Transparency_international_Nigeria

TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONALPERCEPTION ABOUT

NIGERIA

In 1998, the Transparency International (TI) started the

Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) as a composite indicator

used to measure perceptions of corruption in the public

sector in different countries around the world.

Perceptions is how people see you which definitely affects

how they also relate with you. Perception is not easily

changed, it requires verifiable evidence that is against initial

indicators that led to the status quo.

One of NIGERIA’S greatest challenges is CORRUPTION – in

Public and Private Institutions – which has greatly affected

her development as well as how her Citizens are treated in

other countries. This analysis takes an in-depth look TI CPI

of Nigeria from 1998 till date.

Data used from this analysis is from TI

TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL VISION-MISSION

Vision: a world in which government, business, civil society and

the daily lives of people are free of corruption.

In 1993, a few individuals decided to take a stance against

corruption and created Transparency International. Now present

in more than 100 countries, the movement works relentlessly to

stir the world’s collective conscience and bring about change.

Much remains to be done to stop corruption, but much has also

been achieved, including:

the creation of international anti-corruption conventions

the prosecution of corrupt leaders and seizures of their illicitly

gained riches

national elections won and lost on tackling corruption

companies held accountable for their behaviour both at

home and abroad.

The CPI aggregates data from a number of different sources that

provide perceptions of business people and country experts of

the level of corruption in the public sector. 12 data sources were

used to construct the 2014 CPI:

TRANSPARENCY INTERNATIONAL DATA SOURCES

African

Development

Bank

Governance

Ratings

Economist

Intelligence Unit

Country Risk

Ratings

IMD World

Competitiveness

Yearbook

World Bank -

Country Policy

and Institutional

Assessment

Bertelsmann

Foundation

Sustainable

Governance

Indicators

Freedom House

Nations in Transit

Political and

Economic Risk

Consultancy

Asian Intelligence

World Economic

Forum Executive

Opinion Survey

(EOS)

Bertelsmann

Foundation

Transformation

Index

Global Insight

Country Risk

Ratings

Political Risk

Services

International

Country Risk

Guide

World Justice

Project Rule of

Law Index

DATA SOURCES

C P I

1

2

3

4

9

10

11

12

7

6

5 8

DATA SOURCES DESCRIPTION

AFDBThe African Development

Bank (AFDB) is a

regional multilateral

development bank,

engaged in promoting the

economic development

and social progress of

countries on the

continent.

BF-SGI BF-TI EIU

The AfDB’s 2013

Governance Ratings are

part of the Country Policy

and Institutional Assessment (CPIA)

Corruption Question(s)

Transparency,

Accountability and

Corruption in the

Public Sector

Bertelsmann

Foundation Sustainable

Governance Indicators

The Sustainable

Governance Indicators

(SGI) examine

governance and

policymaking in all OECD

and EU member states in

order to evaluate each

country's need for, and ability to carry out, reform

To what extent are

public officeholders

prevented from

abusing their

position for private

interests?


Bertelsmann Foundation

Transformation Index

The Transformation

Index provides the

framework for an

exchange of good

practice among agents of reform.

To what extent are

public officeholders

who abuse their

positions prosecuted

or penalized?”



To what extent does

the government

successfully contain

corruption?

Economist Intelligence

Unit Country Risk Ratings

Country Risk Ratings are

designed to provide in-

depth and timely analysis

of the risks of financial

exposure in more than 140 countries

Are there clear procedures and

accountability governing the allocation

and use of public funds?

Are public funds misappropriated by

ministers/public officials for private or

party political purposes?

Are there special funds for which

there is no accountability?

Are there general abuses of public

resources?

Is there a professional civil service or

are large numbers of officials directly

appointed by the government?

Is there an independent body

auditing the management of public

finances?

Is there an independent judiciary with

the power to try ministers/public

officials for abuses?

Is there a tradition of a payment of

bribes to secure contracts and gain

favours?


FH-NITFreedom House Nations in

Transit. The Nations in

Transit (NIT) reports

measure democratisation

in 29 nations and

administrative areas

throughout Central Europe

and the Newly

Independent States (NIS).

BF-SGI IMD PERC


Global Insight Country

Risk Ratings

The Global Insight country

risk rating system provides

a six-factor analysis of the

risk environment in 204

countries/territories. The

six factors are political,

economic, legal, tax

operational and security risk.

•Corruption, particularly as it

affects operational activities for

businesses. There is analytical

emphasis on the economic and

political drivers of the problem.

•From a business perspective,

corruption is a particular

concern in relation to obtaining

business permits and

favourable policy and planning

decisions. Analysts will closely

assess businesses’ experience of these processes.


