Bribe Payers Index 2008

8/14/2019 Bribe Payers Index 2008

1/24

2

008BRIBE

PAYERSINDEX

TRA

N

SPAR

EN

C

YIN

TERN

ATIO

N

AL


2/24

ACkNOwLEDgEmENTSThis report was written by Juanita Riao and Robin Hodess, with data analysis by Juanita Riao. The reports

authors would like to thank all those in the Transparency International movement who have contributed their time

to evaluating the Bribe Payers Index over the past two years and who have encouraged and inspired us to work

towards a new Bribe Payers Survey and Bribe Payers Index in 2008.

The 2008 Bribe Payers Survey and the 2008 Bribe Payers Index are made possible by the generous support o

Ernst & Young, the German Federal Ministry or Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and the NorwegianAgency or Development Cooperation (NORAD). We are also grateul to the many organisations that provide

general unding to Transparency Internationals Secretariat, supporting our global and national measurement tools.

Transparency International does not endorse an organisations or a companys policies by accepting its nancial

support, and does not involve any o its supporters in the management o its projects. For more on Transparency

Internationals sources o unding, please see www.transparency.org/support_us.

Transparency InTernaTIonalInternational Secretariat

Alt Moabit 96

10559 Berlin, Germany

Tel: + 49-30-34 38 200

Fax: +49-30-34 70 39 12

[email protected]

www.transparency.org

ISBN: 978-3-935711-10-4

2008 Transparency International. All rights reserved.

Every eort has been made to veriy the accuracy o the inormation contained in this report. All inormation was

believed to be correct as o December 2008. Nevertheless, Transparency International cannot accept responsibility

or the consequences o its use or other purposes or in other contents.


3/24

Transparency InTernaTIonal BrIBe payers Index 2008

InTroducTIon 2Bribe Payers Survey 2008

Bribe Payers Index 2008

Sectoral Rankings

Survey Methodology in Brie

BrIBe payers Index 2008 4Foreign Bribery as Viewed rom Regions

Types o Foreign Bribery

Knowledge o the Law: Awareness o the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention

BrIBery In secTors: 10secToral BrIBery o puBlIc oIcIalsand secToral sTaTe capTureAnalysis by Region, Country Income and Company Ownership

BusIness and GovernmenT 12Are Governments Doing Enough to Curb Bribery?

Prevalence o Corruption in Public and Other Institutions

appendIx one 14Detailed Methodology and Survey Protocol

appendIx Two 17Lists o Countries, Regions and Sectors

appendIx Three 18Country Tables:Table A1. Type o bribery, by ranked country/territory

Table A2. Governments eorts to ght corruption, by country/territory interviewed

Table A3. Perceptions o prevalence o corruption in dierent sectors and institutions, by country/territory interviewed

endnoTes 21

TABLE Of CONTENTS


4/24

2 TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL | BRIBE PAYERS INDEX 2008

Corruption and bribery are complex transactions that involve

both someone who oers a benet, oten a bribe, and someone

who accepts, as well as a variety o specialists or intermediaries

to acilitate the transaction. By perpetuating the abuse o

entrusted power or private gain Transparency Internationals

(TI) denition o corruption both the bribe payer and bribetaker cause damage in a number o ways. Ultimately, their

corrupt dealings create extreme inequity both in markets and

in societies.

Much blame has been apportioned over the years to the bribe

takers those who pocket the wealth and take advantage o

the infuence and authority that corruption aords them. And,

indeed, bribe takers must be exposed, prosecuted and appropri-

ately punished. The systems that breed this behaviour require

holistic reorm, so that bribes are not demanded in the rst

place.

TI believes it is also critical to shine a spotlight on the bribe

payers whose supply o bribes, irregular payments and other

orms o infuence-buying uel the machinery o corruption.

It has been part o TIs mission or the past 15 years to curb the

so-called supply side o corruption, both domestically and

across borders.

This report presents highlights o a brand new survey commis-

sioned by TI, the 2008 Bribe Payers Survey.1 It looks in detail at

the sources o corruption in the international marketplace, both

in terms o where the bribes are paid and by which businesses.

Above all, the Bribe Payers Survey illustrates how the supply

o corruption is viewed by a global selection o senior businessexecutives, who understand the markets and market pressures

in their own countries, some o which drive corruption.

Based on the results o the 2008 Bribe Payers Survey, TI has

produced an index and two sectoral rankings:

T 2008 Bib p I (BpI): a ranking o 22 o the

worlds most economically infuential countries according

to the likelihood o their rms to bribe abroad.

T kig iti t: one that ranks

sectors according to the likelihood o rms in that sector to

bribe public ocials; and another that ranks sectors

according to the degree to which their rms use contribu-

tions to politicians and political parties to achieve undue

infuence on government policies, laws or regulations

a phenomenon oten reerred to as state capture.

The ndings o the 2008 BPI and the sectoral rankings show

that many o the worlds most infuential economies, and some

key industrial sectors, continue to be viewed as greatly compro-mised by international corruption. As such, TI calls on govern-

ments and the private sector to renew their eorts to curb the

supply side o corruption. It is only with concerted and

continued eort that we can stop the abuse o power or

private gain and mitigate the devastating impact it has on lives

and livelihoods the world over.

INTRODuCTION

BRIBE PAYERS SuRvEY 2008

BRIBE PAYERS INDEX 2008

ThE SECTORAL RANkINgS


5/24

3TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL | BRIBE PAYERS INDEX 2008

survey meThodoloGy In BrIe2

The 2008 Bribe Payers Survey consists o 2,742 interviews with

senior business executives in 26 countries and territories

completed between 5 August and 29 October 2008. The survey

was carried out on behal o TI by Gallup International, whichwas responsible or the overall implementation o the survey

and the data quality control process.3 Gallup International relied

on a network o partner institutions to carry out the survey

locally.

