Burma 3rd most corrupt country in the world

Nov 17th, 2009

Corruption threatens global economic recovery, greatly challenges countries in conflict

Berlin, 17 November 2009

As the world economy begins to register a tentative recovery and some nations continue to wrestle with ongoing conflict and insecurity, it is clear that no region of the world is immune to the perils of corruption, according to Transparency International’s 2009 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), a measure of domestic, public sector corruption released today.

“At a time when massive stimulus packages, fast-track disbursements of public funds and attempts to secure peace are being implemented around the world, it is essential to identify where corruption blocks good governance and accountability, in order to break its corrosive cycle” said Huguette Labelle, Chair of Transparency International (TI).

The vast majority of the 180 countries included in the 2009 index score below five on a scale from 0 (perceived to be highly corrupt) to 10 (perceived to have low levels of corruption). The CPI measures the perceived levels of public sector corruption in a given country and is a composite index, drawing on 13 different expert and business surveys. The 2009 edition scores 180 countries, the same number as the 2008 CPI.

Fragile, unstable states that are scarred by war and ongoing conflict linger at the bottom of the index. These are: Somalia, with a score of 1.1, Afghanistan at 1.3, Myanmar at 1.4 and Sudan tied with Iraq at 1.5. These results demonstrate that countries which are perceived as the most corrupt are also those plagued by long-standing conflicts, which have torn apart their governance infrastructure.

When essential institutions are weak or non-existent, corruption spirals out of control and the plundering of public resources feeds insecurity and impunity. Corruption also makes normal a seeping loss of trust in the very institutions and nascent governments charged with ensuring survival and stability.

Countries at the bottom of the index cannot be shut out from development efforts. Instead, what the index points to is the need to strengthen their institutions. Investors and donors should be equally vigilant of their operations and as accountable for their own actions as they are in demanding transparency and accountability from beneficiary countries.

“Stemming corruption requires strong oversight by parliaments, a well performing judiciary, independent and properly resourced audit and anti-corruption agencies, vigorous law enforcement, transparency in public budgets, revenue and aid flows, as well as space for independent media and a vibrant civil society,” said Labelle. “The international community must find efficient ways to help war-torn countries to develop and sustain their own institutions.”

Highest scorers in the 2009 CPI are New Zealand at 9.4, Denmark at 9.3, Singapore and Sweden tied at 9.2 and Switzerland at 9.0. These scores reflect political stability, long-established conflict of interest regulations and solid, functioning public institutions.

Overall results in the 2009 index are of great concern because corruption continues to lurk where opacity rules, where institutions still need strengthening and where governments have not implemented anti-corruption legal frameworks.

Even industrialised countries cannot be complacent: the supply of bribery and the facilitation of corruption often involve businesses based in their countries. Financial secrecy jurisdictions, linked to many countries that top the CPI, severely undermine efforts to tackle corruption and recover stolen assets.

“Corrupt money must not find safe haven. It is time to put an end to excuses,” said Labelle. “The OECD’s work in this area is welcome, but there must be more bilateral treaties on information exchange to fully end the secrecy regime. At the same time, companies must cease operating in renegade financial centres.”

Bribery, cartels and other corrupt practices undermine competition and contribute to massive loss of resources for development in all countries, especially the poorest ones. Between 1990 and 2005, more than 283 private international cartels were exposed that cost consumers around the world an estimated US $300 billion in overcharges, as documented in a recent TI report.

With the vast majority of countries in the 2009 index scoring below five, the corruption challenge is undeniable. The Group of 20 has made strong commitments to ensure that integrity and transparency form the cornerstone of a newfound regulatory structure. As the G20 tackles financial sector and economic reforms, it is critical to address corruption as a substantial threat to a sustainable economic future. The G20 must also remain committed to gaining public support for essential reforms by making institutions such as the Financial Stability Board and decisions about investments in infrastructure, transparent and open to civil society input.

Globally and nationally, institutions of oversight and legal frameworks that are actually enforced, coupled with smarter, more effective regulation, will ensure lower levels of corruption. This will lead to a much needed increase of trust in public institutions, sustained economic growth and more effective development assistance. Most importantly, it will alleviate the enormous scale of human suffering in the countries that perform most poorly in the Corruption Perceptions Index.

