1717
Chapter II. Preliminary diagnosis and situation analysis
While a country’s ranking on these various indicators can provide a rst estimate of
how severe the corruption problem is, care is required when interpreting these measures.
The index scores are derived from different kinds of data, each with strengths and
weaknesses that the strategy drafters must bear in mind if they decide to use these index
scores when developing the initial corruption assessment. For example, the index scores
based on subjective evaluations by experts can be distorted because experts read one
another’s writings and talk among themselves, and their perceptions may reect a
“conventional wisdom” rather than their independent judgement.
21
Moreover, while infor-
mation on the perceived overall level of corruption in the country can be useful for
mobilizing the public behind the strategy—for example, by demonstrating that corruption
is viewed as a serious problem—this sort of aggregated national-level data are of little
value in formulating the content of the strategy. To develop an appropriately tailored
strategy to combat corruption, it is not enough to know how corrupt a country is per-
ceived to be relative to other countries. What is required is precise, detailed information
on the nature and source of corruption, and the leading cross-national indicators do not
provide such information.
3. Country-specific surveys of corruption perceptions
Strategy drafters may also be able to draw on (or commission) in-depth surveys of the
nation’s citizens or businesses. These country-specic surveys are usually more detailed
than cross-country surveys, with questions about the extent and nature of corruption, its
seriousness and whether it has lessened or worsened over time, as well as questions
about specic types of corruption or about corruption in particular sectors or government
agencies. In addition to the general public, country-specic surveys may target investors,
business executives, members of the news media or other experts in particular areas.
Their views can be especially useful in areas such as bid-rigging and the purchase of
defence equipment in which ordinary citizens are unlikely to have the specialized knowl-
edge required on which to base their perceptions.
22
The principal problem with perception surveys is that there can be a signicant gap
between perceptions of corruption and the actual extent of it.
23
The reasons for the
divergence are several and may include the reluctance of respondents to truthfully answer
questions about corruption,
24
the inuence of respondents’ characteristics (e.g., education,
income and ethnic afliation),
25
media coverage
26
and different views among respondents
21
See Stephen Knack, “Measuring corruption: a critique of indicators in Eastern Europe and Central Asia”, Journal of
Public Policy, vol. 27, No. 3 (2007), pp. 255- 291; Daniel Treisman, “What have we learned about the causes of
corruption from ten years of cross-national empirical research?”, Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 10 (2007),
pp. 211-244.
22
These expert perception surveys are distinct from and serve a different function to the expert consultations, which
are discussed in the preceding chapter and should be part of the strategy-drafting process. In some cases, the two may
be linked.
23
See Benjamin A. Olken, “Corruption perceptions vs. corruption reality”, Journal of Public Economics, vol. 93, Nos.7
and 8 (2009), pp. 950-964; Bonvin Blaise, “Corruption: between perception and victimization: policy implications for
national authorities and the development community”, in Challenging Assumptions on Corruption and Democratization:
Key Recommendations and Guiding Principles (Bern, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, 2008); Knack,
“Measuring corruption”; Treisman, “What have we learned about the causes of corruption from ten years of cross-national
empirical research?”; Michael Johnston, “Measuring the new corruption rankings: implications for analysis and reform”,
in Arnold J. Heidenheimer and Michael Johnston, eds., Political Corruption: Concepts and Contexts, 3rd ed. (New
Brunswick, New Jersey, Transaction Publishers, 2002), part XIII, chap. 44, pp. 865-884.
24
See Jan Sonnenschein and Julie Ray, “Government corruption viewed as pervasive worldwide: majorities in 108 out
of 120 countries see widespread problem”, Gallup, 18 October 2013; Aart Kraay and Peter Murrell, “Misunderestimating
corruption”, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, No. 6488 (Washington, D.C., World Bank, 2013).
25
See Diylan Donchev and Gergely Ujhelyi, “What do corruption indexes measure?”, Economics and Politics, vol. 26,
No. 2 (2014), pp. 309-331; Olken, “Corruption perceptions vs. corruption reality”.
26
Richard Rose and William Mishler, “Explaining the gap between the experience and perception of corruption”, Studies
in Public Policy, No. 432 (Glasgow, Centre for the Study of Public Policy, 2007).