T 26 ti ti :

The countries surveyed were selected on the basis o their

Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) infows and imports, and

importance in regional trade. Total infows o FDI and imports

o goods rom these 26 countries amounted to 54 percent o

world fows in 2006.4

In each country there were a minimum o 100 senior business

executives interviewed and samples in each country were

designed taking into consideration the ollowing variables: the

size o rms, sector and location. Additionally, due to the nature

o the phenomenon under analysis, the survey oversampled

large and oreign-owned rms.

ai

mi etegt

G

m

nigi

sg

st ai

ai pifIi

Ii

J

mi

pkit

piii

sig

st K

ct

et ecz rbi

hg

p

ri

lti aiagti

Bzi

ci

mi

wt e

t uit stt

G

uit stt

uit Kig


6/24


BRIBE PAYERS INDEX

2008

To assess the international supply side o bribery refected in

the 2008 Bribe Payers Index (BPI), senior business executives

were asked about the likelihood o oreign rms rom countries

they have business dealings with to engage in bribery when

doing business in the respondents country. In short, senior

business executives provided their inormed perceptions o thesources o oreign bribery, and these views ormed the basis

o the 2008 BPI.

The 2008 BPI ranks 22 countries. The countries chosen are some

o the worlds largest and most infuential economies, with

combined global exports o goods and services and outfows o

FDI that represented 75 percent o the world total in 2006.5

Australia, Brazil, India and South Arica were also included or

their role as major regional trading powers.

The 2008 BPI is calculated based on two questions rom the

Bribe Payers Survey.6 Senior business executives were rst

asked which o the 22 countries to be ranked they have

commercial relationships with. For those countries that they

selected,7 they were then asked to assess the requency

with which companies rom these countries engage in bribery

when operating in their own (the respondents) countries.

To construct the Index, the 5-point response scale used in

the survey was reversed, converted into a 10-point scale system

and then a simple average was calculated or each country.Assessments o a respondents own country (12 countries in

total)8 were not included. The countries are then ranked based

on the mean scores obtained or each country.

Table 1 (page 5) shows the 2008 BPI results along with addi-

tional statistical inormation that indicate the level o agree-

ment among respondents about each countrys perormance,

and the precision o the results.9 Scores range rom 0 to 10,

indicating the likelihood o rms headquartered in these

countries to bribe when operating abroad: the higher the scoreor a country, the lower the likelihood o companies rom this

country to engage in bribery when doing business abroad.

According to the senior business executives interviewed around

the world, companies rom Belgium and Canada were least

likely to engage in bribery when operating abroad. These two

countries are ollowed closely by the Netherlands and Switzer-

land.

At the other end o the spectrum, respondents ranked compa-

nies rom Russia as those most likely to engage in bribery when

doing business abroad.

No country receives a 9 or 10 in the 2008 BPI. This means that

all o the worlds most infuential economies were viewed, to

some degree, as exporting corruption.


7/24


ct aiAs in previous editions o the BPI, cluster analysis was applied

to gain greater insight into the 2008 BPI results.

Cluster analysis o the 2008 BPI groups countries whose

companies exhibit similar tendencies to engage in bribery whenoperating abroad. This analysis produced our groups o

countries. Cluster 1 consists o countries rom which companies

are least likely to bribe when doing business abroad and Cluster

4 comprises those that are most likely to bribe, according to the

senior business executives surveyed.

ct 1: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Japan,

the Netherlands, Switzerland and the

United Kingdom.

ct 2: France, Singapore, Spain and the United States.

ct 3: Brazil, Hong Kong, Italy, South Arica,

South Korea and Taiwan.ct 4: China, India, Mexico and Russia.

It is important to note that although Cluster 1 represents

the best perormers among the 22 countries, the BPI highlights

that companies rom all countries in the survey show some

likelihood to pay bribes. As such, all countries need to improve

their enorcement o anti-corruption legislation governing

the private sector, and no company can be complacent about

the strength o its anti-corruption systems along its entire

supply chain.

Table 1. Bribe Payers Index 2008

rk ct/Tit BpI 2008 s st diticf It 95%

l B u B

1 Bgi 8,8 2,00 8,5 9,0

1 c 8,8 1,80 8,5 9,03 nt 8,7 1,98 8,4 8,9

3 sitz 8,7 1,98 8,4 8,9

5 G 8,6 2,14 8,4 8,8

5 J 8,6 2,11 8,3 8,8

5 uit Kig 8,6 2,10 8,4 8,7

8 ati 8,5 2,23 8,2 8,7

9 8,1 2,48 7,9 8,3

9 sig 8,1 2,60 7,8 8,4

9 uit stt 8,1 2,43 7,9 8,3

12 si 7,9 2,49 7,6 8,1

13 hg Kg 7,6 2,67 7,3 7,9

14 st ai 7,5 2,78 7,1 8,0

14 st K 7,5 2,79 7,1 7,8

14 Ti 7,5 2,76 7,1 7,8

17 Bzi 7,4 2,78 7,0 7,7

17 It 7,4 2,89 7,1 7,7

19 Ii 6,8 3,31 6,4 7,3

20 mi 6,6 2,97 6,1 7,2

21 ci 6,5 3,35 6,2 6,8

22 ri 5,9 3,66 5,2 6,6

Source: Transparency International Bribe Payers Survey 2008.

Scores range rom 0 to 10. The higher the score or the country, the lower the likelihood o companies rom this country to engage in bribery when doing business abroad.

For number o observations see Appendix one.