IMD World

Competitiveness Yearbook

The World

Competitiveness

Yearbook (WCY)

measures the

competitiveness of

nations and, in doing

so, both ranks and

examines how a

nation’s socio-political

and economic climate

affects corporate competitiveness.

Bribing and

corruption: Exist or do

not exist



Political and Economic

Risk Consultancy

PERC publishes

fortnightly newsletters,

which are available to

subscribers, on a number

of issues. The data for the

CPI was gathered from

the corruption newsletter,

which gathers and

interprets data from an

executive opinion survey

of local and expatriate businesspeople.

Has the government implemented

effective anti-corruption initiatives?

Is the government free from excessive

bureaucratic regulations, registration

requirements, and other controls that

increase opportunities for corruption?

Are there adequate laws requiring

financial disclosure and disallowing conflict

of interest?

Does the government advertise jobs and

contracts?

Does the state enforce an effective

legislative or administrative process—

particularly one that is free of prejudice

against one’s political opponents—to

prevent, investigate, and prosecute the

corruption of government officials and civil

servants?

Do whistleblowers, anti-corruption

activists, investigators, and journalists

enjoy legal protections that make them feel

secure about reporting cases of bribery and

corruption?

To what extent do you

perceive corruption to be

a problem in the following positions?

To what extent do you

perceive corruption to be

a problem affecting the following institutions


PRSPolitical Risk Services

International Country Risk

Guide. On a monthly basis

since 1980, their

International Country Risk

Guide (ICRG) has

produced political,

economic, and financial

risk ratings for

countries/territories

important to international

business.

WB-CPIA EOS PERC


World Bank Country

Policy and Institutional

Assessment

The CPIA rtes all IDA-

eligible countries against a

set of 16 criteria grouped in

four clusters: (a) economic

management; (b) structural

policies; (c) policies for

social inclusion and equity;

and (d) public sector

management and institutions.

Transparency,

Accountability and

Corruption in the

Public Sector


World Economic Forum

Executive Opinion Survey

(EOS)

The Executive Opinion

Survey (EOS) is the World

Economic Forum's annual

survey of business

executives.



World Justice Project

Rule of Law Index

The WJP Rule of Law

Index is an assessment tool

designed by The World

Justice Project to offer a

detailed and

comprehensive picture of

the extent to which

countries/territories adhere

to the rule of law in practice.

The measure is most

concerned with actual or

potential corruption in the

form of excessive

patronage, nepotism, job

reservations, exchange of

favours, secret party

funding, and suspiciously

close ties between politics

and business.

• Government officials in the

executive branch do not use

public office for private gain


judicial branch do not use

public office for private gain


police and the military do not

use public office for private

gain


legislature do not use public office for private gain

In your country, how common is

it for firms to make

undocumented extra payments

or bribes connected with the

following:

a) Imports and exports;

b) Public Utilities;

c) Annual Tax Payments;

d) Awarding of public contracts

and licensing;

e) Obtaining favourable judicial decisions

In your country, how

common is diversion of

public funds to companies,

individuals or groups due to

corruption?”

METHODOLOGY

The following steps are followed to calculate the CPI:

1. Selection of data sourcesA. Reliable data collection and methodology from a credible institution

B. Data addresses corruption in the public sector

C. Quantitative granularity

D. Cross country comparability

E. Multi year data-set

2. Standardize data sources: Each source is then standardized to be

compatible with other available sources, for aggregation to the CPI scale. The

standardization converts all the data sources to a scale of 0-100 where a 0 = highest

level of perceived corruption, and 100 = lowest level of perceived corruption.

3. Aggregate the rescaled dataEach country’s CPI score is calculated as a simple average of all the available rescaled

scores for that country (note, we do not use any of the imputed values as a score for the

aggregated CPI). A country will only be given a score if there are at least three data

sources available from which to calculate this average.

4. Report a measure of uncertaintyThe CPI score will be reported alongside a standard error and confidence interval which

reflects the variance in the value of the source data that comprises the CPI score.

HOW HAVE WE IMPROVED IN OUR RATING SINCE 1998?

TI RATING OF NIGERIA (1998 – 2014)YEAR RANK/TOTAL SCORE SD RANGE SURVEY

1998 81/85 1.9 0.5 5

1999 98/99 1.6 0.8 5

2000 90/90 1.2 0.6 0.6 - 2.1 4

2001 90/91 1.0 0.9 – 2.1 4

2002 101/102 1.6 0.6 0.9 – 2.5 6

2003 132/133 1.4 0.4 0.9 – 2.0 9

2004 144/146 1.6 1.4 – 1.8 9

2005 152/159 1.9 1.7 – 2.0 9

2006 142/163 2.2 2.0 – 2.3 7

2007 147/179 2.2 2.0 – 2.4 8

2008 121/180 2.7 2.3 – 3.0 7

2009 130/180 2.5 2.2 – 2.7 7

2010 134/178 2.4 0.4 2.0 – 3.3 7

2011 143/182 2.4 0.14 1.9 – 3.2 10

*2012 139/176 27 2.7 17 – 38 9

2013 144/177 25 3.1 14 – 40 9

2014 136/174 27 2.82 19 – 37 8

*Methodology updated from 2012 Report: CPI 2012 will henceforth be presented on a 0-100 scale

