Bangladesh in CPI 2011: Could it be better?

The Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) 2012 was released by Transparency International (TI) on December 5. On a scale of 0-100, Bangladesh scored 26, and has been ranked 13th from the bottom, the same as in 2011. Counted from the top, Bangladesh has descended by 24 positions to 144th among 176 countries included in the index compared to 120th among 183 last year.
Introduced in 1995, the CPI provides international comparison of countries in terms of perceived prevalence of political and administrative corruption. It is a survey of surveys conducted by reputed international organisations that bring out assessment of business people, business analysts, investors, investment analysts and country experts.
The data used in the index relate to perception of prevalence of corruption and bribery in the public sector; conflict of interest; likelihood of countering corruption from petty to grand; unauthorised payments collected in delivering government functions, justice, executive, law enforcement and tax collection; government's anti-corruption efforts and capacity to control impunity.
As a part of a continued process of achieving higher excellence in methodology and presentation, TI has changed the scale from the previously used 0-10 to 0-100. Only such sources that provide data allowing comparative picture are considered. No data generated at national level, such as data from TI-Bangladesh's research or for that matter those of any other national chapter of TI, is included in CPI.
To be included in the index at least three international surveys on the country concerned with comparable data must be available, for which the number of total countries included in the index varies from year to year. In 2012 Maldives, for instance, is not included for shortage of surveys related to that country.
The index is produced by TI's Research & Knowledge department guided for methodological excellence by a panel of international experts in the relevant field. This year's panellists were from Department of Statistics and Political Science of Columbia University, Methodology Institute and Department of Government of London School of Economics & Political Science, European Commission Joint Research Centre, Italy, Harvard Business School, Dow Jones and Standard & Poor.
CPI 2012 is based on data from 13 international surveys. Data for Bangladesh came from seven sources, namely, Bertelsmann Foundation Transformation Index, Economist Intelligence Unit Country Risk Assessment, Global Insight Country Risk Ratings, Political Risk Services International Country Risk Guide, World Bank Country Performance and Institutional Assessment, World Economic Forum Executive Opinion Survey and World Justice Project Rule of Law Index. Data period was January 2011 to September 2012.
In the same position with the same score as Bangladesh this year are Cameroon, Ukraine, Congo Republic, Syria and Central African Republic. Among seven South Asian countries included in the index Bangladesh's position from the top is 6th. The highest position has been taken like previous years by Bhutan with a score of 63 and ranked globally at 33rd position from top. The next is Sri Lanka (score 40/rank from top 79), India (36/94), Pakistan and Nepal (27/139). Afghanistan, with a score of 8 and ranked at the very bottom of the list together with Somalia and North Korea, is the only South Asian country doing worse than Bangladesh.
Countries that have performed worse than Bangladesh are: Sudan, Myanmar, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Iraq, Venezuela, Chad, Burundi, Haiti, Equatorial Guniea, Zimbabwe, Libya, Laos, Angola, Tajikistan, Cambodia, Yemen, Guinea, Kyrgyzstan, Guniea-Bissau, Paraguay, Eritrea, Papua New Guniea, Syria, Congo Republic and Ukraine.
Countries perceived to be least affected by corruption are: Finland, New Zealand and Denmark having scored 90, followed by Sweden, Singapore, Switzerland, Norway, Australia, the Netherlands, Canada, Hong Kong, Japan, Qatar, UAE, Iceland, Luxembourg, Germany, Barbados, Belgium, UK, USA, Uruguay, Chile, and France.
No country has scored more than 90. Many OECD countries like Germany, Belgium, UK, USA, Japan, France, Austria, Spain, Italy have scored less than 80. As many as 124 countries out of 176 (two-thirds) scored below 50. 67 countries scored less than the global average of 43. Corruption clearly remains a global problem.
Corruption therefore is no monopoly of developing countries like Bangladesh, though for us it remains a more critical challenge than in developed countries. It may be recalled that Bangladesh was earlier placed at the bottom of the list for five successive years from 2001-2005. In 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 Bangladesh was ranked no 3, 7, 10, 13, 12, and 13 respectively. Bangladesh is one of the 31 countries that have this year worsened their score compared to 2011, and among 57 countries which have fallen in rank counted from the top. In South Asia, Bangladesh is the only country other than Afghanistan where the score has fallen.
The key question is whether we could have done better. Factors that may have contributed to such disappointing result include growing deficits in delivery against the government's electoral pledges against corruption and a procession of high profile corruption allegations like Padma Bridge, Railway scam, stock market, Hall-Mark and Destiny.
Grabbing of land, river and water bodies by the powerful has continued unabated. The high and mighty have failed to keep the commitment to disclose income and asset. The government initiative to curtail the independence and effectiveness of the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) has not served the purpose.
Questionable stance of ACC on some high profile corruption cases, whether under pressure or for their own weakness, has added to the perception of an ineffective institutional capacity to control corruption. Large-scale withdrawal of criminal and corruption cases under political consideration turned out to be a frustrating instance of undermining of the rule of law.
Erosion of institutional capacity to control corruption and promote accountable governance is manifest in a weakened parliament due to boycott and conflict of interest, politicised administration and law enforcement, budgetary provision of whitening black money and undermined public procurement rules. Many of these lead to a concern of policy capture by corruption. Question arises whether in the arena of policies decisions and actions of national interest those who are committed to control corruption are being increasingly overpowered by those who benefit from it directly or indirectly.
Looking ahead, Bangladesh's prospect of doing any better in CPI will depend on the capacity of the government to fulfil its own anti-corruption election pledges without fear or favour, and to challenge impunity. There is no option but to strengthen institutional and policy structure for ensuring accountable governance. Much depends on effective Parliament and parliamentary committees.
If the experience of Padma bridge project offers any lesson, strengthening the ACC is indispensable rather than keeping it under pressure of further curtailing independence and effectiveness. Much can be achieved by enforcing the Right to Information Act and Whistleblower Protection Act and promoting the culture of disclosure and openness.
Equally important are judicial integrity and rule of law and promotion of higher standards of professionalism in public service including law enforcement agencies, which must be liberated from partisan political influence. No less crucial is transparency and accountability in public procurement. The range of commitments made as a state party to the UN Convention against Corruption has opened huge opportunities to be availed, particularly in terms of repatriation of stolen assets.
Nearly a year before the forthcoming general elections, the best our leaders can do is to look back at their pledges for 2008 elections and determine a checklist of key deliverables, for which it may not be too late.

The writer is an Executive Director, Transparency International Bangladesh.