8/24


ai mi et

ct/Tit s

nt 9,1

J 9,0

Bgi 8,9

G 8,8

uit Kig 8,8

uit stt 8,6

si 8,4

8,3

It 8,1

ci 7,8

st ai 7,7Ii 7,5

e t uit stt

ct/Tit s

Bgi 8,5

sitz 8,5

G 8,4

nt 8,4

uit Kig 8,3

7,8

uit stt 7,6

si 7,5

It 6,5

ci 5,6

ai pif

ct/Tit s

G 8,7

c 8,6

8,4

J 8,4

ati 8,3

uit Kig 8,3

sig 8,1

hg Kg 7,7

It 7,6

Ti 7,5

st K 7,4Ii 6,5

ci 6,0

lti ai

ct/Tit s

G 8,4

uit stt 7,9

7,8

Bzi 7,5

It 7,5

si 7,4

ci 7,3

oreIGn BrIBery as vIewed By reGIons

When assessed on a regional rather than global basis, our

regional groupings o senior business executives oered

somewhat distinct views o the likelihood o oreign companies

to bribe.10

ai mi et: Respondents in these countries

(Egypt, Ghana, Morocco, Nigeria, Senegal and South Arica)

suggested that when operating in the Arican continent,

companies rom the Netherlands and Japan are the least

likely to engage in bribery. At the bottom o their ranking

were companies rom India. It is worth noting that South

Arican companies were seen as likely to pay bribes when

doing business abroad within the region.

ai pif: According to the inormed perception o

business executives interviewed in these countries (India,

Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippines,

Singapore and South Korea), companies rom Germany and

Canada are seen to be the least likely to pay bribes. By

comparison, companies rom China were judged to be most

likely to pay bribes when doing business in the region.

e t uit stt: For respondents in these

countries (the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Hungary,

Poland, Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom),

Swiss and Belgian companies are seen to be the least likely

to engage in bribery, while companies at the bottom

include those rom China. Italian companies are also

judged to be more likely to bribe in this region than many

o their European neighbours.

lti ai: For Latin American executives (Argentina,

Brazil, Chile and Mexico), Chinese companies were viewed

as the most likely to engage in bribery when doing business

in the region, while German companies were seen as the

least prone to engage in such practices.


Scores range rom 0 to 10. The higher the score or the country, the lower the likelihood o

companies rom this country to engage in bribery when doing business abroad.

*Scores only or the countries with more than 70 observations.

Table 2. Bribe Payers Index 2008, as viewed by regions*


9/24


Types o BrIBery

The 2008 Bribe Payers Survey allows us to evaluate the

inormed views o oreign bribery by companies rom the 22

countries even urther, by exploring the requency o dierent

types o oreign bribery.

The three types o bribery assessed included:

bribery o high-ranking politicians or political parties

bribery o low-level public ofcials to speed things up

the use o personal or amiliar relationships to win public

contracts.

To evaluate these types o bribery, senior business executives

were asked how oten companies headquartered in each o the

countries they knew about engaged in each orm o bribery.11

Figure 1 (page 8) depicts the results (see the ull set o results in

Table A1 in Appendix three).12

Overall, the results rom this analysis agree with ndings rom

the 2008 BPI. Companies rom China, India, Mexico and Russia

were reported by respondents to engage most oten in the

three practices. Similarly, the top 2008 BPI perormers are seen

to engage in them less requently.

According to business executives with extensive knowledge o

business practices in countries at the bottom o the index,

companies headquartered there exhibit dierent bribery

patterns when operating abroad. For example:

Abouthalfoftherespondentsreportedthatcompanies

rom Russia oten bribe high-level politicians and political

parties and engage in bribery o low-level public ocials,

while somewhat ewer considered it common practice or

Russian companies to use personal and amiliar relation-

ships to win public contracts.

CompaniesfromMexicowerereportedby38percent

o respondents to be likely to use personal and amiliar

relationships to win public contracts, but only by 32

percent to bribe high-level politicians, political parties or

low-level public ocials.

30percentofrespondentsindicatedthatcompaniesfrom

India are likely to bribe low-level public ocials to speed

things up, which was a higher result than the other twotypes o oreign bribery assessed.


10/24


Even top 2008 BPI perormers were reported to be weaker in

some areas than others:

16percentofrespondentsconsideredBelgiancompanies

to oten or almost always use amiliar or personal

relationships to win public contracts.

Tenpercentreportedthatuseoffamiliarorpersonal

relationships is oten engaged in by Canadian companies

when operating abroad.

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

ri

T ig Bib

Idi

ci It

ly

sot

ai

hog

Kog

sot

Koe

f

esp

i

sigpo

eJp

uK

switz

el

d

c

d

mexi

oB

zil

Tiw

usa

at

li

Ge

y

net

el

d

Belgi

%

f

sdtstigthatisafqtati

Sevenpercentofrespondentsreportedthatcompanies

headquartered in the Netherlands oten engage in bribery

to low-level public ocials to speed things up when

operating abroad.

WhenaskedaboutthebehaviourofSwisscompanies,

ve percent o respondents reported that Swiss companies

oten engage in bribery to high-ranking politicians or to

political parties or used personal and amiliar relationships

to obtain public contracts.

Bribery to high-ranking politicans or political parties

Bribery to low-level public ocials to speed things up

Use o personal and amiliar relationships on public contracting


Figures were calculated as percentage o respondents answering 4 or 5 to the question:

how oten companies rom these countries engage in....

(1=never, 5=almost always)

Dont know responses were excluded.

Figure 1.


