Happy New Year

Happy New Year..Countdown...aku berjaya count dekat blog ni...betul2 kul 12 aku posting kat blog......

The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI)

• 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.

Readers... Please consider the impact of corruption to the country (read below)...the country we live for...what we going to leave behind for our our future and our children.?

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	Sweden	9.2	6	9.0 - 9.3
3	Singapore	9.2	9	9.0 - 9.4
5	Switzerland	9.0	6	8.9 - 9.1
6	Netherlands	8.9	6	8.7 - 9.0
6	Finland	8.9	6	8.4 - 9.4
8	Iceland	8.7	4	7.5 - 9.4
8	Canada	8.7	6	8.5 - 9.0
8	Australia	8.7	8	8.3 - 9.0
11	Norway	8.6	6	8.2 - 9.1
12	Luxembourg	8.2	6	7.6 - 8.8
12	Hong Kong	8.2	8	7.9 - 8.5
14	Ireland	8.0	6	7.8 - 8.4
14	Germany	8.0	6	7.7 - 8.3
16	Austria	7.9	6	7.4 - 8.3
17	United Kingdom	7.7	6	7.3 - 8.2
17	Japan	7.7	8	7.4 - 8.0
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	Saint Lucia	7.0	3	6.7 - 7.5
22	Qatar	7.0	6	5.8 - 8.1
24	France	6.9	6	6.5 - 7.3
25	Uruguay	6.7	5	6.4 - 7.1
25	Chile	6.7	7	6.5 - 6.9
27	Slovenia	6.6	8	6.3 - 6.9
27	Estonia	6.6	8	6.1 - 6.9
27	Cyprus	6.6	4	6.1 - 7.1
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	Spain	6.1	6	5.5 - 6.6
32	Israel	6.1	6	5.4 - 6.7
34	Dominica	5.9	3	4.9 - 6.7
35	Puerto Rico	5.8	4	5.2 - 6.3
35	Portugal	5.8	6	5.5 - 6.2
37	Taiwan	5.6	9	5.4 - 5.9
37	Botswana	5.6	6	5.1 - 6.3
39	Oman	5.5	5	4.4 - 6.5
39	Korea (South)	5.5	9	5.3 - 5.7
39	Brunei Darussalam	5.5	4	4.7 - 6.4
42	Mauritius	5.4	6	5.0 - 5.9
43	Macau	5.3	3	3.3 - 6.9
43	Costa Rica	5.3	5	4.7 - 5.9
45	Malta	5.2	4	4.0 - 6.2
46	Hungary	5.1	8	4.6 - 5.7
46	Cape Verde	5.1	3	3.3 - 7.0
46	Bahrain	5.1	5	4.2 - 5.8
49	Poland	5.0	8	4.5 - 5.5
49	Jordan	5.0	7	3.9 - 6.1
49	Bhutan	5.0	4	4.3 - 5.6
52	Lithuania	4.9	8	4.4 - 5.4
52	Czech Republic	4.9	8	4.3 - 5.6
54	Seychelles	4.8	3	3.0 - 6.7
55	South Africa	4.7	8	4.3 - 4.9
56	Slovakia	4.5	8	4.1 - 4.9
56	Samoa	4.5	3	3.3 - 5.3
56	Namibia	4.5	6	3.9 - 5.1
56	Malaysia	4.5	9	4.0 - 5.1
56	Latvia	4.5	6	4.1 - 4.9
61	Turkey	4.4	7	3.9 - 4.9
61	Cuba	4.4	3	3.5 - 5.1
63	Saudi Arabia	4.3	5	3.1 - 5.3
63	Italy	4.3	6	3.8 - 4.9
65	Tunisia	4.2	6	3.0 - 5.5
66	Kuwait	4.1	5	3.2 - 5.1
66	Georgia	4.1	7	3.4 - 4.7
66	Croatia	4.1	8	3.7 - 4.5
69	Montenegro	3.9	5	3.5 - 4.4
69	Ghana	3.9	7	3.2 - 4.6
71	Romania	3.8	8	3.2 - 4.3
71	Greece	3.8	6	3.2 - 4.3
71	FYR Macedonia	3.8	6	3.4 - 4.2
71	Bulgaria	3.8	8	3.2 - 4.5
75	Suriname	3.7	3	3.0 - 4.7
75	Peru	3.7	7	3.4 - 4.1
75	Colombia	3.7	7	3.1 - 4.3
75	Brazil	3.7	7	3.3 - 4.3
79	Trinidad and Tobago	3.6	4	3.0 - 4.3
79	Swaziland	3.6	3	3.0 - 4.7
79	China	3.6	9	3.0 - 4.2
79	Burkina Faso	3.6	7	2.8 - 4.4
83	Serbia	3.5	6	3.3 - 3.9
84	Thailand	3.4	9	3.0 - 3.8
84	Panama	3.4	5	3.1 - 3.7
