Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1998 16:01:25 -0600 (MDT) From: "Martha E. Gimenez" <Martha.Gimenez@Colorado.EDU> Message-Id: <199804112201.QAA21200@csf.Colorado.EDU> Subject: Ranking-of-corrupt-countries.95
> >
> >The following ranking, can be found in the page "Internet Corruption Ranking"
> >URL http://www.gwdg.de/~uwvw/icr.htm
> >
> >---begin here---
> > The Internet Corruption Ranking - A Joint Initiative of Transparency
> > International and Volkswirtschaftliches Seminar, University Goettingen
> >
> > RANKING 1995
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> >
> > The ranking for 1995 presents a list of 41 countries. Into the ranking
> > three surveys (1992-1994) have been included from the World
> > Competitiveness Report, Institute for Management Development,
> > Lausanne, which asks associated institutes from different countries to
> > evaluate the degree of "improper practices" of their home countries.
> > Three more surveys (1992-1994) for Asia have been added from Political
> > & Economic Risk Consultancy Ltd., Hong Kong. These surveys evaluate
> > the degree of corruption by questioning senior asian banks executives.
> > At last, the 1980 survey from Business International, New York, was
> > added to the list. This survey rests on evaluations made by BI
> > Correspondents.
> >
> > The following list contains three figures for every country. The first
> > number indicates the average score in the surveys. A "10" indicates a
> > perfectly clean country whereas a "0" refers to a country where
> > business transactions are entirely penetrated by corruption involving
> > immense sums of kickbacks, extortion, fraud etc. The second number is
> > the amount of surveys in which the particular country has been
> > included (2-7). The third number is the variance of the rankings. A
> > high number indicates a high degree of deviating opinions. A variance
> > of 0,01 for Denmark (9,32) indicates that the majority of thescores
> > value will range between 9,22 to 9,42 (take the square root of the
> > variance and add (subtract) the value for the upper (lower) value for
> > a 68% interval). For South Africa, on the other hand, the high
> > variance of 2,35 indicates rankings between 4,1 and 7,1. Apparently,
> > the evaluation is quite diversified in this case.
> >
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> >
> >Ranking 1995
> >
> > 0=totally corrupt, 10=clean
> >
> > Country Score #Surveys Variance
> >
> > New Zealand 9,55 4 0,07 > > Denmark 9,32 4 0,01 > > Singapore 9,26 7 0,21 > > Finland 9,12 4 0,07 > > Canada 8,87 4 0,44 > > Sweden 8,87 4 0,11 > > Australia 8,80 4 0,54 > > Switzerland 8,76 4 0,52 > > Netherlands 8,69 4 0,63 > > Norway 8,61 4 0,78 > > Ireland 8,57 4 0,61 > > United Kingdom 8,57 4 0,17 > > Germany 8,14 4 0,63 > > Chile 7,94 3 0,97 > > USA 7,79 4 1,67 > > Austria 7,13 4 0,36 > > Hong Kong 7,12 7 0,48 > > France 7,00 4 3,32 > > Belgium/Lux. 6,85 4 3,08 > > Japan 6,72 7 2,73 > > South Africa 5,62 4 2,35 > > Portugal 5,56 4 0,66 > > Malaysia 5,28 7 0,36 > > Argentina 5,24 2 5,86 > > Taiwan 5,08 7 1,03 > > Spain 4,35 4 2,57 > > Korea 4,29 7 1,29 > > Hungary 4,12 3 0,69 > > Turkey 4,10 4 1,33 > > Greece 4,04 4 1,65 > > Colombia 3,44 2 1,12 > > Mexico 3,18 4 0,06 > > Italy 2,99 4 6,92 > > Thailand 2,79 7 1,69 > > India 2,78 5 1,63 > > Philippines 2,77 5 1,13 > > Brazil 2,70 4 3,11 > > Venezuela 2,66 4 3,18 > > Pakistan 2,25 4 1,62 > > China 2,16 4 0,08 > > Indonesia 1,94 7 0,26
> >
> > The correlation matrix gives an impression on how closely correlated
> > the surveys are.
> >
> >---end here---
> >