Montenegro Ranked #69 in Corruption Perceptions Index

Transparency International has published the 2010 Corruption Perception Index, which measures the perceived levels of public sector corruption in 178 nations around the globe.

In 2010, Montenegro ranked #69 out of those 178 nations. Here are the rankings for all the states which were formerly part of Yugoslavia:

  • 27 Slovenia
  • 62 Croatia
  • 62 Macedonia (tied)
  • 69 Montenegro
  • 78 Serbia
  • 91 Bosnia
  • 110 Kosovo

This report is actually the result of merging indexes from ten different agencies:

  • Country Performance Assessment Ratings by the Asian Development Bank
  • Country Policy and Institutional Assessment by the African Development Bank
  • Bertelsmann Transformation Index by the Bertelsmann Foundation
  • Country Risk Service and Country Forecast by the Economist Intelligence Unit
  • Nations in Transit by Freedom House
  • Global Risk Service by IHS Global Insight
  • World Competitiveness Report by the Institute for Management Development
  • Asian Intelligence by Political and Economic Risk Consultancy
  • Country Policy and Institutional Assessment by the World Bank
  • Global Competitiveness Report by the World Economic Forum

Every source does not evaluate every nation.  For example, Montengro’s ranking was developed from just these sources:

  • Bertelsmann Transformation Index by the Bertelsmann Foundation
  • Nations in Transit by Freedom House
  • Global Risk Service by IHS Global Insight
  • Global Competitiveness Report by the World Economic Forum

The Bertelsmann Transformation Index measures perceived corruption with responses from country experts to the following two questions:

“To what extent are there legal or political penalties for officeholders who abuse their positions?”

[10-9] As a rule, corrupt officeholders are prosecuted rigorously under established laws.
[8-6] As a rule, corrupt officeholders are prosecuted under established laws but also slip through political, legal or procedural loopholes.
[5-3] Corrupt officeholders are not prosecuted adequately under the law but occasionally attract adverse publicity.
[2-1] Officeholders can exploit their offices for private gain as they see fit without fear of legal consequences or adverse publicity.

“To what extent can the government successfully contain corruption?

[10-9] All integrity mechanisms are reasonably effective. They are actively supported by the government.
[8-6] Most integrity mechanisms are functioning, albeit partly with limited effectiveness. The government provides almost all integrity mechanisms.
[5-3] Some integrity mechanisms are implemented. Often, they remain ineffective; their operation is impeded by private interests. The government’s motivation and capacity to implement reforms is mixed.
[2-1] Portions of the state are controlled by private interest groups; reform is impeded by private interests, rendering most integrity mechanisms nonexistent or ineffective

The Freedom House  Nations in Transit report derives it’s corruption rating from answers to the following questions from country experts:

  • Has the government implemented executive anticorruption initiatives?
  • Is the country’s economy free of excessive state involvement?
  • Is the government free from excessive bureaucratic regulations, registration
  • requirements, and other controls that increase opportunities for corruption?
  • Are there significant limitations on the participation of government officials in economic life?
  • Are there adequate laws requiring financial disclosure and disallowing conflict of interest?
  • Does the government advertise jobs and contracts?
  • Does the state enforce an executive legislative or administrative process— particularly one that is free of prejudice against one’s political opponents— to prevent, investigate, and prosecute the corruption of government officials and civil servants?
  • Do whistle-blowers, anticorruption activists, investigators, and journalists enjoy legal protections that make them feel secure about reporting cases of bribery and corruption?
  • Are allegations of corruption given wide and extensive airing in the media?
  • Does the public display a high intolerance for official corruption?

The Global Insights Country Risk Ratings rankings are among the least transparent and trustworthy.  GI does not provide quantitative data with which to back up their quantitative assessments.

The World Economic Forum Global Competitiveness Report uses results from the following two questions posed to businesspeople through the Executive Opinion Survey:

  • In your country, how commonly do the following firms pay bribes to public servants or public officials? (domestic and foreign firms)
  • In your country, how common is it for firms to make undocumented extra payments or bribes connected with the following:
    • Imports and exports?
    • Public utilities (e.g. telephone or electricity)?
    • Annual tax payments?
    • Awarding of public contracts and licenses?
    • Obtaining favorable judicial decisions?

Unsurprisingly, nations which scored well on the report also benefit from strong economic performance.  Here are the top ten nations:

  1. Denmark
  2. New Zealand
  3. Singapore
  4. Finland
  5. Sweden
  6. Canada
  7. Netherlands
  8. Australia
  9. Switzerland
  10. Norway

As Montenegro continues to reduce the size and scope of government, corruption will naturally decrease and economic health will improve.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Related Posts