11/24


nt t sigt mt v et

ai mi et 68% 15% 7% 6% 3%

ai pif 74% 16% 8% 2% 0%

ct et e 79% 16% 5% 0% 0%

lti ai 73% 12% 8% 5% 1%

wt e t uit stt 85% 10% 3% 1% 1%

KnowledGe o The law:awareness o The oecd anTI-BrIBeryconvenTIon

The OECD Convention on Combating Bribery o Foreign Public

Ocials in International Business Transactions, commonlycalled the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, is a crucial interna-

tional legal instrument that ocuses on the supply side o

international bribery. The Convention came into orce in 1999

and there are currently 37 parties to the Convention, including

all G7 countries.

While the Conventions enorcement has been inconsistent

across OECD countries, it remains a primary reerence point or

the ght against international bribery.13 It is thereore both

a surprise and a concern that three-quarters o senior business

executives participating in the 2008 Bribe Payers Survey

indicated that they were not at all amiliar with the OECD

Anti-Bribery Convention with the least amiliarity o

all indicated by respondents rom Western Europe and the

United States.

Table 3: Degree o Familiarity with the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, by Region


It was also surprising that senior business executives rom

higher income countries were less amiliar with the Convention

than those rom lower income countries: 79 percent as opposed

to 68 percent respectively were not at all amiliar with

the Convention. Furthermore, respondents rom oreign-owned

companies showed less knowledge than those rom domes-tically-owned rms: 67 percent as opposed to 77 percent

respectively were not at all amiliar with the Convention.


12/24


BRIBERY IN SECTORS

To provide a uller picture o how corruption aects the private

sector, TI has used data rom the 2008 Bribe Payers Survey

to create two new rankings o industry sectors. The rst ranks

sectors according to the degree to which rms in each sector

are likely to bribe public ocials. The second ranks sectors

according to the degree to which rms in each sector usecontributions to politicians and political parties to achieve

undue infuence on government policies, laws or regulations, a

phenomenon oten reerred to as state capture. These rankings,

unlike the BPI, do not ocus specically on oreign bribery, but

assess views o overall sector-specic corruption.

To tackle the supply-side o corruption, it is crucial to under-

stand the vulnerabilities o dierent sectors to corruption risks.

The sectoral indices show two o the signicant ways that

industries are seen to engage in corrupt practices. The rst

the bribery o public ocials is a primary orm o corrupt

transaction. In this case, certain sectors, namely public works

contracts/construction, real estate and property development,

oil and gas, and heavy manuacturing and mining, are believed

to bribe ocials in their business dealings more than others.

The cleanest sectors, in terms o bribery o public ocials, were

identied as inormation technology, sheries, and banking

and nance.

For the second sectoral ranking, TI sought to evaluate how

certain sectors might exert undue infuence on the policyprocess using nancial or other means at their disposal. This

practice is commonly reerred to as state capture, a term coined

by the World Bank and European Bank or Reconstruction and

Development in their 2000 report on the Business Environment

and Enterprise Perormance Survey (BEEPS). In the report,

state capture is dened as the eorts o rms to shape and

infuence the underlying rules o the game (i.e. legislation, laws,

rules and decrees) through private payments to public o-

cials.14 These payments may be legal or illegal, but they create a

distortion o both the legal ramework and policy process,

with a negative impact on the broader economy and society.

The practice o state capture is o particular concern because

it extends beyond eorts to secure a particular deal or business

opportunity. State capture implies that the very ramework

governing a sector, or even the economy, is guided by a

particular interest, rather than by the public interest. This

practice obscures policy decisions and undermines publicaccountability.

In the 2008 Bribe Payers Survey, senior business executives

indicated that public works contracts/construction, oil and gas,

mining, and real estate and property development were the

sectors most likely to engage in practices o state capture.

Banking and nance was seen to perorm considerably worse in

terms o state capture than in public sector bribery, meaning

it exerts considerable infuence on the rules o the game. At the

other end o the spectrum, agriculture, sheries and light

manuacturing are believed to be the sectors least likely to

engage in state capture.

A total o 19 sectors have been evaluated in the 2008 Bribe

Payers Survey.15 For the rankings o both public sector bribery

and state capture, respondents were asked their views on

up to ve sectors in which they had business relationships. As

with the 2008 BPI, these sectoral rankings thereore draw

on inormed perceptions o senior business executives, each o

whom evaluated an average o three sectors.


13/24


Iti st s 2008 st diticf It 95%

l B u B

pbi k tt & tti 5,6 3,23 5,3 5,9

oi & g 5,7 3,15 5,3 6,0

miig 5,8 3,35 5,2 6,5

r tt & t t 5,9 3,10 5,6 6,2

h tig 6,1 3,01 5,8 6,5

pti & i 6,2 3,15 5,9 6,5

ciii 6,3 2,92 5,7 6,9

a & 6,4 3,21 5,8 7,1

p gti & tii 6,5 3,01 6,1 6,8Titi & qit 6,5 2,87 6,3 6,7

utiiti 6,5 3,07 6,3 6,8

Bkig & f 6,6 2,95 6,5 6,8

t 6,7 3,17 6,1 7,4

Ttti & tg 6,7 2,83 6,5 6,9

ht, tt & i 7,0 2,75 6,7 7,3

Iti tg (computers & sotware) 7,0 2,78 6,8 7,2

agit 7,1 2,81 6,8 7,4

ii 7,1 2,87 6,5 7,7

ligt tig 7,2 2,75 7,0 7,4

Table 4: Bribery o Public Ofcials by Sectors


Possible scores range rom 0 to 10, with 0 representing the view that bribes are almost always paid and 10 that bribes are never paid by a sector.


