th	Japan	73	73	73	72	75	76	74	74
21st	Uruguay	72	70	70	71	74	73	73	72
21st	United Arab Emirates	72	70	71	66	70	70	69	68
23	France	69	72	70	69	70	69	68	71
23	United States	69	71	75	74	76	74	72	73
25th	Bhutan	68	68	67	65	65	65	63	63
26th	Chile	67	67	67	66	70	73	71	72
27	Seychelles	66	66	60	N / A	N / A	N / A	N / A	58
28	Taiwan	65	63	63	61	62	61	61	61
29	Bahamas	64	65	65	76	N / A	71	71	71
30th	Barbados	62	68	68	61	N / A	74	75	76
30th	Qatar	62	62	63	61	71	69	68	68
30th	Portugal	62	64	63	62	63	63	62	63
30th	Spain	62	58	57	58	58	60	59	65
34	Botswana	61	61	61	60	63	63	64	65
35	Brunei	60	63	62	58	N / A	N / A	60	55
35	Israel	60	61	62	64	61	60	61	60
35	Lithuania	60	59	59	59	61	58	57	54
35	Slovenia	60	60	61	61	60	58	57	61
39	St. Vincent and the Grenadines	59	58	58	60	N / A	67	62	62
39	South Korea	59	57	54	53	56	55	55	56
41	Cape Verde	58	57	55	59	55	57	58	60
41	Poland	58	60	60	62	62	61	60	58
41	Cyprus	58	59	57	55	61	63	63	66
44	Costa Rica	58	56	59	58	55	54	54	54
44	Georgia	56	58	56	57	52	52	49	52
44	Latvia	56	58	58	57	55	53	53	49
44	Czech Republic	56	59	57	55	56	51	48	49
48	Dominica	55	57	57	59	N / A	58	58	58
48	St. Lucia	55	55	55	60	N / A	N / A	71	71
50	Malta	54	54	56	55	56	55	56	57
51	Grenada	53	52	52	56	N / A	N / A	N / A	N / A
51	Italy	53	52	50	47	44	43	43	42
51	Malaysia	53	47	47	49	50	52	50	49
51	Rwanda	53	56	55	54	54	49	53	53
51	Saudi Arabia	53	49	49	46	52	49	44	44
56	Mauritius	52	51	50	54	53	54	52	57
56	Namibia	52	53	51	52	53	49	48	48
56	Oman	52	52	44	45	45	45	47	47
59	Slovakia	52	50	50	51	51	50	47	46
60	Greece	48	45	48	44	46	43	40	06th
60	Jordan	48	49	48	48	53	49	45	48
60	Cuba	48	47	47	47	47	46	46	48
63	Croatia	47	48	49	49	51	48	48	46
64	Sao Tome and Principe	46	46	46	47	42	42	42	42
64	Vanuatu	46	46	43	N / A	N / A	N / A	N / A	N / A
66	Argentina	45	40	39	36	32	34	34	35
66	Montenegro	45	45	46	45	44	42	44	41
66	Senegal	45	45	45	45	44	43	41	36
66	Belarus	45	44	44	40	32	31	29	31
70	Romania	44	47	48	48	46	43	43	44
70	South Africa	44	43	43	45	44	44	42	43
70	Suriname	44	43	41	45	36	36	36	37
70	Hungary	44	46	45	48	51	54	54	55
74	Bulgaria	43	42	43	41	41	43	41	41
74	Jamaica	43	44	44	39	41	38	38	38
74	Tunisia	43	43	42	41	38	40	41	41
77	Armenia	42	35	35	33	35	37	36	34
77	Bahrain	42	36	36	43	51	49	48	51
77	Solomon Islands	42	44	39	42	N / A	N / A	N / A	N / A
80	Benin	41	40	39	36	37	39	36	36
80	People's Republic of China	41	39	41	40	37	36	40	39
80	Ghana	41	41	40	43	47	48	45	45
80	India	41	41	40	40	38	38	38	36
80	Morocco	41	43	40	37	36	39	37	37
85	Burkina Faso	40	41	42	42	38	38	38	38
85	Guyana	40	37	38	34	29	30th	27	28
85	Indonesia	40	38	37	37	36	34	32	32
85	Kuwait	40	41	39	41	49	44	41	44
85	Lesotho	40	41	42	39	44	49	49	45
85	Trinidad and Tobago	40	41	41	35	39	38	38	39
91	Serbia	39	39	41	42	40	41	42	39
91	Turkey	39	41	40	41	42	45	50	49
93	Ecuador	38	34	32	31	32	33	35	32
93	East Timor	38	35	38	35	28	28	30th	33
93	Sri Lanka	38	38	38	36	37	38	37	40
96	Ethiopia	37	34	35	34	33	33	33	33
96	Gambia	37	37	30th	26th	28	29	28	34
96	Colombia	37	36	37	37	37	37	36	36
96	Tanzania	37	36	36	32	30th	31	33	35
96	Vietnam	37	33	35	33	31	31	31	31
101	Bosnia and Herzegovina	36	38	38	39	38	39	42	42
101	Kosovo	36	37	39	36	33	33	33	34
101	Panama	36	37	37	38	39	37	35	38
101	Peru	36	35	37	35	36	38	38	38
101	Thailand	36	36	37	35	38	38	35	37
106	Egypt	35	35	32	34	36	37	32	32
