On the first, the implied assumption is that perceived corruption correlates reasonably well to actual. (I haven't proven) Don't disagree with the general seco

On the first, the implied assumption is that perceived corruption correlates reasonably well to actual. (I haven't proven) Don't disagree with the general second statement. Sure, corruption can come about because of an unmet need. It's market forces at work when the market won't respond. But the implied point that the higher per capita income results in less met needs doesn't seem intuitively obvious, since purchasing power often rises at near parity with PC Income. Several places perceived as corrupt on this list actually have better purchasing power per (money unit) than the US.