IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i5p1806-d1595950.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sustainable Development Goals and Corruption: An International Situation Analysis Through the Application of a Three-Way Multivariate Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Isabel Gallego-Álvarez

    (Department of Business Administration, University of Salamanca, 37007 Salamanca, Spain
    Multidisciplinary Institute of Enterprise (IME), University of Salamanca, 37007 Salamanca, Spain)

  • Ana Belén Nieto-Librero

    (Department of Statistics, University of Salamanca, 37008 Salamanca, Spain
    Centre for Human Rights and Public Policy Research (CIDH-Diversitas), 37008 Salamanca, Spain)

  • Eugenio Martín-Gallego

    (Quantitative Analyst in Corporate & Investment Banking BBVA, 28050 Madrid, Spain)

Abstract

The primary aim of this research is to examine the impact of corruption on the attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in different countries. To achieve this, the study utilizes the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), one of the most widely recognized indicators of corruption. Additionally, the SDG Index is used to evaluate each country’s overall progress toward the 17 SDGs, with scores ranging from 0, representing the worst possible outcome, to 100, indicating achievement of the targets. In this work, the Tucker method has been applied, which has not previously been used in studies on SDGs and corruption and thus provides some novelty to the present research. This method has allowed us to analyze the relationship between the CPI and SDGs. The results obtained show that the lower the level of corruption in a country, the better SDGs are achieved. Thus, it has been observed that CPI scores are closely related to the achievement of goals related to Gender Equality (SDG5), Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions (SDG16), and Reduced Inequalities (SDG10). This means our findings are extremely useful for enabling governments and institutions to roll out more effective policies and encourage investment for achieving the SDGs related to their region and the pressing need to combat corruption. As a conclusion, this study demonstrates that lower levels of corruption, particularly in Europe and North America, are strongly associated with progress toward SDGs related to Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions. In contrast, high levels of corruption in regions such as Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia significantly hinder the achievement of key SDGs, particularly those concerning Decent Work and Economic Growth, as well as Climate Action.