Table 5: State Capture by Sector

Source: Transparency International Bribe Payers Survey 2008.Possible scores range rom 0 to 10, with 0 representing the view that bribes are almost always paid and 10 that bribes are never paid by a sector.


Iti st s 2008 st diticf It 95%

l B u B

pbi k tt & tti 5,2 3,29 4,9 5,5

r tt & t t 5,7 3,08 5,4 6,0

oi & g 5,9 3,18 5,5 6,2

h tig 6,0 2,93 5,7 6,3

miig 6,0 3,13 5,4 6,5

pti & i 6,2 3,16 5,9 6,5

utiiti 6,3 3,06 6,1 6,6

ciii 6,4 3,13 5,8 7,0

p gti & tii 6,4 3,03 6,0 6,7

t 6,5 3,19 5,8 7,1

Titi & qit 6,6 2,74 6,4 6,8

Ttti & tg 6,6 2,91 6,4 6,7

a & 6,7 3,31 6,0 7,3

ht, tt & i 6,7 2,85 6,4 7,0

agit 6,9 2,91 6,6 7,2

ligt tig 6,9 2,69 6,7 7,1

Iti tg (computers & sotware) 7,0 2,75 6,8 7,2

Bkig & f 7,1 2,77 7,0 7,3

ii 7,1 3,07 6,4 7,7


14/24


a Gt dig eg t cb Bib?In the 26 countries where the Bribe Payers Survey was carried

out, two-thirds o senior business executives surveyed ex-

pressed the view that governments are ineective in the ght

against corruption. This result shows that senior representatives

o the business community in many countries do not eel thatgovernments are adequately addressing the issue o bribery and

corruption.

Views vary across regions, however, almost hal o all business-

people polled in Latin American countries called government

eorts to curb corruption very ineective. Western European

and US senior business executives were more likely to express a

positive response, with about 3 in 10 deeming government

eorts eective.

O the 26 countries surveyed, businesspeople in Pakistan,

Senegal and South Arica were the most extreme in their

criticism o government eorts.

At the other end o the spectrum, Singapore represented a

unique case: nearly three-quarters o those surveyed elt thegovernment was very eective in ghting corruption. Senior

business executives rom France and Indonesia were also

overwhelmingly satised; more so than those in other countries

surveyed.

v Iti Iti nit eti v eti dK/na*

ai mi et 39% 28% 8% 19% 4% 1%

ai pif 31% 31% 12% 16% 10% 0%

ct et e 34% 33% 21% 7% 2% 2%

lti ai 49% 32% 6% 11% 2% 0%

wt e t uit stt 18% 40% 7% 28% 4% 3%

Table 6: How would you assess the actions o the government in [your] country in the fght against corruption?


* Dont know/ not applicable.

BuSINESS AND gOvERNmENT


15/24


p cti i pbi otItittiSenior business executives judged political parties, parliaments/

legislatures, police and registry and permit services to be the

public institutions most aected by corruption in their respec-

tive countries. The military and religious bodies were viewed as

least corrupt.

Lower-income country respondents oered the view that a

number o institutions and agencies are more aected by

corruption than their counterparts in wealthier countries. Many

o these institutions, such as parliament/ legislature, education,

police, registry and permit services, utilities, tax revenue

authority and customs, are the public bodies oten associated

with petty corruption in the developing world.

Important dierences emerge in the business executives view

o corruption in institutions across countries. Political parties

are considered to be the most aected by corruption or

respondents in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, the Czech Republic,

France, Germany, Hungary, Japan, the United Kingdom and the

United States. Meanwhile, or respondents in Ghana, India,

Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan and South Arica, the police

are seen as the most aected. For respondents in Russia, thepolice share rst place with registry and permit services. In

Egypt, registry and permit services are viewed as most corrupt,

while in the Philippines it is customs, and in Senegal, both

sectors are given the worst scores. According to respondents

rom Indonesia and South Korea, the most serious challenge in

terms o corruption is aced by the parliament and legislature.

Business executives interviewed in Singapore rated religious

bodies as most aected by corruption while, or respondents in

Morocco, the judiciary aces the biggest challenge. (See Table

A3 in Appendix 3)

Table 7: To what extent do you perceive the ollowing institutions/agencies in this country to be aected by corruption?

Tt s

ai

mi et

ai pif

ct

et e

lti ai

wt e

uit stt

piti ti 3.8 3,7 3,6 4,0 4,2 3,5

pit/ git 3.4 3,5 3,4 3,5 3,8 3,0

Bi/ it t 2.9 3,0 2,8 3,3 2,8 2,9

mi 3.0 3,1 2,7 3,3 3,0 3,1

T iit 2.5 2,5 2,6 3,0 2,4 2,1

nGo

(non governmental organisations)2.5 2,4 2,5 2,8 2,5 2,5

rigi bi 2.4 2,1 2,5 2,4 2,5 2,4

eti t 2.8 3,1 2,8 2,8 3,0 2,2

Jii 3.1 3,2 2,9 3,3 3,8 2,5

mi i 2.9 3,0 2,7 3,6 3,0 2,5

pi 3.5 4,0 3,5 3,5 3,9 2,4

rgit it i(construction permits, licenses,

permits, etc.)

3.4 3,7 3,3 3,6 3,5 2,7

utiiti

(telephone, electricity, water, etc.)2.6 2,7 2,7 2,4 2,8 2,4

T titi 2.8 3,1 3,0 2,6 2,9 2,3

ct 3.1 3,6 3,2 2,9 3,4 2,2

Source: Transparency International Bribe Payers Survey 2008

(1=not at all corrupt, 5=extremely corrupt)

Score shown is average score; highlighting indicates institution is viewed as most corrupt.


