IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pid/journl/v40y2001i4p813-830.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Corruption Perception Indices: A Comparative Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Naved Ahmad

    (Institute of Business Administration, University of Karachi, Karachi.)

Abstract

The empirical literature on corruption has used data on corruption from three different sources: (i) investigative reports, (ii) newspapers, and (iii) surveys or questionnaire-based data. Some studies on corruption are based on case studies and newspaper reports. Studies by Wedeman (1997); Wade (1982) and Alam (1996) fall in this category. While these studies have presented an in-depth analysis of corruption, they do not examine a large sample of countries. Moreover, the investigative reports require detective work and sometimes connections with people in high echelons in order to expose corruption. Unlike investigative reports, access to survey data on corruption enables researchers to study corruption for a large sample of countries, but at the same time, raises questions about their subjectivity.1 However, the subjectivity of these indices is often justified on the ground that corruption is illegal in nature, and hard to measure directly. Empirical studies on the causes of corruption after the mid-1990s have used several corruption indices from Business International, International Country Risk Guide, Peter Neumann and his collaborators at Impulse, Transparency International, and World Competitiveness Report. More than one corruption index has been used in most of these empirical studies. For example, Ades and Di Tella (1997) used corruption indices from WCR and Peter Neumann and his collaborators at Impulse (1994). Treisman (2000) recently utilised four corruption indices: three from Transparency International (1996 to 1998) and one from Business International. While empirical literature on the causes of corruption using these indices continues to surge, it is imperative carefully to examine what exactly these indices portray.

Suggested Citation

  • Naved Ahmad, 2001. "Corruption Perception Indices: A Comparative Analysis," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 40(4), pages 813-830.
  • Handle: RePEc:pid:journl:v:40:y:2001:i:4:p:813-830
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.pide.org.pk/pdf/PDR/2001/Volume4/813-830.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Barro, Robert J. & Lee, Jong-Wha, 1993. "International comparisons of educational attainment," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 363-394, December.
    2. Ades, Alberto & Di Tella, Rafael, 1997. "National Champions and Corruption: Some Unpleasant Interventionist Arithmetic," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(443), pages 1023-1042, July.
    3. Treisman, Daniel, 2000. "The causes of corruption: a cross-national study," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 399-457, June.
    4. Alam, M S, 1995. "A Theory of Limits on Corruption and Some Applications," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(3), pages 419-435.
    5. Paolo Mauro, 1995. "Corruption and Growth," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 110(3), pages 681-712.
    6. Barro, Robert J & Lee, Jong Wha, 1996. "International Measures of Schooling Years and Schooling Quality," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(2), pages 218-223, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Naved Ahmad & Salman Arjumand, 2016. "Impact of corruption on GDP per capita through international migration: an empirical investigation," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 50(4), pages 1633-1643, July.
    2. Bosco, Bruno, 2016. "Old and new factors affecting corruption in Europe: Evidence from panel data," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 66-85.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:pid:journl:v:40:y:2001:i:4:p:813-830. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Khurram Iqbal). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/pideipk.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.