84	India	3.4	10	3.2 - 3.6
84	Guatemala	3.4	5	3.0 - 3.9
84	El Salvador	3.4	5	3.0 - 3.8
89	Rwanda	3.3	4	2.9 - 3.7
89	Morocco	3.3	6	2.8 - 3.9
89	Moldova	3.3	6	2.7 - 4.0
89	Mexico	3.3	7	3.2 - 3.5
89	Malawi	3.3	7	2.7 - 3.9
89	Lesotho	3.3	6	2.8 - 3.8
95	Vanuatu	3.2	3	2.3 - 4.7
95	Albania	3.2	6	3.0 - 3.3
97	Sri Lanka	3.1	7	2.8 - 3.4
97	Liberia	3.1	3	1.9 - 3.8
99	Zambia	3.0	7	2.8 - 3.2
99	Tonga	3.0	3	2.6 - 3.3
99	Senegal	3.0	7	2.5 - 3.6
99	Madagascar	3.0	7	2.8 - 3.2
99	Jamaica	3.0	5	2.8 - 3.3
99	Dominican Republic	3.0	5	2.9 - 3.2
99	Bosnia and Herzegovina	3.0	7	2.6 - 3.4
106	Niger	2.9	5	2.7 - 3.0
106	Gambia	2.9	5	1.6 - 4.0
106	Gabon	2.9	3	2.6 - 3.1
106	Benin	2.9	6	2.3 - 3.4
106	Argentina	2.9	7	2.6 - 3.1
111	Togo	2.8	5	1.9 - 3.9
111	Solomon Islands	2.8	3	2.3 - 3.3
111	Sao Tome and Principe	2.8	3	2.4 - 3.3
111	Mali	2.8	6	2.4 - 3.2
111	Kiribati	2.8	3	2.3 - 3.3
111	Indonesia	2.8	9	2.4 - 3.2
111	Egypt	2.8	6	2.6 - 3.1
111	Djibouti	2.8	4	2.3 - 3.2
111	Algeria	2.8	6	2.5 - 3.1
120	Vietnam	2.7	9	2.4 - 3.1
120	Mongolia	2.7	7	2.4 - 3.0
120	Kazakhstan	2.7	7	2.1 - 3.3
120	Ethiopia	2.7	7	2.4 - 2.9
120	Bolivia	2.7	6	2.4 - 3.1
120	Armenia	2.7	7	2.6 - 2.8
126	Tanzania	2.6	7	2.4 - 2.9
126	Syria	2.6	5	2.2 - 2.9
126	Guyana	2.6	4	2.5 - 2.7
126	Eritrea	2.6	4	1.6 - 3.8
130	Uganda	2.5	7	2.1 - 2.8
130	Nigeria	2.5	7	2.2 - 2.7
130	Nicaragua	2.5	6	2.3 - 2.7
130	Mozambique	2.5	7	2.3 - 2.8
130	Mauritania	2.5	7	2.0 - 3.3
130	Maldives	2.5	4	1.8 - 3.2
130	Libya	2.5	6	2.2 - 2.8
130	Lebanon	2.5	3	1.9 - 3.1
130	Honduras	2.5	6	2.2 - 2.8
139	Philippines	2.4	9	2.1 - 2.7
139	Pakistan	2.4	7	2.1 - 2.7
139	Belarus	2.4	4	2.0 - 2.8
139	Bangladesh	2.4	7	2.0 - 2.8
143	Nepal	2.3	6	2.0 - 2.6
143	Comoros	2.3	3	1.6 - 3.3
143	Azerbaijan	2.3	7	2.0 - 2.6
146	Zimbabwe	2.2	7	1.7 - 2.8
146	Ukraine	2.2	8	2.0 - 2.6
146	Timor-Leste	2.2	5	1.8 - 2.6
146	Sierra Leone	2.2	5	1.9 - 2.4
146	Russia	2.2	8	1.9 - 2.4
146	Kenya	2.2	7	1.9 - 2.5
146	Ecuador	2.2	5	2.0 - 2.5
146	Cameroon	2.2	7	1.9 - 2.6
154	Yemen	2.1	4	1.6 - 2.5
154	Paraguay	2.1	5	1.7 - 2.5
154	Papua New Guinea	2.1	5	1.7 - 2.5
154	Côte d´Ivoire	2.1	7	1.8 - 2.4
158	Tajikistan	2.0	8	1.6 - 2.5
158	Laos	2.0	4	1.6 - 2.6
158	Central African Republic	2.0	4	1.9 - 2.2
158	Cambodia	2.0	8	1.8 - 2.2
162	Venezuela	1.9	7	1.8 - 2.0
162	Kyrgyzstan	1.9	7	1.8 - 2.1
162	Guinea-Bissau	1.9	3	1.8 - 2.0
162	Democratic Republic of Congo	1.9	5	1.7 - 2.1
162	Congo Brazzaville	1.9	5	1.6 - 2.1
162	Angola	1.9	5	1.8 - 1.9
168	Turkmenistan	1.8	4	1.7 - 1.9
168	Iran	1.8	3	1.7 - 1.9
168	Haiti	1.8	3	1.4 - 2.3
168	Guinea	1.8	5	1.7 - 1.8
168	Equatorial Guinea	1.8	3	1.6 - 1.9
168	Burundi	1.8	6	1.6 - 2.0
174	Uzbekistan	1.7	6	1.5 - 1.8
175	Chad	1.6	6	1.5 - 1.7
176	Sudan	1.5	5	1.4 - 1.7
176	Iraq	1.5	3	1.2 - 1.8
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