To view the CPI 2009 Table click here.

###

Transparency International is the global civil society organisation leading the fight against corruption.

Media contact(s):
Gypsy Guillén Kaiser
+49 30 34 38 20 19 or + 49 30 34 38 20 662
press@transparency.org

Corruption Perceptions Index 2009

  • The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) table shows a country’s ranking and score, the number of surveys used to determine the score, and the confidence range of the scoring.
  • The rank shows how one country compares to others included in the index. The CPI score indicates the perceived level of public-sector corruption in a country/territory.
  • The CPI is based on 13 independent surveys. However, not all surveys include all countries. The surveys used column indicates how many surveys were relied upon to determine the score for that country.
  • The confidence range indicates the reliability of the CPI scores and tells us that allowing for a margin of error, we can be 90% confident that the true score for this country lies within this range.
Rank Country/Territory CPI 2009 Score Surveys Used Confidence Range
1 New Zealand 9.4 6 9.1 – 9.5
2 Denmark 9.3 6 9.1 – 9.5
3 Singapore 9.2 9 9.0 – 9.4
3 Sweden 9.2 6 9.0 – 9.3
5 Switzerland 9.0 6 8.9 – 9.1
6 Finland 8.9 6 8.4 – 9.4
6 Netherlands 8.9 6 8.7 – 9.0
8 Australia 8.7 8 8.3 – 9.0
8 Canada 8.7 6 8.5 – 9.0
8 Iceland 8.7 4 7.5 – 9.4
11 Norway 8.6 6 8.2 – 9.1
12 Hong Kong 8.2 8 7.9 – 8.5
12 Luxembourg 8.2 6 7.6 – 8.8
14 Germany 8.0 6 7.7 – 8.3
14 Ireland 8.0 6 7.8 – 8.4
16 Austria 7.9 6 7.4 – 8.3
17 Japan 7.7 8 7.4 – 8.0
17 United Kingdom 7.7 6 7.3 – 8.2
19 United States 7.5 8 6.9 – 8.0
20 Barbados 7.4 4 6.6 – 8.2
21 Belgium 7.1 6 6.9 – 7.3
22 Qatar 7.0 6 5.8 – 8.1
22 Saint Lucia 7.0 3 6.7 – 7.5
24 France 6.9 6 6.5 – 7.3
25 Chile 6.7 7 6.5 – 6.9
25 Uruguay 6.7 5 6.4 – 7.1
27 Cyprus 6.6 4 6.1 – 7.1
27 Estonia 6.6 8 6.1 – 6.9
27 Slovenia 6.6 8 6.3 – 6.9
30 United Arab Emirates 6.5 5 5.5 – 7.5
31 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 6.4 3 4.9 – 7.5
32 Israel 6.1 6 5.4 – 6.7
32 Spain 6.1 6 5.5 – 6.6
34 Dominica 5.9 3 4.9 – 6.7
35 Portugal 5.8 6 5.5 – 6.2
35 Puerto Rico 5.8 4 5.2 – 6.3
37 Botswana 5.6 6 5.1 – 6.3
37 Taiwan 5.6 9 5.4 – 5.9
39 Brunei Darussalam 5.5 4 4.7 – 6.4
39 Oman 5.5 5 4.4 – 6.5
39 Korea (South) 5.5 9 5.3 – 5.7
42 Mauritius 5.4 6 5.0 – 5.9
43 Costa Rica 5.3 5 4.7 – 5.9
43 Macau 5.3 3 3.3 – 6.9
45 Malta 5.2 4 4.0 – 6.2
46 Bahrain 5.1 5 4.2 – 5.8
46 Cape Verde 5.1 3 3.3 – 7.0
46 Hungary 5.1 8 4.6 – 5.7
