Global Integrity Index

Global Integrity

To assess the existence and effectiveness of mechanisms that prevent abuses of power and promote public integrity, as well as the access that citizens have to their government.

Funded by Legatum Global Development, Sunrise Foundation, Wallace Global Fund and the World Bank.

Provides a benchmark of good governance mechanisms and institutions needed to combat corruption, together with qualitative journalistic reporting about corruption
in countries.

Local expert assessment, reinforced through a peer review mechanism.

43 countries globally, primarily large aid recipients and emerging markets.

Global Integrity
910 17th St., NW
Suite 1040
Washington DC 20006
Tel: +1 (202) 449-4100

Global Integrity combined qualitative journalistic reporting with an in-depth, quantitative scorecard approach to assess the institutions and practices that citizens can use to hold their governments accountable. The Global Integrity Index assesses the opposite of corruption: the existence of laws, institutions, and mechanisms designed to deter, prevent, or curb corruption and their implementation and enforcement.

Through almost 300 disaggregated indicators, the Global Integrity Index assesses the following dimensions of governance:

1 Civil Society, Public Information and Media
1.1 Civil Society Organizations
1.2 Media
1.3 Public Access to Information
2 Elections
2.1 Voting & Citizen Participation
2.2 Election Integrity
2.3 Political Financing
3 Government Accountability
3.1 Executive Accountability
3.2 Legislative Accountability
3.3 Judicial Accountability
3.4 Budget Processes
4 Administration and Civil Service
4.1 Civil Service Regulations
4.2 Whistle-blowing Measures
4.3 Procurement
4.4 Privatization
5 Oversight and Regulatory Mechanisms
5.1 National Ombudsman
5.2 Supreme Audit Institution
5.3 Taxes and Customs
5.4 Financial Sector Regulation
5.5 Business Licensing and Regulation
6 Anti-Corruption Mechanisms and Rule of Law
6.1 Anti-Corruption Law
6.2 Anti-Corruption Agency
6.3 Rule of Law
6.4 Law Enforcement

The data is gathered through a consistent methodology applied by in-country experts with a background governance and corruption issues; the disaggregated indicators assess both de jure and de facto corruption prevention measures and are anchored to scoring criteria to help ensure consistency of scoring across individuals and cultures. The survey scores and report are peer-reviewed to ensure accuracy and replicability. Each set of questions forms a subcategory index, category score and overall score. Results are checked for inter-coder reliability. A standardised scoring system is used for each question. At each level the scores are averaged. The data is available for each category and sub-category score as well as at the disaggregated level. The questionnaire can be found at http://www.globalintegrity.org/data/downloads.cfm

Scores are available on a 0-100 scale that are grouped into five tiers:
 

Very Strong (90-100)
Strong (90-90)
Moderate (70-80)
Weak (60-70)
Very Weak (Below 60).
 

Users of the website will also find a reference and explanatory comment (optional) accompanying each data point. For each country that participated, a full Global Country Report is also available at: http://www.globalintegrity.org/reports/2006/index.cfm

This measure is an interesting addition to the field of corruption indicators, in that it specifically concentrates on public sector preventative measures rather than corruption per se. The peer review process seeks to reinforce the validity, and the journalistic narrative provides additional, useful explanatory commentary.

The authors are very open about potential weaknesses of their data source. They note that the coverage focuses on national governance frameworks (sub-national measures are not covered for example). In addition the index excludes private sector corruption (except for some basic aspects). The compilers are working on the inclusion of further output measures in addition to those which currently focus on the existence of laws and institutions. Note that research by the World Bank Institute is beginning to question the need for and effectiveness of anti-corruption organisations for combating corruption, something which the Index assesses amongst many other institutional safeguards [comment: we place no greater importance on anti-corruption commissions than does the bank, and our scoring criteria allow for non-centralized systems where multiple mechanisms (i.e. Special prosecutors + justice ministry + parliamentary committees etc) together serve the role as a ‘central’ anti-corruption organization. Also, there is plenty of other research, not just wbi’s, that questions the effectiveness of a central commission].

The simple average measure assumes that each category examined has equal importance. The top six categories are Civil Society, Public Information and Media; Elections; Government Accountability; Administration and Civil Service; Oversight and regulatory mechanisms; Anti-corruption mechanisms and the rule of law.