Corruption and its impact on the poor: Examples

The impact of corruption on the poor and on poverty reduction processes has now been reasonably widely discussed. The effect of corruption on the poor can be gauged through both its direct impact (through, for example, increasing the cost of public services, lowering their quality and often all together restricting poor people's access to such essential services as water, health and education) and the indirect impact (through, for example, diverting public resources away from social sectors and the poor, and through limiting development, growth and poverty reduction). While this impacts negatively on most of the segments of the society, it is suggested that the poor are more vulnerable both in terms of being easy targets for being subjected to extortion, bribery, double-standards and intimidation as well as in terms of being hit by the negative and harsh consequences of corruption on country's overall development processes. So, in addition to the negative impact of corruption, there is also an element of disproportionality and inequality. The following short examples (drawing on research, studies and diagnostic tools) are set to demonstrate some of the negative and disproportionate impact of corruption on the poor.

Corruption affects income inequality and poverty
As well as affecting economic efficiency corruption can also have distributional consequences. This affects income inequality and poverty by reducing economic growth, the progressivity of the tax system, the level and effectiveness of social programs, and by perpetuating an unequal distribution of asset ownership and unequal access to education. These findings, based on various empirical analysis, hold for countries with varying growth experiences, at different stages of development, and using various indices of corruption (used to compare the correlation of corruption with real per capita GDP, Gini coefficient and quintile income shares, etc). In a cross-section of 37 countries, a significant impact of corruption on inequality was found, while taking into account various other exogenous variables. When controlling for GDP per head, this impact remains significant at a 10 % level. It was concluded that a deterioration in a country's corruption index of 2.5 points on a scale of 0 to 10 is associated with the same increase in the Gini coefficient as a reduction in average secondary schooling of 2.3 years. Researchers have also tested various instrumental variables to ascertain whether the relationship between corruption and inequality is not a case of reverse causality.