49 Bhutan 5.0 4 4.3 – 5.6
49 Jordan 5.0 7 3.9 – 6.1
49 Poland 5.0 8 4.5 – 5.5
52 Czech Republic 4.9 8 4.3 – 5.6
52 Lithuania 4.9 8 4.4 – 5.4
54 Seychelles 4.8 3 3.0 – 6.7
55 South Africa 4.7 8 4.3 – 4.9
56 Latvia 4.5 6 4.1 – 4.9
56 Malaysia 4.5 9 4.0 – 5.1
56 Namibia 4.5 6 3.9 – 5.1
56 Samoa 4.5 3 3.3 – 5.3
56 Slovakia 4.5 8 4.1 – 4.9
61 Cuba 4.4 3 3.5 – 5.1
61 Turkey 4.4 7 3.9 – 4.9
63 Italy 4.3 6 3.8 – 4.9
63 Saudi Arabia 4.3 5 3.1 – 5.3
65 Tunisia 4.2 6 3.0 – 5.5
66 Croatia 4.1 8 3.7 – 4.5
66 Georgia 4.1 7 3.4 – 4.7
66 Kuwait 4.1 5 3.2 – 5.1
69 Ghana 3.9 7 3.2 – 4.6
69 Montenegro 3.9 5 3.5 – 4.4
71 Bulgaria 3.8 8 3.2 – 4.5
71 FYR Macedonia 3.8 6 3.4 – 4.2
71 Greece 3.8 6 3.2 – 4.3
71 Romania 3.8 8 3.2 – 4.3
75 Brazil 3.7 7 3.3 – 4.3
75 Colombia 3.7 7 3.1 – 4.3
75 Peru 3.7 7 3.4 – 4.1
75 Suriname 3.7 3 3.0 – 4.7
79 Burkina Faso 3.6 7 2.8 – 4.4
79 China 3.6 9 3.0 – 4.2
79 Swaziland 3.6 3 3.0 – 4.7
79 Trinidad and Tobago 3.6 4 3.0 – 4.3
83 Serbia 3.5 6 3.3 – 3.9
84 El Salvador 3.4 5 3.0 – 3.8
84 Guatemala 3.4 5 3.0 – 3.9
84 India 3.4 10 3.2 – 3.6
84 Panama 3.4 5 3.1 – 3.7
84 Thailand 3.4 9 3.0 – 3.8
89 Lesotho 3.3 6 2.8 – 3.8
89 Malawi 3.3 7 2.7 – 3.9
89 Mexico 3.3 7 3.2 – 3.5
89 Moldova 3.3 6 2.7 – 4.0
89 Morocco 3.3 6 2.8 – 3.9
89 Rwanda 3.3 4 2.9 – 3.7
95 Albania 3.2 6 3.0 – 3.3
95 Vanuatu 3.2 3 2.3 – 4.7
97 Liberia 3.1 3 1.9 – 3.8
97 Sri Lanka 3.1 7 2.8 – 3.4
99 Bosnia and Herzegovina 3.0 7 2.6 – 3.4
99 Dominican Republic 3.0 5 2.9 – 3.2
99 Jamaica 3.0 5 2.8 – 3.3
99 Madagascar 3.0 7 2.8 – 3.2
99 Senegal 3.0 7 2.5 – 3.6
99 Tonga 3.0 3 2.6 – 3.3
99 Zambia 3.0 7 2.8 – 3.2
106 Argentina 2.9 7 2.6 – 3.1
106 Benin 2.9 6 2.3 – 3.4
106 Gabon 2.9 3 2.6 – 3.1
106 Gambia 2.9 5 1.6 – 4.0
106 Niger 2.9 5 2.7 – 3.0
111 Algeria 2.8 6 2.5 – 3.1
111 Djibouti 2.8 4 2.3 – 3.2
111 Egypt 2.8 6 2.6 – 3.1
111 Indonesia 2.8 9 2.4 – 3.2
111 Kiribati 2.8 3 2.3 – 3.3
111 Mali 2.8 6 2.4 – 3.2
111 Sao Tome and Principe 2.8 3 2.4 – 3.3
111 Solomon Islands 2.8 3 2.3 – 3.3
111 Togo 2.8 5 1.9 – 3.9
120 Armenia 2.7 7 2.6 – 2.8
120 Bolivia 2.7 6 2.4 – 3.1
120 Ethiopia 2.7 7 2.4 – 2.9
120 Kazakhstan 2.7 7 2.1 – 3.3
120 Mongolia 2.7 7 2.4 – 3.0
120 Vietnam 2.7 9 2.4 – 3.1
126 Eritrea 2.6 4 1.6 – 3.8
126 Guyana 2.6 4 2.5 – 2.7
126 Syria 2.6 5 2.2 – 2.9
126 Tanzania 2.6 7 2.4 – 2.9
130 Honduras 2.5 6 2.2 – 2.8
130 Lebanon 2.5 3 1.9 – 3.1
130 Libya 2.5 6 2.2 – 2.8
130 Maldives 2.5 4 1.8 – 3.2
130 Mauritania 2.5 7 2.0 – 3.3
130 Mozambique 2.5 7 2.3 – 2.8
130 Nicaragua 2.5 6 2.3 – 2.7
130 Nigeria 2.5 7 2.2 – 2.7
130 Uganda 2.5 7 2.1 – 2.8