16/24


APPENDIX ONE

DETAILED mEThODOLOgY AND

SuRvEY PROTOCOL

The 2008 Bribe Payers Survey is a survey o senior business

executives that includes a wide range o questions about the

nature, scope and impact o bribery and corruption. The

2008 Bribe Payers Survey interviewed 2,742 respondents in 26

countries. It was designed and commissioned by Transparency

International and implemented on behal o TransparencyInternational by Gallup International Association.

cgThe Bribe Payers Survey was conducted in 26 countries:

Argentina, Brazil, Chile, the Czech Republic, Egypt, France,

Germany, Ghana, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia,

Mexico, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines, Poland,

Russia, Senegal, Singapore, South Arica, South Korea, the

United Kingdom and the United States.

These countries were selected on the basis o their Foreign

Direct Investment (FDI) infows and imports and their impor-

tance in regional trade patterns. Total infows o oreign direct

investment and imports o goods rom these 26 countries

amount to 54 percent o the world fows in 2006.16

Tiig fkThe eldwork or the survey was conducted between 5 August

and 29 October 2008.

sig The sample was independent or each country included in the

survey. The sample was stratied and probabilistic. Stratication

was carried out by size o rms, sector and location. There

was an oversampling o large and oreign-owned companies.

Denitions:

Large:100employeesormore

Foreign-owned:20percentormoreofarmscapitalis

owned by a oreign company.

s itThe unit o sampling and inormation were business establish-

ments dened as an outlet with a distinct location and

management.

s izThe total size o the sample was 2,742 respondents. In each

country there were a minimum o 100 interviews. Interviews in

which over 20 percent o the questions were not answered

were not accepted.

s itibtiThe tables opposite (page 15) show the distribution o the

sample by job title o respondent, type o company and size o

company.

s tIn each country the methodology most suitable or carrying

out the survey was applied: 15 countries conducted the survey

ace-to-ace, nine conducted the survey by phone, one

conducted it online and one used a mixed mode (telephone or

ace-to-ace depending on the respondents preerence).17

dt ig, qit k iThe data coding and quality check was done by Gallup Interna-

tional. The data was analysed by Juanita Riao o the

Policy and Research Department at Transparency InternationalsSecretariat.


17/24


Jb tit t ptg

ci eti 14%

o/ pit 15%

pt 5%

dit 16%G mg 9%

mg 24%

i of/ att 8%

lg c 1%

ci/ eti f 1%

ct ai dit 1%

ot 7%

Tt s 2.742

T c ptg

ig (>20% o capital is oreign) 20%

dti 80%

Tt s 2.742

c siz ptg

s (5 to 49 employees) 53%

mi (50 to 99 employees) 18%

lg (100 employees or more) 29%

Tt s 2.742

ct mtg ik t

agti Face to Face From 06/08 to 01/10

Bzi Telephone From 10/09 to 29/09

ci Face to Face From 13/08 to 26/09

cz rbi Face to Face/ Telephone From 14/08 to 30/09egt Face to Face From 14/08 to 29/10

Telephone From 02/09 to 23/09

G Telephone From 22/08 to 23/09

G Face to Face From 29/08 to 02/10

hg Face to Face From 24/08 to 22/09

Ii Face to Face From 06/08 to 30/08

Ii Face to Face From 18/08 to 17/09

J Telephone From 17/08 to 09/09

mi Face to Face From 05/08 to 16/09

mi Face to Face From 15/08 to 22/09

m Telephone From 27/08 to 22/09

nigi Face to Face From 27/08 to 29/09

pkit Face to Face From 02/09 to 08/10

piii Face to Face From 11/08 to 16/09

p Face to Face From 20/08 to 27/09

ri Face to Face From 17/08 to 28/09

sg Face to Face From 18/08 to 26/09

sig Telephone From 18/08 to 05/09

st ai Telephone From 01/09 to 19/09

st K Telephone From 25/08 to 29/09

uit Kig Telephone From 13/08 to 04/09

uit stt Online From 11/09 to 17/09


18/24


Iti st

Bib t pbi ofi

Iti st obti

agit 348

a & 99

Bkig & f 1325

ciii 109

ii 92

t 99

h tig 333

ht, tt & i 446

Iti tg(computers & sotware)

697

ligt tig 644

miig 117oi & g 305

pti &i

376

p gti &

tii274

pbi k tt &

tti477

r tt &

t t402

Titi &

qit

836

Ttti & tg 941

utiiti 639

Iti st

stt ct

Iti st obti

agit 324

a & 92

Bkig & f 1298

ciii 105

ii 89

t 93

h tig 323

ht, tt & i 425

Iti tg(computers & sotware)

666

ligt tig 598

miig 112oi & g 296

pti &i

368

p gti &

tii272

pbi k tt &

tti447

r tt &

t t393

Titi &

qit

811

Ttti & tg 889

utiiti 599

BpI 2008

ct/Tit obti

ati 240

Bgi 252

Bzi 225

c 264

ci 634

462

G 513

hg Kg 288

Ii 257

It 421

J 316

mi 123

nt 255

ri 114

sig 243

st ai 177

st K 231

si 355

sitz 256

Ti 287

uit Kig 506

uit stt 718

APPENDIX ONE

DETAILED mEThODOLOgY AND

SuRvEY PROTOCOL


19/24


APPENDIX TwO

LISTS Of COuNTRIES,

REgIONS

AND SECTORS

ct/Tit

rk i t 2008 BpI: w t:

ati agti

Bgi Bzi

Bzi ci

c cz rbi

ci egt

G G

hg Kg G

Ii hg

It Ii

J Ii

mi J

nt mi

ri mi

sig m

st ai nigi

st K pkit

si piii

sitz p

Ti ri

uit Kig sg

uit stt sig

st ai

st K

uit Kig

uit stt

lit gi t ti

ai mi et:Egypt, Ghana, Morocco, Nigeria, Senegal, South Arica.

ai pif:India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore,

South Korea.

ct et e*:Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Russia.

lti ai:Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico.

wt e t uit stt:France, Germany, United Kingdom, United States.