Source: Does Corruption Affect Income Inequality and Poverty? Sanjeev Gupta, Hamid Davoodi and Rosa Alonso-Terme, IMF working paper, 1998

Corruption is a core poverty issue as viewed by the poor themselves
Corruption emerges as a core poverty issue as a result of the participatory poverty assessments carried out within the framework of World Bank's Voices of the Poor initiative that brings together experiences of over 60,000 poor men and women around the world. Poor people engaged in the study reported hundreds of incidents of corruption as they attempt to seek health care, educate their children, claim social assistance, get paid, attempt to access justice or police protection, and seek to enter the marketplace.

Source: World Bank, Voices of the Poor Programme

Survey evidence indicates the lives of poor to be most affected by corruption Attitudes towards corruption and its impact vary substantially. Based on the results of the 2003 Global Corruption Barometer, corruption hits the poor hardest. Two out of five respondents on a low income believe that corruption has a very significant effect on their personal and family life. The same answer came from only one in four respondents on a high income. So, 41% of respondents on low income felt their lives were "very significantly" affected by corruption, as opposed to 27.5% of those on medium income and 25.4% of those on high income.

Source: Global Corruption Barometer 2003

Survey evidence indicates direct correlation between income levels and incidences of bribery encountered
The Kenya Urban Bribery Index results indicate that those with low-income are more vulnerable to corruption than those with higher income levels. Those on the lowest income reported a 74.4% incidence of bribery encountered and those on the highest income reported a 61.9% incidence. Similar comparisons exist for other social-economic categories, such as, for example, education and employment. The findings indicate that those likely to be poor (i.e. unemployed, those with low education, etc.) are more vulnerable to corruption than the better off socio-economic groups. Respondents with primary education and below encounter bribery in 75% of their interactions with public organisations, as compared to 67% for those with secondary school education and 63% for those with tertiary education. The unemployed encounter bribery the most (in 71% of their interactions), self- or family employees 68% of the time, the business and non-profit sector 61% of the time, and the public sector employees report encountering bribery in just over half (52%) of their interactions, significantly lower than all the other groups.

Source: Kenya Urban Bribery Index

Corruption affects the poor by diverting resources and holding back development
A report by the African Union, presented before a meeting in Addis Ababa in September 2002, estimated that corruption costs African economies in excess of 148bn dollars a year. This figure, which includes both direct and indirect costs of corruption, i.e. resources diverted by corrupt acts and resources withheld or deterred due to the existence of corruption, is thought to represent 25% of Africa's GDP and to increase the cost of goods by as much as 20% deterring investment and holding back development. Most of the cost, the report says, falls on the poor.

Source: BBC, 18/09/2002 (origin: African Union report)

Corruption impacts the poor through public service delivery
"Corruption is a crime against the poor above all", declared Claire Short in this UK Parliament's Select Committee on International Development Report. DFID conducted participatory poverty assessments in 23 developing countries. These consistently showed that corruption reduced the access of the poor to basic services. They provided evidence that unofficial payments were often needed for health, education and other services and that some people went without services as a result. They also demonstrated diversion of resources as essential medicines and supplies went missing. In many countries where the justice system was affected by bribery, the poor were unable to obtain the protection of the law and in some cases were threatened by those who should protect them.

Source: UK Parliament web resources, International Development Committee Publications, 2001 Report

Corruption affects poor's basic livelihoods
In Rajasthan, minimum wages, which were part of a drought relief programme organised by the state, were hardly ever paid due to mismanagement, corruption and the deliberate obstruction of access to information held by local officials responsible for the programme's administration. As a result, workers demanding payment of their minimum wages were repeatedly told that no evidence of their work existed, and that as a consequence they would not be eligible for payment. The money went instead into the pockets of bureaucrats who had been copying names from electoral rolls, including those of dead people, or receiving payment for material never supplied.

Source: The Right to Information: Facilitating People's Participation and State Accountability, Aruna Roy, Nikhil Dey, 10th IACC paper, 2001

Corruption can affect poor's political choices and participation
The custom of providing a service or favour in return for political loyalty is known as clientelismo in Mexico. This trade of services for votes is often the major way that the poor acquire land, housing, and local infrastructure - demonstrates a Mexican example. The communities of the poor are run by local leaders who act as brokers between the people and the major political parties. Some 80 percent of the respondents in the area of Mexico City stated that they engaged in clientelismo politico to get their houses and urban services (water, electricity, street paving, etc.). Yet, despite widespread participation in this system, it is generally resented. One man interviewed in Mexico City said, "I don't like politics, nor the ties that come with it... I think no one is interested; they do it to get something, to give something, the house to the children, such as myself. But they have to participate because in so doing they are able to obtain things." It is this clientelismo, and the deep distrust and disrespect for government which go with it, coupled with excessively low salaries, little opportunity for remunerative employment, and poor quality public services (health and education), that explain much of the cause of poverty in Mexico, as voiced by the poor of that country.