106	Albania	35	36	38	39	36	33	31	33
106	Algeria	35	35	33	34	36	36	36	34
106	Brazil	35	35	37	40	38	43	42	43
106	Ivory Coast	35	35	36	34	32	32	27	29
106	Mongolia	35	37	36	38	39	39	38	36
106	North Macedonia	35	37	35	37	42	45	44	43
113	El Salvador	34	35	33	36	39	39	38	38
113	Kazakhstan	34	31	31	29	28	29	26th	28
113	Nepal	34	31	31	29	27	29	31	27
113	Philippines	34	36	34	35	35	38	36	34
113	Zambia	34	35	37	38	38	38	38	37
113	Swaziland	34	38	39	N / A	N / A	43	N / A	N / A
119	Sierra Leone	33	30th	30th	30th	29	31	30th	31
120	Moldova	32	33	31	30th	33	33	35	36
120	Niger	32	34	33	35	34	35	34	33
120	Pakistan	32	33	32	32	30th	29	28	27
123	Bolivia	31	29	33	33	34	35	34	34
123	Gabon	31	31	32	35	34	37	34	35
123	Malawi	31	32	31	31	31	33	37	37
126	Azerbaijan	30th	25th	31	30th	29	29	28	27
126	Djibouti	30th	31	31	30th	34	34	36	36
126	Kyrgyzstan	30th	29	29	28	28	27	24	24
126	Ukraine	30th	32	30th	29	27	26th	25th	26th
130	Guinea	29	28	27	27	25th	25th	24	24
130	Laos	29	29	29	30th	25th	25th	26th	21st
130	Maldives	29	31	33	36	N / A	N / A	N / A	N / A
130	Mali	29	32	31	32	35	32	28	34
130	Mexico	29	28	29	30th	35	35	34	34
130	Myanmar	29	29	30th	28	22nd	21st	21st	15th
130	Togo	29	30th	32	32	32	29	29	30th
137	Dominican Republic	28	30th	29	31	33	32	29	32
137	Kenya	28	27	28	26th	25th	25th	27	27
137	Lebanon	28	28	28	28	28	27	28	30th
137	Liberia	28	32	31	37	37	37	38	41
137	Mauritania	28	27	28	27	31	30th	30th	31
137	Papua New Guinea	28	28	29	28	25th	25th	25th	25th
137	Paraguay	28	29	29	30th	27	24	24	25th
137	Russia	28	28	29	29	29	27	28	28
137	Uganda	28	26th	26th	25th	25th	26th	26th	29
146	Angola	26th	19th	19th	18th	15th	19th	23	22nd
146	Bangladesh	26th	26th	28	26th	25th	25th	27	26th
146	Guatemala	26th	27	28	28	28	32	29	33
146	Honduras	26th	29	29	30th	31	29	26th	28
146	Iran	26th	28	30th	29	27	27	25th	28
146	Mozambique	26th	23	25th	27	31	31	30th	31
146	Nigeria	26th	27	27	28	26th	27	25th	27
153	Cameroon	25th	25th	25th	26th	27	27	25th	26th
153	Comoros	25th	27	27	24	26th	26th	28	28
153	Tajikistan	25th	25th	21st	25th	26th	23	22nd	22nd
153	Uzbekistan	25th	23	22nd	21st	19th	18th	17th	17th
153	Zaire	25th	26th	23	20th	24	24	25th	26th
158	Madagascar	24	25th	24	26th	28	28	28	32
158	Zimbabwe	24	22nd	22nd	22nd	21st	21st	21st	20th
160	Eritrea	23	24	20th	18th	18th	18th	22nd	25th
161	Nicaragua	22nd	25th	26th	26th	27	28	28	29
162	Cambodia	20th	20th	21st	21st	21st	20th	20th	22nd
162	Chad	20th	19th	20th	20th	22nd	22nd	19th	19th
162	Iraq	20th	18th	18th	17th	16	16	16	18th
165	Burundi	19th	17th	22nd	20th	21st	20th	21st	19th
165	Republic of the Congo	19th	19th	21st	20th	23	23	22nd	26th
165	Turkmenistan	19th	20th	19th	22nd	18th	17th	17th	17th
168	Guinea-Bissau	18th	16	17th	16	17th	19th	19th	25th
168	Haiti	18th	20th	22nd	20th	17th	19th	19th	19th
168	Democratic Republic of Congo	18th	20th	21st	21st	22nd	22nd	22nd	21st
168	Libya	18th	17th	17th	14th	16	18th	15th	21st
172	North Korea	17th	14th	17th	12	08th	08th	08th	08th
173	Afghanistan	16	16	15th	15th	11	12	08th	08th
173	Equatorial Guinea	16	16	17th	N / A	N / A	N / A	N / A	N / A
173	Sudan	16	16	16	14th	12	11	11	13
173	Venezuela	16	18th	18th	17th	17th	19th	20th	19th
177	Yemen	15th	14th	16	N / A	N / A	N / A	N / A	N / A
178	Syria	13	13	14th	N / A	N / A	N / A	N / A	N / A
179	South Sudan	12	13	12	11	15th	15th	14th	N / A
180	Somalia	09	10	09	10	08th	08th	08th	08th

