5 ms·

I always see this line trotted out and I always wondered how corruption is quantified. And luckily your link points to the source in a snippet in an otherwise h

I always see this line trotted out and I always wondered how corruption is quantified. And luckily your link points to the source in a snippet in an otherwise human interest story about a mismanaged Ukrainian hospital: Transparency International’s “Corruption Perceptions Index”. That said, I don’t think either the link or TI’s index support the claim that Ukraine was “the most corrupt country in Europe before the current situation”. First, regarding the corruption index — “each country’s score is a combination of at least 3 data sources data sources drawn from 13 different corruption surveys and assessments”. And “the sources and surveys which make up the CPI are based on carefully designed and calibrated questionnaires, answered by experts and businesspeople”. So fundamentally perceptions (as per the title) instead of hard data — and probably different sources across different countries calibrated in some way (it might be sourced somewhere but one only has so much time). Second, and I think more damning to the statement about Ukraine being the most corrupt in Europe prior to the current events by the referenced corruption index itself. Russia and Ukraine trade places on which is perceived to be more corrupt up until 2017 when Ukraine is clearly less corrupt than Russia. I spent my lunch graphing the data and only feel like it was mostly a waste of my time. My bottom line based on the data: Russia and Ukraine were roughly the same amount of corrupt until 2017 when Russia distances itself as clearly more corrupt. The rankings themselves are based on expert perceptions rather than hard data. The statement about Ukraine being the most corrupt state in Europe before the current events is only true if you consider Ukraine in Europe and Russia not. Which one could certainly do but considered their shared past during the USSR seems a fundamentally flawed way of treating them.

unity1001 4y ago
> how corruption is quantified Like it has always been since Randians became a thing: In 2014 Ukraine got a US backed government which went full 'Chicago Boys' on the country. You know, privatizing everything, removing all social services and protections, the 'freest market' thing. Of course, in such a 'most free' environment, those who oversaw that privatization have become ! extremely ! rich. > The rankings themselves are based on expert perceptions No, they aren't. Most of them come from the same Randian sources in Anglosphere, which consistently rank countries that are the most corrupt as 'non-corrupt'. Like how the US ends up lower on corruption indexes despite something called lobbying existing...
- derstander 4y ago
  >> The rankings themselves are based on expert perceptions > No, they aren't. I literally pulled those quotes from the Transparency Institute’s page on the corruption index… So yes, they are. But I got hung up on your wording. Check out the Transparency Institute’s rankings. Notwithstanding what I said about the softness of the ranking systems, the Nordic countries rank fairly well as being uncorrupt so it is not immediately obvious that the Randian / Libertarian model is being held up as more virtuous.
  - unity1001 4y ago
    > I literally pulled those quotes from the Transparency Institute’s page on the corruption index Such organizations literally calculate those 'indexes' on ! perceptions !. They ask the people if they think their country is 'corrupt', and people respond yes or no. https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2021 https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2021 Leaving aside just by selecting the 'right' sample you can make anything happen, there is a bigger elephant in the room: Cultural differences. In countries like France, Russia and Eastern Europe, complaining is a national sport. People socialize by complaining about everything, foremost, the government, the bureaucracy and so on. So if you ask even a neutral observer, he or she will literally spam many complaints and will strongly state that everything is corrupt. Conversely, the cultural paradigm in other countries is way too different - in the US, for example, the existence of lobbying and the immense, mind-boggling money in politics are not seen in the same way. They are seen as 'problems', but they are not the game-breakers that should launch the US to the top of the index. They are merely labeled as 'flaws'. > the Nordic countries rank fairly well as being uncorrupt Its true that these countries do better in objective criteria related to what we describe as corruption. But their presence in any index does not validate that index. To start with, neither the Nordic citizens see the immense revolving doors and cooperation in between their defense industries, their governments and how their defense industries do business with repressive regimes and all that goes around it as 'corruption'. Many are not even aware of its existence. And the elephant is in the room for them too - Nordic countries have a cultural propensity to stoicism, and they also say that they are happy in polls for happiness indexes, and they rank high in them. And yet their suicide rates are far higher than the countries in which people say they are unhappy, but live longer and healthier (like Spain etc). So these indexes are just PR and propaganda vessels that pitch the world view of their establishment and their society's culture.

unity1001 4y ago

> how corruption is quantified Like it has always been since Randians became a thing: In 2014 Ukraine got a US backed government which went full 'Chicago Boys' on the country. You know, privatizing everything, removing all social services and protections, the 'freest market' thing. Of course, in such a 'most free' environment, those who oversaw that privatization have become ! extremely ! rich. > The rankings themselves are based on expert perceptions No, they aren't. Most of them come from the same Randian sources in Anglosphere, which consistently rank countries that are the most corrupt as 'non-corrupt'. Like how the US ends up lower on corruption indexes despite something called lobbying existing...

derstander 4y ago
>> The rankings themselves are based on expert perceptions > No, they aren't. I literally pulled those quotes from the Transparency Institute’s page on the corruption index… So yes, they are. But I got hung up on your wording. Check out the Transparency Institute’s rankings. Notwithstanding what I said about the softness of the ranking systems, the Nordic countries rank fairly well as being uncorrupt so it is not immediately obvious that the Randian / Libertarian model is being held up as more virtuous.
- unity1001 4y ago
  > I literally pulled those quotes from the Transparency Institute’s page on the corruption index Such organizations literally calculate those 'indexes' on ! perceptions !. They ask the people if they think their country is 'corrupt', and people respond yes or no. https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2021 https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2021 Leaving aside just by selecting the 'right' sample you can make anything happen, there is a bigger elephant in the room: Cultural differences. In countries like France, Russia and Eastern Europe, complaining is a national sport. People socialize by complaining about everything, foremost, the government, the bureaucracy and so on. So if you ask even a neutral observer, he or she will literally spam many complaints and will strongly state that everything is corrupt. Conversely, the cultural paradigm in other countries is way too different - in the US, for example, the existence of lobbying and the immense, mind-boggling money in politics are not seen in the same way. They are seen as 'problems', but they are not the game-breakers that should launch the US to the top of the index. They are merely labeled as 'flaws'. > the Nordic countries rank fairly well as being uncorrupt Its true that these countries do better in objective criteria related to what we describe as corruption. But their presence in any index does not validate that index. To start with, neither the Nordic citizens see the immense revolving doors and cooperation in between their defense industries, their governments and how their defense industries do business with repressive regimes and all that goes around it as 'corruption'. Many are not even aware of its existence. And the elephant is in the room for them too - Nordic countries have a cultural propensity to stoicism, and they also say that they are happy in polls for happiness indexes, and they rank high in them. And yet their suicide rates are far higher than the countries in which people say they are unhappy, but live longer and healthier (like Spain etc). So these indexes are just PR and propaganda vessels that pitch the world view of their establishment and their society's culture.