Suggested Citation

  • Isabel Gallego-Álvarez & Ana Belén Nieto-Librero & Eugenio Martín-Gallego, 2025. "Sustainable Development Goals and Corruption: An International Situation Analysis Through the Application of a Three-Way Multivariate Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-21, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:5:p:1806-:d:1595950
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/5/1806/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/5/1806/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ivan Montiel & Bryan W. Husted & Petra Christmann, 2012. "Using private management standard certification to reduce information asymmetries in corrupt environments," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(9), pages 1103-1113, September.
    2. Daniel Kaufmann & Aart Kraay, 2002. "Growth without Governance," Economía Journal, The Latin American and Caribbean Economic Association - LACEA, vol. 0(Fall 2002), pages 169-230, August.
    3. Gamze Sart, 2022. "Impact of Higher Education and Globalization on Sustainable Development in the New EU Member States," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-13, September.
    4. Stephen Knack & Philip Keefer, 1995. "Institutions And Economic Performance: Cross‐Country Tests Using Alternative Institutional Measures," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(3), pages 207-227, November.
    5. Axel Dreher & Thomas Herzfeld, 2005. "The Economic Costs of Corruption: A Survey and New Evidence," Public Economics 0506001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Hansen, J. W., 1996. "Is agricultural sustainability a useful concept?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 117-143.
    7. Isabel Gallego-Álvarez & Miguel Rodríguez-Rosa & Purificación Vicente-Galindo, 2021. "Are Worldwide Governance Indicators Stable or Do They Change over Time? A Comparative Study Using Multivariate Analysis," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(24), pages 1-19, December.
    8. Lambsdorff,Johann Graf, 2007. "The Institutional Economics of Corruption and Reform," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521872751, December.
    9. Lan Xue & Lingfei Weng & Hanzhi Yu, 2018. "Addressing policy challenges in implementing Sustainable Development Goals through an adaptive governance approach: A view from transitional China," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(2), pages 150-158, March.
    10. Rustem Nureev & Vyacheslav Volchik & Wadim Strielkowski, 2020. "Neoliberal Reforms in Higher Education and the Import of Institutions," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-18, May.
    11. Anete Veidemane, 2022. "Education for Sustainable Development in Higher Education Rankings: Challenges and Opportunities for Developing Internationally Comparable Indicators," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-20, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eicher, Theo S. & Schreiber, Till, 2010. "Structural policies and growth: Time series evidence from a natural experiment," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 169-179, January.
    2. Marion Payen & Patrick Rondé, 2020. "Culture, Institutions and Economic Growth," Working Papers of BETA 2020-18, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    3. Minogue, Martin, 2005. "Apples and Oranges: Problems in the Analysis of Comparative Regulatory Governance," Centre on Regulation and Competition (CRC) Working papers 30589, University of Manchester, Institute for Development Policy and Management (IDPM).
    4. Ruba Abdullah Aljarallah, 2020. "The Economic Impacts of Natural Resource Dependency in Gulf Countries," International Journal of Energy Economics and Policy, Econjournals, vol. 10(6), pages 36-52.
    5. Daniel Kaufmann & Aart Kraay & Massimo Mastruzzi, 2006. "Measuring Governance Using Cross-Country Perceptions Data," Chapters, in: Susan Rose-Ackerman (ed.), International Handbook on the Economics of Corruption, chapter 2, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Thorsten Beck & Luc Laeven, 2006. "Institution building and growth in transition economies," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 157-186, June.
    7. Şerife Özşahin & Gülbahar Üçler, 2017. "The Consequences of Corruption on Inflation in Developing Countries: Evidence from Panel Cointegration and Causality Tests," Economies, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-15, December.
    8. Fisayo Fagbemi & Geraldine E. Nzeribe & Tolulope T. Osinubi & Simplice A. Asongu, 2021. "Interconnections between Governance and Socioeconomic Conditions: Understanding Sub-Saharan African Challenges," Working Papers of the African Governance and Development Institute. 21/099, African Governance and Development Institute..
    9. Ashok Chakravarti, 2012. "Institutions, Economic Performance and the Visible Hand," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14751.
    10. Blackburn, Keith & Forgues-Puccio, Gonzalo F., 2007. "Distribution and development in a model of misgovernance," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(6), pages 1534-1563, August.
    11. Simplice A. Asongu & Oasis Kodila-Tedika, 2018. "Determinants of Property Rights Protection in Sub-Saharan Africa," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 9(4), pages 1291-1308, December.
    12. Aljarallah, Ruba A., 2021. "An assessment of the economic impact of natural resource rents in kingdom of Saudi Arabia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    13. Aleksandar Vasilev, 2013. "On the cost of rent-seeking by government bureaucrats in a Real-Business-Cycle framework," Working Papers 2013_20, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow.
    14. Alberto Chong & Mark Gradstein, 2007. "Inequality and Institutions," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 89(3), pages 454-465, August.
    15. Abderraouf Ben Ahmed Mtiraoui, 2020. "Corruption between economic institutional aspect and social aspect through governance [La corruption entre l’aspect institutionnel économique et l’aspect social à travers la gouvernance]," Working Papers hal-02535463, HAL.
    16. Oluremi Ogun, 2018. "Corruption And Growth: The Productivity Growth Nexus," The Singapore Economic Review (SER), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 63(05), pages 1227-1244, December.
    17. Michael A. Sartor & Paul W. Beamish, 2020. "Private Sector Corruption, Public Sector Corruption and the Organizational Structure of Foreign Subsidiaries," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 167(4), pages 725-744, December.
    18. Roberto Rigobon & Dani Rodrik, 2004. "Rule of Law, Democracy, Openness, and Income: Estimating the Interrelationships," NBER Working Papers 10750, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Giorgio d’Agostino & Luca Pieroni, 2019. "Modelling Corruption Perceptions: Evidence from Eastern Europe and Central Asian Countries," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 142(1), pages 311-341, February.
    20. Utz Weitzel & Sjors Berns, 2006. "Cross-border takeovers, corruption, and related aspects of governance," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 37(6), pages 786-806, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:5:p:1806-:d:1595950. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.