TI RATING OF NIGERIA (1998 – 2014)YEAR RANK/TOTAL PERCENTILE

1998 81/85 95%

1999 98/99 99%

2000 90/90 100%

2001 90/91 99%

2002 101/102 99%

2003 132/133 99%

2004 144/146 99%

2005 152/159 96%

2006 142/163 87%

2007 147/179 82%

2008 121/180 67%

2009 130/180 72%

2010 134/178 75%

2011 143/182 79%

*2012 139/176 79%

2013 144/177 81%

2014 136/174 78%

While Nigeria was in Bottom 5%

most corrupt Nations in 1998,

we have gradually moved to a

better part of Bottom 22% as at

2014.

This basically mean Nigeria had

95% chance of appearing on

the list of most corrupt Nations

in 1998 but now have 78% in

2014.

This gives a differential of about

17% - IMPROVEMENT.

ALL TIME BEST WAS IN 2008

WHAT IS THE TREND BETWEEN DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENTS?

TI RATING BETWEEN DEMOCRATIC GOVT.YEAR RANK/TOTAL PERCENTILE

1998 81/85 95%

1999 98/99 99%

2000 90/90 100%

2001 90/91 99%

2002 101/102 99%

2003 132/133 99%

2004 144/146 99%

2005 152/159 96%

2006 142/163 87%

2007 147/179 82%

2008 121/180 67%

2009 130/180 72%

2010 134/178 75%

2011 143/182 79%

*2012 139/176 79%

2013 144/177 81%

2014 136/174 78%

OBJ

YAR

GEJ

95% to 82%13% drop in corruption

rating

67% to 75%8% increase in

corruption rating

79% to 78%1% increase in

corruption rating

+15%

-4%

NIGERIA RANK / SCOREA country’s score indicates the perceived level of public sector corruption on a

scale of 0-100, where 0 means that a country is perceived as highly corrupt

and a 100 means that a country is perceived as very clean. A country's rank

indicates its position relative to the other countries/territories included in the

index. Ranks can change merely if the number of countries included in the

index changes.

THIS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT RANKING

IS NOT AS IMPORTANT AS SCORE!

IS NIGERIA BETTER IN 2014 COMPARED TO

2013?

-----------------------------> YES!

NIGERIA RANK / SCORE

“Where 0 means that a country is perceived as

highly corrupt and a 100 means that a country is

perceived as very clean.”

0 10050 7525

VERYCLEAN

PARTIALLYCLEAN

HIGHLYCORRUPT

CORRUPT CLEAN

In 2013, Nigeria CPI score was 25, in 2014 it is 27 (+2),

which shows that Nigeria is making slow progress from

CORRUPT to PARTIALLY CLEAN.

However, this comparison is not absolutely correct

considering the fact that different data sources make up

the CPI Score.

NIGERIA TI SCORE – 2012, 2013, 2014

Ran

k

CP

I Sco

re

Surv

eys

Stan

dar

d

Erro

r

95% Confidence

IntervalRange Data sources

Lower Upper MIN MAX

AFD

B

BF

(BTI

)

ICR

G

WB

WEF

WJP

EIU GI

TI

2012 139 27 9 2.7 22 31 17 38 32 36 21 35 23 17 38 22 19

2013 144 25 9 3.1 20 30 14 40 40 36 21 35 14 17 21 22 19

2014 136 27 8 2.82 22 32 19 37 37 36 21 35 22 19 21 22

While 2012 & 2013 had 9 Surveys, 2014 had 8; therefore it doesn’t

make much qualitative sense to compare 2013 rating with 2014.

Basically, the difference between 2013 & 2014 TI rating of Nigeria

is AFDB(-), WEF(+), and WJP(+). Therefore, in order to determine

qualitatively how exactly Nigeria can improve and become a

cleaner society, we must focus where we specifically got it wrong

as indicated in AFDB records between 2013 and 2014.

AFDB WEF WJP

Are you having issues with making sense of your data?

Analysis by: Wale Micaiah

e: [email protected]

m: 08078001800

w: www.statisense.com

w: www.walemicaiah.com

Freely share, freely use and freely

acknowledge the source – © Wale Micaiah

Government & Nonprofit

Transparency_international_Nigeria