139 Bangladesh 2.4 7 2.0 – 2.8
139 Belarus 2.4 4 2.0 – 2.8
139 Pakistan 2.4 7 2.1 – 2.7
139 Philippines 2.4 9 2.1 – 2.7
143 Azerbaijan 2.3 7 2.0 – 2.6
143 Comoros 2.3 3 1.6 – 3.3
143 Nepal 2.3 6 2.0 – 2.6
146 Cameroon 2.2 7 1.9 – 2.6
146 Ecuador 2.2 5 2.0 – 2.5
146 Kenya 2.2 7 1.9 – 2.5
146 Russia 2.2 8 1.9 – 2.4
146 Sierra Leone 2.2 5 1.9 – 2.4
146 Timor-Leste 2.2 5 1.8 – 2.6
146 Ukraine 2.2 8 2.0 – 2.6
146 Zimbabwe 2.2 7 1.7 – 2.8
154 Côte d´Ivoire 2.1 7 1.8 – 2.4
154 Papua New Guinea 2.1 5 1.7 – 2.5
154 Paraguay 2.1 5 1.7 – 2.5
154 Yemen 2.1 4 1.6 – 2.5
158 Cambodia 2.0 8 1.8 – 2.2
158 Central African Republic 2.0 4 1.9 – 2.2
158 Laos 2.0 4 1.6 – 2.6
158 Tajikistan 2.0 8 1.6 – 2.5
162 Angola 1.9 5 1.8 – 1.9
162 Congo Brazzaville 1.9 5 1.6 – 2.1
162 Democratic Republic of Congo 1.9 5 1.7 – 2.1
162 Guinea-Bissau 1.9 3 1.8 – 2.0
162 Kyrgyzstan 1.9 7 1.8 – 2.1
162 Venezuela 1.9 7 1.8 – 2.0
168 Burundi 1.8 6 1.6 – 2.0
168 Equatorial Guinea 1.8 3 1.6 – 1.9
168 Guinea 1.8 5 1.7 – 1.8
168 Haiti 1.8 3 1.4 – 2.3
168 Iran 1.8 3 1.7 – 1.9
168 Turkmenistan 1.8 4 1.7 – 1.9
174 Uzbekistan 1.7 6 1.5 – 1.8
175 Chad 1.6 6 1.5 – 1.7
176 Iraq 1.5 3 1.2 – 1.8
176 Sudan 1.5 5 1.4 – 1.7
178 Myanmar 1.4 3 0.9 – 1.8
179 Afghanistan 1.3 4 1.0 – 1.5
180 Somalia 1.1 3 0.9 – 1.4

* The views expressed by authors in the articles are their own, but not necessarily reflect the policy standpoint of BURMA DIGEST editorial team.
* Readers can also state their views in English in the comment box below; currently 1 Comment.
* This article is archived under Articles in English category.

One Response to “Burma 3rd most corrupt country in the world”

  • #1 singhnoi Says:
    December 30th, 2009 at 2:12 am

    Myanmar is the third most corrupt, Burma is the second most corrupt and the most corrupt is Bamahbyi. In these countries the husband bribes the wife to do the house work, the wife bribes the husband to to help with the house work, the parents bribe the children to do home work, the parents bribe the teachers to teach the children, the children bribe the teachers to do homework for them, the teachers bribe to headmaster so they can give private tution (Teachers sign for their pay but don’t take the money, the same as all the staff members of all departments working at border towns), staff members pay the heads to get paid. Bribery is called tea money in Burma. Tea is given to senior members in the form of bank notes, gold, Johnny Walker, bags of rice etc….

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.