Source: State Institutions in Voices of the Poor: Can Anyone Hear Us? Deepa Narajan, Raj Patel et al, World Bank / Oxford University Press, 2000

Corruption affects poor's access to health services
An independent survey of the quality of maternity health services for the urban poor conducted by the NGO Public Affairs Centre found considerable damaging evidence of corruption in all the maternity hospitals run by the Bangalore City Corporation. These maternity hospitals represent the city's only decentralised set of health facilities that are accessed by relatively low-income women. The survey revealed that the poor pay huge amounts of extortionary money in their interactions with the public maternity hospitals. The average patient in a maternity ward run by the city corporation pays Rs 1,089 (approximately US $22) in bribes to receive adequate medical care. A further 61 per cent of the respondents were forced to pay for medicines, though public policy clearly mandates that they be given free of charge.

Source: Maternity Health Care for the Urban Poor in Bangalore: A Report Card, Sita Sekhar, Public Affairs Centre, June 2000. Find the survey at
http://www.pacindia.org

Corruption affects poor's access to health and support services
Corruption in health care services is common across many regions, and poor people with serious conditions have no choice but to comply in order to obtain the care they need. For example, in Macedonia, most of those interviewed stressed that 'nobody wants you to come with empty hands.' Ordinary services presuppose small gifts (coffee, candies, drink and similar items), but value goes up as the value of the requested services increases. In general, the opinion prevails that in Skopje hospitals a patient has to pay about 2000 to 3000 German marks for one operation. (Macedonia 1998).

Profound frustration with corruption and maltreatment is compounded by a sense of being voiceless and powerless to complain, since complaining may result in losing services altogether. In Pakistan, for example, a widow said, "If anybody complains or protests against this corruption, they are struck off the lists of all support services because it is the same Local Zakat Committee that recommends names for the assistance programs run by different Government departments". (Pakistan 1993).

Source: State Institutions in Voices of the Poor: Can Anyone Hear Us? Deepa Narajan, Raj Patel et al, World Bank / Oxford University Press, 2000

Corruption affects poor's access to education
Despite the pledge by the world's governments to make access to primary education universal and free, corruption and misuse of public resources remains one of the biggest barriers in achieving this fundamental human right. CIET International (Mexico based development NGO) has done social audits that highlighted petty corruption in primary education in Costa Rica, Nepal, Nicaragua, Pakistan and Uganda. According to the results, in Nicaragua, 86% reported they had to pay extra "contributions" to the teachers. One in ten children had to pay extra charges to teachers in exchange for an education in Uganda. Of the 47% of girls who managed to get into primary school in the Sindh province in Pakistan, nearly all reported unofficial demands for money ("for invisible things", as one girl said in a community discussion group around the social audit results in the province). The CIET social audits collected detailed information on school costs to households, which provided the basis for estimating levels of corruption and the specific target groups for those extra charges. As is often the case with petty corruption, it is not only those who can afford it who are asked to pay, but those who are thought to have no other options. The price tag put on the right to an education by petty corruption filters out those who need to access it most.

Source: CIET International media release, 1999

Survey evidence indicates corruption is a heavy burden on households
Series of surveys conducted in Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka among urban and rural households, sought to measure the incidence of corruption in public services deemed to be of particular importance to the poor: healthcare, education, power, land administration, taxation, police and the judiciary. The survey found that petty corruption was endemic in all sectors in all countries, with bribes imposing a heavy financial burden on South Asian households because of both the high frequency and the amounts paid. For example, in Pakistan, 92% of households using public education services reported the payment of bribes averaging 4,811 rupees (US$ 86) - compared to a gross national per capita income of only US$ 410 per annum.

Source: Transparency International, South Asia survey press release, 2002