* Where data was limited, responses rom this region were grouped with Western Europe

and the United States or purposes o more robust analysis.

lit t agit

a &

Bkig & f

ciii

ii

t

h tig

ht, tt & i

Iti tg (computers & sotware)

ligt tig

miig

oi & g

pti & i

p gti & tii

pbi k tt & tti

r tt & t t

Titi & qit

Ttti & tg

utiiti


20/24


T bib, b k t/titPercentage o respondents who indicate that the ollowing orms o oreign bribery are prevalent

s t/tit Bib t ig-kig

itii iti ti

Bib t - bi

fi t " tig "

u ii

tii bi

ttigTt s 13 % 13 % 15 %

ati 7% 5% 9%

Bgi 3% 7% 16%

Bzi 17% 21% 18%

c 4% 7% 10%

ci 24% 28% 26%

12% 11% 14%

G 7% 8% 9%

hg Kg 15% 11% 13%

Ii 25% 30% 25%It 22% 20% 20%

J 8% 4% 10%

mi 32% 32% 38%

nt 4% 7% 5%

ri 51% 50% 43%

sig 10% 11% 9%

st ai 19% 16% 17%

st K 14% 14% 16%

si 11% 16% 19%

sitz 5% 2% 5%

Ti 17% 14% 12%

uit Kig 5% 4% 7%

uit stt 12% 8% 11%


Figures were calculated as the percentage o respondents answering 4 or 5 to the question o: how oten companies rom these countries engage in.

(1= never, 5= almost always)

Dont know responses were excluded.

Tb a1

APPENDIX ThREE

fuLL COuNTRY TABLES


21/24


h t ti t gt i ti t i t fgt git ti?(By country where business executives were interviewed)

ct/Tit v Iti Iti nit eti v eti dK/na* rt

Tt s 34 % 32 % 11 % 16 % 5 % 1 % 2,742

agti 51% 38% 7% 3% 0% 1% 109Bzi 51% 22% 3% 21% 3% 0% 100

ci 41% 39% 13% 5% 2% 0% 100

cz rbi 48% 39% 10% 1% 1% 1% 100

egt 29% 23% 13% 25% 7% 3% 103

11% 43% 0% 41% 4% 1% 100

G 14% 58% 2% 22% 2% 2% 100

G 27% 31% 9% 27% 4% 3% 104

hg 41% 29% 16% 9% 2% 3% 104

Ii 42% 30% 20% 9% 0% 0% 117

Ii 13% 27% 15% 41% 4% 0% 100J 19% 43% 22% 15% 1% 0% 100

mi 27% 46% 9% 12% 6% 0% 100

mi 50% 30% 3% 15% 1% 0% 151

m 27% 40% 3% 27% 3% 0% 100

nigi 32% 36% 6% 17% 7% 1% 108

pkit 72% 18% 4% 6% 0% 0% 100

piii 60% 32% 1% 7% 0% 0% 100

p 20% 34% 28% 13% 0% 5% 109

ri 29% 32% 28% 7% 4% 1% 101

sg 60% 24% 8% 7% 1% 1% 106sig 0% 1% 1% 26% 72% 0% 100

st ai 56% 17% 10% 14% 2% 1% 101

st K 14% 55% 19% 10% 2% 0% 100

uit Kig 21% 37% 7% 27% 5% 3% 100

uit stt 25% 26% 16% 22% 6% 6% 129


* Dont know/ not applicable.

Tb a2


22/24


T t tt i t ig ititti i ti t t b tb ti? (By country where business executives were interviewed)

Ititti/ gi plitialatis

paliat/lg

islat

Bsiss/ivatst

mdia

Thilitay

nGos(nongovern

mentalorganisations)

