Transparency International has been publishing its Corruption Perception Index (CPI) since 1995. Bangladesh has been included in the index four times: 4th most corrupt in 1996 and the most corrupt in 2001, 2002 and 2003.

CPI 1996

The findings of CPI 1996 were that Bangladesh was the 4th most corrupt (out of 54 countries included in the index). The media in Bangladesh barely covered the news. However, the scenario was completely different in 2001.

CPI 2001

TI released its CPI 2001 on June 27, 2001. On June 28, the Bangla and English newspapers carried it as headline news. The government of the day was about to be dissolved due to impending general elections. The country was in an election mood and the campaigning had already started unofficially. The fact that Bangladesh was identified as the most corrupt nation, ignoring the fact that only 91 countries were on the index, became a highly charged point of contention among politicians, academics and commentators.

CPI 2003

TI released its CPI 2003 on October 7, 2003, which ranked Bangladesh as the most corrupt country out of 133 countries for the third consecutive time. Following the publication, Shah AMS Kibria wrote an article criticizing the methodology and terming it as essentially subjective and seriously flawed. He further alleged that these perceptions were essentially subjective opinions based on unverified newspaper reports, preconceived notions, prejudices, gossips in expatriate drawing rooms and, above all, hearsay. The allegation appears to be untenable.

The statistical work to this index is carried out annually at the University of Passau. In addition, the International Steering Committee, comprising prominent statisticians and economists, extensively reviews the CPI methodology. The framework document containing the in-depth methodology of the CPI is available at the Transparency International website. But, for the understanding of the general readers, I would like to outline a few basic points.

It is important to note that the CPI is a composite index, making use of surveys of business people and assessments by country analysts. In the case of Bangladesh, that included both local and expatriate residents in the country. The TI Framework Document 2003 on CPI states, "Unbiased, hard data continue to be difficult to obtain and usually raise problematic questions with respect to validity." By building on a range of comparative data capturing the experience and perceptions of those who are directly confronted with the realities of corruption, and with the assistance of international team of economists and statisticians, TI has compiled what is widely considered to be a highly effective indicator of the extent of corruption in the country.

CPI 2003 drew on 17 different polls and surveys, originating from 13 independent institutions. The index is thus not based on gossip or hearsay, as alleged. Rather, in the case of Bangladesh, eight surveys of six independent agencies of repute (e.g. World Economic Forum, World Bank, Economist Intelligence Unit, Columbia University, World Markets Research Centre) were used as sources. Only surveys with robust standards would qualify for inclusion. I would like to further mention that the survey of World Economic Forum was conducted by the Centre for Policy Dialogue (CPD), which is done publicly. So, the allegation of the perceptions being preconceived notions or gossips in expatriate drawing rooms does not hold good.

The strength of the CPI lies in the fact that a combination of data sources is integrated into a single index, which enhances the reliability of each individual figure. Countries featuring in at least three surveys were considered for inclusion in the 2003 index. The idea of combining data is that the non performance of one data source can be balanced out by the inclusion of at least two other sources. Thus the probability of misrepresenting a country is seriously lowered.

The CPI along with the Bribe Payers Index (which addresses the propensity of companies and risk analysts, both resident and non-resident, to paying bribes) have contributed to a large extent to understanding the prevalence of corruption around the world. The CPI which reflects the bureaucratic and political corruption needs to be amply recognised in generating a greater awareness about this malaise.

Public opinion and pressure will have to be relentless in order to bring about significant change. No matter what, the scourge of corruption is rooted in the criminalisation of politics. Political leaders maintain an indifferent look while many of them directly partake in exacerbating it, thereby wreaking mayhem on the polity and economy. In such cases, counter institutions like the anti-corruption commission and the ombudsman must be instituted to combat corruption.

Shamaila Mahbub is a researcher.