literature

• Johann Graf Lambsdorff : The Institutional Economics of Corruption and Reform: Theory, Evidence and Policy , Cambridge University Press, 2007, ISBN 0-521-87275-8

Web links

• Methodological notes
• CPI results (including graphics and tables) since 1995 from Transparency International
• CPI 2018: Tabular ranking with standard error and confidence interval

Individual evidence

1. ^ Transparency International eV: Research - CPI - Overview. Retrieved February 21, 2018 . 
2. ^ Transparency International eV: Media advisory: Corruption Perceptions Index to launch on February 21, 2018 . In: www.transparency.org . ( transparency.org [accessed February 21, 2018]).
3. ↑ Arthur Shacklock, Fredrik Galtung: Measuring Corruption . Routledge, 2016, ISBN 978-1-138-24945-5 , pp. 189 (English).
4. ^ Message from Lambsdorff that the index will no longer be compiled in future.
5. ↑ Corruption Perceptions Index 2016. (PDF; 95 kB) Technical Methodology Note. Transparency International, January 19, 2017, accessed February 27, 2017 . 
6. ↑ Corruption Perceptions Index 2016. (PDF; 96 kB) Short Methodology Note. Transparency International, January 19, 2017, accessed February 27, 2017 . 
7. ↑ Corruption Perceptions Index 2016. (PDF; 209 kB) Full Source Description. Transparency International, January 19, 2017, accessed February 27, 2017 . 
8. ↑ Dilyan Donchev, Gergely Ujhelyi: What Do Corruption indices measure? In: Economics & Politics.  26, No. 3, 2014, pp. 309–331.
9. ↑ ^{a b} Nicholas Charron: Do corruption measures have a perception problem? In: European Political Science Review.  8, No. 1, 2016, pp. 147–171.
10. ^ ^{A b} Friedrich Schneider: Undeclared work, tax evasion and corruption: What economic and non-economic factors contribute to the explanation. In: Perspectives of Economic Policy.  16, No. 4, 2015, pp. 412-425.
11. ^ Corruption Perceptions Index 2016. Putting the scores in context. Transparency International, January 25, 2017, accessed February 27, 2017 . 
12. ↑ Significant deterioration of Austria's position in the corruption perception index of Transparency International ( Memento of December 10, 2010 in the Internet Archive ), Transparency International Austria
13. ↑ Tabular ranking 2010 ( memento from February 25, 2011 in the Internet Archive ) transparency.de, October 26, 2010.
14. ^ Corruption Perceptions Index 2011 , accessed August 3, 2012.
15. ^ Corruption Perceptions Index 2012 , accessed December 6, 2012.
16. ^ Corruption Perceptions Index 2013 , accessed December 8, 2013.
17. ^ Corruption Perceptions Index 2014 , accessed January 9, 2015.
18. ↑ Corruption Perceptions Index 2016. Transparency International, January 25, 2017, accessed on February 27, 2017 . 
19. ↑ Corruption Perception Index 2017, Germany slips to 12th place due to doing nothing ( memento from February 22, 2018 in the Internet Archive ) Transparency International Deutschland eV, February 21, 2018.
20. ↑ CORRUPTION PERCEPTIONS INDEX 2019. Tabular ranking. Transparency International, accessed March 10, 2020 .