rligisbdi

s

edatisyst

Jdiiay

mdialsvi

s

pli

rgistyad

itsvis

utilitis

Taxva

thitis

csts

Tt s 3,8 3,4 2,9 3,0 2,5 2,5 2,4 2,8 3,1 2,9 3,5 3,4 2,6 2,8 3,1

agti 4,1 3,9 2,7 3,2 2,5 1,8 1,8 2,3 3,7 2,7 3,9 3,3 2,6 2,6 3,6

Bzi 4,2 3,6 2,9 2,8 2,7 3,1 2,9 2,9 3,3 3,4 3,8 3,4 3,2 3,4 3,2

ci 4,1 3,7 2,9 2,8 2,2 2,7 2,4 3,3 3,5 2,8 2,7 2,7 2,6 2,4 2,7

cz rbi 4,3 3,9 3,1 3,2 3,6 2,7 2,5 2,7 3,5 3,4 3,9 3,7 2,5 2,6 2,8

egt 2,5 3,1 2,9 3,0 1,6 2,3 1,5 3,5 2,0 3,2 3,3 3,6 2,4 2,9 3,1

3,4 2,7 2,8 3,0 1,8 2,1 1,9 1,9 2,5 2,3 2,3 2,2 1,8 1,8 1,8

G 3,4 2,8 3,0 3,0 2,2 2,8 2,5 2,2 2,1 2,8 2,1 2,8 2,6 1,9 2,0

G 4,0 3,4 3,2 3,9 2,2 2,9 2,3 3,5 3,7 3,2 4,6 4,1 3,4 3,7 4,1

hg 4,0 3,5 3,4 3,5 2,4 2,8 2,2 2,4 2,7 3,6 3,2 3,4 2,1 2,4 2,4

Ii 4,1 3,8 2,9 2,8 2,1 2,6 2,9 2,9 2,9 2,9 4,2 3,7 3,0 3,1 3,3

Ii 3,9 4,1 2,9 2,4 2,9 2,5 2,1 2,8 3,8 2,6 3,9 3,7 2,9 3,5 3,9

J 3,3 2,9 2,9 2,6 2,4 2,2 3,1 2,8 1,7 2,9 2,6 2,4 2,7 2,0 2,0

mi 3,8 3,3 3,0 2,7 2,6 2,0 1,8 2,7 3,2 2,3 4,0 3,6 2,2 2,2 3,3

mi 4,5 3,9 2,7 3,2 2,4 2,3 2,7 3,3 4,3 3,1 4,7 4,1 2,8 3,2 3,7

m 3,1 2,8 2,4 2,5 2,5 1,9 1,8 2,4 3,6 3,0 3,4 3,1 1,8 2,9 3,1

nigi 4,6 4,0 3,2 3,0 3,3 2,5 2,2 3,6 3,2 2,5 4,7 3,9 3,7 3,7 4,3

pkit 4,2 3,9 3,2 3,2 2,9 3,5 2,9 3,3 3,9 3,7 4,7 4,3 4,0 4,2 4,2

piii 4,0 3,8 2,8 2,8 3,4 2,3 2,1 3,0 3,5 2,8 4,1 4,0 2,6 4,1 4,4

p 3,8 3,5 3,1 3,2 2,4 2,6 2,8 2,6 3,1 3,9 3,0 3,3 2,3 2,3 2,7

ri 3,7 3,4 3,4 3,2 3,3 3,0 2,3 3,5 3,9 3,7 4,0 4,0 2,6 3,2 3,6

sg 3,9 3,8 3,2 3,3 2,3 2,2 3,1 2,7 3,7 3,0 4,0 4,2 2,2 3,4 4,2

sig 1,5 1,4 1,9 1,7 1,3 1,8 2,0 1,4 1,4 1,5 1,4 1,4 1,3 1,4 1,4

st ai 3,9 3,5 2,9 2,5 3,0 2,6 1,9 3,0 2,9 3,0 4,0 3,5 2,8 2,0 2,9

st K 3,9 4,0 3,1 3,6 3,0 2,9 3,1 3,4 3,1 3,2 3,4 3,5 2,5 3,2 3,0

uit Kig 3,2 2,8 2,5 2,8 1,9 2,5 2,3 1,9 2,1 1,8 2,3 2,5 2,5 2,3 2,2

uit stt 3,8 3,6 3,2 3,3 2,5 2,6 2,8 2,7 3,1 2,8 3,0 3,1 2,8 3,2 2,8

Tb a3


(1=not at all corrupt , 5=extremely corrupt)

Shaded scores are the highest or that particular country.

APPENDIX ThREE

fuLL COuNTRY TABLES


23/24

ENDNOTES

1 In addition to this report, Transparency International anticipates publishing more analysis o the 2008 Bribe Payers Survey ndings in 2009.

2 See Appendix One or a more detailed methodological description o the survey.

3 Gallup International Association was selected by TI through a competitive public tendering process.

4 United Nations Conerence on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) Handbook o Statistics 2008.

(http://www.unctad.org/Templates/Page.asp?intItemID=1890&lang=1, 2008).



6 The two questions on which the 2008 BPI draws are:

In your principal lines o business in this country, do you have business relationships (or example as a supplier, client, partner or competitor) with companies

whose headquarters are located in these countries listed above?Respondents are presented a list o 22 countries. Then, or each country selected, respondents

had to score the country on a 5-point scale system (rom 1=never to 5=almost always) answering the ollowing question: How oten do frms headquartered

in (country name) engage in bribery in this country?

7 The average number o countries rated by each respondent was our.

8 Brazil, France, Germany, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Singapore, South Arica, South Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States.

9 The standard deviation is provided to give an indication o the degree o agreement among respondents in relation to each country: the smaller the standard

deviation, the broader the consensus among respondents. The condence intervals show the range o minimum and maximum values where with 95 per cent

condence the true value o the score lies. For number o observations please see Appendix Three.

10 For each regional grouping, only the scores o countries or which there were more than 70 observations were estimated.

11 From the BPI 2008 list o 22 countries, business executives rom the 26 countries surveyed were asked to select up to ve countries with which they have had

the most business contact when working in their region during the past ve years. Only these countries were then evaluated. 0.6 percent o respondents

answered the question or more than ve countries and their responses were also used or the analysis as they did not alter results.

12 All percentages in this section are estimated as the percentage o respondents answering oten or almost always relative to total respondents, i.e. Dont

know responses are excluded.

13 For more inormation on the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, including TIs latest progress report, please see:

(http://www.transparency.org/global_priorities/international_conventions)

14 World Bank and European Bank or Reconstruction and Development, Measuring Governance and State Capture: the Role o Bureaucrats and Firms in Shaping

the Business Environment, (http://www.ebrd.com/pubs/econo/wp0051.pd, 2000) page 1.

15 For number o observations per sector, please see Appendix Three.



17 See table on page 15 or details.

.t.g



24/24

International Secretariat

Alt-Moabit 96

10559 Berlin, GermanyPhone: +49 - 30 - 34 38 200

Fax: +49 - 30 - 34 70 39 12

i@

Date post:	30-May-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	j-o-m-salazar
View:	224 times
Download:	0 times

Bribe Payers Index 2008

Documents